imagine a vain thing; let nations rise or fall; let the disturbed and tottering earth stand or perish; let God reveal to us the secret designs of his providence or not, it is all well. Cast all your cares upon God, for he careth for you. BELIEVE in one Lord your God, so shall you be established. BELIEVE his prophets, so shall ye prosper.

II.-PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES.*

Ir has been the good fortune of the Church of England, as some of its modern adherents think, or the misfortune, according to the opinions of not a few whose testimony to the truth has brought upon them the ire of the Establishment, that it has embraced within its folds, during the three centuries of its Protestant existence, every possible combination of opinions. Deism and popery have had their representatives within its pale. Belief, unbelief, and misbelief, in all their varieties, have been seen in harmonious co-existence, within the shadow of its ivied walls.

It is possible that this comprehensiveness may be essential to the being of a national establishment, as it is the intention of the author of the volume before us to show; or it may be that without some such recognised, or at least, tacit permission that such variations should pass unreproved, so long as they do not violently overthrow the dogmatic formularies of the church, it were impossible for a national church to exist. Certain it is, that if a church will embrace an entire nation, some such latitude must be allowed. For it were mere folly to expect perfect unity of sentiment among millions of men, regenerate and unregenerate; and equally fallacious were the idea, that any formulary whatever could express the notions of every one within the fold. The sense of the articles has, therefore, always been not a little debated. Their origin has been canvassed, the purpose of their framers investigated, the perpetuity of obligation resting upon subscribers to receive them in such sort questioned, till, at last, it seems pretty well understood that the notions of the subscriber are the only test of true, ex animo subscription.

It may be our simplicity that is at fault, but we have always supposed that some intelligible meaning must attach to the phrases which for so long a series of years our forefathers were required to receive under pains and penalties. Perhaps it was a Catholic sense, or a Laudean sense, or a Tillotsonian sense. Or, to come to later times, they might be intended to convey the opinions of a Horseley, of a Mant, of a Philpotts, of a Whately, of a Newman, or of a Sumner. Some one of these senses, we presume, they were intended to express, seeing that each one of these varying authorities found means to

* A Vindication of Protestant Principles.' By Phileleutherus Anglicanus: London: Parker.

1847.

understand the formularies of the church in a sense consonant with their own sentiments; which of them we confess ourselves at a loss to decide. At all events that sense, whichever it be, was supposed to be the bonâ fide teaching of the Anglican branch of the church Catholic by those who held it. We are now, however, instructed that these celebrated formularies of faith were not intended to give any definite expression to opinion, but to preserve concord among all these various views, and to allow to each individual the largest sea-room he could possibly desire, for the evolutions of his nautical skill in his voyage to the haven of truth. And this under the auspices of Protestant

principles.

What these convenient principles are, we shall presently see; but meanwhile observe, that if report be true, we are indebted for this exposition of them to no mean ornament of the episcopate, but one who, in this case, thinks it well to enter "the lists with vizor down,” and recommends the same precaution to all those "who would break a lance" with him in fair tourney. Considerations of expediency have, doubtless, held our author to this course. We are not unaware of its advantages when unpleasant truth has to be told; or when the want of courage or magnanimity of mind, urges a writer to shelter himself under the anonymous, in order to utter sentiments not simply obnoxious to pious feeling, but fatal to truth itself.

The importance of the work before us, however, arises not so much from its supposed origin, as from its being an indication of certain opinions existing in the establishment; and, we fear, also spreading without its bounds. It mirrors before us some of the worst features of the heresies of American and German theology. On this account we have thought it not unworthy of notice, both to acquaint our readers with the perils at hand, and to warn them of their pernicious character.

