sidered, to the semi-papal character of the Church of England. Many will doubtless be startled at the supposition that any affinity exists between the Anglican and Roman communions, and they will triumphantly refer to the oft-repeated cry of "No Popery" with which the land has rung to disprove it, but it will be no difficult matter to show that the cry has resulted from political feeling on the part of the English establishment, and that " Popery for ever" has been the expression of its principles and practice. It was the opinion of the Puritans that the Reformation did not go far enough, while it was the opinion of Laud that it had gone too far; the former attempted to accomplish a forward, and the latter a retrograde movement, but both failed; and from the time of its final settlement under Charles II. down to the present, the Church of England has remained identified with Popery, more so than the Puritans desired, less so than Laud wished. In calling attention to this affinity, we must beg it to be distinctly understood, that we take our views of the establishment, from a survey of the whole of what its members have written and said, and not from what a fraction merely has been pleased to testify. The Christian Observer has zealously endeavoured to throw dust in our eyes by constantly appealing to the Articles and Homilies, wishing us to deal with his church as dutiful children are desired by naughty fathers to deal with them, "Mark what we say and not what we do;" but provoking as it may be, we hold it right and fitting, to look beyond these venerable documents to the sentiments expressed by their expounders, thinking that by thus connecting text and comment, we shall best arrive at a fair judgment upon the whole subject. Thus then we commence the investigation.

Episcopal Protestantism and Popery recognise the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, but both agree in setting up another authority co-ordinate with them.

Rome says,

"Nothing is further from the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church than to slight the Holy Scriptures."

"How are Catholics to make use of them (the Scriptures) so as to discern truth from falsehood? They must carefully observe the rule laid down at the beginning of this treatise, by the holy and learned men I referred to. They are to interpret the divine text according to the tradition of the Catholic Church." -Dr. Milner's End of all Controversy, pp. 119. 130.

The Church of England says,

"The church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word written; neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another."-Article XX.

This Article speaks of the settlement of outward ceremonials and doctrinal opinions. The settlement is to be made by the church, and the church here cannot mean the people, for they have no power to decree a single rite, nor the clergy, for they are equally powerless, but the monarch for the time being in whom the power has been vested. The settlement is to be made in accordance with the scriptures, or not contrary to them. But who is to determine the sense of scripture? Of course the church, and thus this Article binds all who embrace it,

to surrender their right of private judgment, to bow to the interpretations of the royal mind, and to submit to whatever the royal prerogative in acting out its interpretations is pleased to impose. While therefore the church of Rome elevates the voice of tradition to a co-ordinate authority with the scriptures, the Church of England raises the councils of its monarch to the same unholy eminence-both bring in the temporal power to adjudicate in matters of faith and practiceand to each a door is open by which a deluge of superstitions may enter. For the papist cannot consistently object to the consecration of water, though no mention is made of it in the scriptures, because the authority he recognises, that of tradition, sanctions it, and the Anglican cannot object to the consecration of earth, because the authority he too recognises, that of the monarch, commands it; on the like grounds, the papist must submit to the use of salt and spittle in baptism, and the Anglican to the sign of the cross in the same rite, or of salt and spittle likewise if they should be enjoined-both are on the horns of a dilemma, either to abandon a main principle of their respective creeds, or to reverence, in ceremonies and faith, an ordaining power apart from the scriptures, as equal with them.*

Now if we turn from the Article to the sentiments of its authorised expounders, and thus connect the comment with the text, we shall find our views of its meaning strongly supported by the great mass of learned and unlearned clerks. The high church party has embraced an overwhelming majority of the clergy since it assumed a definite character in the reigns of James and Charles; and these men, in sermons, charges, books, and pamphlets, have largely insisted upon the right of the temporal power to ordain what subjects should believe and practise. What was the offence of the Puritans, the Nonconformists, the Scotch Covenanters, and the early Methodists, but their presuming to derive their religious opinions direct from the scriptures, and refusing to take the interpretation thereof which the crown had sanctioned, and the parliament had endowed? Another authority beside God's word had been set up, and all loyal Englishmen had been commanded to fall down and worship it, under pain of being cast into a seven times heated fiery furnace of afflictions. Broadly has this power, rival to the scriptures, been brought before the rude and ignorant peasantry of the land; and controversialists have had recourse to its armoury when at a loss for spiritual weapons with which to fight their battles. When Mr. Scott wrote his book on baptism against the baptismal regenerationists, he, good easy man, appealed to the scriptures to decide the point at issue; but a higher dignitary, Dr. Laurence, Archbishop of Cashel, put him into the track which, as a true

