米 therefore, seems a distinct authority that all the conformity which the Archbishop thought of, was the use of the surplice and hood. It has, indeed, been argued that this was to be enforced as a minimum; but this is a gratuitous suggestion, for which, so far as we know, there is no evidence. In fact, however we are to account for it, it seems that both now and previously, conformity with the Rubrics of the Prayer-Book was not thought to require the eucharistic vestments. Thus the very canons of 1601, which, as we have seen, mention the surplice only for parish churches, exact conformity with the orders of the Book of Common Prayer (Can. 14); while at the same time came out by the king's authority a revised edition of the Prayer-Book, in which the rubric on ornaments was retained just as in the book of Elizabeth. No conflict seems to have been suspected between that rubric and the canons. Sparrow, a great ritualist, and one of those who afterwards took part both in the Savoy Conference and in the final revision of the Prayer-Book (" Card. Synod," ii. 658), published in 1657 a book called "A Rationale of the Prayer-Book," and under the head of "Ornaments to be used in Divine Service," he says: "The Minister in time of his ministration shall use such ornaments as were in use in the 2nd Edward VI., Rubric 2, viz. a surplice at the ordinary ministration, and a cope at the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches.-Queen Eliz., Artic. set forth anno 7." From the period we have now reached down to the present time there is no dispute as to the usage. Bishop Gibson, who published his famous "Codex" in the middle of the last century, sets out the Communion Rubric of Edward's first Prayer-Book as to vestments, and speaks of it as obsolete. In our own day there has, as we know, been a movement to revive what are called the "eucharistic vestments." In the course of last year the lower House of Convocation named a committee to report on that and other points, and in June, 1866, that committee presented a report, in which they summed up their views thus: "On the whole the Committee are of opinion that the use of the vestments in parish churches cannot be regarded as binding upon the consciences of the clergy, and that the use of the surplice by the parochial clergy at all times of their ministration is sufficient compliance with the rule of the Church of England." The report was adopted nem. con., and communicated to the Upper House,† which, on Feb. 13th, 1867, resolved as follows: "Our judgment is that no alterations from long sanctioned and usual ritual ought to be made in our churches until the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese has been obtained thereto." In which the Lower House subsequently concurred. * See Guardian newspaper, June 20, 1866. Ibid., July 4, 1866. It would be needless and wearisome to prove that the Bishops have individually discouraged in their charges the revival of the vestments in question, and we shall therefore only refer our readers to the Guardian of Feb. 7th, 1866, for the reply of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church Union on this subject. There is, however, one more point which may fairly find some mention, viz., the case of the Irish Church. Not only has the use of eucharistic vestments never prevailed there, but the Irish Exemplar of the Prayer-Book, solemnly adopted by Convocation and sanctioned by an Irish Act, in 1664 (17 and 18 Car. II. c. 6), actually wants the famous rubric on ornaments. What is the legal effect of this, it may not be easy to say, but when coupled with the fact that the vestments are unknown in the Irish branch of the united Church, a serious question arises. If they should turn out to be legal here, but not there, a singular and anomalous state of things would arise. Upon the other hand, if they are legal there as here, any attempt to introduce them would probably meet with resistance and create extreme scandal. Collecting then the results of our inquiry we find— 1. That there is not, and since the accession of Elizabeth* never has been, any usage worth speaking of in favour of the eucharistic vestments. The use of copes here and there in cathedrals seems the utmost that can be traced. 2. That on the whole there has been an all but universal custom to the contrary-at all events in parish churches. 3. That the Bishops have never made any movement for their restoration, but by their public acts have discouraged it. 4. That in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Convocation has by formal acts ignored them. 5. That any general restoration of them at this time could hardly be effected without violent dissensions, while their partial resumption would lead to marked breaches of uniformity in this country, and yet more in Ireland. 6. That in the present day both Houses of Convocation must be taken to have pronounced against any general attempt to revive them, and against any supposed obligation in conscience upon the clergy to use them; thus dissolving, so far as it lies in the power of Convocation per se to dissolve, their canonical authority in foro conscientiæ. Under these circumstances then, we cannot be surprised if it be argued that the Church must be taken to have expressed its mind beyond the possibility of mistake, and that consequently all that remains in favour of the vestments is the dry letter of a law, which even its framers never thought of enforcing in practice. In other It is by no means clear that even under the first book of Edward the vestment were always used in practice. words, that nothing remains but a statutory technicality which it is the appropriate office of Parliament to repeal. On the other side it will perhaps be said that Convocation ought to be formally consulted; but the reply will be that it has already bestowed more time and attention on the subject than has sufficed to pass many an ancient canon, and untainted by any suspicion of royal dictation, has pronounced its unbiassed opinion. Still, however, it will, no doubt, be urged that the opinions of Convocation must be taken together, all being entitled to equal weight, and that by another resolution it has deprecated any parliamentary interference with Ritualism, proposing to leave the matter in the hands of the Bishops. But it will be replied that, though it be assumed that it may fall within the province of Convocation to discuss in a spiritual and ecclesiastical point of view the objects of proposed measures affecting the Church, and (so to speak) to inform the conscience of Parliament thereon, yet it by no means follows that it has the function of dictating to Parliament as to the method by which such objects are to be carried out, especially when the statute law is in question. