sons examined may have chanced to have with persons whom they knew or afterwards found to be suspected of heresy; yet, I think there is nothing in these hundreds of confessions which should lead one to suppose that any one person in either of these sects had ever spoken to any one belonging to the other.

Should it be asked how it is possible, supposing these sects to have been so originally and entirely distinct, to represent them as identical, I answer that there is no great difficulty. It is quite as easy as to prove that Julius Cæsar and Judas Macchabæus were one and the same person; which, I think I could easily do, if my readers would only allow me the same licence which writers on the Albigenses and Waldenses seem to have thought that they had a right to claim. But this is rather anticipating.

ON INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCHES IN THE EAST.

THE Communion of saints in the primitive church was kept up both in the bosom of each particular church and in the church at large. By the former, the Christians on each particular spot, or in each particular district, were kept together as one body; by the latter, the Christians throughout the world were united in one.

The Christians of each individual church were united by a common reception of baptism, by a habit of assembling together for divine worship, more especially that highest act of earthly worship, the holy communion, and by mutual sympathy and assistance in matters both temporal and spiritual. They were brought into communion by baptism; they were most especially kept in it by the ordinance divinely appointed for that purpose, the Lord's supper. Their partaking together in one bread preserved them in one body.

This body, again, was not merely an aggregate of individuals, but a society, and as such under government; and the holy communion kept the body not only united, but united under its governors. For it implied not only recipients but distributors; and the distributors were the pastors of the flock. It required a consecration; and none was empowered to consecrate but those who continued in union with the chief pastor in each church. If they deserted his communion, or were excluded from it, they ceased to have a right to preside at the eucharist, or to distribute it to other believers. In this way each church continued one compact body; and whoever was not in union with it was known to be so.

But besides this communion in the individual societies, there was a communion in the church at large. Every member of each particular church was a member of the church universal, and had a right to communion in every other church, The pastors likewise of particular churches held the same place in whatever part of the Christian world they happened to be. These rights, however, were, as a matter of discipline, subject to restrictions, the object of which was the more effectually to preserve the unity of the whole body. Thus the chief pastors

or bishops were united together by the delivery to the neighbouring bishops, on their election, of a profession of faith, by being consecrated by other bishops, by admitting each other to officiate mutually at the eucharist, by meeting in synods, and frequently by being subject to the same metropolitan. They could not officiate in another diocese without the consent of the bishop of that diocese, unless he had come under the charge of heresy or schism; neither could they receive any of his clergy without his consent.

These latter again were subject to the bishop to whose diocese they were ordained; they could do nothing in it contrary to his will; they could not remove to another diocese without his consent, and letters credential; and if they officiated in another diocese without the consent of the bishop of it, they were equally guilty of irregularity and schism.

The laity of the church were less restricted; but they could not claim to be admitted in another church without letters recommendatory from their own bishop. This, however, appears to have been simply to avoid imposition, and therefore was probably not enforced except when imposition was feared.

All these regulations tended to preserve unity of doctrine and harmony of feeling, with mutual sympathy, throughout the catholic church.

The former part of the communion of saints has been preserved in particular churches; but in the church universal it has been well nigh lost. It is true that the Christians of most churches pray for each other in a body, as members of the whole church; but this does not bring the various parts of the church together in a visible, tangible communion. The ordinance recognised in the scripture as that by which we are or ought to be united is, the sacrament of the Lord's supper, the holy communion. It is impossible, therefore, that the communion of saints in the church at large can be complete until we return to the state of things which prevailed in the first ages, when every apostolic church admitted to the participation of that ordinance all who had the right of communion in any such church. That this is not the case at present it would be idle to question. We, it may be, should admit to our communion those who have the right to it in any community preserving the apostolical succession; but how few members of the Roman, or Greek, or Egyptian, or Abyssinian churches would desire to communicate with us? Few of us, likewise, it is to be feared, would have the wish to partake of their communion, even where no conscientious impediment exists; nay, in all the churches subject to Rome, we, in common with most other churches, are debarred from so doing, until we consent to condemn our mother church of schism and heresy, and to be separatists in our own country. But few of us, it is to be feared, greatly regret that it is not otherwise. We look down upon the ancient foreign churches as too corrupt and superstitious for us to think of uniting with them in divine worship, even where we are not debarred. If we can carry abroad our own clergy, and our own worship, we are satisfied. We seek no communion with others.

