under the recent influence of the Reformation, might not unnaturally have been expected; her tone and temper (unlike some of her Protestant sisters), full of respect for Patristic antiquity and precedent, and free from the unhistorical and subjective caprice by which these bodies had occasionally been masked. But the current soon set strongly in, from the topics of justification and grace, to the more recondite ones of the ministerial commission, and the administration of the sacraments. From the appearance of Bancroft's celebrated discourse, these subjects gradually rose into prominent consequence, through the influence of Andrews, until the time of Laud; when the principle of the spirituality of forms was as undiscerningly maintained as shortly before it had been attacked. But, without passing judgement on the school of Laud, its relationship was assuredly with the schools of Ignatius and Chrysostom, least of all the low, sordid Arminianism of that time.

65. After the subsiding of the disorders caused by the intestine wars of the time, and of the reaction consequent thereon, the writers arose in whom the nation possesses her greatest masters of Theology. A connecting link between this latter body and a former generation, were Overall, Hall, Usher; the third endowed with learning which has rarely, if ever, been surpassed; the second ever memorable for the tenderness and pathos of his eloquence. First among the names which illustrate the middle of the seventeenth century, are those of Taylor and Barrow. Learned and eloquent alike, the first has often been put forward as the Anglican Chrysostom. His long life and changing fortunes have affected the consistency of his writings. As a specimen of Anglican Theology, his "Ductor Dubitantium" may be put forward with well-founded pride; while the circumstances under which the treatise of the "Liberty of Prophesying" was written, have perhaps given its great truths a dress the more impressive from being less overlaid with the treasures of its author's learning and research. Barrow's writings occasionally cease to put forward, so prominently as those of Hooker, the justification of man by faith; but negligence or wilful blindness only would deny to his wonderful writings the praise of enucleating all that bears upon the fruits of faith, with greater eloquence and precision than the following generation, while he insists on the foundation of Christian life—namely, the mediatorial character and priestly office of Christ-in language to which the Arminian tone of the schools alluded to forms a humiliating contrast.

Almost contemporary with the great men just mentioned, were the leaders of the Nonconformists-Owen, Baxter, Howe, Manton, and Bates; the first extolled, by almost prescriptive veneration, as the chief of dissenting theologians, but whose long and wearisome digressions too often drive away the student from the search after the pure gold so richly strewed throughout his writings; the second clear, earnest, and irresistible; the third majestic and impressive. As connecting links between these good men and the leaders of the Church party, may be taken Leighton and Reynolds, who taught within the Church with all the warmth and unction of the most eminent of the Nonconformists.

With so many elements actively at work in the religion of this country, the great and important division which subsequently arose is hardly to be wondered at. The bad and good qualities of the two great parties known respectively by the names of Latitudinarians and Nonjurors, lie so much on the surface as to influence unfairly the decisions of ordinary observers respecting their merits. Thus, for instance, with respect to the two great men, Tillotson (1694) and Burnet (1715), and those who sided with them, as likewise those who succeeded to their places and authority, which they occupied in a kindred spirit-the comprehensiveness of their views, and the desire, where possible, to balance, mediate, and admit, have imparted, at first sight, a certain degree of coldness and vagueness to their writings. Beyond this, many do not proceed, dissatisfied with what meets them at the threshold. A thorough acquaintance with the works of the great and influential writers above mentioned, would show in the first a depth of piety, in the second a thrilling conviction of the responsibilities of the ministerial office, of the existence of which superficial readers little deem. Again, in the case of the Nonjurors, feelings of compassion were kindled into love and admiration (and hard, indeed, must be the heart which could withhold them) for the sufferings and consistency of Sancroft and his brethren, and the holiness and heavenly-mindedness which pervade the writings of Ken, Kettlewell, and another who may be fitly joined with them-Nelson. It may very fairly be questioned, whether an extension of the influence exercised by the contemporary body of Platonising divines, such as were Worthington and Smith, would have contributed as much to the maintenance of vital religion as the works of the writers just named; as the cold graces of statuary are less obvious to the majority, than the more conspicuous representations of painting. Be this as it may, it should never be forgotten that with this warm, Christian tone, which pervades the writings of the Nonjurors, and which, as we have seen, carries the mind away with it, there is much deserving of reprehension in some of their bodymuch of arrogant and pernicious superstition.

