seems sophistical, though it must be supposed he clearly sees through what to them appears a very intricate web.

Now that the Romish church do hold the faith seems to be true, at least in this sense-viz., that all the elements, so to speak, of catholic faith are so contained in their religious system or creed that, were they to set about reforming themselves after the primitive model, there is nothing at present external to it which it would be necessary to introduce. Fundamentals, as they are called, are not so denied by them as to be excluded. So far as such exclusion is necessary to constitute apostasy they surely are not apostate; and so far as such non-exclusion can be called holding the faith, so far at least it is held by them. Unless indeed this be granted, I am at a loss to understand how the Anglican can be maintained to be a true church; for if they are apostate now, then were we apostate antecedently to the Reformation, unless it will be said that errors universally held in a church are not the church's errors until asserted in her formal creed, or that a denial of the faith, supposing it to have occurred, does not become apostasy until it has been riveted by a decree. And if we were apostate antecedently to the Reformation, what reason is there to suppose an apostate church can repent and amend any more than an apostate individual?

It will be granted, therefore, I suppose, by all but the merest protestants, that in the above sense at any rate, if in no better, Romanists do hold the catholic faith, so far at least as those great truths of it comprised in the three catholic creeds. But though all this be true of their system as a system, and of themselves as a body, yet it seems difficult to understand it of an individual Romanist. I mean one, not merely within the Romish communion, but believing the peculiarities of the Romish creed. I say it is difficult to understand how an individual mind can in any sincere way embrace, and, as it were, sustain itself, (and this is the sort of faith practical men desire,) upon what is catholic and what is Romish simultaneously, unless truth and error can be harmoniously associated together as living and active principles, and cease to be antagonists.

A distinction indeed is drawn by theologians between a true faith and a pure faith. But surely this is after all but a verbal distinction, however important it may thus be for controversial purposes; for though it be possible to hold in words the articles of the true faith conjoined with such additions as mar, more or less, its purity, yet is it not more than questionable whether it is possible in such a case to hold or realize the things which these words but represent. Must we not believe there to be, though we be not enabled to see it, a oneness, a perfection, a completeness, a "totus teres atque rotundus" character appertaining to the faith, such that whatever additions destroy its purity destroy its integrality also? And if this be conceded, may not these noxious additions be so augmented, or obtain such a prominence, or be cherished so exclusively, as really to extinguish or subvert the truth though it continue to be held in terms, and render the adherents and professors of a system where this occurs virtually

and really, though not expressly, apostate? The position I am questioning seems to imply what one frequently hears said by protestant palliators of Tridentine errors-namely, that "the Romanist only believes more than we do," just as if Romanism involves catholic truth, not opposes it. But I would ask, is this true, or even possible, except, as has been said above, in words?

In saying this, I am far from meaning to imply that the objects of our belief cannot be added to without encroaching on the perfectness of our present creed. For what we can tell, this may be quite possible, but of course only of divine revelation. But to assert anything about it one way or other would be the merest dogmatism, where we have absolutely no data to go on. It is quite consistent, however, in Romanists to maintain that their acknowledged additions to the AnteNicene Creed are of this character, since they actually claim for them the authority either of revelation, or of, what is equivalent to this, an infallibility divinely granted and guaranteed. But is it equally consistent in Anglican divines to admit this, seeing they hold these additions to affirm what is false, in fact, and as such protest against them? Is it possible for a man really, not with a mere nominal belief, to hold the catholic faith conjointly with error? Must not either the truth expel the error, or the error impair or, as it may be, overpower the truth? And if this latter take place in the fullest extent, must not apostasy or infidelity be the result, or such a misbelief, such a "strong delusion," as virtually amounts to this? A man may find catholic truth within the Romish system, (and it is consolatory to think so, how differently soever ultra-protestants may view the matter,) but can he realize it to himself without consciously or unconsciously submitting the creed therein proposed to him to a process of moral chemistry, dissevering the primitive from the novel, and cleaving to, and moulding himself exclusively upon, the former? To take an instance. Can a man trust, as he ought, in the alone merits of the Saviour, and yet conjoin therewith the merits of the holy Baptist? Can a man believe in "the full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice" made for us on Calvary, and at the same time believe a necessity for a proper sacrifice in the mass? Is it possible for him to have true notions of, and a right confidence in, the mediatorial intercession of the Son of God, and duly seek to interest it on his behalf, and at the same time regard the Mother of God as an intercessor also? - an intercessor (not in a secondary sense, which, for what we know, she may well be,-not as one whose intercession avails, if it avail, through the further mediation of the only true, and proper, and independent Mediator, her blessed Son,-not as one whose pleadings for us, if she plead, are different from His in kind as well as in degree, as lacking that inherent selforiginated virtue which divinity alone imparts, but) in the self-same sense with Him, as one having a direct, and immediate, and (one might almost say, from the way in which practically the Virgin Mary is addressed by Romanists) an underived power with God, and prevailing in the unassisted exercise of it? In a word, can one at the same time be a catholic in faith and yet a Tridentine-a catholic, I

