and, in political matters, very liberal section of the community is in favour of abolition; that this section is, on principle, averse to any connection between the secular and spiritual powers; that, in its eyes, religious liberty itself is not complete until this connection has ceased, we are probably all aware. In so far as these politicians desire more complete religious equality, I entirely sympathise with them; in so far as they conceive that this end will be furthered by the separation of Church and State, they appear to me to have no sure, or even probable, grounds for such an inference. For what would be the first and most undoubted consequence of this important change? Would it not be that the clergy, emancipated from the control of laymen, would become themselves the supreme judges, from whose verdict there would be no appeal, in matters relating to the doctrine and discipline of the Church? We should have Episcopal Courts established among us, and every ecclesiastic who was accused of heresy would be dragged for trial before these tribunals. What sort of justice, and what sort of impartiality the unorthodox clergyman might expect at the hands of spiritual judges is sufficiently evident from the language that has been held by the dignitaries of the Church with regard to "Essays and Reviews" and Dr. Colenso. A certain kind of liberty there is no doubt the clergy would gain by separation from the State-the liberty of ejecting and persecuting each other. That they themselves would highly appreciate and value this liberty, it is impossible to deny; but whether their possessing it would be as beneficial to the country as it would be agreeable to themselves, is another question. There is at least one result of their enjoying such a power which may be easily foreseen: that section of the Church which is known by the name of "Broad" would speedily be driven from the position its members now occupy, and where, by the superiority of their intellectual powers and their freedom from sectarian bitterness, they are doing so much to maintain the reputation of their Church, and to prevent it from sinking into a state of senile weakness and irretrievable decay. Another consideration may induce us to pause before we finally sever the links that join the State with the Church, namely, that we have in our present system an excellent organisation, extending to every parish in the land, which might at least be made to subserve some very useful purposes. If this organisation were entirely under clerical management, it would probably be mainly employed for inculcating dogmatic theology; but in the hands of laymen it may possibly be made conducive to something better. At any rate it would be rash to forego all the advantages we actually derive, and may derive hereafter, from the existing system for the sake of delivering the spiritualty from secular control. II. Supposing, therefore, that without laying down a universal theory on the subject, we think it more politic to keep up the Established Church, since we have found it already in existence, it becomes necessary to reflect upon the second of the two questions to which reference has been made. What should be the character of the Church, and what purposes should it have? In discussing this question, we are led back to consider what was its character at its original foundation, and how far it fulfils the objects for which it was intended. For although we are not bound literally to carry out these objects, yet it is at least reasonable, when we are aiming at the improvement of any institution, to examine whether that improvement may not be in some degree effected rather by an adherence to the plans of its first founders, than by a total departure from them. It would certainly be senseless to expect that we could bring the Church into harmony with the requirements of the day by following in every particular the directions of men who lived three centuries ago. But there are certain broad characteristics of the Church of England to be gathered from its historical antecedents which we in the present century should do well to remember. The first, and one of the most striking peculiarities, is the secular nature of the movement to which its origin was due. It is impossible to read its early history without seeing that its creation was the result, not so much of theological differences, as of causes that were peculiar to the people of this island. It is, of course, none the less true that the Reformation, in England as elsewhere, had its roots much deeper than in any insular or local peculiarities; it was the inevitable effect of the intellectual change that was going on, which was making reflecting men dissatisfied with the faith imposed upon them by the Church of Rome. But this intellectual change, though it influenced the Church of England, was not, at least not directly, its producing cause. The ecclesiastical revolution that occurred in England was much more directed against the power of the Pope than against the doctrines of Rome. Long before any departure from the Catholic faith was contemplated, or thought of as possible, the authority exercised by the Pope in ecclesiastical affairs was felt to be greater than could be tolerated, and as early as the reigns of Edward III., Richard II., and Henry IV., statutes were made in order to restrain it. In the time of Henry VIII. this yoke had become still more galling; and the large amount of wealth that was then in the possession of the Church, the dissolute lives of the clergy, their protection of criminals who belonged to their own order, together with the arbitrary and tyrannical jurisdiction exercised by them in cases of heresy, acted as further irritants, predisposing the minds of men to measures curtailing the power of the hierarchy within more reasonable bounds. When the King had quarrelled with the Pope on account of his divorce, he at first seems to have intended only to deliver this country from the Papal supremacy, not to establish a new creed; and indeed his doctrinal views do not at any time appear to have diverged very considerably from those of Rome. The Act of the Six Articles, which was passed in the latter part of his reign, and was not repealed till that of Edward VI., imposed upon the people, under severe penalties, several of those doctrines which were most repugnant to the Protestant faith. That Act affirmed the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament; it pronounced against communion in both