The author himself anticipates not a little obloquy and opposition. The High Churchman will denounce his latitudinarianism; the Evangelical party will take offence at his "repudiation of their superstitious indolence." Nevertheless, fearing nothing, he raises the question, "Whether it is, or is not, right, that the national church should be built on the broadest possible basis, and whether a national profession of faith must not, by the very nature of the case, contain articles of compromise in regard to unessential matters?" It is some consolation to us, in our antagonism to the national church, after many long years of strife, to see the phantom of uniformity at last vanishing away: that a sameness of faith is to be no longer urged, in the teeth of facts to the contrary, as the characteristic of the apostolic community. Now, it is said, a variegated diversity will best attain the end of its

* In the preface to the Articles we are told that they were agreed upon, "for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for establishing of consent touching true religion;" and all clergymen are supposed to agree "in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles;" and every man is forbidden "to put his own sense and comment" thereon, and commanded to take them "in the literal and grammatical sense."

formation.* Perhaps this will in time be found as impossible as the other, and then it may be discovered that the earthly and the heavenly cannot exist in any combination whatsoever, without such vital injury to the latter as to render their severance necessary.

Our author, indeed, is not slow to acknowledge the incompatibility of their union.

"If any one doubts," says he, " that it is the mundane element in the visible churches which has been the cause of divisions and want of uniformity among Christians, he has only to remember, that the true union and membership of Christians one with another, was most perfect at the very time when their separation from the world was most complete, and to themselves most trying; whereas, in proportion as the world has nominally become Christian, in proportion as Mammon has entered into an alliance, more or less unreal and feigned, with God, in the same proportion have schisms arisen among Christians, or those who called themselves by that name, and the sword, the fire, and the division, which were wont to stand between Christianity and the world, have made rents and breaches in the body of Christ, and mocked the Church's communion with words which have no meaning." Again-"The establishment of Christianity, as something in, and of, the world, and the formation of outward and national churches, have been the true and only causes of the evils which have been laid to the charge of our religion. And yet this was perhaps the inevitable consequence of the world's favourable reception of Christianity." pp. 14, 16.

And then our author goes on to descant upon the changes produced by the civil state in the hierarchical arrangements of Christianity, on the political connexions of the Church and State, which bore down every religious ingredient in the former, and on the crusades and conflicts "where religion marched backwards and forwards with the banners of contending parties," when the actuating principles were anything but religious, so that the church more resembled the world in its antagonism to the church, than the church in conflict with the world. But,

"The church, to which the promises of Christ are made, and against which the gates of Hell will not prevail, is the Body of which Jesus is the head, and the members of which are all animated by his Spirit. Every individual, in whom the fruits of the Spirit are conspicuous, is recognised by spiritual discernment as a true son of God; as one of those whom his Spirit inhabits, and who have become godlike; as a member of that veritable church, which is the earthly and visible part of the Communion of Saints. Now, as the church consisting of these individuals, stands without, and in antagonism to all that is mundane, and is at one with itself, however widely its members may be dispersed as the mundane element is not less prominent in the nominal, national churches of Christendom than it was in the old Roman Empire-it must follow, that the true unity of the Church, that is, the unity of true Christians, which is essential to true Christianity, may exist independently of any local or national combination of worshippers, just as there was union among Christians, when all the nations of the earth were, as such, or in their national capacity, opposed to the religion of Jesus."—p. 18.

All this we should have thought good argument against any such connexion being formed or perpetuated. Not so our author.

draws the following extraordinary corollary:

He

"That, wherever a nation, as such, has embraced Christianity, and desires

that all members of its political communion should also adopt an uniform code of doctrine and ritual: as this religious polity must be compatible with the idiosyncrasy, or peculiar temperament of the particular nation, and must therefore be, in a large measure, composed of elements not essential to Christianity, and admitting of different degrees of adoption even by true Christians, this national uniformity must not interfere with a diversity of opinion on such non-essential and speculative questions.”—p. 19.

Now, if the true church stands without, and in antagonism to all that is mundane, it puzzles us exceedingly to conceive how it can, justifiably to its high mission, to its necessary conflict with evil, enter into an armistice or alliance with the world. But, as the world will have it so, and the church after all seems not very particular in the matter, it becomes of no slight moment how that arrangement shall be made, on what terms the treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, shall be ratified. It is true that the church descends from its high vocation, virtually gives up the fight, and becomes injured and degraded by the connexion; but for all this it may find consolation in the uniformity of its usages, the extension of its authority, and in the indefiniteness of its formularies of faith, whereby it may enfold in its maternal arms every diversity of opinion. In all this, indeed, the voice of the One Lawgiver of the church is unheard. The crown of Zion's King is laid on the faldstool of earthly sovereigns, and is used to adorn or heighten the splendours of a regal diadem. That is, however, of little consequence. Nor does our author seem to think it necessary to justify so strange a proceeding, or to verify by proof from scripture the propriety of the course adopted. His especial purpose