Now, how different is this state of things from that which prevailed in the early ages. Then every orthodox Christian found a home in whatever part of the church he happened to be. The only impedi ment to his feeling himself at home was difference of language; but this was no hindrance to his being received with open arms, and admitted to every Christian privilege to which he was entitled in his native country; and if he mastered the language of the country he visited, everything was open to him. There were differences of usage, but to these he would conform. There were differences in the wording and arrangement of liturgies; but the same great divisions and subjects of devotion appeared in all. A short period of residence, and he forgot that he was a stranger.

How much does it appear to be desired that this state of things should be revived! Surely it must tend to strengthen the Christian cause if those without the church could see that Christians, wherever they are, unite in one faith and in one worship. Surely it must tend likewise to the internal improvement of the church. There is scarcely any church in which there are not some inveterate errors of discipline or practice. We in particular have lost the discipline of primitive times: would it not help to revive it amongst ourselves to associate with members of the Greek church, in which it is in a degree preserved? Most of the elder churches, on the other hand, have fallen into corruptions from which we have been happily delivered: would it not tend to their improvement to be united more intimately with us, and thus to see the advantages of reforming their own institutions? We have lost those habits of mortification of the flesh as a religious duty which the Christians of apostolical times practised; whilst the Eastern churches have retained them: would it not be an advantage to us if intercourse brought their example more before us? On the other hand, they lay an undue stress on the mere outward act: would they not learn from us to give it its due place? to make it a means of discipline, instead of an act in itself meritorious? The advantage, however, in the way of improvement, would probably be more on their side than on ours, although it does not become us to be too confident. But if so, will not our active sympathy for them quicken piety amongst ourselves? Nay, will it not strengthen the cause of religion amongst ourselves, to see it reviving in other churches? Indeed, in looking at the present improved prospects of the church of England, and the healthier state of feeling now prevalent within her pale, it will, I imagine, be acknowledged that a very large share of it is to be attributed to the sympathy which has been called forth for others,-for the heathen, for the ignorant at home, for our colonies, for the increasing towns destitute of church accommodation. The kindly and warm feelings we have been led to entertain for others have quickened to life the torpid germs of good in ourselves, and raised the standard of conduct itself amongst us.

That the Greek and Eastern churches have great claims upon our sympathy has long been evident to many in this country. Inhabiting the countries in which the gospel itself arose and spread most successfully at the very beginning; the scene of the labours of those first

missionaries of the faith whose history has come down to us in fullest particularity; being themselves, as churches, lineal descendants of those planted by St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John; the theatre of all the great transactions in the history of the primitive church; the arena of the exertions and sufferings of the great names of Christian antiquity, of Ignatius and Polycarp, of Justin and Clement, of Origen, Basil, and the Gregories, and Chrysostom,-to whom the church of England looks back as the fathers of its Reformation; these are sufficient reasons why we should look towards them with gratitude, and affection, and respect. But they have more touching claims on us still. They are sunk and degenerated. Though abhorring the name of idolatry, they pay religious reverence to pictures and raised figures. Though strict in the observance of fasts, fraud and bloodshed are accounted venial offences. Their worship has become unintelligible to the people, and instead of being a spiritual service is overloaded with minute forms and empty shows. The ONE Mediator is almost forgotten, and his mother and other saints have usurped his place. The churches no longer resound with the word of the sacred preacher. The Lord's day is become a season of business or pleasure.

