grave of a departed husband or father; one commences weeping and crying, then one, then another follows, till the whole are found weeping and even howling with all the intensity of the deepest grief, when perhaps, really, only one was interested in the deceased. The dancers of S. John and S. Vitus were recruited by hundreds who had followed them merely out of curiosity. Nothing, however, shows the power of sympathy more than the mewing and biting mania in the convents of France and Germany: these two instances prove the unbounded power of sympathy to spread the most ridiculous practices. In the Irish epidemic there were brought together not only crowded rooms, stifling atmosphere, intense excitement, all most favourable to the development of nervous disorder, but sympathy was everywhere brought to bear with its utmost power upon systems already predisposed to disease. Supervening on all this religion put forth its strongest claim; forgiveness of sin, peace with GOD, eternal life, Heaven itself was the result of being "struck," an easy and pleasant way to eternal life was suddenly opened to poor sinners; it was no longer now as it had been in the days of the Apostles, by the teaching of the Bible and of the Church, that we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling," a new way was discovered, the thing could be done in a moment without trouble or exertion on their part. Persons had indeed to go through certain stages, known as "conviction of sin," the pains and throes of what they thought was the "new birth," but the end was certain, peace, joy, pardon, salvation-all these were secured to those who were "struck;" besides, they had kind sympathising friends, they became objects of attention and importance, their names were published in newspapers, and were in everybody's mouth; ministers, strangers from a distance came to see them, talk to them, pray with them, nay, in many cases they became teachers of others, preachers, the instruments by which others were converted, saved. Can we be surprised if this caused many to try in every possible way to pray that they might be "struck ?", We read of one girl who was struck" seventy times; in her case the excitement had become almost monomaniacal, and, no doubt, like the wailing of the Jewish women, could be brought on almost at pleasure.

3rdly. That religion was not primarily the cause, but that it was superinduced. The proof of this rests partly on considerations mentioned before, but chiefly on this, that wherever an epidemic of this kind has appeared, it has always taken the form of that kind of religion which was popular at the time. The visionaries of Mount Athos were Greek monks, therefore the form of religion was that of the Greek Church. The dancers of Western Europe were Roman Catholics, therefore those affected went to the saints for relief, viz., S. John and S. Vitus, and their malady was cured at the altars of these saints. The Convulsionaires of Paris were Jan

senists because the doctrines and sect of the Port-royalists were persecuted, and popular. The Irish epidemic has taken the Calvinist form, because the popular religion in the north of Ireland is Presbyterian. Archdeacon Edwards well argues, that if the Revival proves Calvinism to be the true religion, and the Presbyterian sect to be the true Church, because the Revival is a manifestation of the Spirit, an outpouring of the HOLY GHOST, a certain sign from Heaven of God's approval, then must we perforce admit that the Addolorata, the Extatica, the miracle of La Salette, and all other Roman Catholic miracles prove the truth of that Church in its claims and its doctrines. In truth Presbyterians and Calvinists have not counted the cost of their assertion in this respect, nor considered the tremendous risk to which they have put their peculiar faith; for if it be held that each Revival case is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, if every person who has passed through the stages of conviction,' and has found pardon and peace, is sealed with the everlasting Spirit of GOD, and that such grace is indefectible, then if they fall away, nay if any one falls away, it proves the utter falsity of their doctrine. Time will prove whether the work is of GoD or not, but we repeat if any one of those who have been "converted" relapses and dies in sin, this fact alone proves that Calvinism is false, and the Revival a snare: for we must bear in mind that the Revival professes to be, if not a miraculous at least an extraordinary outpouring of the HOLY GHOST; the subjects of the Revival are each one assured of pardon and acceptance, the whole of the blessings being specially signed and sealed to them by unmistakeable proofs.

That the disease is curable, and could, had persons been so disposed, have been checked at the commencement, we have abundant proof. Mr. Hecker mentions that a nervous disorder, in every way similar to the Revival, has prevailed in Shetland for the last hundred years, and that there it was promptly checked by the firmness and prudence of the parish ministers :—

"An intelligent and pious minister of Shetland informed the physician (Dr. Hibbert, in 1822) who gives an account of this disorder as an eye-witness, that being considerably annoyed, on his first introduction into the country, by those paroxysms, whereby the devotions of the Church were much impeded, he obviated their repetition, by assuring his parishioners, that no treatment was more effectual than immersion in cold water. . . . The sequel need hardly be told: the fear of being carried out of the Church into the water, acted like a charm, not a single naiad was made."

In another Kirk at Baliasta, a female was "struck."

"The minister, Mr. Ingram, very properly stopped his discourse until the disturber was removed; and, after advising all those who thought they might be similarly affected to leave the Church, he gave

out a psalm. The congregation was thus preserved from further interruption; yet the effect of sympathy was not prevented, for as the narrator of the account was leaving the Church, he saw several females writhing and tossing about their arms on the green grass, who durst not, for fear of a censure from the pulpit, exhibit themselves after this manner, within the sacred walls of the kirk."-Pp. 135, 136.

Archdeacon Stopford also relates that he knew of several cases being completely stopped by exercising the like firmness. In one instance, the clergyman, hearing the well-known hysterical sounds proceed from some one, stopped in his sermon, and said, "I hear sounds which disturb the speaker and prevent his words being heard by others. Those sounds must cease. And the sounds ceased, as I expected."

We have no space left to enter upon the question, what is now to be done since the Revival is a fait accompli? What ought to have been done, is plain enough, but what is to be done in places where the Revival has worked its way is a very important question; it cannot be ignored. While setting themselves against all such manifestation, the clergy should seize upon all those who have been impressed, and lead them calmly from fanaticism to faith; from morbid excitement to a calm performance of duty; pointing out, as will be more and more visible from relapses into sin which are becoming daily more common, how unsafe it is to trust to extraordinary means,and how dangerous to leave the sim plepath of everyday repentance for sudden conversion.

