He waited after neither pomp ne reverence, He taught, but first he followed it himselve. We repeat, that it is hardly conceivable, that Chaucer should have here depicted a character which had no real existence. His portraits are all representatives of classes;-hence we may hope, that however few in number, and however encumbered with many superstitions and errors, there were some of these "poor parsons to be found in Chaucer's day,—i. e., more than a century before the times of Luther and Cranmer. True, it requires an effort of mind to conceive the idea of a whole class of real Christians existing in England in those days. Yet an hour's contemplation of the character of Bradwardine, may enlighten us as to the question, "How could these things be?" Only one word more, and that shall be, to express an earnest desire, that either by the universities, or by some other public means, all the documents connected with the history of our Church from the earliest period, could be made as entirely accessible to the student, as are now the writings of the venerable Bede. A STATE CHURCH NOT DEFENSIBLE ON THE THEORY ESPOUSED BY LIBERAL EPISCOPALIANS. By F. W. NEWMAN, Esq. formerly Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. (Tracts of the British Anti-State-Church Association, No. 10.) London. 1845. We have here a remarkable instance of the failure of a very able and earnest man, to make any real impression on his subject; and we have also, on the very surface, the reasons of his failure. The consideration of both may prove serviceable to the advancement of truth, and we therefore enter upon it without further preface. Mr. F. W. Newman, is, we believe, the brother of Mr. John Henry Newman, the well-known leader of the Tractarian party. His rank and estimation at Oxford were, we believe, still higher than his brother's ;-but he has been, for some years past, connected with a Dissenting academy in Lancashire. The faults of his present production, able as it undoubtedly is, are these: 1. While Mr. N. proposes "to unfold, in all candour, and in "their fullest strength, the reasonings on which" Churchmen rest, he never once quotes the writers to whom he intends to reply. Now this is a most injudicious and unsatisfactory course. Even when a controversialist feels that he can state his antagonists' argument better than they can state it themselves, it is not wise to do so. What the reader always wants, is, to see the very words of the opponent's statement, and then to compare with it the reply. In the present instance, while Mr. N. attributes to "liberal Episcopalians some reasonings of which we never before heard, -he gives their main arguments,--candidly, we doubt not,but still less clearly and forcibly than they appear in their own treatises. 2. In lieu of the plain English in which the argument used to be carried on, we have now the modern slang of the "Anti-StateChurch Association." We hear of "the state-church system," "state-government," "state-churches," and "the state-church principle." Amidst all this clatter, we really hardly know on what the question is made to rest. Is the argument "on the duty of civil rulers with reference to religious questions?" If so,-as these are clear and express terms, understood by all parties, why should we not keep to them? We confess, that we hardly know what is meant by "" a state-church." 3. However, and chiefly,-the misfortune is, that, while professing to discuss a theory, Mr. Newman relies chiefly on defects of practice. And throughout the whole, he argues, most illegiti mately, from the abuse, against the use, from the corruptions of an institution, against the institution itself. Thus, in every page, and under every one of his thirteen heads, it is not the abstract theory, but the particular exemplification of that theory in England at the present moment, that is brought most prominently forward. But how unjust and indefensible is this! Supposing that twenty, or even fifty, practical blemishes could be pointed out in the English church,-what bearing can they have upon "the theory espoused by liberal Episcopalians?" But let us look, for a few moments, at the manner in which Mr. Newman conducts the discussion. He begins by stating, as the first argument, or remark, put forward by "liberal Episcopalians,' -the following. "1. First of all, they complain, that 'in the appeals to the New Testament, made by opposers of the state-church system, it is wrongly assumed, that the form of church-government there recorded was meant as an unchangeable model for all later churches, whatever the change of circumstances. Yet, since the apostles had no opportunity of uniting the state system in any country with that of their church, we clearly cannot infer, from their not having done so, that they would not have done it if they could.'”—(p. 6.) Now to this, which is but a low and minor plea of the advocates of establishments, Mr. Newman replies as follows: "Church authority and state authority rest on essentially different bases, require different qualifications, are recognised on different principles, and can only accidentally co-exist in the same individual. This, we contend, is decidedly the reverse of all that can be found in state churches. In that of England, for instance, the sovereign, as such, is head of the church; nor is the case altered if we use the word Crown for sovereign, or if the prime minister or the Parliament exercise the power instead. Still, a mere civil authority-an authority conferred without any reference to spiritual graces, and least of all humility-assumes to rule the church, to appoint bishops, to ordain liturgies, to enact articles, and therewith the doctrines which are to be taught; to assemble, if it please, general councils or convocations; to lay before them what to debate upon; to accept and ratify, or equally to set aside, their conclusions. 