place. And therefore we are not simply with- improbable, and even cousin-german to impos out exception to urge a lineal descent of power sible. So that the assurance hereof is like a from the apostles by continued succession of machine composed of an innumerable multi. bishops in every effectual ordination." There tude of pieces, of which it is strangely unlikely can be little doubt, we think, that the succes- but some will be out of order; and yet, if any sion, if it ever existed, has often been inter- piece be so, the whole fabric falls of necessity rupted in ways much less respectable. For to the ground: and he that shall put them toexample, let us suppose-and we are sure that gether, and maturely consider all the possible no person will think the supposition by any ways of lapsing and nullifying a priesthood in means impro able-that, in the third century, the Church of Rome, will be very inclinable to a man of no principle and some parts, who think that it is a hundred to one, that among a has, in the course of a roving and discredita- hundred seeming priests, there is not one true ble life, been a catechumen at Antioch, and one; nay, that it is not a thing very improbahas there become familiar with Christian ble that, amongst those many millions which usages and doctrines, afterwards rambles to make up the Romish hierarchy, there are not Marseilles, where he finds a Christian society, twenty true." We do not pretend to know to rich, liberal, and simple-hearted. He pretends what precise extent the canonists of Oxford to be a Christian, attracts notice by his abilities agree with those of Rome as to the circumand affected zeal, and is raised to the episcopal stances which nullify orders. We will not, dignity without having ever been baptized. therefore, go so far as Chillingworth. We That such an event might happen, nay, was only say that we see no satisfactory proof of very likely to happen, cannot well be disputed the fact, that the Church of England possesses by any one who has read the life of Peregrinus. the apostolical succession. And, after all, if The very virtues, indeed, which distinguished Mr. Gladstone could prove the apostolical suc the early Christians, seem to have laid them cession, what would the apostolical succession open to those arts which deceived prove? He says that "we have among us the ordained hereditary witnesses of the truth, conveying it to us through an unbroken series from our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles." Is this the fact? Is there any doubt that the or ders of the Church of England are generally derived from the Church of Rome? Does not the Church of England declare, does not Mr. Gladstone himself admit, that the Church of Rome teaches much error and condemns much truth? And is it not quite clear, that as far as the doctrines of the Church of England differ from those of the Church of Rome, so far the Church of England conveys the truth through a broken series?

"Uriel, though Regent of the Sun, and held

The sharpest-sighted spirit of all in Heaven." Now, this unbaptized impostor is evidently no successor of the apostles. He is not even a Christian; and all orders derived through | such a pretended bishop are altogether invalid. Do we know enough of the state of the world and of the Church in the third century, to be able to say with confidence that there were not at that time twenty such pretended bishops? Every such case makes a break in the apostolic succession.

Now, suppose that a break, such as Hooker admits to have been both common and justifiable, or such as we have supposed to be produced by hypocrisy and cupidity, were found in the chain which connected the apostles with any of the missionaries who first spread Christianity in the wilder parts of Europewho can say how extensive the effect of this single break may be? Suppose that St. Patrick, for example, if ever there was such a man, or Theodore of Tarsus, who is said to have consecrated in the seventh century the first bishops of many English sees, had not the true apostolical orders, is it not conceivable that such a circumstance may affect the orders of many clergymen now living? Even if it were possible, which it assuredly is not, to prove that the Church had the apostolical orders in the third century, it would be impossible to prove that those orders were not in the twelfth century so far lost that no ecclesiastic could be certain of the legitimate descent of his own spiritual character. And if this were so, no subsequent precautions could repair the evil.

