their followers are said to have been frightened into trying Romanism itself; a fact on which indeed we do not dwell as of any very decisive importance, (no more than we should on the hundred fold as many converts in the opposite direction of Irvingism and Darbyism, and the other late varieties of the contrasted religious fantasy,) but which nevertheless clearly enough shows the propriety of at once and utterly discouraging these fanatical experimentalists, the growth (it would scem) of the last three or four years. It is not to be endured that temperate men cannot be permitted to indulge a right reverence for primitive doctrine and practice without having this odious and deformed caricature of Catholicity forced upon their acceptance. Some have talked of these foolish writers as being concealed Romanists; to judge of the effect of their performances on ourselves, we would pronounce it a more plausible conjecture that (if there be any concealment at all) they are concealed enemies to the remarkable movement of previous years, on which certainly they are most skilfully contriving to heap suspicion and disgrace. Most assuredly the divines, who are understood to possess the principal influence in directing the Anglo-Catholic party, ought without delay to mark their disapprobation of such wanton figments as those to which we have alluded, if they desire to preserve the respect of the public. We are willing still to believe that they do not sympathize with these mischievous follies; but it will require more charity than we can promise, to continue to believe it, if they do not by simple and distinct disclaimers separate themselves from the responsibility of such disgraceful disciples.

We have a deal more to say on these points, but we feel ourselves getting a little warm; and, as we are resolved to make our way through this weighty article in perfect temper to all

parties, it may be safest to waive the temptation of the topic.

The Charges of our Bishops, during this ferment of divinity, have, on the whole, been highly creditable to the Episcopal Bench. It is true they may not have satisfied those who, secure in their own utter unimportance, cannot understand the weight of responsibility that attaches to the deliberate judgments of men in high ecclesiastical station; and who accordingly conceive that every trumpet (to adopt their favourite text) "gives an uncertain sound," if it do not roar in clamorous echo to the bray of the theological mob. The majority of our bishops, like all sensible men, know well that in the mingled course of human affairs it is usually both dangerous and unjust to approve or to condemn by wholesale; and in most instances they have honestly refused to do so.* Where they have seen error they have denounced it, where they have seen indiscretion they have rebuked it; but like just and conscientious men, they have felt bound to measure their verdicts not by the suspicions and alarms of the ignorant, but by the simple facts of the case. Of all these documents, and many of them are very eloquent and energetic statements, we think that that of the Bishop of St. David's (Dr. Connop Thirlwall) is on the whole the most to our taste. The prelate of a Whig government, his evidence upon a matter on which liberalist prejudices have been so powerfully excited, was awaited with considerable curiosity. It was the general expectation, at least of those who had not the advantage of a personal knowledge of Dr. Thirlwall, that his opinions would be found utterly and irreconcilably hostile to the party of precedent and antiquity; in short, that they would be found not a little to resemble those of our own ingenious and original-minded Archbishop. His strain of thought is however of a very differ

adhered to.

ent cast. To us whose only desire is to see the prosperity of the Church of Christ, irrespectively of all parties, it is truly consoling to observe how cheerfully this profound historian and divine contemplates the general tendency of the whole movement. Of its literary results he speaks with the keen relish of a scholar :

"I cannot on this account concur with those who would regard the controversy as a subject of unmixed regret, or who think that any evil has hitherto arisen from it, which has not been much more than counterbalanced by its beneficial effects. I just now alluded to the bulk of its literary productions: of those which may be considered as immediately and visibly representing it. But the mass of publications which though not -professedly at least-of a controversial nature, are intimately connected with it, and have not only taken their .tone and colour from it, but could not have existed without it, is far greater; and I cannot but regard the whole, though including much that has no more than a fugitive or historical value, as a precious addition to our theological literature, such as might perhaps suffer little by comparison with all that it had received in the course of a century before. And yet it is chiefly valuable and interesting as an expression or indication of the new life which has been recently awakened in the Church. Others may regret that public attention should have been so much turned this way, and diverted from the subjects which appear to them of supreme importance from politics, or science, or political economy, or classical literature: but, speaking to you on this occasion, I can only treat it as a matter for mutual congratulation, that, through whatever cause, a spirit should have been roused, which has engaged so many active and powerful minds in the cultivation of theological learning. As churchmen, we must rejoice, that the study of Divinity should have begun to embrace a wider range than, for a long period before, had satisfied the greater part of those who dedicated themselves to the ministry; that it should have become more generally conversant with Christian antiquity, with Ecclesiastical History, and with the original sources from which the knowledge of these subjects is derived; so that even ordinary students much less frequently confine their reading to a narrow circle of modern compilations, systems, outlines, and commentaries, and not only are used to carry their

