which arises from the vicious constitution of both the body ecclesiastic and the body politic-intervenes, and drives them, in spite of all their efforts to live in harmony and to act in concert, to a daily greater distance from each other. The causes of this anomalous state of things are ably pointed out by Dr. Wordsworth: :

66

"I may observe here, while on this important subject of the present Relations of Church and State in France, that it is very remarkable that the Charte of 1830, the consummation of the last Revolution, and founded on principles purely secular and irreligious, has proved, in its working, the most favourable act to the Papacy that has ever been done in France!

"The sixth article of this Charte declares that the Ministers of the Roman Catholic Religion, professed by the majority of the French nation, and also those of other Christian denominations, shall receive salaries from the national exchequer.'

"France then ceased to have a Religious Establishment. The Roman Catholic Priesthood was detached from the Monarchy and the State. Their State salary is no bond of union between them and the Civil Power, because a similar State salary is given to Ministers of other denominations of Christians, by the article of the Charte just cited; and not a year elapsed after the ratification of the Charte, before this salary was extended even to the Jewish Rabbis! (Ministres du culte Israélite,) who, by the law of February 8, 1831, began to receive an annual salary from the national treasury (du trésor public), dating from the 1st January, 1831. . . .

"Since 1830, the Monarch, as such, is of no religion; and, besides this, his responsibility is resolved into that of his Ministers, who, as such, are of no religion also; and thus Religion is severed from the State. It therefore looks on the State as an alien and-I fear we must add—as an apostate; and especially that peculiar form of Religion,-Roman Catholicism-which had been hitherto allied with the State, now feels no sympathy with it, either on religious or on personal grounds, but is opposed to it on both."-pp. 151–153.

The natural result of this is a closer approximation on the part of the French clergy towards the Roman See, and the consequent growth of ultramontane principles :—

"The Church of France strengthens itself against the State by identifying itself with the Papacy; it also taunts the State with the separation which has taken place between it and itself. 'You,' it says to the State, have been the cause of the severance; and you must take its consequences. You have broken the treaty of alliance; and yet you claim to exercise control over me still but I protest against such tyrannical usurpation. As long as you were Christian and Catholic, it was reasonable enough for me to allow you to mix yourself up with my affairs; but now that you have become Jew and

Jansenist in your Codes, and Deist and Pantheist in your Colleges, I renounce all your jurisdiction! Gallican Articles of 1682, Concordat of 1801, Organic Laws of 1802, Ordonnances concerning Appels comme d'Abus; these, and all other ecclesiastical statutes, are ipso facto abrogated and null, as though they had never been, by the unchristian, heretical, and infidel character, which you, in your political wisdom, have thought fit to assume. What pretence have you now to meddle with my affairs? Res tibi tuas habe; take care of your own concerns, and let me manage mine. I interdict you from all commerce with me. I denounce your touch as profane. What! shall an heretical Government take cognizance of the affairs of a Christian Church? Shall Catholic Bishops give an account of their proceedings, not to the successor of St. Peter, but to a multifidian Privy Council? Shall the cause of religious congregations of holy men and women,-of saintly Jesuits and venerable Carmelites,-who unite together for the purposes of mutual Christian edification, be brought before a tribunal which represents almost as many religions as it has members? No; Heaven forbid! this is an injury and an iniquity which I will never suffer to be perpetrated. I must listen to the voice of inspiration: Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers; what communion hath light with darkness? wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and I will receive you.' Whatever, then, may be the consequences to you and to myself, I repudiate your claim to exercise any jurisdiction whatever in ecclesiastical matters; I affirm, that I have reason and religion on my side; I have also the Constitution of our Country in my favour; I invoke the Charte which declares, that ‘all Frenchmen are equal in the eye of the law; that every one shall profess his own religion with an equal liberty, and enjoy for it the same protection,' and which guarantees liberty of teaching to all we have a great and growing power on our side; therefore, we bid you to beware, and to give us that which we now ask as suppliants, but for which we shall soon contend as combatants, that for which we will sacrifice our lives, and which we are resolved to win at any cost,-Liberty, complete, inalienable LIBERTY.'

6

"Such is the language of the Church of France to the State at this time. During the last three years, since the breaking out of the war between the Bishops and the University, and the censure, on the part of the Government, of the Bishop of Châlons (8th Nov. 1843), and of the Archbishop of Paris (8th March, 1844), on account of the part taken by them against the University, the strife has been waxing warmer and warmer; and the question of the rights of the Régale on the one side, and of the Pope's Supremacy on the other, mooted by M. Dupin in his Manual; and, thirdly, that of the jurisdiction of the State over Religious Orders, have all served to add fresh fuel to the flame of discord between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, which will not, I fear, be extinguished for many years, and will probably extend itself with rapidity and violence into almost every country of Europe." -pp. 190-192.

It is a great aggravation of this deplorable state of things, that neither of the two parties, who are thus urged by a force superior to themselves into deadly conflict, is possessed of that which might repair the breaches of the state of France, and heal the hurt of her people. That the new dynasty is wholly destitute of means for this purpose is most evident :

"The misfortune is, and an unspeakable calamity it is,-that the French Monarchy has nothing to set against the Papacy (acting in the Church and by the Jesuits) but what is termed Philosophy, but which is Atheism.

