any one bequeath to the "Free Church" of Scotland a sum of money, on certain conditions, and the executors hesitate as to the payment, we should doubtless quickly see Doctors Candlish and Chalmers, as plaintiffs in the civil courts, for the recovery of the money. Or, should one of their preachers turn Papist or Socinian, they would not despise the aid of the civil power, to eject him from the pulpit, which he was no longer fit to occupy.

To the eye of a stranger, then, who, if he may want a minute acquaintance with the facts of the case, has, at least, the advantage of being totally unbiassed in the formation of an opinion, no sufficient ground seems to exist, for the alienation and enmity which prevails between these three bodies of Calvinistic Presbyterians, who divide among them the great mass of the population of North Britain. To tell us that there are finer and almost imperceptible shades of difference, of which we are ignorant, does not alter our view. Our position is, that these minor differences ought not to produce separation among brethren.

We take, then, in the main, the Bishop of Exeter's view, that unity is of more value than any non-essential matter. We do not think that the other plan, of agreeing to love each other and yet to remain apart, is a wise or defensible one.1 Nor does it appear to answer its professed purpose. The alienated and divided churches

are sure to indulge in hatred and contempt of each other. How lamentably is this seen, at the present moment, in the case of the separated churches of Scotland!

Wherein, then, do we disagree with the Bishop and those who hold his view? Chiefly in this, that in practice they maintain a distance from all seceders, which tends to make the alienation perpetual. The first step to the abatement of schism, and prejudice, and mutual dislike, is, a habit of free and amicable intercourse. This it seems to be a main object with the Tractarians to render impossible between churchmen and dissenters. Mr. Noel and Mr. Hamilton, in this respect, take the wiser and more Christian course, of warmly encouraging such an intercourse. Our difference with them is merely this, that they open amicable relations with dissenters without even proposing formal and external union as an object to be aimed at. With them, we desire to cultivate amity and Christian feelings towards dissenters; with the bishop, we are of opinion that unity as a church is desirable, and is a duty.

Upon the distinct question, of attendance on a minister who inculcated false doctrine, we do not now enter. Abhorrence to a Church, upon principle, does not necessarily

involve this consequence.

THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS; or, Instruction for the Young Student, concerning the Church, and our own branch of it. By CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D. D. Head Master of Harrow School, &c. London: Rivingtons. 1843.

THIS is rather a good book-of its sort;-but that sort is not a good sort. It conducts a strong and successful argument; but one which only establishes, at last, a point of very minor importance. It asserts that "The Church of England did not separate from that of Rome;" (chap. vii.) that "the Church of England admits the Baptism and Holy Orders of the Church of Rome, and thus communicates with her;" (chap. viii.)-and then lays the whole blame of the alienation between the two churches simply and solely on the Roman assumptions of jurisdiction, authority, &c. without saying one word of the idolatry practised by that church; of the total opposition between the two churches on the great question of Justification; or, in fact, on any ground of doctrinal difference which should prevent an Englishman, going to live on the continent, from at once joining the Romish communion! Yet we readily admit, that on the minor points, of "the Church of England independent of Rome;"-" the Bishop of Rome has no supremacy, spiritual or temporal, in these realms," and the like; the argument is ably and satisfactorily conducted. All this, however, is of little practical utility. The grand danger of the present day is, the growth of Romish doctrines within the Church of England; and a work like this, which tacitly admits Rome to be a true church, and only contends against her jurisdic tion in these realms,-is, in effect, an abettor of the Romeward

movement.

A portion of the work which will be felt to be of more immediate interest and importance, is that which treats of Dissent and Dissenters. Here we have a question of great moment, and of the most praetical character. It is one which sorely perplexes the high-churchmen of the present day. They constantly betray a desire to assert the doctrine of "No salvation out of the Church." But as perpetually do they shew their consciousness, that such a doctrine as this, in its naked monstrosity, would not be tolerated in the present day. Hence a variety of shuffling explanations, and half-conces sions, which leave the whole matter in doubt.

The higher and more responsible class of writers are the most frank and rational in their statements. Thus, the Bishop of London's view was thus given :—

"I would not pronounce, even upon them, (the English dissenters,) the sentence of absolute exclusion from the Church of Christ, nor declare that they are beyond the pale of salvation. I think them in a state of great uncertainty and hazard; I am sure that they want many spiritual privileges and advantages which I am thankful for possessing; but I must leave the work of judgment to Him, who readeth the hearts of men, and knoweth them that are his; and I will content myself with praying for them, and labouring to convince them of the duty and the rewards of unity. I remember that it was to a Samaritan leper, who was an alien from the elder Church of God, one of an heretical community, that our blessed Saviour said, Thy faith, hath made thee whole." 1

And Mr. Gladstone's statement is still more liberal :