Chillingworth states the conclusion at which he had arrived on this subject in these very remarkable words-"That of ten thousand probables no one should be false; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one may fail, not one should be wanting, this to me is extremely

That the Reformers, lay and clerical, of the Church of England, corrected all that required correction in the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and nothing more, may be quite true. But we never can admit the circumstance, that the Church of England possesses the apostoli cal succession as a proof that she is thus perfect. No stream can rise higher than its fountain. The succession of ministers in the Church of England, derived as it is through the Church of Rome, can never prove more for the Church of England than it proves for the Church of Rome. But this is not all. The Arian Churches which once predominated in the kingdoms of the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Burgundians, the Vandals, and the Lombards, were all Episcopal Churches, and ail had a fairer claim than that of England to the apostolical succession, as being much nearer to the apostolical times. In the East, the Greek Church, which is at variance on points of faith with all the Western Churches, has an equal claim to this succession. The Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Jacobite Churchesall heretical, all condemned by Councils of which even Protestant divines have generally spoken with respect-had an equal claim to the apostolical succession. Now if, of teachers having apostolical orders, a vast majority have taught much error,--if a large proportion have

taught deadly heresy-f, on the other hand, as | her most distinguished rulers think this lati Mr. Gladstone himself admits, churches not tude a good thing, and would be sorry to see having apostolical orders--that of Scotland, it restricted in favour of either opinion. And for example- have been nearer to the standard herein we most cordially agree with them. of orthodoxy than the majority of teachers who But what becomes of the unity of the Church, have had apostolical orders-how can he pos- and of that truth to which unity is essential! sibly call upon us to submit our private judg- Mr. Gladstone tells us that the Regium Donum ment to the authority of a Church, on the was given originally to orthodox Presbyterian ground that she has these orders? ministers, but that part of it is now received by their heterodox successors. "This," he says, "serves to illustrate the difficulties in which governments entangle themselves, when they covenant with arbitrary systems of opinion, and not with the Church alone. The opinion passes away, but the gift remains." But is it not clear, that if a strong Supralapsan had, under Whitgift's primacy, left a large estate at the disposal of the bishops for ecclesiastical purposes, in the hope that the rulers of the Church would abide by the Lambeth Articles, he would really have been giving his substance for the support of doctrines which he detested? The opinion would have passed

This is only a single instance. What wide differences of opinion respecting the operation of the sacraments are held by bishops and presbyters of the Church of England-all men

to her articles-all men who are, according to Mr. Gladstone, ordained hereditary witnesses of the truth-all men whose voices make up what he tells us is the voice of true and reasonable authority! Here, again, the Church has not unity; and as unity is the essential condition of truth, the Church has not the truth.

Mr. Gladstone dwells much on the importance of unity in doctrine. Unity, he tells us, is essential to truth. And this is most unquestionable. But when he goes on to tell us that this unity is the characteristic of the Church of England, that she is one in body and in spirit, we are compelled to differ from him widely. The apostolical succession she may or may not have. But unity she most certainly has not, and never has had. It is a matter of perfect notoriety, that her formularies are framed in such a manner as to admit to her highest offices men who differ from each other more widely than a very high Churchman differs from a Catholic, or a very low Church-away, and the gift would have remained. man from a Presbyterian; and that the general leaning of the Church, with respect to some important questions, has been sometimes one way and sometimes another. Take, for example, the questions agitated between the Cal-who have conscientiously declared their assent vinists and the Arminians. Do we find in the Church of England, with respect to those questions, that unity which is essential to truth? Was it ever found in the Church? Is it not certain that, at the end of the sixteenth century, the rulers of the Church held doctrines as Calvinistic as ever were held by any Cameronian, and not only held them, but persecuted every body who did not hold them? And is it not Nay, take the very question which we are equally certain, that the rulers of the Church discussing with Mr. Gladstone. To what exhave, in very recent times, considered Calvin- tent does the Church of England allow of the ism as a disqualification for high preferment, right of private judgment? What degree of if not for holy orders? Look at Archbishop authority does she claim for herself in virtue Whitgift's Lambeth Articles--Articles in which of the apostolical succession of her ministers? the doctrine of reprobation is affirmed in terms Mr. Gladstone, a very able and a very honest strong enough for William Huntington, S. S. man, takes a view of this matter widely dif And then look at the eighty-seven questions|fering from the view taken by others whom he which Bishop Marsh, within our own memory, will admit to be as able and honest as himself. propounded to candidates for ordination. We People who altogether dissent from him on this should be loath to say that either of these cele-subject eat the bread of the Church, preach in brated prelates had intruded into a Church whose doctrines he abhorred, and deserved to be stripped of his gown. Yet it is quite certain, that one or the other of them must have been very greatly in error. John Wesley again, and Cowper's friend, John Newton, It will be observed that we are not putting were both presbyters of this Church. Both cases of dishonest men, who, for the sake of were men of talents. Both we believe to have lucre, falsely pretend to believe in the docbeen men of rigid integrity-men who would trines of an establishment. We are putting not have subscribed a Confession of Faith | cases of men as upright as ever lived, who, which they disbelieved for the richest bishop- differing on theological questions of the highest ric in the empire. Yet, on the subject of pre-importance, and avowing that difference, are destination, Newton was strongly attached to yet priests and prelates of the same Church doctrines which Wesley designated as blasphemy, which might make the ears of a Christian to tingle." Indeed, it will not be disputed that the clergy of the Established Church are divided as to these questions, and that her formularies are not found practically to exclude -ven scrupulously honest men of both sides from her altars. It is notorious that some of