is to show

"That, as a national church presumes nothing more than an outward union, which, though founded on an agreement in essentials, admits of any variety of sentiment in regard to unessentials, it does seem to be the duty of every Protestant Englishman who sets a true value on the advantages of union and communion, to ask himself, seriously, whether there is any lawful impediment to his enlisting in the body which seeks to combine, under one profession of faith, the subjects of one great monarchy."-p. 114.

It is therefore affirmed, that the church of England is founded on the most comprehensive principles, embodying in itself the great bases of Protestantism,-the sole sufficiency of scripture, the right of private judgment in its interpretation, and the authority of individual conscience in matters of religion. It is thereby become, says cur author, the "tolerant metropolis" of all who agree in the essentials of scripture truth, as was the intention of its founders.

It would occupy more space than we can afford, to enter upon the historical matters necessary to substantiate or overthrow these affirmations. Our readers, indeed, need it not. They know what the tolerance of the Anglican church has been. The domination of three centuries has not passed away, without leaving behind many traces of a dark and troubled, even sanguinary, course. Too many spots bear witness to sufferings for conscience' sake, too many sepulchral stones remain to give utterance against her, that it should ever be for

gotten what, in the pride of her power, Anglicanism has done. The descendants of the exiles in America, and of the men driven from their homes and livings on the day of "black Bartholomew," are not altogether ignorant of the deeds of their "Protestant Mother Church," from which they were ejected and scourged. Partiality, prejudice,

and hypothesis, have made Phileleutherus Anglicanus to forget what

we cannot.

According to our author, Protestantism necessitates the use of philological learning. As there is no infallible interpreter of scripture, unity can be obtained only by the use of all the aids which grammatical analysis can supply. The appeal made to scripture by the Reformers was sustained by learning, and by exegetical expositions of the word of God, consistently with protestant principles. Provision was therefore made in the English church, by grammar schools and universities, for the education of a learned ministry, to ascertain the true sense of scripture. But as scholarship and science have advanced, it is found that many of the doctrinal decisions of the Reformers need revision, and orthodox Christianity is endangered by the zealous and successful researches of the linguist and philologer. Their conclusions, it is said, do not, in some particulars, accord with the dogmatic sentiments of the church. Our author is, however, most anxious to show that whatever discrepancies are now found to exist, it is possible and dutiful to remain a member of the church, since they can be removed by resorting to the principles of the Reformers. The articles were framed upon scripture, and are binding only so far as they agree thereto. Their agreement with modern exegesis is to be effected, first by subjecting the scriptures to minute philological examination, and then by transfering the sense so found to the articles which those scriptures are adduced to support. In other words, our author would do for the party he represents, what Mr. Newman did for the Anglo-Catholics in the celebrated 'Tract 90,'-only in the opposite direction.

In the course of his remarks the author of this so-called vindication of protestant principles, proclaims the following theory upon the value and authority of the scriptures, from which we can well understand the causes of his anonymous appearance, and of his desire to represent the Establishment as the most tolerant of all churches. Its dogmatic statements and formularies have, indeed, need to be somewhat expansive and elastic to contain such as he.

"We fully acknowledge the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures. We recognise in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, a providential collection of miscellaneous writings, in which glimpses of revealed truth are perpetually manifesting themselves with more or less of distinctness, and which, by its consistency in regard to the doctrine thus revealed, evinces the unity of its authorship, in other words its divine origin. And in the New Testament we acknowledge a body of writings-epistles, history, and prophetic anticipations, at harmony with itself, and with the former collection, in all that relates to the same gradually unfolded system of religious truth; we see in this body of writings the work of men on whom the paraclesis and elenchus of the Holy Spirit had produced their legitimate effect; and in the discourses recorded in