Christ, and its use is calculated to confirm the current though dangerous opinion that men may form a church for themselves without regard to that which was first, and just according to their own notions of right and wrong! They reform THE CATHOLIC CHURCH till it would require a clearer sight than mine to detect almost a single vestige of the original.

Let us now consider the epithet "Protestant," which my reviewer so unhesitatingly determines to be nonsense, when applied to the Catholic Church. The term "Protestant" does not, like the epithet Reformed," affect the character of the Church, nor imply any change in its doctrines, ordinances, or constitution; it merely indicates the position which the Church has assumed. Now I think I may affirm, without much fear of contradiction, that the Catholic Church of Christ has in every age been seen in a Protestant position. In the early general councils this was the case, and probably the epithet in question, or one similar, would then have been applied to the Church, had any of the opposing parties been sufficiently numerous or influential to render such a thing necessary. The Catholic Church then protested against heresies and heretics, and so at the time of the Reformation the Church of England protested against the errors which had been imposed upon her, and against the authority of those who wished to perpetuate them. And by carrying out this protest the English portion of the Church returned to the Catholic truth" in its fulness and purity, and so recovered its just title to be considered a portion of the holy Catholic Church; ever since the Church in this country has remained in this its Protestant position. Hence it is Protestant in its position, and Catholic in its character, and therefore is a "Protestant Catholic Church;" or in other words, a Protestant branch of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ. To speak of the Protestant Catholic Church does not, therefore, appear to me to be nonsense; but a title which at once points out the Church as the resolute opposer of error, and the faithful keeper of the sacred deposit which was at first entrusted to her care.

Parsonage, St. James's, Cruden,

10th Dec. 1838.

66

I am, &c. JOHN B. PRATT.

SIR,

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND SCHISM.

TO THE EDITOR.

In your number for December, W. C. A. M. finds fault with me, for saying, in the article on the Greek Church, that it was lawful for us to provide for the spiritual wants of our own people residing among the Oriental Christians, without the sanction of the eastern bishops, and thinks my mistake has arisen from substituting the national for the catholic principle in religion. If so, it was unconsciously on my part. My remark was the application of a principle

recognized by the Greeks themselves. I learn from Palmer,1 that the Latins had churches and monasteries in Constantinople before the final rupture, and that the first act of unlawful violence on the part of Michael Cerularius, the patriarch, was to shut them up. Further, in the negotiations for an union between the oriental patriarchs and the nonjurors, it was proposed by the latter that a church should be built in London for the Greek service, to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, to which the Orientals readily assented as a common usage among them, for," said they, "in the dioceses of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, and other patriarchs, there are some such churches and monasteries, under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem." So far the Greeks seem to allow, that foreigners may have churches among them exempted from the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocess; it will be said, of course, only with his consent. This I cannot refuse to admit, which makes my position a fair subject of dispute. I rest the defence of it simply upon the necessity of the case, and as a temporary arrangement. We are not properly setting up altar against altar; we are only providing for our own people, who cannot unite in the Greek worship, not knowing the language, or whom the Greeks will not admit, under a groundless, though pardonable suspicion, that they are heretics. Under all the circumstances of the case it was quite natural that such misunderstandings should have arisen, and that the consequent estrangement should have continued, what with want of care on our part to communicate, and on theirs to receive better information; that estrangement need not be called schism, any more than the temporary separation of Paul and Barnabas, or those occasional suspensions of communion which have before now taken place between different portions of the Church, without either being actually separated from the Catholic body. Upon the removal of the misunderstanding communion has been resumed, as in India, where the Bishops of Calcutta and of the Christians of St. Thomas have mutually officiated in each other's churches; though I refer to this case with some hesitation, being by no means certain that these eastern Christians are not Nestorians, and therefore heretics. With respect to the point on which W. C. A. M. differs from me, we are only doing what the Greeks would allow us to do, if they were rightly informed, not setting up a rival jurisdiction, but supplying the want of the gift of tongues, which I suppose does not survive in the Oriental Church. If, as your correspondent thinks, the Greeks be schismatics, then we need be on no ceremony, we may establish bishops and churches among them; nay, it would be the duty of every Catholic bishop to do so, to save the sheep of Christ from wolves. Does W. C. A. M. suppose that the Catholics thought themselves precluded from ordaining bishops in places where there was a Donatist succession? I differ with him also as to the Swedish Church. Consubstantiation is not heresy, nor transubstantiation either. Its being a point of belief among them is nothing to me, unless the Church should require my assent to it before she admits me to communion. Our Church is not

1 On the Church, i. 187.

schismatical in requiring the clergy to subscribe the thirty-nine articles; she would be so if she made that subscription general, using them as a creed, after the manner of the Romanists, with their new dogmas. Are the Orientals heretics for denying the Filioque; or the Occidentals for asserting it? I do not precisely understand the sort of catholicity which W. C. A. M. allows to the Church. Does it include the idea of universality? Is it in any sense an actual, or merely a potential or successive universality? There are names to each of these views, which make one somewhat slow to decide.

P. A.

SIR,

ON ADULT EDUCATION.

TO THE EDITOR.