her pulpits, dispense her sacraments, confer her orders, and carry on that apostolic succession, the nature and importance of which, according to him, they do not comprehend. Is this unity? Is this truth?

We therefore say, that, on some points which Mr. Gladstone himself thinks of vital importance, the Church has either not spoken at all, or, what is for all practical purposes the same thing, has not spoken in language to be under stood even by honest and sagacious divines. The religion of the Church of England is so far from exhibiting that unity of doctrin

which Mr. Gladstone represents as her dis- that a gentlemen of Mr. Gladstone's opinions tinguishing glory, that it is, in fact, a bundle may lawfully vote the public money to a chap of religious systems without number. It com-lain whose opinions are those of Paley or of prises the religious system of Bishop Tomline Simeon. The question then becomes one of and the religious system of John Newton, and degree. Of course, no individual and ro goall the religious systems which lie between vernment can justifiably propagate error for them. It comprises the religious system of the sake of propagating error. But both indiMr. Newman and the religious system of the viduals and governments must work with such Archbishop of Dublin, and all the religious machinery as they have; and no human ma systems which lie between them. All these chinery is to be found which will impart truth different opinions are held, avowed, preached, without some alloy of error. We have shown printed, within the pale of the Church, by men irrefragably, as we think, that the Church of of unquestioned integrity and understanding. England does not afford such a machinery. Do we make this diversity a topic of re- The question then is, with what degree of improach to the Church of England? Far from perfection in our machinery must we put up! it. We would oppose with all our power every And to this question we do not see how any attempt to narrow her basis. Would to God general answer can be given. We must be that a hundred and fifty years ago, a good king guided by circumstances. It would, for examand a good primate had possessed the power ple, be very criminal in a Protestant to conas well as the will to widen it. It was a noble | tribute to the sending of Jesuit missionaries enterprise, worthy of William and of Tillotson. among a Protestant population. But we do But what becomes of all Mr. Gladstone's elo- not conceive that a Protestant would be to quent exhortations to unity? Is it not mere blame for giving assistance to Jesuit missionmockery to attach so much importance to unity aries who might be engaged in converting the in form and name, where there is so little in Siamese to Christianity. That tares are mixed substance-to shudder at the thought of two with the wheat is matter of regret; but it is churches in alliance with one state, and to en- better that wheat and tares should grow toge dure with patience the spectacle of a hundred ther than that the promise of the year should sects battling within one church? And is it be blighted. not clear that Mr. Gladstone is bound, on all Mr. Gladstone, we see with deep regret, cenhis own principles, to abandon the defence of sures the British government in India for disa church in which unity is not found? Is it tributing a small sum among the Catholic not clear that he is bound to divide the House priests who minister to the spiritual wants of of Commons against every grant of money our Irish soldiers. Now, let us put a case to which may be proposed for the clergy of the him. A Protestant gentleman is attended by Established Church in the colonies? He ob- a Catholic servant, in a part of the country jects to the vote for Maynooth, because it is where there is no Catholic congregation within monstrous to pay one man to teach truth, and many miles. The servant is taken ill, and is another to denounce that truth as falsehood. given over. He desires, in great trouble of But it is a mere chance whether any sum mind, to receive the last sacraments of his which he votes for the English Church in any Church. His master sends off a messenger in dependency will go to the maintenance of an a chaise-and-four, with orders to bring a conArminian or a Calvinist, of a man like Mr. fessor from a town at a considerable distance. Froude or of a man like Dr. Arnold. It is a Here a Protestant lays out money for the purmere chance, therefore, whether it will go to pose of causing religious instruction and consupport a teacher of truth, or one who will de-solation to be given by a Catholic priest. nounce that truth as falsehood.

