it is only while hidden in Christ, or seen through his righteousness, that man can be righteous before God: the instant God sees man himself, instead of Christ, that instant is he lost, for the righteousness that God will then look upon will be no longer perfect, but mingled with sin, of which a "little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."+

Having, then, seen that, 1st, the work of Christ, as a sole, unaided Justifier, is perfect, and sufficient in itself; and that, 2dly, man, from the very nature of the means requisite to his justification, is totally unable to contribute anything towards them our conclusion is, that the justification of man before God is by the merits of Jesus Christ alone.

RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY.

No. III.

Φ. Δ.

MR. GLADSTONE'S ARTICLE IN THE FOURTH NUMBER OF "THE FOREIGN AND COLONIAL REVIEW," FULLY CONSIDERED.

IN proceeding to comment upon Mr. Gladstone's view of the "Present Aspect of the Church," we resume our task with the same feelings of respect and admiration which we have always entertained for the talents and eloquence of that gentleman: these, however, make us regret the more that it is not in our power to number him on the side of those who advocate Religion in its purity, without the alloy of superstition, and that he should suffer himself to be so far led away by false analogies from the philosophical principles that we hold in common, as to adopt a line of argument which makes the salvation of man more dependant on priestly mediation, than on the perpetual intercession of Him who, having offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God." We fail, therefore, to recognise the justice of the parallel drawn by Mr. Gladstone between Froude and Whitfield; and dispute the fact asserted, that, with reference to the Tractarian manifestation originating in the efforts of the former, "the stone has grown into a rock, if not a mountain." No doubt, the developement of the plans of the party called for notice from theological and literary controversialists, and that the subject is very properly taken up by authority; but, unlike anything that occurred in

* Col. iii. 3.

+ 1 Cor. v. 6; and Gal. v. 9.

the case of Whitfield, the first breath of opposition has had the effect of disconcerting the plans of the Tractarians, and making them change their tactics. This has happened, because, like the Jesuits, and Counter-Reformers in general, they have had plans and tactics; whereas, all who have undertaken reforms which Providence has sanctioned in their success, have acted by impulse, not premeditating what they should do or say, but trusting to Divine teaching, whenever occasion should arise. And thus, one broad and fundamental line of demarcation is instituted between Froude and Whitfield, and their adherents. Whether the Tractarian movement, in any legitimate sense, can be said to have respected the enforcement of "the visibility, perpetuity, and authority of the Church of Christ, and the spiritual essence of her ministry and ordinances," is another question. Such an object is, doubtless, a desirable one; but it appears to us, and others, that the plans and tactics of the Tractarians are destructive, and not promotive, of it, and, therefore, ought to be opposed.

The analogous movement in the Church of Scotland is, undeniably, a matter of serious consideration; and the secession of two-fifths of its ministry, a phenomenon not to be disregarded. But the manner in which Mr. Gladstone states it, shows the tendency that there is, in the incoherent system which he has unfortunately adopted, to distort facts from their true and natural tendency in argument. In both instances the assertion is of Church versus State; and whether the government of both were or were not episcopalian, modifies not the character or results of either movement in the slightest degree. Only the absurdest prejudice could entertain the supposition for a moment. Throughout Mr. Gladstone's argument, too, we find the implied definition of the word "Church" quietly excluding the laity-in contravention of the great articles of the Church of England, which not only includes them, but defines the Church by them: to wit, "A congre gation of faithful men, in which the Pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."

