The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-12 00:00:00

DRURY LANE.

Tats EVltainu, THAT ILA,WAL JACK. Messrs. Rouse and
Rteville : Mesdames Alleyne and Tisompeon.—To conclude vat&
THE GREAT CITY. Messrs. Cowper, Al •Intyre. Villiers, Irving,
Rouse, Yitzjansts, & Warner ; Mesdames Rubertenu S Lo Tldere.

JIAYMARKKT.

Mita Er=lad, Kendal and Mho Burke.
—A WILD CitakilL Maw.. &ahem !Suasion., Hoar, sonars,
Gordon, &C.; Mesdames Narks. Chippendale, Dalton, Wright,
ac.—And DMA? AS A P(Xii. Mr. Campton, *lc.

TAN EvirciNn. Ein UIwHIRS. Maws Parodic, Belford, and
Murray; Nke llarin• I. P Y4IIIA LION ;116, VII KSTATI • Y. FA' I:
Messrs. Thorne, Mims. ete.; Mesdames liwanboronah, Saynbam
Harland, Johnstone, and Hon.—And TUE IJITLE dAVAUE.

ROI.DORN.

TRIP EVENING, TH Nillit:WS HAT. dlr. Vonsfre;
31c44ones Leann AM C. Saunders.—And THE ANTIPODES.
Mown. E. Canlen. Voltaire. O. him Blake. R. Thorne. and S.
Eno.ry ; Maeduuee Ellen Terry. Rammed, and C. Saunders.

Rit/TANNIA.
Tpla ETinonn, THE HA/IMAGE CERTIFWATE OR, A
MOTHER'S HONOUR. Mn. M. Ulla —Slain. Hildebrand end
Onnonde. the renowned "Excelsior" Niggers —Concluding with
ACLU ROBIN (RA V.

NIGH WATER AT LONDON
EINE DAY —mormbx. luR 2mt..—..A/Mramm.lolL
to-Moßaow—limmlmi, llb. 2bm......AftensocklllL Um.

LONDON, IVEDNESDAY, JUNE 12.

TIIE Ritnalists, or as they would prefer to be
designated, the Catholic party in the Church of
England, are just now excited to unusual literary
activity. They can make little or nothing of their
opportunities in Convocation, an they resort to the
press. Last week we were asked to print a negative
and positive declaration of doctrine held by twenty-
nine leading members of the party concerning the
Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. To-day our
attention is invited to an elaborate survey of the
work, position, and prospects of the same party
by no less a person than the Rev. W. J. E. BEN-
sarr, vicar of b'roonee Selwood, who has thrown
his thoughts into the form of a letter to Dr.
Waxy.

To explain his profound anxiety concerning
Ritualism, Mr. 'Ier:NETT quotes some of those
well-known sentences contained in the episcopal
charges of 1866, which looked so formidable at
a distance when they appeared, but which we all
now know to be wholly harmless, and not inconsis-
tent with the utmost tenderness for those against
whom they were pointed. Mr. BENNETT, how-
ever, treats them as almost amounting to persecu-
tion. Far, however, from being confounded and
silenced by the imputations cast upon him and his
party, Mr. BeNsErr sets to work to discover what
the declarations of his right reverend fathers are
worth. " The main foundation of a priest's per-
" plexity in any duty which a bishop censures
" is the question—What really is the ecclesiastical
" authority of a bishop 1" There may be a higher
authority standing over both priest and bishop.
The prelate is not infallible, and somewhere and
somehow a priest may be found who, disobeying a
bishop's private judgment, would be justified and
something more. Yes; "there is over and above the
"bishop the spirit and vitality of the Church, her
" essential meaning—her recognised and known
" laws—her traditional usages, coming down from
" the very Apostles, without which any personal
" dictum, or will, or opinion of a bishop falls
" into insignificance." The judicious HOOKIR
has described tho bishop as he should be ; but sup-
pose him to be below the level of his office, is the
Church powerless because one or many bishops rule
imperfectly ? •' No ; the Presbyters have their
" share, both of responsibility and jurisdiction,
" and must come in to aid and supply defects."
This is a terrible prospect, but it is not the worst
which Mr. Bersserr has set before the right rev.
bench. Sr. JEROMZ has observed that while the
ruling superiority of one bishopoverrnany presbyters
is an ancient order descended from the times of
the Apostles, yet there is no proviso that it shall
always continue. Should the Bishops prove
proud, tyrannical, and incorrigible, then the
Church, by universal consent, would have the right
to take it away upon urgent cause. HOOKER again
has observed that the regimen of Bishops)
continues by form of custom rather than
by any true and heavenly law. We would
point out that it is a " spiritual person " who is
the first to bring forward this threat of an eccle-
siastical revolution. We come in Mr. Bsarrerr's
letter upon a very mine of antiquarian learning, and
are taught some facts which we should never
have learned in the ordinary course of church in-
struction in quiet times. Thus it appears that it
is not altogether a cunningly devised fable of
schismatics that Bishop and Presbyter are the
same. Sr. AMBROSE, however, has said so—" The
" Episcopus of Sr. PAUL is in reality the Pres-
" byter : he is the Bishop who is first among the
" Presbyters." And, according to Sr. IGNATIUS,
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons form together the
ministerial government of the Church. Pondering
these testimonies and others which show that
even in more recent times the highest opinion has
ascribed to the Presbyter a joint government of
the Church with the Bishop, Mr. Braman is only
the more grievously perplexed as to his duty when
lie is called to " obey the Bishop."
From the acts of individual bishops Mr.
BElvriarr is led to look forward to the further inter-
ference with which the Church is threatened.
There is danger that sooner or later the Church,
with her discipline, will have to be discussed in
the House of Commons. But that House includes
Protestant Dissenters and Jews ; and how will
it be consistent with the large liberty of opinion
in faith illustrated by their presence in Parlia-
ment, to band such persons together in legis-
lation for a Church with which the assembly
in a corporate capacity has nothing to dot Mr.
Baxfarr can find nothing so inconsistent as for
Jews to pronounce an opinion upon Chris-
tianity, or nonconformists to make laws for con-
formity ; for Dissenters to say, " You must not
" dissent ;" or Presbyterians to say, " You must
" obey your bishop." He imagines that it will be
impassible for the House of Commons to undertake
even the preliminaries or the forms of such a discus-
sion. In order not to interrupt the exposition of his
views, we will not stay to point out how impos-
sible it is that the parliament of a country should
allow so important an institution as the National

