without opening up new difficulties and causes of discussion. The propositions against which Mr. Palmer denounced anathema, are in some instances couched in such language, or invite such questions, as may very fairly make any one in authority pause before he passes an opinion upon them. It appears to us that several of the points which Mr. Palmer has anathematized, are not deserving of so strong a censure. Besides this, synods of bishops, when they do proceed to condemn doctrines, may fairly claim the right of employing their own language, and of not being tied down to that of any particular individual. We think that Mr. Palmer's anathemas in various instances raise into articles of faith what are, after all, only opinions more or less tolerable; and it does not at all follow, that because he might have somewhat hastily, and without consultation with persons in authority, committed himself to particular language on many doctrinal subjects, the Scottish Bishops were to engage themselves in discussions on his propositions.

It would not have been sufficient for his purpose, if the Scottish Bishops had merely declared that Mr. Palmer's anathemas did not cut him off from the Church; because the objection would still have been made by the Greek Church that such a declaration might imply a toleration of opinions directly contrary to his. Nor, again, would it have promoted his object, if some of his anathemas had been approved and some disapproved, which would probably have been the case if an actual examination had been made of his propositions. So that, on the whole, we think the Scottish Bishops have acted most discreetly, and most in furtherance of Mr. Palmer's real objects, by refusing to take his propositions into consideration.

The truth is, that our author, with the best possible intentions, undertook a task which was somewhat above his power. He appears to have supposed that every one in the world would enter into his designs and plans with an ardour and interest equal to his own; and he was not prepared for the difficulties, delays, and caution of elder men, who either did not see so far as he did, or perhaps saw somewhat further, and were unwilling to embark in negotiations for the union of Churches under his guidance. It seems not to have occurred to his sanguine mind that the Bishops of Scotland might refuse to examine or act on his appeal, or he would perhaps scarcely have committed himself in the way related in the following passage, which records his reply to the Archpriest above-mentioned, on the latter pressing him to "anathematize the Thirty-nine Articles as being manifestly heretical, and together with them, the Bishop from whom I came, and his Church."

"I answered that I had done my duty, as I hoped, by professing that truth which I had learned from the British Church, according to the measure of my knowledge and ability, and by saying anathema to the contrary heresies, at the bidding of the Eastern Church: that if any positive doubt existed as to the Bishop from whom I came, and his Church, whether they had really taught me in the Thirty-nine Articles, or otherwise, that truth which I professed to have learned from them, or those contrary heresies to which I had said anathema, my necessary and only course was to appeal back to the Bishop from whom I had come, and to his Church .. that for these reasons I appealed to the Bishop from whom I had come, and to the synod of the Scottish Bishops who consecrated him: that if they owned and approved that confession of our faith which I had made in Russia, I could not reasonably be blamed for having refused to anathematize a Church which turned out to be orthodox: but if, on the other hand, they either allowed those heresies which the Russian synod objected to me, and which I had anathematized, to be the true sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, or attempted by an evasive silence to yoke faith and heresy together, I would return to Russia, and seek to be reconciled by the prescribed form from the Scottish Church, as from heresy.”—p. 282.

We must be permitted to express our regret, that the writer before us should have allowed himself to commit so great an act of imprudence as is here related. We think that he had no right to assume that the Scottish Bishops must speak at his demand, and pronounce judgment on a set of propositions placed before them by him, on the alternative of his separating himself from their communion as heretics! We must say that this strikes us as in no small degree presumptuous, in dictating to the synod of Bishops of a National Church, what their course of action should be, under penalty of being regarded as heretics. One would think that the writer, instead of being a deacon in the Church, claimed papal authority; for really nothing less could obviate the charge of extreme presumption. We very much regret to be obliged to speak thus: but we cannot help expressing some surprise at the mode in which this deacon has thought himself authorized to deal with the chief rulers of the Church; and we are disposed to think that one who could thus act, was deficient in judgment, at least. His conduct, indeed, appears to have been, in various instances, precipitate, though his zeal and ingenuity were undoubtedly great.