This argument seems to us at once to dispose of all that part of Mr. Gladstone's book which respects grants of public money to dissenting bodies. All such grants he condemns. But surely if it be wrong to give the money of the public for the support of those who teach any false doctrine, it is wrong to give that money for the support of the ministers of the Established Church. For it is quite certain that, whether Calvin or Arminius be in the right, whether Laud or Burnet be in the right, a great deal of false doctrine is taught by the ministers of the Established Church. If it be said that the points on which the clergy of the Church differ ought to be passed over, for the sake of the many important points on which they agree, why may not the same argument be maintained with respect to other sects which hold in common with the Church of England the fundamental doctrines of Christianity? The principle, that a ruler is bound in conscience to propagate religious truth, and to propagate no religious doctrine which is untrue, is abandoned as soon as it is admitted

Has he committed a sin? Has he not acted like a good master and a good Christian? Would Mr. Gladstone accuse him of “laxity of religious principle," of "confounding truth with falsehood," of "considering the support of religion as a boon to an individual, not as a homage to truth?" But how if this servant had, for the sake of his master, undertaken a journey which removed him from the place where he might easily have obtained a religious attendance? How if his death were occasioned by a wound received in defending his master? Should we not then say that the master had only fulfilled a sacred obliga tion of duty. Now, Mr. Gladstone himself owns that "nobody can think that the person. ality of the state is more stringent, or entails stronger obligations, than that of the individual." How then stands the case of the Indian government? Here is a poor fellow, enlisted in Clare or Kerry, sent over fifteen thousand miles of sea, quartered in a depressing and pestilential climate. He fights for the govern ment; he conquers for it; he is wounded; he is laid on his pallet, withering away with fever

under that terrible sun, without a friend near | main end; yet if, without any sacrifice of its him. He pines for the consolations of that re- efficiency for that end, it can promote any ligion which, neglected perhaps in the season other good end, it ought to do so. Thus, the of health and vigour, now comes back to his end for which an hospital is built is the relief mind, associated with all the overpowering of the sick, not the beautifying of the street. recollections of his earlier days, and of the To sacrifice the health of the sick to splenhome which he is never to see again. And dour of architectural effect-to place the buildbecause the state for which he dies sends a ing in a bad air only that it may present a more priest of his own faith to stand at his bedside, commanding front to a great public place-to and to tell him, in language which at once com- make the wards hotter or cooler than they mands his love and confidence, of the common ought to be, in order that the columns and Father, of the common Redeemer, of the com- windows of the exterior may please the passmon hope of immortality,-because the state ers-by, would be monstrous. But if, without for which he dies does not abandon him in his any sacrifice of the chief object, the hospital last moments to the care of heathen attendants, can be made an ornament to the metropolis, it or employ a chaplain of a different creed to would be absurd not to make it so. vex his departing spirit with a controversy about the Council of Trent,-Mr. Gladstone finds that India presents a "melancholy picture," and that there is "a large allowance of false principle" in the system pursued there. Most earnestly do we hope that our remarks may induce Mr. Gladstone to reconsider this part of his work, and may prevent him from expressing in that high assembly in which he must always be heard with attention, opinions so unworthy of his character.