Enlightened episcopalians are accustomed to look with congratulation upon the words, "any thing that is contrary to God's word written," as a saving clause. But practically this is no saving clause at all, for the church is to judge for them what is contrary to the divine record, and numberless superstitions might be introduced, which, though opposed to the spirit of the scriptures, it would be difficult to prove are opposed to the letter. How would an Anglican show that salt and spittle in baptism are contrary to God's word written? What could he say in opposition to such plain texts as "Salt is good"-" And he spit and touched his tongue ?"

N. S. VOL. III.

4 S

son of the Church of England, he should follow. His Grace told him that he had mistaken the standard by which the merits of the question must be tried, and unceremoniously threw inspiration overboard in the following passage, doubtless, to Mr. Scott's unspeakable dismay.

"I do not propose unnecessarily, as it appears to me, to drag scripture into the contest; for the true question at issue is, not what Scripture, but what the Church of England has inculcated upon the subject. Besides, to commence with ascertaining the proper sense of scripture upon it, is to commence with a bias upon the mind, which must unavoidably influence subsequent investigation." -Doctrine of the Church, &c.

Strange as this statement will appear to a dissenter, it is in accordance with the Article we have cited, and precisely expresses the views held at the present hour by the great majority of the clergy. Dr. Hook declares,

"If our Society merely circulated the Bible, we could not assert solely, on that account, that it promoted Christian knowledge."

“The right of private interpretation, thanks be to God, never has been, and I trust never will be, held by the Church of England."

The Rev. H. E. Manning, preaching before his bishop in Chichester Cathedral, within a few yards of the grave of Chillingworth, observes, "She (the church) does not assert, as some of her adversaries, blinded by their own zeal, either deceive themselves into believing, or else falsely accuse her of asserting, either that scripture is so clear as to need no interpreter, or that every man is able to interpret for himself.”

The Rev. J. H. Newman states,

"Belief in scripture is not the foundation of belief in the Creed-It is not true, in fact, and never will be, that the mass of serious Christians derive their faith for themselves from the scriptures."

"No room is left for private judgment."

In exact harmony with these views was the conduct of those who took part against Dr. Hampden, embracing not only "the Oxford Tract divines, and their friends, but clergymen and laymen, of very different sentiments, great numbers of whom went down to vote on the occasion."+ Dr. Hampden was not condemned for having advanced any thing contrary to Divine Revelation-his opinions were not tried at all by inspired scripture-the infallible book was not made the judge of his fallible writings-the declaration signed by the clergy in "great numbers" against him, simply complained that he had disregarded"Those rules and principles of interpretation which have guided the judgments of Christ's Holy Catholic Church in all ages of its history." Well might a popish writer exclaim at this proceeding, "Is this Oxford or Salamanca that speaks? Is it Corpus Christi College or the Sorbonne ?"

Again-Episcopalian Protestantism agrees with Popery in assigning a saving efficacy to its outward religious observances. Baptism in the service-book and in the catechism of the Church of England is

* Alas! has it come to this? Is Chillingworth denounced as an adversary by a clergyman of the same church, in the Cathedral where he lies buried? Mr. Manning's reference cannot be misunderstood. We do not envy him his posi tion-it reminds us of the brave donkey who kicked the dead lion.

+ Christian Observer, Appendix, 1838.

regarded as conveying the grace of regeneration, and is thus converted into a saving ordinance. The priest declares to the parties bringing the child, after he has crossed and baptized it,

"Seeing, now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks to Almighty God for these benefits."

The following form of thanksgiving is then presented.

"We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church."

The ritual is confirmed by the catechism, which teaches the catechumen to say of his baptism,

"Wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven."

