parts, we think the solution may be given in a very few words:The Church of England is NOT the house whose foundations are dug deep, and laid upon A ROCK. (Luke vi. 48.)

We now proceed to the consideration of the remedies which are proposed for the existing admitted deficiencies of the Anglican Church. They are,-First, The removal "of the want of some visible incorporation of the Church itself" (p. 223.); "the reincorporation of the Church;" the "creation of the spirit from which her supplies are to flow;"" the construction of a new body" (p. 225.), "to be the depositories of truth, stationed throughout the country." (p. 220.) But we must narrate the wants of the Church in the eloquent language of her own able advocate:

"The first end and object of the Church, as an incorporation under the authority of God, is not to make men moral or religious, nor even to spread the knowledge of God himself; but to guard and preserve against a constant tendency to corruption a certain body of truths in which that knowledge is contained. Such a notion may be very foreign to an age in which, for religious truth, and, indeed, for all truth in itself, one half the world professes to care nothing, and the other not to know where to find it. Still, the first great work of the Church is to be a witness and pillar of the truth; and whoever knows anything of human nature and its universal tendency to pervert and obliterate all the high doctrines of Christianity, will acknowledge the necessity of guarding them by a very artfully-constructed body, which may serve as the glass shade to a lamp, -suffer the light to pass through it unobscured and untinged, and secure it at the same time from being blown out by the caprices of human reason."―p. 215.

From what quarter, then, our readers will ask, is struction of the Anglican Church to be looked for? to become her "new depositories of truth"?

the reconWhat are

"Some will say, in canons, and articles, and subscriptions. But no one who knows anything of human nature can be ignorant that all these are a mere dead letter, wholly in the power, and subject to the modification, of human reason, without some security elsewhere. Others look to episcopal authority. But let any sober-minded spectator of these times ask himself if Episcopal authority, in the present temper of public opinion, and in the divided state of the bishops themselves, could hold out against a rapid and general corruption of Christian Faith by their subordinate ministers?"-p. 218.

The real remedy, then, "exists or may be created by careful appointments in her cathedral bodies.... If they have fallen into disuse, where has been the fault? Can we afford any longer to let their functions lie dormant? Is there any difficulty in reviving them? Will they not prove the greatest-THE ONLY-securities to episcopal authority in any coming crisis, whether from without the Church or from within it? and

are they not the natural remedy for the evils so often lamented over-the decay and impracticability of a stricter ecclesiastical discipline? Remove them, and place nothing in their stead, and leave each bishop by himself to regulate the movements of his clergy within the Church, and resist the attack from without, and how will they be able to resist the storm which is gathering round us ?"-p. 220.

Surely the Church here described cannot be serious in applying to herself the promise of Jesus Christ to be with her "all days, even to the end of the world!"

Unhappily the Reviewer has omitted to explain the operation by which the members of his new" depository of truth" will be less"divided" than the bishops,-less a prey to "schismatical presumptuousness" than the parochial clergy,-less "a ball of sand,”—less " held together by a cramp" than the body of the laity.

So much for the first remedy. Her second consists in a determination to make a vigorous assertion of her right to all the spiritual authority ever claimed by the Catholic Church. But we must content ourselves on this topic by referring to the "Tracts for the Times," and to Dr. Philpotts' Charge (pp. 42-6.) To what extent, however, this assertion of rights will be admitted by the "heathen population" of the country, may possibly be conjectured from the admission "that thousands of her firmest adherents have imbibed the principle and poison of dissent, which is prevented from working into action by some casualty which a moment may remove."-p. 214.

The third remedy is time, "that she may REGAIN her position in the hearts of the people and in the COUNCILS of the LEGISLATURE. (p. 240.) But how is this time to be employed? In the RECONQUEST, or the "CONVERSION!" of Ireland,-in obtaining " a transfer of the DEPENDENCE of the peasant from the Romish priest to the PROTESTANT priest and laity combined!" (p. 247), and in removing "the great obstacle-the Irish Romanists-from the House of Commons, because they cannot be admitted to sit in the legislature consistently with... the integrity of the Church of England" (p. 240);-in bringing about the future watchword of conservatism "-" the repeal of emancipation" (p. 240), or "the repeal of the Union!" But let our author speak for himself:

66

"We may struggle (the words will of course seem MADNESS! but we believe the hour is coming when they will once more become the watchword of conservatism) to repeal the emancipation. There is one more chance of saving the country from the tyranny of an Irish faction—the repeal of the Union: and these are the only plans open. They ought to be faced boldly, and a line taken at once. And the sooner men speak

out the better. But whatsoever course presents itself, the same preliminary step occurs as indispensable in each. Ireland is, at this moment, the curse of England, as England, we grieve to say, for many years had been the curse of Ireland. It is one of those strange coincidences of retribution, which Providence often exhibits to show that there are eyes upon our sins, however long the punishment is delayed. And Ireland must be either set adrift from us to be reconquered, or it must be converted. You cannot reduce the number of Romanist members, except by reducing Romanism itself; and you cannot exclude them from parliament while Ireland is still in their hands. Let us repeat the words, however startling, the only safety, and therefore the first object, of the English Church, must be the conversion of Ireland... personal safety alone the safety of all that Englishmen value, compels the attempt.... The PRESERVATION of the Church of England, and the EXISTENCE OF ROMANISM in Ireland.. ARE WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE." -p. 240-1.