"In our own land indeed it is clear, that many have enrolled themselves in other religious societies, have joined their worship, and even received their sacraments, without intending thereby to abandon their connection with the Church, although indeed under a grievous misunderstanding of the obligations which that connection entails. Again, it is not clear of all the separated societies themselves which exist among us, that they were schismatical in their origin; that is, that they were intended to be apart from, and to be in competition with, the Church: nor is it clear, though that is less to our present purpose, that even where there has been an undoubted schism, the guilt lay more with the seceders than with those who were the authors of their removal. But certain of these denominations, as the Wesleyan, for instance, neither professed nor contemplated anything which absolutely required to carry them out of the pale of the Church. These societies might, with caution and tenderness on all sides, perhaps have been made not only auxiliaries, but actual subordinate organizations of the Church, intended and calculated not to relax the bonds of her communion, but to draw them closer around those individuals, who might find in them a resource conducive to their spiritual welfare. They might have been analogous to the rules of different orders in the Church of Rome and in other churches, which enjoin many things left open by the Church at large, embracing a vast variety of details, and even passing under the name of so many distinct religions: yet all within the latitude which church unity allows. Would to God that they might yet in some happier day assume such a position! But further, even if the position of any society as such be schismatical, it does not at all follow, as Archbishop Laud has shown, that its members are schismatics. Yet it may

1 Three Sermons on the Church, p. 71, 72.

follow in such a case, at least it is too probable, that those who brought or drove them into such a position, are loaded with heavy criminality."

But when we come to Mr. Palmer and Dr. Wordsworth, we discern immediately the latent wish to assert high doctrines; and are somewhat amused by the difference of the two hypotheses which they adopt. Thus, Mr. Palmer reasons as follows:

"We may therefore conclude, that voluntary separation from the Church of Christ is a sin against our brethren, against ourselves, against God; a sin which, unless repented of, is eternally destructive to the soul. The heinous nature of this offence is incapable of exaggeration, because no human imagination, and no human tongue can adequately describe its enormity."

"Of the various sects of Dissent, whether collectively or individually considered, I affirm, that they are no part of the Church of Christ."

"Their separation from the Church of England was founded not only in schism but in heresy; and this being the case, they could not have been any part of the Church of Christ, nor were they capable of founding Christian Churches." 3

Thus distinctly and repeatedly does Mr. Palmer refuse to the Dissenters any place in the Church of Christ, or any right to the Christian name. The idea of an "invisible Church" he entirely repudiates; and of the visible Church he asserts that they can form no part; having voluntarily cut off and excluded themselves from it by their schism. Yet while thus totally cutting them of from all hope, at one moment, he opens this door to them at another :

"If this external communion (of the visible Church,) must always exist uninterruptedly, it must be from a very remarkable exercise of divine power, because we know from Scripture, that the Church was to comprise evil men as well as good and no one pretends that its members were to be exempt from frailties, passions, errors, ignorance. These circumstances would be very liable, occasionally, to cause divisions in the Church; and it is possible that in some case the fault and the justification might be so equally divided between two parties, that it might be impossi ble to affirm, that either was involved in the guilt of formal schism. There is therefore no impossibility of division in the Church itself, if we regard the persons of whom it is constituted: and the only way in which this impossibility can be proved, is by evidence of some divine promise to that effect. *

1 Church Principles, 8vo. p. 422, 423. • Palmer's Treatise on the Church, vol. i. p. 5â 3 Ibid. vol. i. p. 399, 404. 4 Ibid. vol. i. P.

73.

"I shall discuss this subject from Scripture, tradition, history, and the principles and admissions of Romanists.

"First. Scripture contains no direct plain assertion, either that the external communion of the Church will always be perfectly one, or that it will be divided.”

"It is very certain, then, that the Fathers esteemed separation from the Church a most grievous sin, but they did not affirm that the Church itself could never be divided for a time by jealousies and misunderstandings."

"It may be concluded then, that Scripture, tradition, history, and theological reasons, are so far from proving the impossibility of any division of external communion in the Catholic Church, that they rather combine to establish its possibility." (vol. i. p.85.)

So stood the question then, up to the time of the appearance of Dr. Wordsworth's volume. He, however, propounds an entirely new hypothesis. He admits, in opposition to Mr. Palmer's view, a visible and an invisible Church. These he thus describes. The visible Church, he says, is so called,

Because it is a visible congregation of faithful or believing persons, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."—(p. 11.)

The invisible Church is thus set forth :

"I mean the family of God, both in earth and heaven; the city of the living God; the Spouse of Christ, without spot or wrinkle; the mystical body of Christ, whose members are known to God, and to God alone, and whose names are written in heaven."-(p. 11.)

In this Dr. W. coincides with all sound writers. Now in applying these definitions to the case of pious Dissenters, many men would naturally say, 'There may be a doubt whether such men are in the visible Church or not. This must depend on the limits and boundaries we assign to that body. But this is of minor consequence. As to the more vital question, no one will think of doubting of some of the excellent of the earth,-of Watts and Doddridge, of Matthew Henry and John Bunyan, of Robert Hall and Thomas Chalmers, that they are members of the invisible Church, of Christ's body,-of his elect family; however we may be perplexed what place or rank or condition to ascribe to them while on earth.'

But this is exactly what Dr. Wordsworth does doubt, in fact, does positively deny. His position,-a most marvellous one,-is, that Dissenters are in the visible Church, but not in the invisible ! Here is his singular distinction.