From the above passage it will appear that Mr. Palmer has pledged himself, that if his appeal is not received and supported by the Bishops of Scotland, he will be reconciled to the Oriental Church, as a convert from the Scottish Church. His appeal has, as we learn from the volume before us, been set aside or not supported; so that we suppose we may expect shortly to hear of the

66

fulfilment of his promise. One very significant action is repeatedly referred to in this volume-the declaration of the author, that he has arrived at the conviction that on one important point the doctrine of the Greek Church is irreconcilable with that of the English, namely, in the procession of the Holy Ghost; and that the Greek Church is right, and the Latin Church wrong! We presume, therefore, that our author will not long continue a deacon of the English Church. The author goes so far as to express his opinion in a letter to the Archpriest, which he has published in his Appeal, that the Western Church (including the English and Scottish Churches) "persists obstinately in maintaining a formal heresy, as far as the expression goes," by using the addition Filioque" in the Creed; and that she "is justly rejected by the Eastern Church from her communion, until she return to the ecumenical standard of faith," (p. 433.) So that he tells the Scottish Church, in the Appeal which he makes for its judgment in his favour, that it is heretical on the doctrine of the procession; and that he is of opinion that it is rightly excommunicated by the Eastern Church. We certainly do marvel that, under these circumstances, our author should have appealed to the Scottish Church, as his Church, or as possessing any authority; and with his present views we presume that he is of opinion that it is of very little consequence whether Russians are admitted as converts, or as members of a sister Church, to our communion; because either act would be wrong. If the English Church teach heresy, and is "rightly excommunicated," it is not, of course, lawful to communicate with it at all.

To pass on, however, from the author's personal views or actions to a more general question, the result of his exertions on the whole. We think it must be admitted by every one, that Mr. Palmer has not only evinced an energy and perseverance in pursuit of a very great object, which entitles him to the most cordial sympathy and respect, notwithstanding his defects of judgment on some points; but has actually materially promoted the object which he had in view. It is true that he has failed in being actually admitted on his own terms into communion with the Russian Church; but the time has evidently not yet come for the realization of communion by any such act; much remains to be done before it can be successful. On the other hand, as far as Mr. Palmer's case is concerned, it does not seem that he has been refused communion in such a way as increases the difficulties and obstacles, but rather the reverse. While, in addition, a very large amount of information has been obtained and circulated in both countries, which will, we trust, prepare the way for future negotiations. At present it appears to us that the

English Church is herself deficient in so many particulars, that she can scarcely have the weight with other parts of the universal Church less doctrinally pure than she is, which would suffice to place in security her principles, which ought not to be compromised, and could not be compromised without sin. While our discipline generally is so much relaxed, and sin is so rarely reproved, while the spirit of worldliness is, by means of patronage, so much and widely disseminated amongst us, we could not have, in conference with the Orientals, sufficient moral vigour to require the reform of superstitions which prevail amongst them, and which we ought not to recognize. And, in fine, until we have obtained some degree of liberty for the Church, so as to be able to proceed regularly and synodically for the reform of abuses in our own Church, and for the restoration of communion with other Churches, it would be quite hopeless to attempt any direct negotiations with foreign communities.

ART. IV.-The Caxtons, a Family Picture.
LYTTON, Bart., Author of "Rienzi, &c."

By Sir E. BULWER
Blackwood. 1849.

A VERY charming work has Sir Edward herein presented to us: whether a great one or no, we cannot so easily undertake to decide; whether beneficial or injurious, from a moral point of view, is a point perhaps still more open to question. All the well-known Bulwerian "agréments" are here: first, that charm of style so pre-eminently characteristic of this conscientious artist;-conscientious, that is, as far as the intellectual labour is concerned, requisite for the completeness of any artistic creation. Then, too, we have humour-humour of an amiable and kindly nature, scarcely Shakspearian, but indubitably Sternelike; and we have that gentle pathos, which from true humour lies never far:

"Erin, the smile and the tear in thine eye !"

And equally conspicuous is that intimate knowledge of society, more especially in so-called "high life," which our author exhibited in his first successful production, "Pelham," now matured, and further elevated, by the influence of a more sober philosophy than Sir Edward had then attained unto: not but that this philosophy is still irregular and vague. We shall not find here the wild grandeur of the rich and southern "Zanoni," a wierd hymn to the mystical, as its chanter would perhaps be pleased to designate it, nor the truly exquisite beauty, the high poetry, of that one creation of our author's, which has been more or less slighted as a picture- or a lady's-book, but which will certainly live and be treasured with delight, when many of his more ambitious achievements are forgotten: we mean, "The Pilgrims of the Rhine." For, be it remarked, that Sir Edward, generally so prosaic in his miscalled poetry, is often a true, ay, and a great poet in his prose! There is a flowing cadence in his exquisitely balanced sentences, which has ever a mystic charm for the soul, almost equalling the musical effects of our most favoured bards, only inferior to them in that concentration of thought and expression, which stamps the poet "par éminence," and must ever be his more especial heritage. There is a sentence in this very book before us, which may exemplify our meaning. On page 133 of the first volume we read: "It is not study alone