souls? and what mean the confused, unsatisfactory lines we meet with later, where the simple but awful union of our LORD with the recipients of His Sacred Body is painfully obscured?

"CHRIST and the creatures, matter, grace, and mind,

In these pure symbols meet to bless mankind."

What is the meaning of "mind" meeting with the matter and grace of the Sacrament? Again, how are persons incorporated into the Body of CHRIST, by "calling Him their resurrection?" And wherefore so feebly imply that although

"" Accidents of flesh form all men see

Something beyond may living temples be?"

The "may," specially marked, supposes a doubt which exists not. We are made temples of the HOLY GHOST from the moment of our baptismal regeneration, and however much in later years we may ruin or defile them, that first Sacrament does truly constitute us "something" awfully beyond "mere accidents of flesh" by the indwelling of the Blessed Spirit. Singularly enough, the very texts which Mr. Montgomery quotes in reference to this stanza, proclaim in plainest terms that over which he throws a doubt; we are very certain that it is not a point on which he has any doubt himself, but this carelessness of expression may be injurious, and should be rectified.

Again, in the first stanza we have given, we are struck by a peculiarity which throughout the book is continually marring the beauty of the poetry: it is that in many passages which are often strikingly excellent, we are startled by the abrupt change to what is not only bad versification, but to a mode of treating the sublimest subjects which is miserably puerile and undignified. The want of grace, not to say of reverence, in such words as

Though bread look bread, and water water seem,"

speaks for itself, and we could give many instances where we have been disagreeably recalled from the pleasure we were enjoying in the perusal of this work by similar incongruities. We shall have occasion however to revert to these later, and we must now continue to scrutinize a little further the weightier matters of doctrine. We are fully aware that some of the stanzas in this poem on the Holy Eucharist would seem to approach more nearly to the depth and awfulness of its truths, but if they are counteracted by the low view taken in those we have quoted and others, we must count them as of none effect.

This is not the only instance where the author displays a degree

of inconsistency, which causes his words to neutralize each other, and which we believe may fairly be attributed to the state of transition through which as we have said he seems to be passing. One very glaring example of this we much regret, concerning those "sacramental privileges" which he desires to propound.

He gives a poem on Holy Baptism, which is not only perhaps one of the most beautiful in the book, but thoroughly sound in principle, and wherein the mind of the Church respecting the full power of this momentous Sacrament is plainly set forth. But why then in another part of the volume does he give us an account in a poem entitled "Conviction and Confession" of a species of post-baptismal regeneration which he had experienced himself, a sort of "special call," as it would be termed in certain phraseology, in which he appears to ignore completely his ever having received any grace in Baptism whatever, or that so much as the germ of regenerate life had been planted within his soul. Really comparing those two poems together, it seems hardly unfair to say that the only natural inference to be drawn from them is, that while Mr. Montgomery holds very sound and orthodox views respecting Baptism, himself was unfortunately never baptized.

Again, in his lines on the "Visitation of the Sick” we find that despite his resolution to "pourtray in a poetical form" the teaching and privileges of our Apostolical Communion, and the duties, &c., of a believer, he is mysteriously silent on one of the most important points of our Church's discipline. He gives a detailed account of all the priest must do and say in the sick room, and yet omits entirely the slightest allusion to the solemn and special confession which he is required to move the dying man to make to him before administering the last communion, and to the blessed absolution which except there be sin unrepented of the Church in her love and mercy enjoins him to bestow. We have no doubt this is a mere omission, but in a work professing to teach all that a Christian ought to be, it is unfortunate that we should find no mention whatever of the last great duty which it is permitted him to perform in this world.

Amongst other claims which the author sets forth in his preface, proposes to set before us all the views "maintained by the Catholic Fathers of the Christian Church in all ages." How does it happen then that in a poem called the " Believer's* destined work" we have a violent condemnation of that consecrated life of the cloister which the "Catholic Fathers" were wont to look upon as the highest order of sanctity? The whole poem is to us very objectionable, as the writer labours to show that it is impossible to serve God otherwise than in the active strife and turmoil of the world, and that. those who offer themselves to CHRIST with the entire devotion of

VOL. IX.

