III.

'Twas moonset at starting; but while we drew near
Lokeren, the cocks crew and twilight dawned clear;
At Boom, a great yellow star came out to see;
At Düffeld, 'twas morning as plain as could be;
And from Mecheln church steeple we heard the half-chime,
So Joris broke silence, with · Yet there is time!"

IV.

At Aerschot, up leaped of a sudden the sun,
And against him the cattle stood black every one,
To stare through the mist at us galloping past,
And I saw my stout galloper Roland at last,
With resolute shoulders, each butting away
The haze, as some bluff river headland its spray.

V.

And his low head and crest, just one sharp ear bent back,
For my voice, and the other pricked out on his track;
And one eye's black intelligence-ever that glance
O’er its white edge at me, his own master, askance!
And the thick heavy spume flakes, which aye and anon
His fierce lips shook upwards in galloping on.

By Hasselt, Dirck groaned, and cried Joris, “Stay spur!
Your Roos galloped bravely, the fault's not in her,
We'll remember at Aix”—for one heard the quick wheeze
Of her chest, saw the stretched neck and staggering knees,
And sunk tail, and horrible heave of the flank,
As down on her haunches she shuddered and sank.

VII.

So left were we galloping, Joris and I,
Past Looz and past Tongres, no cloud in the sky;
The broad sun above laughed a pitiless laugh,
'Neath our feet broke the brittle bright stubble like chaff;
Till over by Dalkem a dome spire sprang white,
And “Gallop!" gasped Joris, " for Aix is in sight!"

VIII.

“ How they'll greet us,”—and all in a moment his roan
Rolled neck and croup over, lay dead as a stone;
And there was my Roland to bear the whole weight
Of the news which alone could save Aix from her fate,

With his nostrils like pits full of blood to the brim,
And with circles of red for his eye-sockets' rim.

IX.

Then I cast loose my buff coat, each holster let fall,
Shook off both my jack-boots, let go belt and all;
Stood up in the stirrup, leaned, patted his ear,
Called

my Roland his pet name, my horse without peer;
Clapped my hands, laughed and sang, any noise, bad or good,
Till at length into Aix

Roland galloped, and stood.

X.

And all I remember is, friends flocking round
As I sate with his head 'twixt my knees on the ground,
And no voice but was praising this Roland of mine,
As I poured down his throat our last measure of wine,
Which (the burgesses voted, by common consent)
Was no more than his due who brought good news to Ghent.'

Art. X. (1.) Die Verfassung der Kirche der Zukunft. Praktische

Erläuterungen zu dem Briefwechsel über die deutsche Kirche, das Episcopat und Jerusalem. Mit Vorwort und vol ständingem Briefwechsel herausgegeben von C. C. J. BUNSEN, der Philosophie und

der Rechte Doktor. Hamburg, 1845. (2.) The Constitution of the Church of the Future, a practical ex

planation of the Correspondence with the Right Honourable William Gladstone, on the German Church, Episcopacy, and Jerusalem, with a Preface, Notes, and the complete Correspondence. By C.C.J. BUNSEN, D. Ph. and D. C. L. Translated from the German under the superintendence of, and with additions by, the Author.

London, 1847. The second of these two publications is labelled “The Church of the Future;' but on turning from the label to the title-page we have been disappointed. The Church OF THE FUTURE' is in truth a great idea. It is one of the sublimest themes of prophecy; and whether we attempt to image out the gorgeous though uncertain forms which have been sketched by the prophetic pencil on the evening sky of this world's day, or trace the movements and issues of that mighty power whereby Christ is able even to subdue all things to Himself,' it is impossible to think on such a theme without the most profound and soul-subduing emotions. We fear as we enter into the cloud. But we can confess to no such

feelings when the scene is shifted to the constitution,' existing or problematical, ‘of the German church,' diocesan episcopacy, and Anglican prelacy at “Jerusalem.' Principles, and objects, and reasons, and motives, and arrangements, and provisions, and expectations, may all be set forth in minutest detail. All may have the clearness of an ordnance map, or an architect's specification; but how different is the impression it produces ! We no longer gaze with awe, or strain our sight till admiration expands into desire, and faith into hope. The true • Church of the Future,' the heavenly Jerusalem is no longer before us. It is a vision of the earth, earthy, and though kings and prelates take council together, that the work of their hands may be established, the Lord hath said of it, that their stock shall not take root in the earth.' He shall also blow upon it, and it shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take it away as stubble.'

The occasion of the work is intimated in the title-page. Dr. Bunsen's correspondence with Mr. Gladstone occupies fifty-four pages, separately paged, of the translation. It commences with a letter from Mr. Gladstone expressing his regret at some statements in a German publication, issued with the sanction of the Prussian government, respecting the arrangements for the establishment of the new see at Jerusalem; and it is occupied with explanations between the two friends on that subject. The correspondence being afterwards printed for private circulation in Germany, several portions of Dr. Bunsen's letter · found their way into the public prints, and gave rise to various misconceptions and misrepresentations of his views.' One object of the book, therefore, and the chief, so far as respects the author himself, is to define and justify his position with regard to episcopacy in general; but, in doing this, he endeavours to show how the episcopacy which he would recommend may be grafted on the existing Presbyterianism of the Rheno-Westphalian provinces. As might be expected, he has written for the meridian of Protestant Germany. Both matter and style, the latter as much as the former, suppose German readers. What has induced the chevalier to publish his work in England also we are not informed. To justify himself to the people of this country could clearly have been no part of his object; and most persons who would feel any interest in eitherh is convictions or theories, would, we imagine, be well able to peruse his book in its original form.

