usually designated as the Dark Ages, no such taint ever was introduced! Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst the numerous corruptions of doctrine and of prac tice, and gross superstitions, that crept in, during those ages, we find recorded descriptions not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of life, of many of the Clergy; but also of the grossest irregularities in respect of discipline and form. We read of Bishops consecrated when mere children;-of men officiating who barely knew their letters;-of Prelates expelled, and others put into their places, by violence;—of illiterate and proffigate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders; and in short, of the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard of the decency which the Apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one even moderately acquainted with history, can feel a certainty, or any approach to certainty, that, amidst all this confusion and corruption, every requisite form, was, in every instance, strictly adhered to, by men, many of them openly profane and secular, unrestrained by public opinion, through the gross ignorance of the population among which they lived; and that no one not duly consecrated or ordained, was admitted to sacred offices.

Even in later and more civilized and enlightened times, the probability of an irregularity, though very greatly diminished, is yet diminished only, and not absolutely destroyed. Even in the memory of persons living, there existed a Bishop concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncer tainty prevailing as to when, where, and by whom, he had been ordained. that doubts existed in the mind of many persons whether he had ever been ordained at all. I do not say that there was good ground for the suspicion; but I speak of the fact, that it did prevail; and that the circumstances of the case were such as to make manifest the possibility of such an irregularity occurring under such circumstances.

Now, let any one proceed on the hypothesis that there are, suppose, but a hundred links connecting any particular minister with the Apostles; and let him even suppose that not above half of this number pass through such periods as admit of any possible irregularity; and then, placing at the lowest estimate the probability of defectiveness in respect of each of the remaining fifty, taken separately, let him consider what amount of probability will result from the multiplying of the whole together. The ultimate consequence must be that any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the gospel-covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and this again, on perfect apostolical succession as above described, must be involved, in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and reflects, and reasons, on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading should be imparted to the people. It is not without cause that they dread and lament 'an age of too much light,' and wish to involve religion in a solemn and awful gloom.' It is not without cause that, having removed the Christian's confidence from a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foundation."-(pp. 175-179.)

We will add a second passage, of the same lucid and striking character:

"But moreover, not from our own Church only, but from the universal Church, from all the privileges and promises of the gospel,—the principles I am condemning go to exclude, if fairly followed out, the very persons who advocate them. For it is certain that our own institutions and practices (and the like may be said, I apprehend, of every other Church in the world)

though not, we conceive, at variance with any apostolical injunctions, or with any gospel-principle, are, in several points, not precisely coincident with those of the earliest Churches. The Agapa for instance, or 'Love-feasts,' alluded to just above, have, in most Churches, been long discontinued. The 'widows' again, whom we find mention of in Paul's Epistles, appear plainly to have been an order of Deaconesses regularly appointed to particular functions in the earliest Churches: and their Deacons appear to have had an office considerable different from those of our Church.

66

Again, it seems plainly to have been at least the general, if not the universal, practice of the Apostles, to appoint over each separate Church a single individual as a chief Governor, under the title of Angel' (i. e. Messenger or Legate from the Apostles) or 'BISHOP,' i. e. Superintendant or Overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a considerable time coextensive and identical. And each Church or Diocese (and consequently each Superintendant) though connected with the rest by ties of Faith and Hope and Charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independent as far as regards any power of control.

"The plan pursued by the Apostles seems to have been, as has been above remarked, to establish a great number of small (in comparison with most modern Churches) distinct and independent Communities, each governed by its own single Bishop; consulting, no doubt, with his own Presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them, and occasionally conferring with the Brethren in other Churches, but owing no submission to the rulers of any other Church, or to any central common authority except the Apostles themselves. And other points of difference might be added.

"Now to vindicate the institutions of our own, or of some other Church, on the ground that they are not in themselves superstitious or ungodly,'-that they are not at variance with gospel-principles, or with any divine injunction that was designed to be of universal obligation, is intelligible and reasonable. But to vindicate them on the ground of the exact conformity, which it is notorious they do not possess, to the most ancient models, and even to go beyond this, and condemn all Christians whose institutions and ordinances are not ' one and utterly like' our own, on the ground of their departure from the Apostolical precedents, which no Church has exactly adhered to,does seem to use no harsher expression,-not a little inconsistent and unreasonable. And yet one may not unfrequently hear members of Episcopalian Churches pronouncing severe condemnation on those of other Communions, and even excluding them from the Christian body, on the ground, not of their not being under the best form of Ecclesiastical Government, but, of their wanting the very essentials of a Christian Church; viz. the very same distinct Orders in the Hierarchy that the Apostles appointed: and this, while the Episcopalians themselves have, universally, so far varied from the Apostolical institution as to have in one Church several Bishops; each of whom consequently differs in the office he holds, in a most important point, from one of the primitive Bishops, as much as the Governor of any one of our Colonies does from a Sovereign Prince.