66 Now, in fact, even without any such precept of Christ, and without any actual precedent of the apostles, we may venture to assert what they would have done if they had been called to pronounce on the case before us. Suppose that Sergius Paulus, after his conversion, had succeeded to the empire of Rome, and that he had forthwith sent a message to the apostles and churches, informing them that he meant to endow their bishoprics, and to assume for himself and his successors the right of appointing to them; that henceforth no general councils, such as that at Jerusalem, must be held without his permission; that he would shortly form an imperial commission, to prepare a liturgy for the use of the churches, and Thirty nine Articles to be accepted by all bishops and curates; that he trusted, now that a nursing father' for the church had appeared, all his Christian subjects would strengthen his hands; and that, to avoid an imperium in imperio, the apostles would take out letters patent from the crown to confirm them in their high offices; we ask, Would such royal patronage have been received as a boon, or rejected as a usurpation? or, can any sane man pretend, that, since the apostles were never put to the proof, we do not know whether they would not have acqui esced in a system which constituted the state rulers (provided that they professed Christianity), ipsa re, rulers of the church also? Every fresh mind would pronounce, that Sergius Paulus might possess military genius, or civil address, or other capacity which enabled him to hold the reins of empire; but all these things had nothing to do with his qualifications for church rule. Perhaps on the contrary, he might be a most ignorant, refractory, unstable Christian, barely inside the threshold of the church, and about to deserve suspension, or even excommunication, before long. Or, if his own virtue were eminent; if even he were already in some high ecclesiastical post; this could not justify remodelling the church system so as to put power into the hands of his unknown successor in the empire. That successor might be a mere worldly man, whose sole aim would be to use the church as a tool for his political objects; for the sake of which he might wear an outside of Christianity, and, having ecclesiastical power transmitted to him, would be irresistible except by a break-up of the union now about to be cemented.'”— (pp. 7, 8.) Is it not obvious here, on the first glance at the argument,that instead of meeting a plain and simple theory, -that" rulers are bound to establish the public worship of God,"-by close and cogent argument,-Mr. Newman treats us to a diatribe on the existing church-system of England only? The absurdity of such a course is evident from this,-that the moment he addressed such reasonings to Dr. Chalmers, or Dr. Dwight, he would be met by the reply, that he was attacking, what they never dreamt of defending. With this remark, they would dismiss the greater part of his argument, and would themselves remain as great advocates of Establishments as ever,-feeling that his reasonings had not in the least degree touched the real merits of the question. After two or three other minor reasons, Mr. Newman adduces this, which we must describe as a weak argument, badly put, and shewing, chiefly, how much better it would be, were Mr. N. to give the positions he opposes, in the actual words of some one of his opponents. "7. That a union of church and state actually came about in the progress of providential events, and that the church system had not until then attained its full development; it remains, therefore, for us to perfect, not to destroy, the union which has hitherto had too much of human infirmity clinging to it.'"'—(p. 14.) To this weak argument, Mr. Newman replies by a train of wholly inapplicable reasoning. He says, "We cannot permit, that, by merely confessing the 'human infirmity' that has clung to the union of church and state, the disastrous consequences which have really flowed from that system should be palliated. It is a clear fact of history, that the accession of Constantine to the Christian cause kindled in the bishops a most unholy flame of ambition, intensely exasperated the schisms that followed, taught Christians to borrow the civil sword, in order, first, to banish, and finally, to slay, one another; led quickly to persecuting their pagan neighbours; and, by huddling into the nominal church whole masses of population, brought in with them heathen feelings, heathen rites, and heathen deities, the names only being changed. For a full thousand years the essential condition of all vital Christianitythe responsibility of the soul to God alone-was suppressed; and the demon of persecution reigned, immolating in succession Jews, Moors, and Christians of every sect. The Inquisition was a "development" of the state church principle, in a far more manifest and legitimate sense than the latter was a development of any principle to be found in the New Testament. Whatever theories may be spun about possible state churches, we have the broad fact before us, that consequences the most shocking and on the greatest scale resulted out of recurrence to the heathen precedent, during an experiment that lasted 1,400 years; and that a relaxation of the evils has been obtained only in proportion as men loosened their hold of the state-church principle."-(pp. 14, 15.) Is it not strange, that a sensible man can venture to mingle together two such entirely separate questions as the Papacy, and the lawfulness of Establishments; and can even put down the Inquisition to the account of "the state-church principle!" The Papacy, the Inquisition, and the barbarities of the middle ages, did not spring out from the doctrine, that it was the duty of rulers to establish the worship of God;-but from the wholly different assumption, " that it was not fit that any man should be invested with authority, who did not serve and obey the Holy See;"-that "the Pope held the place of God upon earth;"-and that "the pontifical power is as far superior to the regal, as the sun is to the moon." In a word,--the papal supremacy, the claim of the Pope to universal dominion,-caused most of the wars and cruelties of the middle ages. But what can be more illogical, than to connect these usurpations, with so entirely different a question, as that of "the duty of rulers to establish the worship of God"? A little further on, Mr. Newman gives a better argument, from the mouths of churchmen, as follows: "9. That the state has the same right to use its authority and its funds in support of religion, as for the promotion of science, or taste, or any other objects which it holds to conduce to the welfare of the nation.' ”—(p. 15.) And, in proportion as the argument is sound, does Mr. Newman fail in his reply to it. He says "Science compels assent by accumulated fact and systematic reasoning: it is scholastic, depending on learning and research. Religion is popular, and depends on the moral affections: all must, or ought to be, concerned about it. In it, the unlearned is often wiser than the philosopher; and no one may assume that those whom the civil rulers think ignorant and fanatical, are not far wiser than they,-at least, no one who gives even a loose assent to Christian doctrines; whatever might be urged by non-Christians on the other side. Therefore, by its own internal nature, the Christian religion forbids the assumption that the poor and ignorant in this world need to be instructed by the high-born, and rich, and learned, who wield the powers of the state. We do not, then, say that in no condition of human nature may 1 Bulls and Rescripts of Innocent III. |