We have now said almost all that we think it necessary to say respecting Mr. Gladstone's theory. And perhaps it would be safest for us to stop here. It is much easier to pull down than to build up. Yet, that we may give Mr. Gladstone his revenge, we will state concisely our own views respecting the alliance of Church and State.

We set out in company with Warburton, and remain with him pretty sociably till we come to his contract, a contract which Mr. Gladstone very properly designates as a fiction. We consider the primary end of government as a purely temporal end-the protection of the persons and property of inen.

In the same manner, if a government can, without any sacrifice of its main end, promote any other good end, it ought to do so. The encouragement of the fine arts, for example, is by no means the main end of government; and it would be absurd, in constituting a government, to bestow a thought on the question, whether it would be a government likely to train Raphaels and Domenichinos. But it by no means follows that it is improper for a government to form a national gallery of pictures. The same may be said of patronage bestowed on learned men-of the publication of archives of the collecting of libraries, menageries, plants, fossils, antiques-of journeys and voyages for purposes of geographical discovery or astronomical observation. It is not for these ends that government is constituted. But it may well happen that a government may have at its command resources which will enable it, without any injury to its main end, to serve these collateral ends far more effectually than any individual or any voluntary association could do. If so, government ought to serve these collateral ends.

It is still more evidently the duty of govern We think that government, like every other ment to promote-always in subordination to contrivance of human wisdom, from the high- its main end-every thing which is useful as a est to the lowest, is likely to answer its main means for the attaining of that main end. The end best when it is constructed with a single improvement of steam navigation, for example, view to that end. Mr. Gladstone, who loves is by no means a primary object of governPlato, will not quarrel with us for illustrating ment. But as steam-vessels are useful for the our proposition, after Plato's fashion, from the purpose of national defence, and for the purmost familiar objects. Take cutlery, for ex-pose of facilitating intercourse between distant ample. A blade which is designed both to shave and to carve will certainly not shave so well as a razor or carve so well as a carvingknife. An academy of painting, which should also be a bank, would, in all probability, exhibit very bad pictures and discount very bad bills. A gas company, which should also be an infant school society, would, we apprehend, light the streets ill, and teach the children ill. On this principle, we think that government should be organized solely with a view to its main end; and that no part of its efficiency for that end should be sacrificed in order to promote any other end however excellent.

But does it follow from hence that governments ought never to promote any other end than their main end? In no wise. Though it is desirable that every institution should have a main end, and should be so formed as to be in the highest degree efficient for that

provinces, and thereby consolidating the force of the empire, it may be the bounden duty of government to encourage ingenious men to perfect an invention which so directly tends to make the state more efficient for its great pri mary end.

Now, on both these grounds, the instruction of the people may with propriety engage the care of the government. That the people should be well educated is in itself a good thing; and the state ought therefore to promote this object, if it can do so without any sacrifice of its primary object. The education of the people, conducted on those principles of mo rality which are common to all the forms of Christianity, is highly valuable as a means o promoting the main end for which governmen! exists; and is on this ground an object well deserving the attention of rulers. We will not at present go into the general question of edu

persons and property of men being the primary end of government, and religious instruction only a secondary end, to secure the people from heresy by making their lives, their limbs, or their estates insecure, would be to sacrifice the primary end to the secondary end. It would be as absurd as it would be in the governors of an hospital to direct that the wounds of all Arian and Socinian patients should be dressed in such a way as to make them fester.