"Now whether the several alterations, and departures from the original institutions, were or were not, in each instance, made on good grounds, in accordance with an altered state of society, is a question which cannot even be entertained by those who hold that no Church is competent to vary at all from the ancient model. Their principle would go to exclude at once from the pale of Christ's Church almost every Christian body since the first two or three centuries.

"The edifice they overthrow crushes in its fall the blind champion who has broken its pillars."-(pp. 128-131.)

The works of such a writer as this, one would be apt to suppose, must always command attention, and enforce either conviction or

an attempt at reply. Yet the Archbishop, in his preface, seems to complain of the disregardful silence with which his former publi cations have been received:

"Though opposite views are maintained by many writers of the present day, several of them professed members of the Church of England, I have never seen even an attempted refutation of any of those arguments.

66

It cannot be alleged that they are not worth noticing: since, whether intrinsically weak or strong, the reception they have met with from the public indicates their having had some influence."-(p. viii.)

Shall we point out one or two minor circumstances in his Grace's mode of dealing with controversy, which tend somewhat, we apprehend, to cause, or to encourage, this apparent inattention.

Among these, a principal one, we apprehend, is his Grace's use of the expedient which, in this preface, he recommends to others:

"Nothing is easier, or more common, and, I should add, nothing more advisable, than to notice in general terms the opinions or arguments opposed to one's own, and without reference to any particular book or author: as by saying, for instance, 'Such and such a doctrine has been held; this or that may be alleged; '-'some persons may object so and so,' &c. In this way, not only personal controversy may be avoided, without undue neglect of what may be said on the opposite side, but also the advantage is gained (to the cause of truth, I mean) of confining the reader's attention to the real merits of the case, independently of the extraneous circumstances, which ought not to influence the decision."-(pp. viii, ix.)

Now, whatever "advantage may thus be gained," a far greater one is certainly lost. The reader is sure to be more attracted and interested by a personal encounter, however dispassionately and Christianly conducted, than by the naked enunciation of opposing reasonings in their abstract form. It is this very circumstance which casts a certain dryness and coldness over Dr. Whately's argumentations. He quotes opponents without naming either themselves or their works. The reader is lost in doubt, whether such and such things have ever been said,-when, where, or by whom; and a dissatisfaction also arises, at being deprived of all opportunity of examining the opponents' reasonings in their own pages. Dr. Whately may rest assured that his future "Essays" will be read with far greater interest, if, without in the least abating the suaviter in modo which distinguishes his writings,-he condescends to particularize the reasonings and the writings against which his arguments are directed.

But we have a further point to touch upon, before we quit the present volume. The Archbishop is somewhat too low a Churchman for our taste,-too low, we think, for truth. The principle of a Christian Church-State commonwealth appears to have no place in his mind. The Church, in this volume, seems never to occupy any higher place than that of a voluntary association, such as those

6

of the Jesuits or the Freemasons. He speaks of our Lord's "de"sign to establish what should be emphatically a social religion,"a Fellowship,' or 'Communion of Saints." " Again he says, "Christ's design manifestly was, to adapt His religion to the "social principles of man's nature; and to bind his disciples, "throughout all ages, to each other, by those ties of mutual at"tachment, sympathy, and co-operation, which in every human "community and association, of whatever kind, are found so "powerful." (pp. 54, 55.)

In accordance with this low view of the position and standing of the Church in the world, his Grace's interpretation of the muchlitigated text, "My kingdom is not of this world," differs little, if at all, from that of Dr. Wardlaw:

"But had Christ then some hidden meaning, which he did not intend to be understood at the time? Did he design to convey one sense to the Roman governor, and another to his own disciples ?-to reserve for his followers in future times, that power to enforce the acknowledgment of his Gospel, which he pretended to disclaim.

