disgrace of the Christian religion, and which spring from an assumption, not always expressed, but constantly implied, by each party, that it alone is the Church. Discussions respecting forms of Church government would be divested of their acrimony, if it be once distinctly understood, that however determined, the decision would in no wise affect the character of either party in any essential quality of a Christian Church. There could be no reason or excuse for the rage of proselytism, if all Churches be substantially the same. The Episcopalian may prefer his liturgy, the Presbyterian his extemporaneous prayers, the Baptist his mode of immersion, the Methodist the order established by Wesley, provided that neither assumes, upon the strength of the forms preferred, that his Church is the Church of Christ; but freely and cordially concedes to all, that their's also are as fully Christian Churches as his own, and that, therefore, it can be of no importance to which any individual Christian may belong.

All Christian Churches will thus be equally branches and portions of that universal Church, to which alone it belongs, to be called the Church of Christ, and which comprises every human being who is, not nominally or professedly, but in spirit and in truth, a disciple of Christ, no matter by what sectarian name he may be called, whether Catholic, Episcopalian or Dissenter, or how humble or unimposing the particular Church to which he may belong. In the days of the Apostles, the house of one of the brethren constituted a true Church of Christ.

Unfortunately for the harmony which ought to prevail among those who profess the religion of love, no Church is content with being a Christian Church only. Each one assumes, openly or tacitly, to be the Church, and a restless spirit of rebuke, reproach and contempt, is frequently exhibited to other Churches. It is by no means, to the Church of Rome only, that this spirit belongs. It may be found, in a greater or less degree, in almost every Christian Church. Until this odious temper is curbed and subdued, we cannot hope to see the Christian religion flourishing in the beautiful simplicity and persuasive tenderness of apostolic times; and the only mode effectually to overcome it, is to cultivate that universal charity and love, which embraces all Christians alike, and all Christian Churches, as fellow disciples and brethren in Christ, as fully and perfectly as we are ourselves.

If we are alarmed at the confusion and disorder to which

this conclusion would seem to lead, and resolve to reject the principles on which it rests, we have no alternative left us, but that of taking refuge in a Church authorised by Divine authority to govern, to interpret the Scripture for all Christians, to lay down a rule of faith and discipline, and to decide who do, or do not, conform to it. We must fairly adopt the principles of Dr. Pusey and his fellow labourers, with the resolution of honestly carrying out his principles to their legitimate end-re-union with the Church of Rome.

Which of these alternatives is the better choice, the Church divinely commissioned, accompanied with the perils of religious despotism and oppression, or religious Liberty, with its attendant dangers of confusion and disorder, we do not presume to decide, but leave it to our readers to determine for themselves. We would only recommend the preservation of clearness and consistency in our religious principles. Let us not have protestant Churches, arrogating the Pope's infallibility, or Catholics in principle, claiming the privileges of dissent.

Whatever the views of parties, however, there is one opinion expressed in the Oxford movement, of the deepest interest to them all. Mr. Keble regards the union between Church and State as "actually sinful." Others of the Tract writers think it objectionable. Many look forward to the period when the dissolution of it would be desirable. To all, the important difficulty seems to be, that such an event would endanger the interests-the endowments of the Church. But for this consideration, the separation would relieve it from apprehended dangers growing out of State policy and political intrigue.

The principle thus plainly put forth by the Oxford writer, and practically asserted by the seceders from the Scotch establishment, has been lately maintained by a distinguished Catholic Bishop also as the true faith. Bishop Hughes, of New York, declares that the union of Church and State is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The whole history of the Church of Rome, indeed, is one continued struggle for the independence of the Church. The misfortune is, that it has not always been satisfied with independence only. Its claims have reached to supremacy in temporal as well as spiritual things, to the right of bestowing kingdoms and continents, and deposing princes and emperors.

However this may be, it is understood to be no Catholic doctrine, that the Church should be united to the State.

There are thus approaching to agreement, on a subject of infinite importance, the three great divisions of the religious world-the democracy, aristocracy and monarchy-the Presbyterian with all dissenting sects, the Protestant Episcopalian, and the Catholic.

We may hope then, that the Church, under whatever banner arrayed, is about to vindicate its freedom from this unhallowed connexion with the State-that the living spiritual principle will be unchained from the body to which it has been bound-that the kingdom of Christ will become, what he declared it to be, a kingdom not of this world.

