reverence. They are the signs of realities, or they are nothing. They are the expression of the mind of the Spirit, or they are nothing. They are the witnesses of momentous truth, or they are nothing. They belong to the very substance of religion."

Much to the same effect, Mr. Stuart * expresses his scorn for marble and gold lavished on a church by men who "mean nothing by it;" that is, as he proceeds to explain, men who do not make the altar the most gorgeous and conspicuous object in the building.

This brings us to the root of the matter: that the vestments and their accompaniments are valued wholly or chiefly by those who use them, as setting forth with due solemnity, and surrounding with fitting pomp, the adoration of the consecrated elements. Lights and incense and vestments are to give "honour to the throne of God's sacramental presence on earth;" or as Archdeacon Freeman expresses the matter, in his clear and vigorous language, it is held by

some,

"That one purpose, and a very principal one to say the least, of the Holy Eucharist, is to provide the Church with an object of Divine worship, actually enshrined in the elements-namely, our Lord Jesus Christ; and that the Church ought, accordingly, to pay towards the supposed personal presence of Christ on the altar, and towards the elements as containing Him, that worship which at other times she directs to Him as seated at the right hand of God."

That this doctrine was unknown to the first ages of the Church Archdeacon Freeman assures us, and we can well believe; that it is countenanced by our present Prayer-book is not contended by any: in the more catholic" First Book of Edward VI., any "elevation or showing the sacrament to the people" is expressly forbidden; clearly that there might be no pretext for worshipping the elements. The doctrine in question cannot, I believe, plead the authority of any eminent Anglican divine; it is clearly repudiated by the venerable Bishop of Exeter; § last, not least, it is rejected by the most thoughtful and earnest of our liturgical writers, Archdeacon Freeman. That it can plead a Mediæval prescription is true; but Englishmen are not prepared to receive doctrines, deliberately rejected at the Reformation, simply because they found favour with popes and councils of the twelfth century.

The advocates of the doctrine in question would fain have us believe that the outcry against it is the offspring of mere ignorance and irreverence. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The greater weight of learning and ability is certainly not on the side of the ritualists; and even if the majority of the anti-ritualists, like the

* "Sacramental Worship," p. 27.

+Ibid., p. 32. § Ibid., p. 98.

"Rites and Ritual," p. 36.

majority of all other parties, can give no very good reason for their abhorrence of eucharistic adoration, their instinctive dislike is not, in fact, unreasonable; however undignified the feeling may be in itself, its object is, in fact, an enemy of spiritual truth. For it needs but little acquaintance with the history of the Church to see that the worship of the supposed Christ enshrined in the elements does, in fact, derogate from the worship of the real and true Christ, who is our High Priest in heaven.

And this derogation, it is quite certain, will not be tolerated either by the higher mind or by the popular Protestantism of England. If the vestments are inseparably connected with the doctrine of an earthly Christ; if alb and chasuble "connote" adoration of the Lord enshrined in the elements, then no æsthetic considerations, no desire to give by their use greater beauty and dignity to the service of God, will avail to establish them in the affections of Englishmen; it will be for the good of the Church that they should be seen no more.

Yet I most earnestly deprecate legislative interference. Vestments, lights, and incense are but the symptoms of a peculiar phase of thought; when this phase passes away, the outward symptoms will either cease of themselves or be deprived of all significance. To apply enactments to the "vestment question" would be something like attempting to cure the scarlet fever by a cold lotion. The present heat and excitement will die away, as previous ecclesiastical fevers have done; the ritualist party will share the fate of the Simeonite and other parties; that is, a time will come when whatever was right and sound in their teaching will have established itself, and whatever was faulty and fanciful will have died away. To hasten this consummation, let all faithful members of the Church do their best to maintain in it true, sound, and reverent thoughts of things Divine; and be content, in the matter of worship, with working out the two leading conceptions of the English Church, NOBLENESS with SIMPLICITY.*

** "Rites and Ritual," p. 85.

S. CHEETHAM.

THE CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TRIPOS.

A

FEW weeks since a paragraph appeared in a London paper, stating that important changes were in prospect in the examination for the Classical Tripos. It attests the interest taken in university affairs throughout the country, that this paragraph, or the substance of it, has been repeated in almost every London journal, and a very large number of provincial newspapers. We think, therefore, that a short account of the discussion which has been going forward of late, and has led to the anticipations in question, may not be unacceptable to our readers. For the benefit of those to whom the name is not familiar, we may begin by explaining what the Classical Tripos is. It was established a little more than forty years ago, with the view of giving those young men who, during their residence at Cambridge, had devoted themselves especially to classical studies, an opportunity of distinguishing themselves similar to that for many years past offered to those whose taste led them to mathematics. In the year 1822 the Senate passed a grace, ordaining the appointment of four examiners yearly, whose business it should be to examine such candidates as presented themselves for classical honours, arrange them in order of merit, and divide them into three classes. A certain number of papers were to be set, containing passages from Greek and Latin authors for translation into English; and certain others, containing passages from English writers, to be turned into Greek or Latin prose or verse