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the legal construction of the Rubric is clearly in favour of the eucharistic vestments, it follows that a law exists on the statute book at variance with uniform custom and not sanctioned by the voice of the Church. This is an incongruity at which statesmen may justly be offended, and which they may insist on removing. Parliament is the author of statute law, and the body charged by the constitution with the duty of keeping it in a state adapted to the requirements of the community. More especially in the case of a national Church, it is bound to see that the law accurately represents the position of affairs as received and acted upon by the executive authorities. Moreover, the scheme of leaving the whole subject to the Bishops, if plausible in theory, is hardly safe in practice. The Bishops, no doubt, may resolve not to issue a commission under the Church Discipline Act against any clergyman for not wearing the vestments ;* but it seems to deserve consideration whether resort might not be had to an indictment upon the statutes of uniformity in order to raise the question, or proceedings might possibly be taken by any parishioner against churchwardens for not supplying the vestments for the use of the minister.† As to the possibility of such proceedings the legisla And in Reg. v. Bishop of Chichester (2 El. and El. 209), the majority of the Court of Queen's Bench intimated that mandamus does not lie to compel a Bishop to take proceedings. It must be observed, however, that the case can hardly be considered as a direct decision on this head, because there was another point, which would alone have sufficed for its determination, and upon which Hill J. exclusively founded his judg ment. + Comp. the Canon of Winchilsea, Burn's "Eccles. Law," vol. i. p. 374 b., and Lyndwood, 251. ture is bound to judge, and to protect innocent parties from the risk of molestation and of costs. Besides, what is to be done where the vestments are worn? Once more, the opponents of legislation may contend that it would furnish a precedent capable of being used hereafter for purposes dangerous to the Church. But it would be open to its advocates to insist, by way of answer, that these questions must be looked upon by statesmen in a practical point of view, and that the proposed legislation is not to alter, but to maintain the existing order of things. For change of any kind, they would say, it cannot fairly be cited as a precedent, nor indeed can it form a precedent at all, unless some future instance should occur where, as now, the general usage of the Church for three centuries, the repeatedly expressed opinion of the clergy in Convocation, and an urgent demand for prompt measures on the part of the laity, concur and combine. Nor could we feel much surprise if they were to subjoin that if these three conditions should ever again be combined, it would be a benefit and not an evil that a precedent should exist to justify some effectual remedy. And as regards any practical argument against touching the ecclesiastical system under which so many blessings have been enjoyed, they would naturally remark that these blessings cannot be connected with the observance of a Rubric which (in the sense recently attributed to it) has never, in fact, been observed; and that the real risk to these blessings rather lies in the introduction of what, historically considered, are unquestionably innovations. It is therefore submitted that, even on the principles of those most opposed to Erastianism, the interposition of Parliament in this matter is open to no just objection. Whether it be right that it should be preceded by the labours of a Royal Commission-a step not unlikely to be adopted—is a detail into which we shall not enter, because we have sought to deal with the subject only under its most general form. It is enough to say, that as the object of appointing such Commissions is that they may recommend legislation and suggest its nature, there is nothing therein at all necessarily inconsistent with what has been here advanced. BENJAMIN SHAW. Lectures on Greek Philosophy, and other Philosophical Remains of James Frederick Ferrier, B.A. Oxon, LL.D., late Professor of Moral Philosophy and Political Economy in the University of St. Andrews. Edited by SIR ALEXANDER GRANT, Bart., LL.D., Director of Public Instruction in Bombay, and E. L. LUSHINGTON, M.A., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow. 2 vols. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London. 1866. THE late Professor Ferrier was undoubtedly a powerful thinker and an excellent higher metaphysics: few have had in the same degree the rare faculty of making those abstractions attractive by the charms of a lucid and vigorous style. His principal work, the "Institutes of Metaphysic," is in these respects a masterpiece. Self and Not-self, Absolute Knowing and Absolute Being, and suchlike high and dry generalisations, are certainly not calculated to recommend a book to English readers; and the deductive and a priori character of the reasoning accords ill with the national idea of a scientific method. Yet, in spite of these disadvantages, we believe that few persons can begin to read the book without being tempted to read on, or can lay it down without regret at parting with a pleasant companion. As a mathematical demonstration of the author's doctrine, we cannot help regarding it as a failure; and by a very simple test, namely, that it is possible to follow the reasoning without being convinced by it, which we cannot do with Euclid. Yet he must be a zealous mathematician indeed who would regard Euclid as charming reading independently of what he proves: whereas many by no means zealous metaphysicians may read the "Institutes" with pleasure and profit, even while conscious or suspicious that the demonstrative method has been perversely applied to undemonstrable matter. The first part of the present volumes, theLectures on Greek Philosophy," have, we must admit, somewhat disappointed the expectations which the author's previous work had raised. They contain many striking thoughts and sayings, which, had they come from a writer hitherto unknown, would have stamped him at once as a man of mark in philosophy; but, as the last work of a veteran thinker, they contrast unfavourably with his earlier publication. Professor Ferrier was greater as a philosopher than as the historian of philosophy; his power lay more in putting forth his own thoughts than in giving an account of the thoughts of others. And the reason of this is not far to seek. He was a thinker thoroughly possessed by his own system, convinced that he had discovered the absolute truth and the absolute method of expounding that truth, and judging of other philosophers by reference, conscious or unconscious, to this |