mean, even in fundamentals ?

VOL. XVIII.-July, 1840.

If these interrogations can be answered in the affirmative, plainly the expression, the propriety of which I have ventured to question, is strictly correct, even in the broad sense in which it appears to have been used; but if not, the impolicy of employing it, nay, I would even say the defective charity in doing so, without some caution added, or guarded statement of the precise sense attached to it, must be too apparent to render any warning on the subject necessary, even if it became me, which it does not, to assume the office of a "reprover of the brethren."

There is another point to which I would wish to refer, though in a much briefer way; but having already written more than I can indulge much hope of seeing in your pages, I shall not venture to add anything without your express permission. I am, Sir, with the utmost respect and deference, your obedient servant,

Er.

ON THE RESPECT DUE TO ANTIQUITY.—No. IV.

SIR,-It seems to me that if the principles be sound which I have been trying to establish, and if the view of ancient feeling on some points which I have been led to take be just, there are one or two important consequences from both, which it is now time to consider.

I have endeavoured to express the harm I perceive in setting up any period of the church's earthly history as one of ideal perfection. The doing so must, I think, draw our minds away from the true idea, and fix them on what at best is but an inadequate symbol. And while we keep that idea before us as created in us by the scriptures, and then betake ourselves to the study of church history, I think it impossible to escape the conviction that a leaven of carnality and even of heathenism wrought in the church perhaps from the very first. No doubt, we must be cautious lest we rashly condemn what we are not in a situation rightly to understand; and even when we fancy we have discerned an alteration in the church from what she was at the time of her birth, we must beware lest we call that corruption which, in reality, was development; even when we have seen her taking up the fashions of the Gentile world around her, we must remember that, though in some instances culpable in so doing, yet she was, is, and must ever be, too vital not to assimilate into herself whatever things she comes in contact with really honest, true, pure, lovely, or of good report.* But then this very consideration of her exceeding vitality suggests another thought. It leads us to ascribe to her a power of change in keeping with the accompanying change of the things around

* How much rash judgment on the relics of early Christianity might have been avoided bad people kept this consideration in mind; as for example, when Ignatius is condemned because one is conscious of a great changing in passing from St.Paul's epistles to his. To be sure one is. The one contains seminal principles; the other refers to the development of a few of these, and therefore the two writers may well be different, but not therefore necessarily discordant.

her, and all the while without loss to her essential attributes. She was destined to survive, and she has survived, the Roman empire; she was destined to survive, and she has survived, the languages, the sentiments, and the fashions that belonged to that empire. Amid the wreck of everything else in the ancient world, she has passed into the modern. Exceedingly different as is that modern world from the ancient, does she stand forth in it, as a mere relic of the latter, or has she not rather a voice amid the new thoughts, an answer to the new questions, a remedy for the new evils, an adaptation to the new wants and desires, that have arisen ?