some

inquiries farther, but are more desirous of seeing and judging for themselves. All this indeed would be of little value, if the spirit which has been awakened had been one of merely literary curiosity, or intellectual energy. But every one who has observed its workings, must be aware that the case is very far otherwise that it is bent, with a deep consciousness, and warm earnestness, upon high practical ends. It may even be doubted, whether there is not danger, lest this practical tendency should be carried to excess, and lead to the neglect and discouragement of all critical inquiries into theological subjects, not obviously or immediately pointing to practical results. But it is more important, as well as more pleas ing, to observe, that the interest thus excited appears to have given a new impulse to the zeal of the friends of the Church, which has urged them to extraordinary exertions in her behalf. It will hardly be considered by any, one as a mere casual coincidence, that the last ten years should have been so signally marked by so many important undertakings in aid of her cause, begun in a confidence which not long ago would have been deemed romantic, and accomplished by sacrifices which would then have appeared almost inconceivable.”—Charge, pp. 36-38.

Surely it is pleasing to hear this from a judge so competent to influence our opinions on such a subject, and so wholly above suspicion of fear or favour. And after stating some of the "reasons that induce him to contemplate the present state of the controversy with much more of hope than of alarm" such as the substantial sameness of the present dispute with that which has existed in all ages of our Church, and which must naturally exist in any church of moderate views; and the reality (as he thinks) of some of the evils which the new teachers undertook to oppose, he proceeds :

"And this suggests another remark, which may possibly be of some use toward soothing the apprehensions of persons who view the course which the controversy has taken with alarm. When we hear of a school or party, which is charged with an attempt to introduce dangerous innovations into the Church, and are informed, that it comprises a large proportion of the clergy, and a great number of the laity, it is very necessary that we should

we

accustom ourselves to distinguish between the teachers and the disciples, the guides and the followers: that should remember that there may be a general sympathy and approbation, which does not exclude many differences of opinion, even on important points; that general principles may be adopted, but not in the sense or the spirit in which they were propounded, and without any of the inferences which are drawn from them, either by their advocates, or their impugners. Indeed examples of such partial disagreement have already appeared: nor perhaps would it be difficult to point out indications of considerable divergency in the writers who are considered as the leaders and organs of the party. But at least there seems to be no reason to suspect that the mass of those with whom their principles have found favour, are not heartily attached to the Church in her present form, or that they are dissatisfied with the language of her formularies, or desirous of any change in her public worship, not perfectly consistent with her existing canons and rubric.”

The Bishop goes on to consider the disputed points in detail, and to show how much more nearly adversaries agree than they themselves imagine. Of one which has been a subject of much bitterness he speaks thus:

"It is not, I believe, disputed by any one, that which is called the high doctrine of the apostolical succession (including, i. e., not only the historical fact, that the ministry of our church is derived by uninterrupted descent from the Apostles, but likewise that it was established by them as a permanent and unalterable institution, to be continued according to certain invariable regulations)—I say that it is hardly disputed that this doctrine has been held by so large a part of our best divines, and has received so much apparent countenance from the anxiety shown to preserve the succession when it was in danger of interruption, that it would be unreasonable to complain of it as a novelty, or even to represent it as being now exclusively held by a particular school. Again, whatever ground there may be for the charge brought against one party in the controversy, that it has exaggerated the importance and the efficacy of the sacraments, it does not appear to involve any question of prin. ciple. Indeed, since the church herself teaches, that the Sacraments are generally necessary to salvation, it seems difficult for any one to exaggerate their importance, unless he were to hold, what VOL. XXII.-No. 129.

I believe no one maintains, that the necessity is not merely general, but universal and absolute.

