everything. The three characters we have mentioned stand out distinctly from the rest. The practical man of business, Solomine, the single member of the party who seems to have his wits about him, leaves no very distinct impression upon the mind. So sensible a man as he is represented to be would scarcely have risked his liberty by conspiring with such a sentimentalist as Nejdanof, such a fanatic as Markelof. He seems to be intended to serve as a type of the Socialists who do not wish to hurry the march of events, who think that the common people are not yet ripe for rebellion, must be prepared for it by a slow but sure education. Markelof, on the other hand, is a conspirator of the school of which the late Bakounin was the leader, of which the Geneva Nabat is the literary organ-the school which teaches that in rebellion lies the only chance of the oppressed people; that outbreaks, even though utterly futile at the moment, will tell in the long run; and that the blood of political martyrs is the most fruitful seed of revolution. The ignoble types among the revolutionists are sketched rapidly and with admirable skill-such as the rich tradesman Golushkine, who brags so much until the police interfere, and then so utterly collapses, grovelling at the feet of the authorities in a passion of sincere repentance;' or the fussy and foolish Pakline, who betrays his friends without meaning it, and whose chatter is so eminently Russian in its vague volubility No less admirably are described the types of official life with which the revolutionists are contrasted, the rude and reactionary Kallomeitsof and the polite and plausible Sipyagine. But there is the less need to dwell longer on the work at present, inasmuch as it has been announced that it will soon be available for English readers in the form of a translation made from the Russian original by Mr. Schuyler. To it when it appears, or to the French and German translations already published, may be referred all Western readers who wish to know more about the revolutionary societies of Russia. That those associations are of no great political significance will probably be the opinion to which the readers as well of Nov' as of the recent trial at St. Petersburg will arrive, so little do the masses appear to relish the doctrines which their Socialist advisers obtrude upon them. But they will not. have been without good result if they induce the authorities to think seriously of providing other outlets than now exist for the selfsacrificing enthusiasm which at present drives so many of the Russian youth of either sex into rebellion, and of reducing to harmlessness their now somewhat dangerous activity by abolishing such abuses as, in spite of recent reforms, still flourish, over which an injured people may brood until the dull heat of indignation may be quickened into the fire of rebellion. But it is rather stagnation than over-activity that is to be dreaded in Russia. One of the best of recent Russian novels, Goncharof's Oblomof, excellently describes the slow step by which there creeps upon the well-intentioned individual after whom

H

the book is named the absorbing lethargy which is so well known among Russians, one leading to a mental and physical condition to which the name of Oblomofism has been consequently given. And the unfortunate hero of the tale may be taken as a type of his country. Due allowance being made for poetic license, the picture which the ill-starred Nejdanof draws of his native land in the verses of which a translation follows, may be considered not too much of a caricature. In his native land, declares the poet, who is supposed to have just returned to it after a long absence

all, all is as it was wont to be. Only in one thing we have surpassed Europe, Asia, the whole world. Never before have my compatriots been lapped in so terrible a slumber.

All around me sleep-everywhere, in towns, in villages, in carts, in sledges, by day or by night, standing or sitting. The merchant sleeps, sleeps the official. The sentry sleeps on his watch, beneath the burning of the sunbeams or in the snowy cold. Slumbers the prisoner in the dock; dozes the judge on the bench. A death-like slumber holds the peasantry. Ploughing and reaping they sleep; sleeping they thresh the corn. Sleeps the father, the mother, the whole household. All slumber! The beater and the beaten both slumber alike.

Only the dramshop slumbers not, never closes its eyes. And grasping a spiritbottle in its right hand, its brow recumbent at the north-pole and its feet on the Caucasus, sleeps, with a sleep that knows no waking, our motherland, Holy Russia.

W. R. S. RALSTON.

THE PRESENT CRISIS IN THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND.

THE conflict between the spiritual and temporal powers which, under different forms, we have watched from afar, first in Italy, subsequently in Germany, has at length extended itself to this country. So strongly has the tide of agitation set in amongst us that, notwithstanding the intense interest connected with the Eastern Question, it is everywhere making itself felt; and after the absorbing question alluded to has been settled, that of the relations of Church and State bids fair to be the leading topic of the day. An inquiry into the causes out of which the agitation has arisen is the more necessary, since a writer of eminent position in the Church, when dealing with the question of the present and future condition of the Church of England in the March number of the Nineteenth Century, ignored altogether the grievances and presumed wrongs now widely felt, and expressed his belief that, after some temporary excitement and the elimination in some way or other of an inconsiderable minority who are supposed to be causing it, peace will be restored, and all settle down quietly under the existing order of Church government. As I take a different view of the situation, though with all respect to the writer of the paper alluded to, and feel that some account of the nature and extent of the evils now complained of is essential to a right understanding of the real state of things, I would invite the reader who is willing to follow me to consider the serious questions which underlie the present very anxious crisis affecting the Established Church.