"Their religion is a plague to themselves (the Romanists), as it is a curse to this country. The Romanism of Ireland is the plague of Great Britain. IF it be otherwise-IF Popery BE consistent with civil liberty and the welfare of a country-IF it be not the deadly bane of man's greatest blessings, and the bar against all his improvements, we have indeed made a discovery, and we had better return to Popery throughout the kingdom."-p. 243.

We have thus endeavoured to sketch the remedies which are suggested for the re-incorporation and reconstruction of the Anglican Church; we have developed her fears and her hopes; we have shown that those fears are essentially based upon her envious jealousy of the Catholic Religion; that those hopes are directed to its destruction, and a transfer of its authority and influence. What farther clue do we require to the conspiracy to which we have adverted, and to the propagation of the charge of treachery and perjury by the Anglican Establishment against the most prominent members of her dreaded and hated rival? That conspiracy will never succeed. The Power which has maintained the Catholic religion within these realms during centuries of persecution, will support it against the assaults with which it is now threatened; and if the fears of the champions of the Church of England shall be realized, and she shall become "impotent and contemptible, and shall fall," (p. 231), the Catholic Church will be a city of refuge for her defenceless members.

ART. XI.-1. Affairs of the East, in connexion with Russia and England, Second Edition. Ridgway.

2. Metropolitan Magazine, February 1834.-Article, Turkey. 3. Russia and Turkey. By Urquhart. London. Ridgway.

HE intense interest excited by questions of domestic policy, often diverts the public attention from a due consideration of foreign affairs; and when the scene is far removed, and the effect not immediately felt at home, events of great importance pass without attracting notice, or creating alarm. Our relations with Turkey were either neglected or misunderstood, until affairs in that empire had reached such a momentous crisis, that it was no longer possible for us to shut our eyes to the danger, or be indifferent to it. The supposed weakness of the Sublime Porte, and the threatened dissolution of the Ottoman power, were the first causes which awakened Europe to an interest in the East, for empires attract more attention in their rise and fall than during their intervening years of steady prosperity. From the period when Suleiman added the last conquest to the Ottoman empire, until the year 1763, when Catherine waged successful war on Turkey, the history of the Sultans excited little interest amongst Christian powers, and seldom interfered with their international arrangements. No sooner was the tide turned which threatened to inundate all Europe, than the arms which had been prepared to repel Mahomedan invasion, were employed to settle the petty differences and minor affairs of Christendom. The attention of statesmen was no longer turned towards the east, as the point where the storm gathered and the tempest grew. Constantinople and its Mahomedan possessors were left in peace and neglect, till the giant power, which had silently grown to maturity in the far-north, cast a desiring eye over his southern frontier, and longed to exchange his ice-bound home for the sunny banks of the Bosphorus.

The grand struggle began inauspiciously for Russia: Peter the Great was defeated on the Pruth, and though the Empress Anne was more successful in the field, her victories were annulled by the disadvantageous peace of Belgrade.* The Russians, however, had seen the Euxine, and felt the milder climate of the Crimea. The court of St. Petersburg had learnt the policy of busying discontented minds with foreign war, and in the ears of the ambitious Catherine no music sounded so sweet as the roar of her own victorious cannon.

* Peter the Great seized upon Azof in 1686; he was beaten on the Pruth in 1739. The peace of Belgrade was concluded in 1739.

Count Munich was the first who conceived the design of adding Constantinople to the Russian dominions. A long banishment had not quenched his martial ardour, nor could old age efface the daring schemes he had meditated in his younger days. On his return from Siberia, he flattered the royal imagination with the prospect of a southern empire. Catherine lent a willing ear to his ambitious councils, and from the impression they then made upon her, may be traced the numerous wars and innumerable battles which afterwards took place between the armies of the Czarina and her Mahomedan neighbours.

The Western powers either doubted the practicability of Munich's plan, or were ignorant of the consequences of it to themselves. France paid court to the Empress, while England did then what she does now-see the danger, and take no effectual means to avert it.

In 1768, Turkey drew her sword in defence of Poland, and if her success had been equal to the justice of her cause, Europe would not have had now to mourn over the unnatural death of one of her bravest nations. The gauntlet so nobly thrown down by the Porte was eagerly taken up by Russia. Her policy had but one object in view, and there was little likelihood of her deviating from it. The design so boldly conceived by Count Munich was followed up by Catherine with an equally bold execution. Not an opportunity was allowed to pass by-not an excuse, however paltry, neglected-for extending the southern frontier of Russia, and approaching the great end of her ambition.

The Crimea was conquered-the Ottoman fleet burned at Tchesmè, and the Ottoman army defeated at Chumla. Fortune seemed to be chained to the standard of Catherine, and what was at first considered as a mere day-dream of the recalled exile, began by degrees to assume a palpable shape. Each successive campaign evinced the debility, or rather the premature old age, of the Turkish empire. Young and neighbouring states began to look with longing eyes on the lovely realm which had been held so long a captive slave by her Asiatic conquerors. Russia and Austria were growing in strength and size, and both burned with the same ardent lust of conquest. Constantinople excited their cupidity, and became the subject of mutual rivalry and jealousy. Each power held itself prepared to seize the fair captive the moment she should fall from the feeble embraces of her Mahomedan master. The peace of Kaynardji in 1774-the peace of Constantinople in 1784-the peace of Jassy in 1792-were the strides by which Russia approached the completion of her designs. The ill-advised war of 1788 was the injudicious