"It seems almost too shocking even to ask such a question: and yet it is but too true, that such, in substance, (however glossed over in words) must be the meaning attributed to our blessed Lord by those who would reconcile his declarations before Pilate with that which they represent as the right and the duty of every Christian governor. The magistrate,' they say, (I am giving the very words that have been employed) who restrains, coerces, and punishes any one who opposes the true faith, obeys the command of God: ' and they contend that a Christian governor is not only authorized, but bound, to secure to the professors of the true faith a monopoly of political power and civil rights. Now, to reconcile such doctrines with the declarations of Christ and his Apostles, a meaning must be attributed to those declarations which it would have been madness for them to have avowed at the time;-in short, a hidden meaning.

It is recorded of an ancient king of Egypt,-one of the Ptolemies--that he employed a celebrated architect to build a magnificent light-house, for the benefit of shipping, and ordered an inscription in honour of himself to be engraved on it: the architect, it is said, though inwardly coveting the honour of such a record for himself, was obliged to comply; but made the inscription on a plaster resembling stone, but of perishable substance: in the course of years this crumbled away; and the next generation saw another inscription, recording the name, not of the King, but of the architect, which had been secretly engraven on the durable stone below.

"Now, just such a device as this is attributed to our Lord and his Apostles by those who believe them to have designed that secular power should hereafter be called in to enforce the Christian faith, though all such designs were apparently disavowed, in order to serve a present purpose. According to such interpreters, 'My kingdom is not of this world,' was only an inscription on the perishable plaster: the design of coercing and punishing' by secular power all opponents of the true faith, was, it seems, the engraving on the stone beneath. 'Render unto Cæsar the things that be Cæsar's,' was but the outward part of the inscription; the addition was an inner hidden engraving, directing that Christians, when become strong enough, should compel both Cæsar and his subjects,-all rulers and all citizens-either to acknowledge the true faith, or to forfeit their civil rights. It was the outside inscription only that ran thus, 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of the powers that be, are ordained of God: the secret cha

man;

racters on the stone said, 'Take care as soon as possible to make every ordinance of man submit to you,' and to provide that none but those of your own body shall be in authority; and that they shall use that authority in enforcing the profession of your religion.

"It might seem incredible did we not know it to be the fact, that persons professing a deep reverence for Christ and his Apostles as heaven-sent messengers, should attribute to them this double-dealing;-should believe them to have secretly entertained and taught the very views of which their adver saries accused them, and which they uniformly disclaimed, that the blessed Jesus Himself, who rebukes hypocrisy more strongly than perhaps any other sin, should be regarded by his professed followers as having pretended to disavow that which was his real design, and which He imparted to his Apostles: teaching them in like manner to keep the secret till they should be strong enough to assert the political supremacy of the gospel, and to extirpate, or hold in subjection as vassals, all professors of false religions.

"All this, I say, might seem hardly credible, did not daily experience show us how easily (not only in this but in other cases also) even intelligent mea are satisfied with the slightest pretences of argument-with the most extravagant conclusions-when they are seeking, not really for instruction as to what they ought to do, but for a justification of what they are inclined to do. Such a bias of inclination, is like the magnet which is said to have been once secretly placed near a ship's compass, by a traitor who purposed to deliver the crew into the enemy's hands. All their diligence and skill in working the ship and steering by this perverted compass, served only to further them on the wrong course.

"Without presuming to pronounce judgment on the general moral charac ter of others, I cannot forbear saying, for myself, that if I could believe Jesus to have been guilty of such subterfuges as I have been speaking of, I not only could not acknowledge him as sent from God, but should reject him with the deepest moral indignation.

"How far this indignant disgust may have been excited in the breasts of some who have taken for granted, on the authority of learned and zealous divines, that the interpretation I have been reprobating is to be received, and who may, in consequence, have rejected Christianity with abhorrence, it is for those who maintain such an interpretation carefully to consider."—(pp. 35-39.)

In a passage at the commencement of this argument, we have, in an apparent quotation from some other work, a striking example of the undesirableness of Dr. Whately's plan of conducting controversy. He professes to quote, and to refute, a printed work. But he does not name it; nor does he quote accurately. Of course justice is neither done to the opponent nor to the reader by such a course. Here is his Grace's representation :

"The magistrate,' they say, (I am giving the very words that "have been employed) who restrains, coerces, and punishes any ""one who opposes the true faith, obeys the command of God; "and they contend that a Christian governor is not only autho "rized, but bound, to secure to the professors of the true faith a monopoly of political power and civil rights." (p. 36.)

But the statement he is combating runs thus in the original:"The simple fact, however, is, that there is but one true reli gion; and there never has been, nor ever will be, any other. All