66. With the eighteenth century, an evil and barren time arose for the Church of England. Wake, Secker, and Wilson (Pelagian as some of his teaching undoubtedly was), are names which must ever be held in honour from their merits in practice, and as administrators of their high offices. Wake will be ever remembered as a man of very considerable theological acquirements, and as known and respected through Europe for his kindly spirit and brotherly love. But the characteristic excellencies of Wake belong rather to the history of the operations of the Church, than to that of Theology.

The eighteenth century was, we repeat, a dark age. Our doctrinal Theology, during this period, is egregiously low and poor and an unusually large space is devoted to the consideration of the evidences, and repelling attacks upon these. Except in the case of the author of the immortal Analogy, and in some few others, there arose on their foundations no goodly fabric of Christian faith and love,

"It was

and lessons to make man wiser or better in the sight of God. the fault of the Church in the last century, or rather of those who had the mastery over the Church, that her ministers, by preaching her doctrines negatively or coldly, gave occasion to many whose spirit God had stirred, to seek instruction rather in the writings of those not of her communion-the old Nonconformists-than within herself."* A consequence of this coldness, for which relief was sought in various ways, was the movement headed by Wesley and Whitfield, both filled with missionary zeal, and irresistible in their eloquence, although differing in this as a calm sweeping river, from its loud and rushing brother.

These different causes have left manifold results; some in full activity, others for the present in embryo. Whatever may be the event to Theology and the Christian communities of this country, it is impossible not to recognise a healthy and vigorous spirit of vitality, inherent in the Anglican Church, adequate for purposes of self-defence or regeneration; the absence of which in their own Church has been deplored by Lutheran writers. "The Episcopal Church of England," writes Twesten, "although various attacks have been made upon her, retains to all appearance her former dignity and hold on the people; at the same time that her sister, the Presbyterian Church, and her neighbours, and the various Christian communities (which, although differing in discipline, agree in their adherence to revelation), have flourished and spread around her."

CECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

Ir has often been asserted of late that we differ with the Church of Rome as to facts only, and not as to principles. Thus it is said, the rule of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition, is the same in both Churches; and that our difference consists merely in this-that we do not look to the same sources for that Tradition as the Church of Rome does. Again, it is affirmed both Churches acknowledge a real presence in the elements, apart and distinct from the faithful receiving of them; but the Church of Rome explains that presence in a different way to what we do; both Churches hold a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, though not after the same manner; in both Churches justification is identical with sanctification, and comes to us through the sacraments, and not by faith. But on no point is this similarity of principle more strongly

*Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.

contended for, than on that of infallibility residing in the Church; it being said, by writers of this school, amongst us, that the Church of Rome has erred not absolutely and entirely, when she claimed infallibility, but only so far as she called herself the Catholic Church, whereas she was but a part of it; that the general principle was a great and sound truth, but her error in this—that this infallibility is vested not in the Bishop of Rome, but in the assembly of Bishops, convoked lawfully in an Ecumenical Council. Nay, with one part of the Roman Catholic Church, the Gallican, our resemblance as to this doctrine is still closer; for they held that infallibility resided not in the Pope, but a General Council; and so our only difference with Bossuet, Fleury, and the French assertors of their liberties is in this-that they did not consider the presence of the Bishops of the Church of England and the Greek Church necessary, as we do, to form such a true Ecumenical Council as shall have the promise of being guided into all truth. But with the Protestants it is affirmed, with the modern sects of Luther and Calvin, our difference upon this point, as indeed upon almost all others, is great and irreconcileable-a difference of principle and system; they leaving their followers without guide and control, to be distracted and torn asunder by every new doctrine that may chance to spring up.