DR. VAUGHAN ON REVISION OF THE LITURGY.

Revision of the Liturgy. Five Discourses, with an Introduction. By C. T. VAUGHAN, D.D. London: Macmillan.

WE thankfully assent to the statement with which Dr. Vaughan commences his Introduction.

"It has been the apparent result of all recent efforts in Parliament for the revision of our Liturgy to postpone rather than to advance the object which they had in view. It was so in 1840: it has been so again in 1860."

May it be so in 1880, if the Parliament is then found anew attempting this work! The Parliament is clearly not the engine for making such a change. But when Dr. Vaughan goes on to speak of the want of machinery we cannot exactly agree with him.

"The Church of England has practically lost its machinery for selfmodification. To deal conclusively with questions of doctrine, or even of ritual, Convocation has no power, and Parliament little fitness."

Now we should have exactly reversed this statement. Parliament, a mere temporal authority, has no power to deal with the Prayer Book, a treasure of spiritual life. The want is not a mere want of fitness, but an inherent want of power. The want does not arise from its "including many who are not of the Church at all," although this may make it more glaringly absurd to bring spiritual questions before such a tribunal, but it is a want of authority from CHRIST to handle such a matter. The doctrine and worship of the Church are not mere expressions of national life, but are part of a great trust from GOD, the stewardship of which the Church herself has no power to resign. She may from time to time be content to go on without exercising her own office with the watchful consideration due to her varying needs; but to alienate the trust is not in her power. Now Convocation certainly has power, even though we are to grant a certain want of fitness. There is the living, spiritual power, and the temporal authority which limits the exercise of that power may enable it to be put in operation at any moment. It may want certain adaptations in order to become a fit exponent of the Clergy, but it does represent them whether fitly or no, and it has power to act for them, nor can they act in any other way. Neither does Convocation "represent but a part of the Church, even of the Clergy of one Province." It is understood that the new Archbishop of York was expressly instructed to allow the Clergy of the Northern Province the same privileges as the Southern Convocation has been using. At any rate, whether asleep or awake, gagged or free, the Northern Convocation represents the Northern Clergy as truly as the Southern Convocation represents the Southern Clergy of England.

We do not certainly think the time is yet come for the newlyawakened Convocation of either Province, or of both conjointly, to attempt so solemn a work as any revision of the Liturgy. The preparation of prayers and offices, which shall be habitually used, requires a deep moral training, a calm theological insight into truth, which is little likely to characterize the first efforts of a large assembly. Dr. Jelf's speech in Convocation upon this subject was a most admirable one.

If, however, anything would reconcile us to a revision of our Liturgy, it is the note of gratulation struck by Dr. Vaughan in showing its impossibility.

"A revision once effected must give a tenfold stringency to subscription. It could no longer be pleaded then as it may justly be pleaded now, that ancient forms of worship and ancient statements of doctrine must necessarily contain expressions not wholly suitable to modern feeling, and that the difficulty of alteration may reasonably excuse some latitude of individual interpretation. Whatever remains after revision must be taken as it stands, and interpreted at least for a generation or two according to its grammatical sense. If this be so, where, after a

revision made under present circumstances, would be our National Church ?"

We think this paragraph enunciates a most dangerous principle. If the Prayer Book is to be signed as it stands, and "not taken as it stands," because forsooth it contains expressions not wholly suitable to modern feeling," we must say that all faith in social bonds is at an end. Where are we to look for truth if not in the solemn declarations of the Clergy? Where are we to find solemn declarations if not in the acceptance of the solemn trusts of their office? To think that they are signing one thing and meaning another at such a solemn moment would make an honest heart shudder with scorn at human nature. Where are we to expect that truth shall be found if the Clergy jump into their high office from the springing-board of a lie? Grievous it is that so many should interpret the Prayer Book differently. We have always made allowance for many who, under the cloudy influence of traditional prejudices, have been blinded to the plain meaning of simple words. But truth is truth, from age to age, however the feelings of various ages may vary. Persons may not understand the plainest expressions. No rigour of subscription can ensure their doing so. It rests with the Bishops, who ordain men, to examine them, and see whether they understand what they are doing. Two things meanwhile remain fixed, above the power of Bishops or of any authority to change. First: the doctrine of CHRIST remains unchanged, whether it suits the feelings of the age or no. Secondly: the gross immorality of professing one thing and meaning another remains unchanged, whatever the inducements for telling a lie may be. "It is indeed no small blessing," as Dr. Vaughan says, "that there should be room within the pale of a common worship for men of various opinions.' A National Church has no right to make her limits closer than a safe possession of primitive truth requires. The intellectual character of men is so widely different that the bounds of toleration must be large. Toleration must be ample, because truth is apprehended by different minds under such different aspects. But toleration is still on behalf of truth. One thing cannot be tolerated, and that is untruth. Those are not "reasonable men," but dishonest men, who "have been practically warned against intolerance towards each other, because each felt that if he had something with him, he had also something against him; if the Articles spoke his language, the Liturgy, here and there, might seem to speak the language of his opponent; and he who would claim indulgence in reference to the one, must give that indulgence in reference to the other." In this mutual giving of indulgences to tell lies, we seem to tremble before an army of Tetzels.

دو

Are we then to pare down expressions of truth in order to allow of everybody affixing a truthful signature? GOD forbid. Toleration there must be; but also definite teaching there must be and