It is certainly not surprising, that the Tract writers particularly, should be in favour of the independence of the Church. There is no warrant in apostolic precept, or practice, for any such institution as an established Church, supported by the State, and governed by it. It is natural enough, therefore, that they who claim to be the successors of the apostles, should feel, that for a Church to be so circumstanced, must be "actually sinful." Shall the successors of the apostles, entitled to speak and rule with like authority in the Church, be subject to the control of kings or princes, arrogating the title of supreme head of the Church, presuming to govern and regulate it? Think of St. Paul taking direction or counsel from Festus, or Agrippa, in questions of discipline or doctrine, or shaping his epistle to the Romans, in compliance with the imperial will of Nero! The very supposition is monstrous. And shall they who represent the apostles, be any the less tenacious of their dignity, and of the rights of their high office?

It may be replied, that these were not Christian rulers. Suppose they had been, would this have altered the relation between them and the inspired teacher of Christianity-between the disciple and his instructor? Would the apostles John, or Paul, or Peter, acknowledge the supremacy of such Christian princes and heads of the Church, as Henry the 8th, or Charles the 2nd, or Louis the 15th, or the Godless regent who preceded him?

If it be said, that the pecuniary aid of the State is necessary to Religion, in the payment of the clergy, in the building of Churches, in the religious education of the people, we would ask where was this necessary help in the early age of the

Christian Church? Who that will trace its progress then, and consider for a moment its rapid and extensive advancement in the first two or three centuries of its existence, can resist the conviction, that Christianity can be in no wise dependent on the civil government for its progress, strength or efficiency? Opposed on every side by every possible combination of interests, opinions, and prejudices; contemptible in the eyes of the exalted and powerful, foolishness to the philosopher and man of letters, and hated by the priests and followers of the hundred forms of pagan superstition, what enabled the faith of the Christian, like some mighty river overflowing its banks, to spread itself on every side, overwhelming all obstacles opposed to its diffusion? Not the power or rich endowments of the apostles and early teachers; they were poor, humble, obscure men. Not their learning or eloquence; they were uninstructed in the schools of philosophy or literature. Not the help or fostering care of the State; the followers of Christ were persecuted by Princes and Emperors, and the blood of the martyrs profusely shed, became the seed of the Church in every province of the Roman empire. Under every form of hostile attack, the religion of Christ won its way to the hearts of every nation. Who then can pretend that the assistance of the State is essential or important to its existence or diffusion?

Should any further illustration be needed of the power of the Church to perform the duties and attain the objects for which it was established, without the aid or interference of the State, it is afforded by the flourishing condition of the several Christian Churches of the United States. In this country there are no tythes, no aid or support from the public treasury to the Church of any denomination, yet it may be doubted whether in any country true vital Godliness more abounds, or whether the sanctity of the Sabbath and the orderly and decent public worship of God are more a subject of general respect and observance. We have no reason for believing, that the Protestant Episcopal Church, when the established Church of the Colonies, possessed a purer or higher character than it holds at present, and if we may believe the accounts of travellers, the religious condition of the nations of Europe, with all their supposed advantages of Churches possessing the revenues and palaces of princes, and the power and influence of the State, is assuredly not superior to that of our own. An illustration equally forcible, is

found in the manner in which the powerful dissenting sects of England are able to sustain their several Churches, under all the disadvantages with which they are beset. The progress of the Methodist Church alone, is striking and conclusive. Hardly less so is the condition of the Catholic Church of Ireland. Certainly, for the last two hundred years, the Irish Catholic has had little of the wealth or influence of the State to aid him in supporting a Church, whose numerous rites and ceremonies are peculiarly expensive; on the contrary, he has been the object of continued persecution, more or less severe; he has been compelled to sustain the double burthen of paying not only his own, but another Church, and yet the Irish Catholic Church has not lost its vigorous hold on the minds and hearts of the Irish people. Will it be said, in the face of these examples, that a Church needs the help of the civil government for its existence or success?

The opinion that the connexion of the Church with the State is necessary or beneficial to religion, is natural enough to a mind which, wanting faith in Christianity as a divine institution, sustained by divine power, and possessing all necessary means inherent in its nature and origin for its certain dissemination among all nations, considers it merely an instrument of State, a machine dextrously contrived for the purpose of governing mankind, and therefore strengthened for its purposes by being arrayed in purple and fine gold, and surrounded with the pomp and circumstance, by which the rulers of mankind seek to dazzle, overawe and subdue. But this opinion can have no weight with the mind which confesses Christianity as springing from God, protected by his power, swaying the human heart by superhuman means, and carried onward in its irresistible course by influences which temporal power can neither assist or retard, whenever the period shall arrive marked out by Providence for its triumphant progress through the world.

So far, indeed, is the influence or aid of the State from being desirable to the Christian Church, that we may trace its corruption and the cessation of its true spiritual triumphs, to the period when, by its union with the head of the Roman empire, it became entangled with the interests of the State.

The enormous wealth lavished upon the Church by Constantine and his successors, carried with it the unhappy influence always accompanying inordinate riches. Avarice