Let us look at the facts of the case. In a much changed world, there does happen to be a much changed church. Putting out of the question those branches of the Christian community with which, either because of their exceeding corruption or their want of apostolical order, we are not in intimate fellowship, we find in the latter days a form of the church which we may call Anglicanism, and which, distinct alike from the aspect of the patristic and the medieval periods, characterizes in its leading features the established church in England and our colonies, the episcopal church of Scotland, and that of the United States. I say, in its leading features, for there are points of difference by no means unimportant between some of these; notwithstanding which, I think it will be admitted that there is a general character to be found in them all, by no means pleasing at first sight to the lovers of antiquity, and by no means right if we are to take as a principle that the primitive church exhibits the perfection of the Christian community, and that all material deviation therefrom must needs be a falling off. This common character has for its leading features, a comparative absence of symbolic worship; a greater prominence given to the disquisitive and reflective side of religion than before, and by consequence a fainter appeal to the imagination; an almost universal disuse of weekly communion, and substitution of preaching in its stead; such a relaxation of church discipline as leaves nearly all to the individual choice, and such a comparative veiling the higher features of the church as makes her system and peculiarities less obvious to the casual glance than in former days, withdrawing moreover from the Christian pilgrim much of the help of encompassing system, and seeming at least to throw him in great measure on his own resources; a nearly total change of sentiment as regards celibacy and matrimony from what obtained in the early ages; a comparative absence of the contemplative life, and a great development of the practical, men in proportion to their religious zeal being for the most part taken up with large schemes of Christian benevolence wrought out by the commercial machinery of the present age. If to these I add a peculiar decorum and respect for existing usage, which shrinks from what is startling and forcible, and a strong reverence for the interior of a family which tempts the priesthood to veil their spiritual powers, I shall, I think, have sufficiently sketched the peculiarities of the episcopal churches of the Reformation to enable the reader to feel what I am speaking of. Now, in the original of this sketch there is something which I do not hesitate to call corruption, which should be removed by the competent authorities as soon

an

as possible; more which is to myself unpalatable, and which I can hardly consider as indicating a healthy state of matters; and the whole presents a perplexed prospect, in which I think it no shame to confess that I do not see my way. What then is my duty? Plainly this; not to exercise myself in matters that are too high for me; to keep to my own sphere; not to attempt doing that to which no individual mind whatever is competent-viz., allowing my judgment so large a sweep as the whole character of the age in which I am placed; to repose on God's providence; to remember the gracious words, "Lo, I am with you always;" and to believe that he who uttered them knows both when and how to guide his church into new states of being, and other manifestations of his glory than those she was at first enabled to make. With these recollections before us, we shall learn to beware of wishing to revolutionize the ecclesiastical system under which God has seen fit to place us; to consider our allegiance due in the first instance, and mainly, to the church as she has come to us; to be faithful to that which we have received, and to consider that, as "the kingdom of God cometh not with observation," and as the divine glory is not manifested in such a way as the carnal understanding would anticipate, so it may well be that new forms of it are really appearing to the holy angels and the spirits of the perfected just, yea, and through faith to lowly spirits on earth also, in the very changes which are most repulsive to the ecclesiastical antiquarian, and most perplexing to those who have indulged in drawing a complete and accurately laid down system. In short, I think we must abstain from condemning the altered state of matters, lest we be unaware judging the church, and reflecting on that heavenly wisdom whose guidance, instead of that of her individual members, she may perhaps be following all the while.

*

But here it may be said "You have admitted that some deviations from primitive sentiment and practice are corruptions, and that others may be so. Do you wish us then to content ourselves with the existing state of the church, and make no effort after improvement whatever?" By no means. My quarrel with the spirit of patristicism (if I may be permitted to coin a word) is, not for seeking improvement, but for setting up too low a standard of improvement; for wishing to bring the church out of one earthly, and therefore imperfect, state into another. Doubtless, whatever defects in the church we have the power of amending, we are bound to amend, We must begin first, however, with ourselves. We must see how far we are using the church system that has been given to us to the good effect which it is capable of bringing about. We must be cautious how we speak of those features of it for which we are not our

This seems to me to serve as an answer to one of your correspondents' ("M.N.D.," Brit. Mag. May, 1840) objections to the more obvious interpretation of Heb. xii. 22-24, as applying to the present privilege of the church. He says, that such an interpretation" is greatly derogatory to the glory of God, as implying that the language of his promises conveys ideas much beyond what be actually bestows." But surely the existing pentecostal glory of the church, and the privileges enjoyed by her members, though ever so poor in the eye of sense, are such in reality, and as seen by faith, as no language can be too magnificent for; nay, such as all words must fall short in attempting to express.