As to the charge brought against the clergy by Mr. Gladstone, that they had become, "as a body, secular in their habits," and that the Church of England was "approximating, in practice, to the character of what a powerful writer denominates, in homely phrase, a sham," we hope that such charge is made, in regard to the first point, at second hand; and, in regard to the seeond, we perceive that it proceeds altogether on the false and imperfect definition just alluded to, and only means that the clerical order had ceased to be generally esteemed a miraculous corporation. The Church of England, as meaning the laity, was getting more and more a reality: the number of churches, and the congregations in each, were increasing in rapid ratio, and the services receiving more and more attention both in town and country. Mr. Gladstone himself, indeed, confesses, that since 1833 wonderful improvements have taken place; but then, "the reaction in favour of Personal Piety was connected with a School of

Doctrine wholly destitute of the spirit which pervades the sacramental and ritual system of the Church." This is a sweeping assertion; but is it a true one? We boldly answer, No! Some who entertain such doctrine may be destitute of the predicated spirit; but there are many who hold or approximate thereto, who are even zealous for the system. As to any "School of Popular Divinity," such as Mr. Gladstone also alludes to, we need not say that he cannot be more strongly opposed to it than we are ourselves. But this is altogether a separate point, and needs far other discipline and means of correction than those which he has patronised. Meanwhile, let us rejoice in the acknowledged increase of personal zeal, faith, and love, and the progress of the associative principle; confiding in a merciful Providence for the overruling of such error as might unavoidably accompany processes merely tentative. The distinction which Mr. Gladstone attempts to institute between what is called " Evangelical" and what is called "Catholic," is a mere petitio principii; what is truly either the one or the other, will be both.

The want of a desirable equilibrium between different systems may be conceded; but it is to take a view decidedly exclusive, and therefore absolutely most uncatholic (when the word is understood in its right sense), to confine the Church Visible and Catholic, as the everlasting Spouse of Christ, to any one system or institution; and to assert external uniformity as necessarily connected with "the deepest, the most inward, and vital sentiment of community, and brotherhood, and identity;" whereas, manifestly, the sentiment is there most prerogatively displayed where such external uniformity is least required; sympathising thereby with the Divine benevolence, which has seen fit to choose manifold channels for the communication of his gifts and graces. Why should we be called upon to rebel against the course of God's own providence?

Now, we are quite as much prepared as Mr. Gladstone to contendnay, we contended for it in our very first article-that there has been a great Catholic movement proceeding in the theological and literary mind of the age; but we deny that this movement is identical with that which commenced with the three, or four, or more individuals, and their adherents, who have claimed to partake of it. Their exclusive views of the movement operate in a contrary direction, and will be found to oppose those wider views of truth which the religious and philosophic spirit of the time is perpetually advancing. Witness, in Mr. Gladstone's own case: no sooner does he come forth with his limitary notions of Catholic principle, than he is opposed by that mind in quarters where he might have expected support. Mrs. Coleridge's Essay, too, will live, when Mr. Gladstone's book is dead; from which certainty (though prophetic and future) may be judged the relative importance of the cause advocated by the one and the other. Why will a man thus "walk in a vain show," when he might live a life of substantial verity? That consequent upon these truly Catholic principles there will be, and has been, "a general growth of the per

ception of Church order and authority, as a constituent part of the laws of our religious life," was to be expected, as the natural result of a movement from within, outward; while the result of the Pseudo-Catholicism of the Tractarians has been of a decidedly contrary character, having produced a violation of both, as a temporary duty, because the only means of preventing the return of an old error, that had once desolated the nations, and destroyed the people of God. Mr. Gladstone's impeachment of the University of Oxford, and his defence of Dr. Pusey's condemned sermon, as "a very long discourse, and one avowedly not written with polemical caution," are both so obviously sophistical, that we should be ashamed to waste a word upon either. The conclusion that he deduces from this sophistry, namely, "that the movement, which, in the vulgar notion and phrase, is called that of Puseyism, or Tractarianism, is, in point of fact and in the main, whether right or wrong, a movement of the members of the Church at large, and not of a mere part of them," falls, of course, with the premises from which it is so injudiciously drawn.

