it the merit of originality. It may, however, be thought by some to be an attempt, by means of wit, to expose the absur dity of boys' signing lengthy creeds. Of such malice prepense Mr. Courtney wholly is guiltless, and we have no doubt, if the soft impeachment were pressed against him, he might plead inability without fear of contradiction.

The objection which has been raised to young men being required to express their assent to this doctrine (the Trinity) and others exhibited in the articles of our church, has no foundation in reason, because it would lead to a conclusion, that at some more advanced period of their lives and theological studies, they might give this test of their belonging to the Church of England with greater propriety, as better understanding these mysteries; whereas, after all the study of the longest life, they would find themselves as far removed as ever from a clear conception of that which was evidently intended by the author of our being, to be the object of humble faith in, and implicit obedience to, the word of God. As it is, with these wholesome checks of an overardent and aspiring mind, man is sufficiently inclined to exalt himself and to be deceived by his foolish and vain imaginations, setting up the creature against the Creator.-p. 9.

The Address is a very different production, written by some great one,' if we may judge from the mystery he throws around himself. The piece comprises the following points of internal church reform:-1. The election of Bishops, their office and legislative capacity, and how they should have coadjutors.-2. The education and fitness of the Clergy.-3. Patronage, and the manner in which it has all been thrown into one theological scale.-4. The due administration of the sacraments, especially with reference to baptism.-5. Visiting preachers to be appointed in each diocese.

The election of bishops is thus. On every vacancy, the dean and chapter, 'after mature and serious consideration had between ourselves concerning a fit person in that behalf to be elected,' at length agree to give their vote for A. B., a person previously chosen by the king's ministers, and whom the dean and his associates are bound to elect under the penalty of being put out of the king's protection. Well may the Low Churchman ask, Is this the way to convince a people of our religious honesty? I do not see how two members of this sacred body, after using such language as this, and knowing the penalties which attend any other, can, any more than Cicero's two augurs, look one another in the face without laughing.' Another view given, is, that in consequence of this election of bishops by the king's ministers 'a sincere and zealous Roman Catholic, or a Socinian,' being anxious to promote his peculiar views of religion, might send to the church authorities his mandate to elect a bishop after his own heart, and thus poison the very vitals of the church. This possible danger is certainly a fine specimen of the security

gained to opinions by legal establishments, and affords a new view of the way in which the church may, ere long, be in danger. A more baneful danger, however, it has long endured, and more deadly evils have resulted, for we take it that it is far worse to have unprincipled, trading, and voluptuous bishops, than even sincere and zealous men, whatever form their Christianity may

assume.

6

• The question (says the Churchman) by what title do bishops sit in parliament?' began to be debated in 1640; but the question (says Rapin) was the more difficult, as it had never been determined by what right the bishops sate in parliament, nor do I know that it has ever yet been determined.' (p. 9.) Some vague notions of representation of the clergy by the bishops, which may have prevailed when the clergy were regarded as one of the three estates, having now no ground to rest upon, the question resolves itself into this, whether there shall be a union of church and state or not. If, however, bishops must sit in the House of Lords, then it is necessary some one else should attend to the spiritual wants of the diocese, and our author recommends suffragan bishops, to be paid by the political bishops, and eventually to be raised, in each case of demise, to their dignity.

Of the education and fitness of the clergy,' the Churchman speaks in terms of great dissatisfaction-a feeling not abated by the knowledge, that no notice whatever has been taken of an address presented to the archbishops and bishops, in March, 1834, respectfully soliciting their attention to the education of persons designed for the ministry of the church,' and signed by 94 persons, chiefly clergymen of the highest respectability, with the name of Lord Morpeth at the head. The very peculiar value to them and theirs, of the education in the universities, for which the sons of the church labour might and main to keep to themselves, may be learnt from the following:

Your lordships should take a newly ordained curate at random, with his university education, and I would take a Romish priest or a dissenting minister, and the curate would be beat, in nine cases out of ten, in fair argument and eloquence by them both, on their respective grounds. p. 13.

In this part of the pamphlet, too, there occurs another illustration of the security of a state-protected church, which is too curious to be omitted:—

I shall never forget the severely true observations made by Dr. Doyle, in answer to the Bishop of Exeter's speech on the Irish Temporalities Bill" Why," you add, "not make a similar reduction in the rank of the Catholic bishops? My answer to your lordship's interrogatory will be brief and simple. The reason is, the Catholic bishops set you at defiance. We are not weeds that may be plucked up at

pleasure; we are not those corporate functionaries whose titles depend upon a royal patent, whom a breath can make, as a breath has made,' and who may conveniently be laid aside like any other municipal officers, by the same power by which they were created." A fine satire, this, upon the vaunted “ apostolic authority.""

The Church patronage, had it not been for some private societies, fostered by the Wilberforces, the Rodens, the Simeons, the Macauleys, whereby some of it has been rescued, and distributed to men of God,' would have been all, as the greater part has been, given to the dry preachers of a rigid orthodoxy.' The consequence, in the Churchman's judgment, is the spread of dissent, as being more in unison with the wants and wishes of the people. Of course we can have no regret at the result, at any rate; and we are not very anxious that the writer should succeed in his endeavours to bring the patronage of the Church into the hands of the evangelical clergy,' if his intimation is at all likely to be realzed, 'the evangelical flock would be the true resource in the hour of danger, if even, like a Zwingle, it were necessary to buckle on the carnal weapons of warfare.' It is nothing less than disgusting, to notice the ease and wantonness with which those whose doctrine used to be passive obediencewho still parade both their loyalty and their superfine religion— have lately got into the habit of threatening an appeal to arms, if their views of social and religious policy are not strictly adhered to. It is, however, a sign of their weakness and the rapidity of their decline ;-no small comfort.