compositions. To these of late years it has been customary to add a paper of questions in ancient history. This examination was confined. to such commencing Bachelors of Arts as had succeeded in obtaining a place in the list of mathematical honours in the preceding January, so that no one was admitted to it who could not show a certain acquaintance with mathematics. This restriction has now beenwe confess to being of the number of those who think unwiselyremoved for about sixteen years past, and it is now sufficient to have passed that portion of the previous examination, or “little go,” which is required of all candidates for honours in any department of study, and to have resided a certain number of terms. The first laurels of the new tripos fell worthily on the head of Benjamin Malkin, son of the then Head Master of Bury School, to whom his own enthusiastic devotion to classical learning must have made his son's success singularly grateful. Mr. Malkin was one of the first contributors to the publications of the "Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge," and after giving other fair promise of distinguishing himself in his generation, died at an early age in India. Although the contributors to the Philological Museum were too advanced in university standing to have come under the new examination, yet it is fair to assume that the impulse given thereby to classical studies may have had some share in inducing the editors to take that enterprise in hand. At any rate the publication of those papers, introducing, as they did, into the investigation of historical or philological questions a breadth and profoundness far excelling the pettifogging commonplaces of the Museum Criticum, with which a previous generation of scholars had amused themselves, followed soon after by the translation of Niebuhr's "History of Rome," gave to Cambridge scholarship a largeness of grasp, together with an accuracy in detail, which it is to be hoped will always characterize it. The career of the Classical Tripos, thus prosperously begun, has lasted with unabated vigour and success to the present day, and it is somewhat singular to observe, in looking down the footnotes to the lists in the Cambridge Calendar, how many first-class men have since taken a leading place among their contemporaries, while the mathematical lists seem somewhat shorn of the glories they could boast in the days of the Pollocks, Bickersteths, Aldersons, and Maules. In literature, the "New Cratylus" was one of its earliest fruits, and there are some who seem to think that "Ecce Homo" may be one of the most recent. However, as there is no human institution that does not stand in need of repair or improvement, so in process of time it has come to pass that it seems to be the general opinion that the Classical Tripos wants mending. Hence has arisen the discussion to which we adverted above.

Early in May this present year there was distributed among the resi

dent members of the Senate a copy of a paper which had been submitted, it was stated, to the consideration of the Board of Classical Studies. It bore the signatures of Mr. Clark (Public Orator) and Mr. Burn, Fellows and Tutors of Trinity College. The changes it proposed were shortly these-To make the Chancellor's Medals examination (established in 1751 for the adjudication of gold medals to two commencing Bachelors of Arts who show themselves the greatest proficients in classical learning), complementary to the Tripos examination, so that the former should occupy the department of pure scholarship, and the latter should represent the union of scholarship with a wider knowledge of the subject-matter of classical works. To omit from the present Classical Tripos examination one of the Composition papers, two of the Translation papers, and the History paper; and to substitute for them a paper on Plato's "Republic," and the Earlier History of Ancient Philosophy; a paper on Aristotle's "Ethics," and on the Later History of Ancient Philosophy; a paper on Greek and Roman History and Antiquities; and a paper containing six subjects for historical essays, upon one of which an essay shall be required. The effect of these changes would be, according to the view of the proposers, to make the medals prizes for accomplishments in scholarship, while distinction in the tripos would be attained by a wider range of study. Two very important educational objects would be answered, the writers think, by such an extension of the Classical examination. First, those who now come to the University well trained in scholarship would, while they improved and ripened their skill in writing and interpreting Greek and Latin, at the same time have a fresh interest awakened in their minds by a new field of study. Secondly, a considerable class of students who are now excluded from high classical honours because they have not had the advantage of a public school training in composition, would be encouraged to read for the Classical Tripos. In support of the former of these propositions, they remark with great truth that—

"It is to be feared, that under the present system too many of our classical students make but small progress during their university course. Their studies are, with slight differences, a mere repetition of what they learned at school. No fresh impulse is given to their minds by being introduced into a new and higher region of knowledge. The prospect of an examination would lead them to consolidate and systematize their knowledge, and would render it available as a basis for future philosophical or historical studies."

A paper so signed, and containing such important proposals, was sure to command respectful and deliberate consideration. Accordingly, although evidently issued with the express purpose of inviting discussion, notwithstanding the fact that it was addressed to the Board of Classical Studies, and not to the general body of the Senate,