SUFFER me, through the pages of your Magazine, to invite the attention of your readers to the consideration of adult education. Its importance on the welfare of our people must be undoubted, and yet how little appears to be done in it! In a country parish, I am at a loss to know in what manner to carry my wishes on the subject into effect, and if you or your readers can in any manner assist me, I should feel myself under an obligation. I have a large country parish, and a very good, and I have reason to believe, efficient school my people are all labourers; and I am happy to say, generally well disposed, for in all flocks there will be black sheep. I have two full services every Sunday, which are well attended, that is speaking comparatively, as things are, not as they ought to be. Now in this state, which is I believe a very general one, I have one very serious evil to contend with; I speak of it as very serious, because whatever, with the others taken into consideration, it may appear to the inexperienced in such matters, it in fact neutralizes all the other good that I might expect to result from the general respectability and propriety of the Sunday's observance; I allude to the want of employment, and consequently mischievous idleness of that portion of our community who are between the age of boyhood and manhood. These consider themselves too old for school, and have none of the steadiness which should fit them for the tranquil enjoyment of the day of rest: so long as they are too young for work their parents are thankful enough to leave them with you at school; but the moment they are capable of being sent out, I find it vain either by entreaty or inducement to keep them. Some few, whose parents are well-disposed, attend the Sunday-school,, but the generality, about twelve years of age, think themselves too old for the Sundayschool, and even as early as ten and nine for the week-day. These consequently, of a Sunday, herd themselves together, disturbing those who appreciate the blessed repose of the Lord's day, and employing themselves as may under the circumstances be expected, in all manner of mischief. Now this, sir, which I doubt not will be found to be also the case in many or most other parishes, is a most serious

VOL. I.

H

evil, which unless in time we meet and provide for, threatens to do away with all the good we propose to ourselves in education. It is in vain we count heads, and pride ourselves on the number we educate, if we do not see that that education is worked out and applied. Reading and writing are but the mere tools by which education is to be acquired, and we may as well think that in putting these into the hands of our children we have given them all that is necessary for them to procure their livelihood without any apprenticeship or instruction, as believe that the mere mechanical act, if I may be allowed so uncouth a term, of reading and writing, is education. If education is not carried beyond this we put a most dangerous weapon into the hands of our children without directions how to use it. I am anxious then to inquire of you, or of your readers, many of whom are, I doubt not, in a similar situation to my own, how this evil is to be met, or what they have found to succeed practically in inducing this young and important part of their people to carry on their education as in the higher classes, and thus prevent what is a growing and practical evil.

B.

THE REVIEWER REVIEWED.

Remarks on a Review of an Inaugural Sermon, by the Rev. Charles Cole, of Peterhead.

SIR,

TO THE EDITOR.

My attention has been directed to a review of my Inaugural Sermons on entering upon the pastoral charge of the Episcopal congregation in this town; and although it may be somewhat inconvenient for you at all times to notice the answers to such reviews as may appear in your magazine, yet when an author is unkindly and unceremoniously accused of entertaining principles, foreign to those which he has held through life, and which it has been his aim to combat and refute, common justice suggests, that the party thus misrepresented, should have an opportunity of setting himself right in the opinion of those whose good wishes he is anxious to retain. This alone induces me to trouble you with the following observations in reply to the review in your last number, p. 342; and

Firstly. You state, that as these sermons were" meant to declare to his brethren as well as to his people, the faith that is in him, it might not be fair to be too critical." I maintain, sir, that there is nothing contained in these sermons (according to my judgment) either doctrinal or practical, which the word of God does not directly teach or sanction, and which is not to be found in the formularies and services of the Church of England.

Secondly. You also state, that there are, however, here and there, some equivocal expressions which we did not expect to have found delivered from an Episcopal pulpit."

The truth in love will ever, I trust, be delivered from Episcopal pulpits, as well in this country, as in England: and conceiving that what is contained in my sermons are truths, which have their origin and foundation in the sacred Scriptures, sanctioned by the writings and experience of the Reformers, and embodied, as a raiment of needlework, in the Articles, Homilies, Creeds and Liturgy of our Church, I have no objection to refer to these as the sources whence the" here and there," and "equivocal expressions" take their rise; and I did not expect, after twenty years humble waiting at her altar, to have found them either questioned or gainsayed by a professed Episcopalian.

Thirdly. You further state, that "there is a straining at liberality, apparently for the purpose of buying golden opinions of all sorts and conditions of men, which is not consistent with the maintenance of principles."

I ask, in all fairness, whether this be fair? To respect another's motives, is at least a part of the Christian's duty; and as a good Christain should never be out-done in good manners, I appeal to the Reviewer's own good sense, whether such a charge be either just or honest? Here is a fact assumed, which is neither borne out by the premises nor the conclusion, and which is but another way of charging the writer with downright hyprocrisy. Admitting that the sermons encourage a kind and conciliatory spirit amongst professing Christians, I ask, whether such is unsuited to a pulpit address; more especially, when the preacher is addressing a congregation for the first time, (composed, it may be, of persons of various opinions and feelings), in a neighbourhood, too, where a great difference of opinion exists, and where such difference is the cause of many heart-burnings and ungodly jealousies? As a minister of the Gospel of peace, it surely behoves me to recommend peace and good-will to all; and instead of throwing up the apple of discord, and thereby adding to the dissension, to hold out the ensign of peace, and to give the right hand of fellowship to those who hold the Head, even Christ; and thus to seek to promote unity, godly love, and kindly feeling between those with whom prevailed strife, division, and unmeaning controversy and in doing this, I am not courting the popularity of the multitude, nor seeking to please "itching ears," nor wishing to buy golden opinions of all sorts and conditions of men." And further, while I am thus endeavouring, in meekness, " to instruct those who oppose themselves," I am careful to let my feeble labours breathe the pure, holy, tolerant, and catholic spirit of the Church of England; and have yet to learn that I am departing from that charity which " endureth all things," " hopeth all things," and "thinketh no evil," or encouraging any other spirit, amongst my people, than that of true benevolence, and Christian-love-love to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ! Such is the nature and force of the "liberality" referred to in my sermons: and if the maintenance of principle be inconsistent or incompatible with such sentiments,-if the maintenance of certain "distinctive principles" (as it is technically called) consists in abusing or speaking illiberally of those who conscientiously differ with us on certain points, I must plead guilty to the charge of liberality, and leave it to those who are as exclusive as the Calvinists,

66