*This is a cant word which should be avoided.

PP

an existence dedicated to contemplation, prayer, and almsdeeds, are but men who with

We really trust that in a future edition Mr. Montgomery will rectify these mistaken views, which must necessarily tend to tarnish the glory of so many saints now at rest with CHRIST, and which show a great misconception of God's mercy in giving to Christendom in former times those monastic institutions to which, under Him, we owe the preservation of the Creeds and the Canon of Scripture. We would hope that the blessed effects of similar establishments which God of His lovingkindness is restoring to our Church in the present day, may prove to our author how much he is mistaken in this matter. But meanwhile there is a vast leaven of Protestant fallacy in such lines as these

We would only further notice among the blemishes to this really valuable work on which we have so freely remarked, a certain occasional irreverence and likewise ambiguity of style, both of which are errors that might easily be remedied: the first of these is a danger into which the writer of sacred poetry is most liable to fall; he is so very apt, in enlarging on holy themes, to assume more than revelation warrants. Our author gives us one or two instances of this: and we would attribute to the associations of an earlier stage of his career the use of expressions which sometimes pain us from their apparent want of reverence. may be so easily altered, that we briefly mention a few :

"The universe would flee

These

And leave Thee, Godhead, as Thou art!"

These last words are overbold-the next is a specimen of a style we greatly dislike

"Tokens of tender Deity."

Again, it is not for us to qualify the forgiven offence of a most holy Apostle in terms such as these

"Yes, Adam, Cain, and Peter's lie."

"Rapt JESU" savours of a phraseology, whose painful peculiarity is an unpardonable familiarity with the sacred name

The attempt at originality in the next line has resulted in simple obscurity

"There is no heaven but in bad self denied."

The manner in which our Divine LORD's Humanity is here qualified grates painfully on the ear

"Intensely human CHRIST replies."

And now although we have unsparingly commented on the deficiencies which detract from the merits of this very beautiful book, in the firm belief that they may be effectually and completely corrected by the author in his next edition, we assure our readers that the work as it stands is one whose beauty of language and great poetic talent will afford them the highest pleasure, and from which likewise they may derive very great spiritual benefit.

We regret that our space does not allow us to give, as we had intended, passages illustrative of our author's characteristic merits.

288

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE STATE OF THE CHURCH DURING THE GREAT REBELLION.

EPISCOPACY.

(Continued from p. 125.)

THE defeat at Worcester, whilst it consolidated the political power of the governing body, had also an important bearing on the state of religion. It is difficult to understand the confused state of ecclesiastical affairs at this period. Nominally there were still three parties who divided the establishment between them, for though the Bishops had been deprived, and with them most of the clergy who supported episcopacy, had been driven from their posts, yet a few still remained, having been overlooked, either as persons of less consequence, or as having friends who interceded for them with the government. Besides these there must have been a large number of persons but little acquainted with controversy, who in better days would have ranked themselves with the orthodox party, but who did not consider episcopacy a point of vital importance, and whose views met with sympathy even from some of the deprived Bishops. How far men, such as Archbishop Ussher and Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, would have gone in the line of toleration, in their concessions for the sake of peace, it would not be easy to say. It was fortunate for the Church of England that matters had gone too far for concessions on the part of the Episcopalians to be of any use. They had no longer any part in the struggle that was going on, the two contending parties in which were the Presbyterians and the Independents-and the fight during the first attempts to restore Charles II. was in reality a battle between these two parties, represented respectively by the Scotch Kirk and the English government. But though these two parties were sufficiently distinct and marked-politically speaking-yet it would have been difficult to fix their boundaries, in point of religious belief and practice; and probably the Clergy of the country held all shades of opinion, between the two extremes of Presbyterianism and Independency, advocated with equal violence by the ministers of the Kirk on the one side, and the Parliamentary leaders on the other. Besides this, it cannot be doubted that the Establishment at this, as well as at all other times, contained a large number of Clergy-possessing sufficient indifference to doctrinal statements, and to forms of Church discipline and government, to be willing to keep their preferments under whatever amount of pressure from without. It was not that such men were consciously dishonest. Their indifference to doctrine was merely the result of