It is matter of common remark that old questions are continually reviving, and to many minds it may be wearisome to look into so old a subject of debate as that of the relations of Church and State. But as long as the Church of God exists among men on earth, having necessarily its human as well as its divine side, and holding as necessarily important points of connection with the states of the earth, and awakening the most powerful instincts of our nature from the very fact of the common interests at stake in both the spiritual and temporal orders of being, it is impossible but that the questions affecting these mutual relations, as they arise, should lead thoughtful men to consider

the changed circumstances under which fresh disputes and anxieties, though on the same subject-matter, emerge from time to time.

It is important, in order to separate from the question bere proposed to be discussed what would without doubt perplex and prejudice its treatment, to observe that the Ritual question, which has hitherto agitated the minds of men to an extraordinary degree as the sole question at stake, is quite distinct from and independent of the immediate cause of disturbance. Ritual is still the subjectmatter to which the action of the Courts is being directed; but the immediate cause of the prevailing agitation is connected with the far wider question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which underlies every subject connected with doctrine, sacraments, or discipline. Many who do not at all sympathise with the Ritual movement, or at least not with the advanced forms which Ritual has reached in not a few cases, are yet greatly disturbed on the question of the relations between Church and State, and have joined what, for a better name, we may call the party of resistance. Many others who have taken no active part in this movement, yet anxious lest the present intrusive action of the civil power should precipitate a crisis which must end in disestablishment, or otherwise eager for the restoration to the Church of greater liberty of action and a truer expression of her mind on the critical questions of the day, as necessary for the preservation of truth and the furtherance of peace, are so far at least at one with the movement party. Altogether from different motives, vast numbers are deeply stirred by the extreme gravity of the occasion and the anxious nature of the prospect before us. Moreover, it is not a mere clerical question. The laity are showing as keen an appreciation of the crisis and as earnest an interest in the questions at issue as the clergy, though the latter are necessarily more immediately concerned. Nor is it confined to the higher and middle classes. Working men are beginning to be extensively moved by the same impulse.

The object of this paper is to endeavour to bring home to the reader a sense of the vital interests at stake, with the view of explaining the real causes of the present distressing conflict. And in aiming at this object I would earnestly plead for a dispassionate consideration of the points to be reviewed; for that all who value the Church as a living organisation-as the mystical body of Christ— whether High Church or Low Church, have a like concern in seeking a rectification or restoration of the Church's constitutional powers, is evident from this, that the two persons who have most suffered within the last few months under the present order of ecclesiastical ruleMr. Cook and Mr. Tooth-represent respectively the two opposite parties which, in the main, divide the Church.

With these preliminary remarks, I may now state the crowning grievance which is pressing on the minds and consciences of a vast body of Churchmen. To state the case very generally, it is this- that

Parliament, in the name of the Royal Supremacy, is exercising a degree of control over both the legislative and judicial functions of the Church, which is felt to be vitally affecting the very character of the Church of England, as a Church, and tending to convert it into a department of the State. If we consider the limitations cast around the Royal Supremacy according to our established constitution, and then compare the result with what Parliament now claims to do in dealing with Church matters, the truth of this statement will be seen.

The Royal Supremacy, viewed in its essence or root-principle, implies the sacred prerogative of seeing justice done to all subjects of the realm, and due order observed by all estates, ecclesiastical equally as temporal, according to their respective systems, without the interference of any foreign power. It is a political, not a spiritual authority, inasmuch as the sovereign is not a spiritual person, but one holding from God the supreme civil authority, which nominally deals only with the 'temporal accidents of spiritual things,' as once expressed in a famous protest, not with the spiritual things themselves. It does not mean that the sovereign or the State which he represents is capable of deciding spiritual questions, or judging in foro conscientia, or settling the belief or religious practices of the people committed to his charge. It is the security to the people of the just and orderly administration of the laws of the Church, such as the Church has concurred in establishing, and the State has accepted and sealed with its civil sanction and coercive jurisdiction. The supremacy at once connects the temporal and spiritual spheres of government, while yet implying their distinctness, because it recognises the spiritual authority as a specialty; only, as wielding the temporal power, it claims to require due guarantees for the mutual harmony of the two orders, and to guard the subjects of the realm from any wrong either in their spiritual or temporal interests. It implies a concordant action of the two orders, the spiritualty and the temporalty, as separate entities in their separate spheres, under one supreme authority.

The 37th Article of Religion clearly enunciates this view of the Royal Supremacy. The Article is 'Of the Civil Magistrate.' It lays down the fundamental principle that the Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England. . . . unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not,"nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.' This sentence strikes unmistakably the keynote to the whole subject—namely, the absolute independence within his own dominions of the sovereign in all causes whatsoever. The closing part of the Article lays down the further principle of the kind and extent of power of interference which the sovereign is to exercise in ecclesiastical causes, when it adds. that what is meant is 'that only prerogative which we see to have been