So, language may have been used, which afforded just reason for jealousy and fear, lest their dignity should be so magnified as to exclude the use of other means of grace, or as to substitute means for ends, or as to encourage the belief that their efficacy is wholly independent of internal qualifications. But since these consequences are disavowed by those who have been charged with them, it does not seem possible to draw a line between the general principles of the opposite parties on this head."

Would that the army of pamphleteers and newspaper scribes, who seem on both sides to live on rumours and second-hand intelligence, and who unconsciously manifest so interesting an innocence of the very elements of the question at issue, could be induced to copy the moderation of this very honest and large-minded prelate. We might then have an opportunity of hearing which is almost impossible in the din that surrounds us the few who are really competent to instruct the public on the subject.

On our own side of the water the controversy has not yet produced any very extensive literary progeny. The Archbishop of Dublin has written two Essays, now on our table, in one of which he denies the right of the civil power to concern itself with the establishment or fortunes of religion, in language perhaps too unqualified to instruct us much as to the real difficulties of that profound question; in the other, discusses at considerable length the social constitution of a Church, which he makes altogether dependent on circumstances, and obligatory only as that of any other society; and refutes the notion of a Christian priesthood with great ability, as against the expiatory sacrifices of the Roman theory. We say as against the Roman theory," because, as we find the expressions and ideas of some sort of ministerial "priesthood" adopted all over antiquity, and recognised by many of our ablest anti-papal divines, we rather imagine the Archbishop somewhat overstates the notions to which he so strenuously objects. We have always understood Mede, and Patrick, and the rest of our sturdiest adversaries

66

U

of Romanism, as well as the old Fathers, to have spoken of a "priesthood" which is as wholly subordinate to, and consistent with, that of our Lord, as the function of preaching in the congregation is consistent with His exclusive claims to be the Prophet, and of ecclesiastical superintendence with His sole right to be the King of His church. The doctrine, we apprehend, of the great denouncer of the Papal Antichrist and of his brethren, was this-that the sacrament of the Eucharist, besides being a communion, was in early times held to be a solemn rite of acknowledgment of God as Creator, and still more as Redeemer of the world; and that the ministers of the Church were the appointed officers to make this act of devotion in presence of, and in union with, the people; using for this purpose the symbols of bread and wine. This, whether apostolic or not, whether of much real importance or not, certainly appears abundantly innocent, and not more liable to abuse or exaggeration than any other element of public religious service. Ordained officiators in this simple rite may be superstitiously regarded, and muy abuse their position; but surely so may the enthusiasm of their followers unduly exalt, trust, and rest on the ordained preacher and spiritual adviser. People may give this eucharistic solemnity disproportionate value; but have we never heard of any who made an "idol" of the sermon? All the ingenuity of our accomplished prelate will scarcely succeed to eradicate the notion of "human mediation" of some sort out of Christianity; in writing his own book he is himself a "human mediator" of instruction. Subordinate mediation is the very law of the religion of the Great Mediator. The whole chances of a heathen's salvation are, under Christ, rested upon the mediation of a Gospel missionary as trulythough not in the same sense-as ever papist rested on the mediation of his "priest;" the question, therefore, can never be mediation in the abstract, but the particular authority alleged for the particular kind and degree of mediation supposed. The ancient Christians thought that the minister was ordained to be an instrument of further blessings than the moderns, who admit him to be an instrument of many,

commonly conceive; that is the whole difference. If, however, any thing be yond this old liturgical notion of the sacerdotium should be by any party intended, (which we need not say is intended in Popery, which supposes Christ himself to be offered now as really as on Calvary,) the Archbishop's reasoning will form an useful antidote to such extravagancies. For the rest we need not add that his Grace's volume contains many marks of his well-known shrewdness of observation and logical sagacity.