But now, to consider, with Mr. Gladstone, the character of Tractarianism, and its actual and probable effects. It is confessed that certain influential converts have, during the last eight or ten years, been made to Rome; but then it seems that this is to be got over by the attractions which Rome has " to bewilder persons of unstable mind;" a reason which, as we think, tells all the other way. So far from wondering that these attractions, which Mr. Gladstone here sets forth with even gorgeous eloquence, have been fatal to a few, we wonder that they have not been fatal to more; and the true argumentation on the point only goes to show the immense differences that exist between the influences set going by Froude, and those by the Whitfields and Weleys of an earlier time. Against these same attractions, however, Tractarianism, in the first instance, pretended to guard its disciples, by the strength which it proposed to give to Anglican as compared with Romish claims. The publication of Mr. Froude's "Remains," however, impressed," Mr. Gladstone confesses," a new character on the movement;' and induced, first, an unmeasured and unmitigated aversion to the Reformation and the Reformers," and, next, a measured but yet undeniable and substantial estrangement of the heart from the actual Church of England, and a disposition not only to respect Catholicity in the Church of Rome, but to take the actual Church of Rome in the mass, as being, upon the whole, the best living model of the Christian Chuch." And Mr. Gladstone is compelled to admit that "the extreme writers" of the Puseyite school "have too frequently adopted a strain of language which, in plain terms, is not loyal towards the Church of England." Yet, for himself he confesses to holding a doctrine of Apostolical Succession, which denies "that measure of regard, beyond the rules of ordinary reason," which the Protestant is accustomed to pay to the Reformers, as the parent of the Church system which he has happily inherited; and pleases himself with the notion, that the reaction against Tractarianism has been partial, and with charging on

its opponents the sin which more closely besets its advocates—namely, that of putting "beyond the covenant of God's mercies," such Christians as may not be within the folds of that Church of which any doughty controversialist may happen to be a member. But then, to be sure, in Mr. Gladstone's estimation the cases are different; for those opponents, it seems, would shut out (if they were justly chargeable with the predicated exclusive spirit) thee-fourths or more of all the Christians now alive; whereas these advocates only shut out the remaining one-fourth! But, in fact, the charge against the opponents of Tractarianism is baseless; for they pretend to no such exclusiveness, and never presume to relegate to "the uncovenanted mercies of God" the members of other communions than their own. As to the sin which (according to Mr. Gladstone) there is in erroneously condemning the Chuch of Rome for idolatry, they claim the right of private judgement, and rejoice that, whatever may be its weight, it is less than the guilt of approving that idolatry, if it exist. The suggestion that Dr. Holloway is open, for his remarks on Baptismal Regeneration, to censure in an ecclesiastical court, is ridiculously malignant, and should have been carefully eschewed by Mr. Gladstone; and the presumed vindication of Rome, with reference to Dr. Holloway's supposed offences, on the ground that "what tends to heresy is endured with the Church of England, even as what tends to idolatry is endured with the Church of Rome," is as insidious as it is ingenious. Is, then, heresy as deadly a sin as idolatry? May not what is heresy be doubted? Can what is idolatry be? Nay, even if we could tell what is heresy, is it so easy to tell who is Heretic? Are not many tenets held speculatively, which are not held practically; and vice versa? And is it not Practical Faith which saves, and is not Speculative Belief, at least comparatively, indifferent? But do any of these difficulties permit us to doubt who is the idolater? Is he not there at the altar, kneeling before the consecrated image-there, in the very act? Away, then, with any possibility of communion with Rome, whatever there may be of communion with other Churches; and this, not on the ground of the subjection she would impose, for this might even, and would be, if she were a truly pure and Catholic Church, beneficial; but on the ground of her superstition, idolatry, and corruption.

Upon the existence of a Romanising school within the Church of England, and the certainty of its ultimate extinction, we cordially agree with Mr. Gladstone in opinion; but we entirely disagree with him in the notion that the primary object of the Tractarians was, not to unprotestantise," but to "catholicise" the members of the Church of England. That the reaction which it has called up will, however, do this, we doubt not. Most Catholic when most Protestant, the Church of England will gather strength by the warfare in which she has now engaged. No thanks, therefore, however, to Tractarianism, whatever Mr. Carlyle may say of its sincerity and honesty. We know the writer just mentioned to be no safe judge in a controversy of this kind. It is to the great minds that have during this century illustrated