The Romanists have here all that they contend for in baptism, regeneration as the effect of valid administration, and Bishops Tomline, Marsh, and Mant, with the high-church divines, explain themselves upon this sacrament to their full satisfaction.

"Those who are baptized are immediately translated from the curse of Adam to the grace of Christ, the original guilt which they brought into the world is mystically wiped away, and they receive forgiveness of the actual sins which they themselves have committed: they become reconciled to God, partakers of the Holy Ghost, and heirs of eternal happiness."-Tomline's Refutation, &c. p. 83.

Mr. Scott, in reply to this, observed, if such be the doctrine of Protestants, in what do they differ from Papists? We answer, that it is not our doctrine, but that of the establishment, as expressed in its baptismal service, catechism, and approved by the major part of its divines, and that, in this respect, there is no difference in sentiment between it and Rome.

The office of confirmation brings the bishop into contact with a number of young persons, publicly and solemnly to assure them of saving grace accruing from their baptism. He declares,

"Almighty and ever-living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins."

Then he lays his hand upon the head of each, and

"Certifies him by that sign, of God's favour and gracious goodness towards him."

But still more closely does episcopal Anglicanism tread upon the heels of Romanism, in its office for the visitation of the sick. Romanism assumes the power of granting absolution to the penitent confessor, and Anglicanism does the same. After the sick man has declared his assent to the articles of the creed, and professed his repentance and charity with all men, the priests of both churches are then to proceed to absolve the transgressor, in the following words:

"Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee; and I, by his authority, absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."-Church of Rome.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power with his church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe on him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and by his authority committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name, &c."-Church of England.

As to the opinions current in the Church of England respecting the Eucharist, they have a strong affinity to the Romanist notions. The late Mr. Knox has well stated the difference of sentiment as to this sacrament existing among the separatists from Rome.

"Is the blessing to be expected in the Eucharist by qualified receivers a mere communication of the ordinary grace of God, obtained in the same purely inward and mental manner, as in other exercises of devotion; or, is there in this holy sacrament, a peculiar effluence of supernatural grace, mysteriously united with the consecrated symbols, so as to make them the vehicles of heavenly benediction to the capable communicant?”

Mr. Knox was of opinion, that

"The consecrated symbols in the Eucharist are not merely signs and pledges of a concomitant blessing, but (as the old church taught, and as Dr. Butt urges against Waterland) the actual vehicles through which the blessing is conveyed." - Letter to Jebb.

This, as Knox writes, was the faith of the divines of the "old church" of England, and it has been universally held by the non-evangelical school, many roundly asserting that the grace mysteriously residing in the Eucharistic elements after consecration comes through the administrator, and is imparted to the partaker, simply on account of his partaking from valid hands. Hence the Eucharist has been regarded in a manner savouring much of Roman superstition.

"We put it in the number of sacred things, or sacrifices, (the Eucharist being itself a sacred mystery), whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire." -Bishop Cosin.

Dr. Hook has poured forth the remnant of the wine upon the floor of his church at Leeds, with some qualms of conscience, at not subjecting it to a fiery ordeal. The Exeter prelate has also spoken of the sacrament as a "sacrifice!" and the divines of Oxford tell us, that those ministers who are qualified to "impart the Trinity" in baptism, so consecrate the bread and wine in the Eucharist, that even an "insensible person" having them placed in his mouth, eats and drinks Christ's body and blood, though he does not discern them.

Again, passing by the following items of affinity, praying for the dead, the power of the bishops to dispense the Holy Ghost, and the apostolic succession; we remark, that episcopalian Protestantism agrees with popery in magnifying rites and ceremonies to the detriment of practical godliness. Rome pronounces those in a saved condition, who go to confession, attend mass, and receive extreme unction. Anglicanism regenerates the baptised, makes public declaration that the regeneration has been effected in confirmation, and asserts their eternal blessedness at their burial; both systems elevate attention to their ceremonies above practical and experimental religion. To an awful extent was this done during the reigns of Anne and the first three Georges by the English clergy and their sermons; to an awful extent is it now done wherever the parish priest is not