kinds; in favour of the celibacy of the clergy; in favour of private masses; in favour of auricular confession. These doctrines do not imply any very complete or sweeping reformation; and they show what is indeed evident from the whole history of his reign-that King Henry, in his breach with the Papacy, was guided much more by political motives than by religious principle. Hence, the first steps in the formation of an independent national Church were not to revise and to alter the existing doctrines, but completely to extinguish the authority of the Pope. This done, the way was prepared for the religious reformation; but, nevertheless, it was not till the ensuing reign that the Liturgy was compiled, and the Forty-two Articles put forth as the authoritative declaration of the national creed; and it was not till the year 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth, that these Articles were reduced to their present form and number. Such was the manner of the original foundation of the Church of England. Another characteristic mark by which it is distinguished from some Protestant bodies, is the comparative moderation of its doctrines. Its founders did not fly at once to the extreme opposite of the communion they had left. Henry VIII., as is well known, persecuted with impartial justice both those who were too tardy and those who were too zealous in the path of reformation. And although after his death the Church of England became much more Protestant than he had permitted it to be, yet it continued to cling to a middle course between Popery and Puritanism. The language of the Thirty-nine Articles, considering the time at which they were composed, shows a remarkable exemption from extreme or violent expressions. It is quite true that no well-educated man can be expected to believe those Articles at the present day; yet, compared with the Westminster Confession-the official and authorised creed of the Church of Scotland'-they might (1) In Scotland every Presbyterian clergyman is required at ordination to subscribe the Westminster Confession, and to declare that he owns and believes the whole doctrines of this Confession of Faith to be founded upon the Word of God; that he acknowledges the same as the confession of his faith; that he will firmly and constantly adhere thereto, and to the utmost of his power assert, maintain, and defend the same. He must further disown a variety of heresies, and “other doctrines and tenets whatsoever contrary to and inconsistent with the foresaid Confession of Faith.".. be pronounced almost reasonable. All the most offensive dogmas of the Articles that of predestination; that of the sinfulness of works done before justification, or by unregenerate men; that of salvation being only possible by the name of Christ-are asserted also in the Westminster Confession, but asserted in general much more offensively. On the subject of predestination especially, while the Church of England, even in affirming that doctrine, seems to do so with a faltering voice, and advises "curious and carnal persons" not to think too much about it, the Church of Scotland proclaims it in the clearest and loudest tones, and seems to delight in dwelling again and again upon all its most repulsive features. Since it is possible. that some readers may be unacquainted with this extraordinary document, and since few would care to spend their time in a kind of reading which is alike unprofitable and unpleasant, I shall not apologise for making a few quotations in order to exhibit more plainly the spiritual evils from which we in England have been happily delivered. After explaining that a definite and unchangeable number of men and angels have been predestinated to everlasting life, and others to everlasting death, the creed thus continues:-"Those of mankind. that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. . . The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." And this doctrine of the elect being the only persons who can possibly be saved is fully and clearly developed, both in this Confession and in the Larger Catechism-a reduction of the Confession to a different form-forming as it were the great fundamental principle upon which the whole edifice is built. The rest of mankind, who are thus hopelessly lost, include, as is explained elsewhere, not only all who are not Christians, but all Christians also except those "who are true members of the Church invisible." In proportion as this belief rises, the importance of good works, of course, declines. These may indeed have some slight value as evidences of faith, and may also be useful to "stop the mouths of the adversaries," but they can have no place whatever (1) Larger Catechism, Q. 61. (2) Westminster Confession, chap. xvi. 2. in a "saving faith," which consists in "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal And if in those tenets which the two Churches hold in common, the language of the Church of England is more moderate, it must also be conceded that some of the very worst and harshest dogmas of the Westminster divines are wholly absent from the English creed. Thus, for instance, we do not find in the latter the tender mercies of Providence explained in the following terms:-"As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others."2 Nor does the Church of England assert, as is done in the same Confession, the right and duty of persecution. "The civil magistrate hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed."3 Nor did Cranmer and his coadjutors presume to make the following tremendous claim on behalf of the clergy:-"To these officers [churchofficers] the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the word and censures, and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require."4 Compare this with the modest authority that is demanded for the Church of England in Art. XX., and we have an instance of the beneficial influence of secular control, restraining the pretensions of the clergy within the bounds of moderation, and checking that inhuman spirit which they have always shown when unhappily the power of the keys has been supported and enforced by the power of the sword. I have dwelt the longer upon the differences in the creed of the two nations, because it illustrates that which I am anxious to enforce, namely, the pre-eminently national character of the English Church. Unlike the Presbyterian clergymen who met at Westminster during (1) Westminster Confession, chap. xiv. 2. (2) Ibid., v. 6. |