Again, on our principles, all civil disabilities on account of religious opinions are indefensi ble. For all such disabilities make government less efficient for its main end: they limit its choice of able men for the administration and defence of the state: they alienate from it the hearts of the sufferers; they deprive it of a part of its effective strength in all contests with foreign nations. Such a course is as absurd as it would be in the governors of an hospital to reject an able surgeon because he is a Univer sal Restitutionist, and to send a bungler te operate because he is perfectly orthodox.

cation, but will confine our remarks to the subject which is more immediately before us, namely, the religious instruction of the people. We may illustrate our view of the policy which governments ought to pursue with respect to religious instruction, by recurring to the analogy of an hospital. Religious instruction is not the main end for which an hospital is built; and to introduce into an hospital any regulations prejudicial to the health of the patients, on the plea of promoting their spiritual improvement to send a ranting preacher to a man who has just been ordered by the physician to lie quiet and try to get a little sleep-to | impose a strict observance of Lent on a convalescent who has been advised to eat heartily of nourishing food—to direct, as the bigoted Pius the Fifth actually did, that no medical assistance should be given to any person who declined spiritual attendance-would be the most extravagant folly. Yet it by no means follows that it would not be right to have a chaplain to attend the sick, and to pay such a chaplain out of the hospital funds. Whether it will be proper to have such a chaplain at all, and of what religious persuasion such a chaplain ought to be, must depend on circumstances. There may be a town in which it would be impossible to set up a good hospital without the help of people of different opinions. And religious parties may run so high that, though people of different opinions are willing to contribute for the relief of the sick, they will not concur in the choice of any one chaplain. The High Churchmen insist that, if there is a paid chap-imaginary discharge in order to set aside an lain, he shall be a High Churchman. The Evangelicals stickle for an Evangelical. Here it would evidently be absurd and cruel to let a useful and humane design, about which all are agreed, fall to the ground, because all cannot agree about something else. The governors must either appoint two chaplains, and pay them both, or they must appoint none; and every one of them must, in his individual capacity, do what he can for the purpose of providing the sick with such religious instruction and consolation as will, in his opinion, be most useful to them.

We should say the same of government. Government is not an institution for the propagation of religion, any more than St. George's Hospital is an institution for the propagation of religion. And the most absurd and pernicious consequences would follow, if government should pursue, as its primary end, that which can never be more than its secondary end; though intrinsically more important than its primary end. But a government which considers the religious instruction of the people as a secondary end, and follows out that principle faithfully, will, we think, be likely to do much good, and little harm.

We will rapidly run over some of the consequences to which this principle leads, and point out how it solves some problems which, on Mr. Gladstone's hypothesis, admit of no satisfactory solution.

All persecution directed against the persons or property of men is, on our principle, obviasly indefensible. For the protection of the

Again, on our principles, no government ought to press on the people religious instruction, however sound, in such a manner as to excite among them discontents dangerous to public order. For here again government would sacrifice its primary end, to an end intrinsically indeed of the highest importance, but still only a secondary end of government, as government. This rule at once disposes of the difficulty about India-a difficulty of which Mr. Gladstone can get rid only by putting in an

imaginary obligation. There is assuredly no country where it is more desirable that Christianity should be propagated. But there is no country in which the government is so com pletely disqualified for the task. By using our power in order to make proselytes, we should produce the dissolution of society, and bring utter ruin on all those interests for the protection of which government exists. Here the secondary end is, at present, inconsistent with the primary end, and must therefore be abandoned. Christian instruction given by individuals and voluntary societies may do much good. Given by the government, it would do unmixed harm. At the same time, we quite agree with Mr. Gladstone in thinking that the English authorities in India ought not to participate in any idolatrous rite; and indeed we are fully satisfied, that all such parti cipation is not only unchristian, but also unwise and most undignified.

Supposing the circumstances of a country to be such, that the government may with pro priety, on our principles, give religious instruc tion to a people: the next question is, what religion shall be taught? Bishop Warburton answers, the religion of the majority. And we so far agree with him, that we can scarcely conceive any circumstances in which it would be proper to establish, as the one exclusive religion of the state, the religion of the minority. Such a preference could hardly be given without exciting most serious discontent, and endangering those interests the protection of which is the first object of government. Bu'