Again, large portions of them are degraded and oppressed by Turkish tyranny. Their lives and property are at the mercy of despotic misrule or popular outbreaks. Their very bishops and patriarchs hold their stations at the will of the infidel, and are deposed or elevated at his pleasure.

In the midst, however, of these unfavourable circumstances, they are not irremediably sunk. Instances of martyrdom for conscience' sake are not infrequent. There is a general acquaintance with the facts and doctrines of the gospel which will scarcely be found even in this country. There is a willingness to receive information; and not merely that, but a thankful reception of the scriptures in the ancient and vernacular tongues. The clergy, though poor, are frequently able to cope in argument with the average of English clergymen, and recognise the holy scriptures as the ultimate standard of appeal.

There are likewise bonds of union already subsisting between us, if not utterly broken through by recent mistakes on our part. They retain the three sacred orders of bishops, priests, and deacons; and their distinction is preserved even more strictly than with us. They practise a discipline which we recognise. They have, like us, an ancient liturgy, and they even admire our own. They have the same creeds as ourselves. Their doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is the same as our own; and although many of them hold the error of transubstantiation in the eucharist, yet many agree with us, the question being with them an open one. They hold the same combined standard of scripture and antiquity which our own church recognises. They, like us, protest against the usurpations of the Roman bishops; and although in regard to purgatory and the reverence paid to pictures they practically are in the same error as they, yet neither is bound upon them by any public authority; and as to the latter, the very circumstance that they profess to abhor idolatry opens a way for a reformation. Persons high in their church have paid religious visits to

this country, or held intercourse with it. Finally, they have been accustomed till of late to look to us with almost entire confidence. Can more be necessary to lead us to look to them with interest? And indeed the fact is that they have inspired great interest in the religious and well-informed amongst us. In the time of Charles the First, there was a friendly correspondence between Dr. Abbott, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople. The patriarch was strongly disposed to reform his church, and promoted the translation of the scriptures. He lost his life through the opposition he made to the union of the Greek church with Rome. The interest was revived in the reign of Charles II. by Sir Paul Ricaut, English consul at Smyrna, who published in 1679 an account of "The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches;" by Dr. Smith, then chaplain to the British embassy at Constantinople, who published in 1680, both in English and in Latin, an "Account of the State of the Greek Church." After the Revolution, a correspondence was opened between the nonjurors, calling themselves the catholics of England, and the bishops of the Greek church, with a view to a union; and subsequently attention was kept up by Dr. Covel, in 1722, by his "Account, with Reflections on their Doctrines and Discipline."

The subject appears to have slept till the present century, when the attention of the Church Missionary Society was drawn to the subject by the intercourse opened through the Bible Society, and in 1815 they appointed an English clergyman, Mr. Jowett, to reside at Malta, and to travel in the Mediterranean; and from that time to this they have been employed with much solicitude and perseverance, and with a certain measure of success, in endeavouring to revive religion amongst the Christians bordering on the Mediterranean. And no doubt one great circumstance which has given the Church Missionary and Bible Societies such a hold on the sympathies of a large body of churchmen, even of those who have not felt at liberty to join them, is the interest inspired by the narratives of intercourse with Greek and Eastern Christians.

More recently, the Christian Knowledge Society has taken up the subject, and availed itself of the opportunity afforded by the late expedition to the Euphrates to obtain information as to the condition of the churches bordering on that great river, and to offer assistance. As the subject is yet, with regard to that society, in its infancy, it appears a proper period to consider more distinctly the principles upon which our intercourse with them should be carried on; and these we must establish with reference to two points-1st, the general one of endeavouring to re-establish intercommunion between ourselves and the Eastern churches; and 2nd, the particular one of endeavouring the reformation of any of them with which we may have any influence.

Now, in regard to both, it is obvious that our only hope of success rests upon our finding some ground which we can occupy in common, some principles upon which we shall all agree. It is true, and it is most happy, that we all agree in accounting the holy scriptures the standard of doctrine; and that the whole of the eastern Christians approve the general reading of them in the vernacular languages.