Church to escape from its regulation and control.'
He rests, however, in the conviction that " Royal
" Commissions and the Parliament have neither
" the wish nor the power to meddle with the
" Church of England."
But if the Bishops ought not to decide these
important matters by themselves, and if it
is so palpably wrong that Parliament should
put its hand to them, is it not obvious
that the proper body to deal with them is
Convocation ? It is not obvious to Mr. BENNETT.
On the contrary, the prestige of Convocation is
gone, and the clergy will no longer trust it. In
the first place, it is not a council called together
for spiritual purposes ; it is a Parliament of the
Clergy, not a synod. " Convocation is a mere
" temporal court, called in to deal with money, not
" with religion. It has been turned to spiritual
" purposes, but its origin is of the earth, earthy."
This is very severe. But were Convocation ever
so truly a synod, it is an unfair representation of
the Church; it is for the most part a Convocation
of the Clergy of the Crown, nominated by it
either immediately like the Deans, or mediately,
like the Archdeacons, who are appointed by the
Bishops, themselves appointed by the Crown.
Seeing, then, that Convocation is not the true
representation of the Church of England, where is
the Council of the Church, and what are its de-
voted sons to do I

Mr. IlagwErr states these questions, but be
does not profess to be able to answer them. It
will be something, he thinks, if the issues of the
present struggle are made clear. " That struggle
"is between Catholicity and Protestantism." The
Bishops may consider their allegiance to the tem-
poral power of the State of more consequence
than their fidelity to the Church, and consent to
smother the religion of the people in a Royal
Commission ; but those who advocate ritual ob-
servances have a clear ground to stand on.
" They must deny all assumed authority in the
" State to interfere in matters spiritual." And
it will be very unfair if they are totally subjected
to the power of the Bishops, "an Oligarchy,
" who are the creatures of the. power which
" is naturally antagonistic to the Church—the
o state."

Having thus set forththe difficulty, Mr. BeNNErr
finds himself driven to suggest that in the impos-
sibility of obtaining a real government of the
Church every man shall do what is right in his own
eyes. Thus at least we understand his bold proposal
to repeal the Act of Uniformity. Why should all
the realm have but one use ? We think we can tell
him why. Because priests, "spiritual persons,"
deny the spiritual character of the laity,
and exclude them from all voice in the settlement
of the services, and because until the proper
place of the latter in the government and admi-
nistration of the Church is admitted, their rights
must be protected by laws and courts. The
question is not one of toleration in the common
and natural sense of the word. Roman Catholics
are tolerated here, so are Mormons, and so are
Anglo-Catholics. But it is too much to ask that
churches and estates which are the property of the
nation shall be given up to the priesthood,
without some security for the rights of those for
whom they were instituted. Mr. BasNErr's
plan would give us a bastard independency—
congregationalism, without any recognition of the
rights of the congregation.
But we need not dwell on this point now.
Throughout Mr. Beton-Ws discussion he has
ignored the character of the Church of England as
the National Church. In law the Church is one
with the nation. The right of the nation in all its
partstoconceni itself with its affairssprings from the
very claim of the Church of England to take
precedence of all other churches. In respect
of this right there is no distinction between
one set of Christians and another. If once
this question of ceremonies comes into the
House of Commons, Mr. HADFIELD and Mr.
EDWARD BAINES will have as good a title
to speak upon it ILI Mr. HUBBARD or Mr. BERES-
FORD HOPE. The Church of England is in law
their Church ; they aro honoured by what is good
in it, dishonoured by what is bad, and they can-
not be charged with intruding upon matters which
do not belong to them if they express an opinion
concerning either. Mr. BENNETT may not see
this, because he lives in the ideas of another age,
but it is nevertheless true. Whatever else may
happen, the Church of England will certainly not
be given over to the priesthood.

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.
(THIS DAY.)