"Louis Philippe has no force to bring into the field against the Pope, but the Professors of the Collège de France and of the Sorbonne : and he cannot contend with any prospect of success against such a power, which has now the Episcopate and the secular and regular Clergy of France as its allies, with such weapons as these. He may indeed keep it at bay: he may control it; but, in the mean time, in the persons of his own auxiliaries, he is encouraging and developing other principles no less dangerous to the Monarchy than those of the Papacy -the principles of infidelity, anarchy, and demoralization.

"The Crown has been jealous of the Church, and has kept the doors of the Colleges of the State closed against her; but it now finds that in so doing it has excluded Christianity; and that it has to deal at present with a generation which has been educated without any sense of religious obligation, or of moral and civil duty, and which has no more regard for the Throne, or for the Sovereign upon it, than it has for Christianity and the Church.

"What would not Louis Philippe give for a National Church, founded on the solid basis of evangelical truth and apostolic discipline, devoted to the Monarchy, and untrammelled by Rome? And why should he not endeavour to restore to France the Church of his forefathers? Why should he not attempt to revive the Church of St. Hilary and St. Irenæus ? If he could effect this, he would have nothing to fear from the Jesuits; he would have his eighty Bishops devoted to his throne; and he would have no need of the aid of the Antichristian Philosophy of the sceptical Professor of the College of France, to encounter the Antichristian Policy of the domineering Pontiff of the Church of Rome."-pp. 156, 157.

On the part of the Church, Dr. Wordsworth seems to think another course might have been pursued, and that with a fair prospect of a favourable result; and he severely censures the French clergy for having been wanting to the exigencies of their position.

"They have not, as Christian teachers, endeavoured to recall the State to a sense of its duty to the Church, nor have they reminded it of its need of a Church as a National Institution, for the preservation of public peace. Nor have they discharged their duty to a higher

Power by boldly declaring to the State its own duty to the Supreme Ruler of empires, and its consequent obligation to maintain true religion, as the only means of securing His favour and protection. They seem to have forgotten the precepts of Almighty God in Holy Scripture, commanding His Ministers to proclaim, in season and out of season, to kings and rulers, the great truth of their Christian responsibilities; and they have not imitated the examples of His prophets in the Old Testament, calling on princes and people, in their royal capacities and public character, to repent and to amend their ways, whenever they had swerved from their religious duty to Him."-p. 187.

We perfectly agree in the justice of this censure; it was, no doubt, the duty of the French clergy to have adopted the course marked out by Dr. Wordsworth. But we do not think,-and this is almost the only point in which we feel ourselves compelled to differ from him,-that it was in the power of the French Church to take up that high position, and that simply because it is the true position becoming the Church in her dealings with the powers of this world. This may sound paradoxical; but it is not so. In order to take up her true position, a Church must be firmly established in the truth; and that, unhappily, the French Church is not. As by a moral nemesis it is out of the power of Louis Philippe to oppose to Ultramontanism any thing better than the spirit which has set him on his throne, and which finds utterance in the infidel doctrines of the University, so by a like righteous retribution it is out of the power of the French Church, while she continues in fellowship with Rome, and makes herself a partaker of her numberless and grievous sins, to oppose to the irreligious tendencies which are so prevalent and even dominant in France, the mighty truths and the high resolves which a truly Christian, a truly Catholic Church alone can put forth, and by which such a Church might confidently hope, and at all events, gloriously attempt, to oppose the tide of evil, and to sow afresh on the soil of France the seeds of peace and of true national greatness.

ART. VI.-Publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, Nos. I-XI. Cambridge: Deightons. 1840-1845.

Most people in the present day know something from their own experience of antiquarian societies. There is scarcely a city or town of note in England which does not contain an association, probably of recent growth, in aid of these pursuits; and it must be owned that they are conducted in a better spirit than formerly existed. The universities have been remarkably distinguished in a study so consistent with their character, and by looking at the publications of one of their societies, we shall be informing ourselves of the objects generally aimed at by such bodies, and of the success attained by one of them which is a respectable specimen of its kind.

The Cambridge Antiquarian Society sprang into existence within a few months of the foundation of another local corporation of kindred pursuits, but far more extended renown-the Camden Society. There never was at any time any rivalry between these associations. Many persons were officers of both at the same moment, and it was once proposed to amalgamate the two. The Camden, however, soon shot ahead of its sister society. Its objects were more definite, more substantial, and more generally interesting. They were also, it must be confessed, of higher and more practical usefulness. It was of more importance that a chancel should be rebuilt, than that a manuscript should be recovered. Of the late disruption of this society, or rather of the late secession from it, most of our readers are aware, and it is not our intention to say much upon the subject. We are bound, however, to state that, in our opinion, the present circumscribed Camden Society does more faithfully represent the principles of the original foundation than the opposite party would have done, and that many of the members who have now left it mistook its character when they entered it. But, as we said before, there was no antagonistic principle in the Antiquarian Society. It is true, that some of the seceders who had been among the most active and serviceable members of the Camden, upon quitting this, joined the Antiquarian. But this was simply the act of men attached to these peculiar pursuits, who left a society in which they were disturbed for the one which was most nearly allied to it, and in which the disturbing