The work before us, apart from the correspondence, may be said to consist of two distinct portions of nearly equal compass : the former comprising a new theory of episcopacy, the latter practical suggestions respecting the setting up of such an episcopacy in Germany. We could not hope to interest our readers in

the latter subject. Horace's si vis me flere will be a sufficient justification of our not attempting it. Should our readers suspect that we might have pleaded the same justification for not meddling with the former part either, we shall not dispute the point with them. However, the book is by no means destitute of interest; it is in various respects not unworthy of its highly-gifted author, and we must do the best we can with that part of it in which his principles and arguments are detailed.

Mr. Gladstone had, in his first letter, spoken of some statements in the Prussian document before referred to, as 'utterly fatal to whatever life or reality, whatever of hope for any others, or for ourselves, there may be in our episcopal constitution. In his second, which, though very short, is written with great earnestness and feeling, he says, after noticing the sins, scandals, and unworthiness' of the Anglican Church, *-'but then it is in the

episcopate, as the basis of truly apostolical institutions and discipline, that I see the one vivid and powerful hope of our recovery. These expressions drew from Dr. Bunsen a brief statement of what he considered to be the only tenable ground for philologically, historically, and theologically explaining, defending, and establishing episcopacy on catholic principles.” [The italics are Dr. Bunsen's.] He observes :

When you say, in your second letter, that you found your hope of the recovery of your church on the episcopate, as the only means therefore of reviving the church, I feel in my conscience that I owe it to you, as a friend and as a Christian, to declare in what sense I can agree with you, and in what sense I should dissent from you, if this point was to be stretched, and made a doctrinal test and a condition of salvation,-not as being a German Protestant, but as desiring to be a Catholic Christian. What I am now going to say, I mean to say, not against you, but against a system, vesting in the episcopate an absolute right, which, according to Hooker, cannot be given even to the whole ministry.

* There are two views in which the episcopate can be considered as the basis of truly apostolical institutions, and thus as the safeguard of the church ; according to which, therefore, it is to be preserved most tenderly and jealously, and most strongly recommended to the respect of our fellow Christians, individually as well as nationally.

• The one view I wish to be allowed to call the constitutional. The safety of a state generally depends upon the preservation of its form of government, and thus may also that of the church. There are even very strong reasons to assert, that the abolition or extinction of episcopacy generally endangers the soundness of the church's life, and exposes her to despotism from within or from without. And the reason of this I believe to be, not only the danger which always must accompany any constitutional change, and in particular the weakening of the power of government and of the respect for sacred forms ; but also the inherent and incurable onesidedness and defect of every form of ecclesiastical government (I think of all government civil as well as ecclesiastical), in which the conscience of the individual ruler-call him bishop, king, president, judge, consul, dictator—is violated. Such a violation of conscience I find wherever there is no free and bonâ fide power of veto, in legislation, and in the exercise of personal functions; for conscience is nothing but a veto. But as to the episcopate, I have always asserted, and shall always assert, that it has peculiar claims to the respect of Christian communities. Its establishment (as I believe in spite of the bad arguments produced to prove its existence before the decease of the last surviving apostle) became very soon general, although in two very different forms as regarded the appointment (that is, consecration) of bishops. And under God, through the spirit which animated the church, it did save the church from schisms, and thus enabled her to shine before the world as the first example of an organization of humanity, beyond the limits of national life. Even among the causes of the corruption and partial extinction of the life of the church, I am ready to ascribe no greater share to episcopacy than to any other element of her constitution. It is true that the despotism of bishops paved the way for the despotism of the popes : but the despotism of the bishops was the consequence of the corruption of the original idea of the Christian ministry, in its relation to the people and to the whole body of the church, and thus was the fault of the whole clergy. Finally, this corruption was the natural consequence of the gradual corruption of the divinely taught and divinely established idea of the universal priesthood, of every believing Christian as such, whereby every special priesthood was excluded : and therefore it was the fault and just punishment of the whole church. True religion always perishes first by a metastasis—that is, by a change in the centre of its life, (and is the original sin and fall of mankind anything else ?) and only secondarily by the corruption of all its component elements. The divinely taught and enjoined centre of the existence and life, and therefore of the development of the church, in its positive expression, I wish to be allowed to call, as I am sure it is, the inwardness and spirituality of her organic action as the body of Christ, consequently of her priesthood and sacrifice. This means negatively, that her life is attacked in its centre by the substitution of a Levitical priesthood, and an elementary sacrifice of the elements of the world,' otorycia roj koopov) more than by any error, schism, or heresy on any particular point of theological doctrine. Now if history can prove anything, the history of the church proves (by indelible records) that this metastasis began early ; that it took its origin liturgically, was then explained scholastically, and was finally sanctioned by the establishment of the absolute and positive (and therefore heretical) reverse of the Christian