80

These, and the like, are interesting questions for detailed discussion. But the main subject upon which every man whose professional interests or accidental prejudices are not strong as to overpower his reason, really desires enlightenment, is this: whether there is that utter imprac ticability of all conciliatory adjustment of men's views with regard to the general question of the Church, which the party writers so studiously maintain. Reflect for a moment. The first fundamental question of the controversy is plainly this: is the original scheme of the Church unalterable?— was it, or was it not, designed by its Founder to subsist in unbroken perpetuity until His second coming? Penetrating through the mass of superincumbent rubbish, of worthless personalities and unchristian abuse, there is the point. Of course (as we have already said) on the further question as to the particular form (if any) ap pointed for permanence, there must needs be a further discussion. But that is another and distinct subject of consideration; not more disputed now than it has been at any other time since the Reformation. The point now at issue, on which all other details of the controversy depend, is, whether any form at all is of perpetual obliga tion, so that deserting it without cause becomes sinful; whether God has not only given a Gospel to His Church but a Church also to His Gospel, and intimated His will for the preservation of both; or whether He has on the contrary commanded the Apostles to preach and write, and left all else to human arrangements of expediency. Is any existing visible church polity an authorized ordinance as distinguished from the rest? The Oxford divines, the primitive Presbyterianą

and Independents, most of the Roman Church, and most of our theologians of the seventeenth century pronounce for the affirmative. The opposite school, (with, as regards the primitive system, some of the Romanists who admit the full papacy a later form,) most of the modern German theologians, and apparently the majority of our divines of the Reformation era, before the full development of Puritanism had alarmed us, hold the negative. The defenders of the affirmative, of course, deduce from their doctrine the practical obligation of upholding the peculiar scheme of the Church (whatever they respectively believe it to be) as a distinct duty additional to the maintenance of sound doctrine, and characterize separation from it as a distinct evil additional to the maintenance of heresy. The defenders of the negative, on the other hand, deduce with equal legitimacy from their premises, that the social maintenance of sound doctrine is the only duty divinely obligatory; and consequently that each individual is justified before God in leaving any particu lar church for any other where he thinks he will be equally benefitted,and not only justified but bound to leave it, if he think he will be in any the slightest degree more so. Now we are not going to undertake any discussion of this great question. We

have confined ourselves to simply stating it, and its immediate results on either side. We have stated it with solicitous fairness. No man with the ordinary amount of intelligence can deny the validity of the alternative: either there is some form of the church permanently obligatory, or no one can be justly blamed for leaving any one church for any other (professing the same general doctrines) at his pleasure. Just as in the obvious parallel-either the British citizen is morally bound to live at home, or he violates no moral law in spending his life travelling. While again, since, if there be no obligatory form, it is the individual layman's duty to leave any church which he thinks inferior to another; it becomes, of course, his minister's corresponding duty to enforce on him constantly, earnestly, indefatigably, the propriety of instantly joining any other congregation the moment he prefers it; otherwise there would be an obligation to do what there is no

obligation to preach. Now, thus to preach universal freedom of church travelling has usually been found rather inconvenient, as it directly tends to dissolve the very congregation addressed; indeed, if fairly prosecuted, almost necessarily so, for no man can say another church or preacher may not be better than his own, if he will only try the experiment; and it would seem, therefore, a logical deduction, that it becomes the minister's duty to implore every individual of his congregation to try the degrees of spiritual benefit derivable from every other religious community within his reach, before he finally settle in his own. These become practical difficulties of some moment in carrying out the principle. And yet, murmur these divines, though it would be grotesque thus to apply the principle, how can the principle itself be surrendered without surrendering the world to popery and priestcraft? To put all churches on a level, warrants men in adhering definitely to none; to call any one the true and authorized form of society, is very hard upon the rest! "If my religious community," sighs the Rev. Mr. Poundtext, "be but a voluntary congress, I have no right to blame any man who pleases to leave it and set up another next door; if it be more, upon what ground is it more, which will not let in Bellarmine or John Knox with their claims of divine right?" And what shall we say of the numbers of excellent men that have lived under different systems, which surely cannot all be permanently obligatory?

Now it seems to us that a conciliation may be proposed which includes this last fact with every other truth held by either party. As nothing is more odious than the conciliation which sacrifices truths, so few things are more valuable than the conciliation that combines them. To us it seems quite conformable to the analogy of the divine procedures, that a particular form (we do not now say which, our reasoning holds on any hypothesisEpiscopal, Presbyterian, or Papal) should be delivered as the perpetual and obligatory form of constituting and continuing the Church; and yet, that neither, on the one hand, should any man be bound to adhere to erroneous teachers; nor, on the other,