Now, if it be true, as has been asserted of late years, that the Church Catholic, truly and fairly represented by its bishops, is in itself absolutely and perfectly infallible, that God has promised to preserve all Councils really Ecumenical and Universal from all error contrary to sound doctrine, so that their voice is as the voice of Christ and His Apostles, and from their judgement there is no appeal whatever, they being the ultimate and final interpreters of all Scripture, the unerring arbiters in all controversies whatsoever, it is plain that this is a doctrine of incalculable and paramount importance. If it be a truth, to deny it is in fact to rebel against the authority of our Lord and His Apostles, who according to it left these councils as their successors upon earth to decide in all disputes; if it be an error, it is no slight one, investing as it does fallible men with infallibility, and placing the bishops of these councils on a virtual equality with the Apostles of Christ. And in proportion to the vital importance of this doctrine, so is our right increased to demand some very plain declaration of Scripture in support of it, if it really be a doctrine of Holy Writ; and some no less plain declaration of the Church of England also, if it really be her doctrine too. We doubt not indeed, that, if Holy Writ asserts this as an article of faith, so will the Church of England too; for she has never hesitated to declare the whole truth as it is in God's Word, speaking clearly where that speaks clearly, more cautiously where that is doubtful, silent only where that is silent; guiding her speech and her silence alike by the speech and silence of Scripture alone. But it is evident that we cannot admit that men, who are by nature liable to err, become infallible, unless God by some acknowledged infallible authority has plainly pronounced that they shall be so under certain circumstances. What, then, are the proofs of Scripture for so startling and strange an

assertion, as that fallible men, or any number of men, are ever exempt from error upon earth? If we ask the Roman Catholic for his ground of belief in one bishop, as the unerring judge in matters of faith, he will cite the text-"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it:" this in his eyes is the promise of Christ, the charter of infallibility to the Bishop of Rome. With this passage we have at present no concern. But we do not scruple to say, that, baseless as it is, when fairly tried and examined by honest and impartial criticism, to found the doctrine of the Church of Rome upon, yet Holy Scripture affords no passage in support of the authority of Ecumenical Councils, that can be adduced with so fair and plausible a show of reason, as this has been for the Papal Supremacy. Nay, we confess that we are almost at a loss to know what are the Scriptural proofs for this doctrine at all? That which is most commonly brought forward is, we believe, this: "Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." But if these words can prove that Ecumenical Councils are infallible, then may any words of Holy Scripture be made to mean anything; the two swords of St. Peter may fitly represent the spiritual and temporal authority of the See of Rome; and the greater and lesser lights foretell the ecclesiastical and civil power. That this promise of Christ's presence to His Apostles and Church for ever, even unto the end of time, might be supposed to prove the infallibility of the Church Catholic, we will allow to be possible; but how it can show even in the least degree that it is when assembled in Universal Councils that the Church receives this gift of infallibility, it is difficult, indeed, to see. There is not so much as a hint of Councils or Assemblies of the Church in the text, no intimation whatever that this presence is to be sought for in the universal body of bishops, any more than in any one bishop of a particular See. Granted that the bishops of the Church are the successors of the Apostles as to the ordaining power, it does not follow that they are so also in the power of unerring judgement as to matters of faith! Nor was this promise of our Lord's presence given to the Apostles as a college or council; why, then, to their successors when so assembled? But the truth is, that the text can never prove the infallibility of the Church Universal in any way, either when represented in its councils, or speaking of the Papal See, or otherwise; it proves, indeed, that there will ever be a body of Christian men with whom our Lord will be spiritually present, even to the end of time; that though particular Churches may fall from the faith, and their candlesticks be removed, yet that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the whole Church; that the Church is, indeed, indefectible, but not infallible. For this assurance of Christ's presence here given to the Apostles and their successors, is given also in no less plain terms-nay, perhaps even in stronger language, to every assembly of two or three in His name: "Wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." If the first text proves the infallibility of the Church Catholic, so does the second the infallibility of every meeting of Christians in the name of their Lord. "Lo! I am with