The other matters treated of, contain nothing of importance sufficient for notice in our pages.

Archbishop Whately's Charge' is inferior to his ordinary productions. Wanting unity of object, it rambles on through several topics, garnished with common-place remarks and quotations from himself, till the measure of the discourse is at last filled up. There is something, however, to atone for its defects, in the mild and pacific spirit which pervades it;-a merit the more valuable, because of its rarity in Episcopalian pamphlets, especially such as proceed from, or relate to, the Church of Ireland.

The main feeling in Dr. Whately's mind appears to have been that occasioned by the public avowal of Unitarianism on the part of the Rev. J. Blanco White. It is true that the conduct of Mr. White is not mentioned; but no one who is aware of the closeness of intimacy in which they lived, and the urgency with which the Archbishop pressed Mr. White not to leave the Church or his own house-where Mr. White found all that respect and regard could contribute to make a happy home-can for a moment doubt, in reading the charge, that it was designed to act as a check to the influence of Mr. White's noble example.

The case put by the Archbishop, is that of a church in which there are defects and errors; and he argues that any member who is convinced of their existence, ought not to secede from its communion, but remain in it and use his efforts to have them remedied. The question we conceive is one of degree. For slight defects, secession can not be justified; but if there be gross corruption, secession becomes an important duty. To remain, will appear to be to sanction. True you protest, but you also uphold. You complain in word, you support in conduct. You have the tongue of a reformer, but not the spirit of a confessor. You eat the bread of the very corruption against which you raise your voice. It will not be unnatural for men to say in such a case, that you love ease more than truth ; and the value of your testimony will be abated, if not destroyed, by doubts of your sincerity. There are certain stages of corruption with which no honest man can remain in contact, without detriment to his own sense of character and his influence in the world. Such a stage we conceive to exist, when Unitarians are members of a Trinitarian church. They cannot worship according to the forms of the church, without a derilection of their highest duties. They must, therefore, abstain from public worship. Are they to deny themselves the privilege altogether? In other words, are they to give up public worship? Will their duty to society and to themselves permit this? If not, then the alternative is to worship with Unitarians-that is to secede. Public worship is profession in act. Can a man who believes that God is strictly one, profess him to be three also, and retain his own self-respect, or the good opinion of honourable men? Nothing but religious indifference can tolerate such simulationand nothing but the warping influence of wealth and station can blind the eye to the demand of duty. In thus speaking, we judge not others, but state our own feelings-to their own master they must stand or fall, who, being Unitarians, worship in a Trinitarian communion. Every man's conscience is his sole arbiter on earth.

We suppose Dr. Whately never objected to Mr. White's withdrawing from the pale of the Catholic church. Certainly, numbers of the Establishment hailed the secession. If this was right, how can his recent renunciation be wrong? And if the Archbishop and his fellows approved the former, how can they condemn the latter? And what are they themselves, but a secession? How do they justify their conduct? Will they maintain that Protestantism has served the cause of truth more effectually by assuming a separate individuality, than by remaining an integral portion of Catholicism? They are right--but then Mr. White cannot be wrong. It can hardly be doubted by any one, who knows ought of ecclesiastical history, or can judge of social

influences, that the most effectual protest against error is in severance from it. Which had the more influence at the Reformation-Luther, who renounced the Pope, or Erasmus, who adhered to him? If all the reformers had had the spirit of Erasmus or Melancthon, would religion have been in the state in which it is? A change there might have been, but not a Reformation. And who did most for the furtherance of Unitarianism-Clarke, who adhered to the Establishment, or Lindsey, who left it? The great promoters of Unitarianism have been those of its friends who seceded from the ranks of Orthodoxy ; for instance, Lindsey, Priestley, Belsham-to say nothing of inferior names.

In fact, the want of his usual vigor and justness of thought in the present discourse, is of itself a sufficient proof that Archbishop Whately is handling a bad cause. He labours at an ungracious task-mens refugit.

THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIANITY. The Causes of the Corruption of Christianity, by the Rev. ROBERT VAUGHAN. London: Jackson and Walford.' 8vo. p. p. 432.

THIS is rather an ambitious book, and is the second of a series of Lectures in support of Calvinistic Trinitarianism, patronized by the Independent Calvinists. The writer does not specifically state his view of the corruptions of Christianity, but it appears from the tenor of his book, that he includes in that expression every form of Christianity which does not embrace the peculiarities of his own narrow profession. He states, howeves, specifically enough, what he considers to be the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.

The doctrine of the Trinity; the proper deity of the Saviour; the reality and efficacy of his substitution in the place of the guilty; the personality of the Holy Spirit, together with all his ordinary influences in the regeneration of the soul-these we view as the essential truths of revelation, truths to which nothing may be added, and from which nothing may be taken.'-p. 3.

We do not know what befitting term of reprobation to apply to this declaration-truths to which nothing may be added'when we observe not included the being and perfections of the Supreme Father, the moral accountableness of man, and a future state of retribution. See in what blindness party zeal is enveloped !

The writer is of opinion, that all the corruptions which he condemns lie at the door of human nature. That is the treasury of all evil, and of no good. This being vitiated to the lowest