under the circumstances they will lead to Romanism, if only because the mind when once set in motion in any direction finds it difficult to stop, and because the article of the Church has been accidentally the badge and index of that system; that the discussions proposed are singularly unseasonable at this day, when our Church requires support against her enemies, and must be defended by practical measures, not by speculations upon her nature and historical pretensions, speculations unprofitable in themselves, and in fact only adding to our existing differences, and raising fresh parties and interests in our already distracted communion, speculations which have never been anything but speculations, never were realized in any age of the Church; lastly, that the pretended Via Media is but an eclectic system, dangerous to the religious temper of those who advocate it, as leading to arrogance and self-sufficiency in judging of sacred subjects. This is pretty nearly what may be said.

Now it is obvious that these objections prove too much. If they prove any thing, they go to show that the article of the Holy Church Catholic should not be discussed at all, not even as a point of faith; but that in its most essential respects, as well as in its bearings and consequences, it may be determined and interpreted by the law of the land. This consideration in itself would be enough to show, that there was some fallacy in them some

where, even if we could not detect it. However, let us consider some of them in detail.

One of the most weighty of these objections at first sight, is the danger of unsettling things established, and raising questions, which, whatever may be their intrinsic worth, are novel and exciting at the present day. When, for instance, the office of Holy Scripture, or the judicial power of the Church, or the fundamentals of faith, or the legitimate power of the Roman see, or the principles of Protestantism are discussed, it is natural to object, that since the Revolution of 1688 they have been practically cut short, and definitely settled by civil acts and precedents. It may be urged, that the absolute subjection of the bishops, as bishops, to the crown is determined by the deprivations of 1689: the Church's forfeiture of her synodical rights by the final measure of 1717; the essential agreement of Presbyterianism with Episcopacy by the union with Scotland in 1706-7; and our incorporation with dissenters, on the common ground of Protestantism, by the proceedings of the Revolution itself. It may be argued that these measures were but the appropriate carrying out of the acts of the Reformation; that King William and his party did but complete what King Henry began; and that we are born Protestants, and though free to change our religion and to profess a change, yet, till we do so, Protestants, as other Protestants, we certainly are, though we happen to retain the episcopal form; that our

Church has thriven upon this foundation in wealth, station, and usefulness; that being a part of the constitution, it cannot be altered without touching the constitution itself; and, consequently, that all discussions are either very serious or very idle.

Are

To all this I answer, that the constitution has been altered, and not by us; and the mere question is, whether the constitution being altered, and the Church in consequence, which is part of it, being exposed to danger in her various functions, we may allow those who have brought her into danger, to apply what they consider suitable remedies, without claiming a voice in the matter ourselves. questions bearing more or less upon the education of our members, the extension of our communion, and its relations to Protestant bodies, to be decided without us? Are precedents to be created while we sit by, which afterwards may be assumed as our acknowledged principles? It is our own concern ; and it is not strange if we think it will be better looked after by ourselves, than by our enemies or by mere politicians. We are driven by the pressure of circumstances to contemplate our own position, and to fall back upon first principles; nor can an age, which prides itself on its powers of scrutiny and research, be surprised if we do in selfdefence what it does in wantonness and pride. We accepted the principles of 1688 as the Church's basis, while they remained, because we had received them they have been surrendered. If we now

put forward a theory instead of them, all that can be said against us is, that we are not so much attached to them on their own account, as to consent, that persons, still more ignorant of our divinely framed system than the statesmen of that era, should attempt, in some similar or worse form, to revive them. In truth, we have had enough, if we would be wise, of mere political religion; which, like a broken reed, has pierced through the hand that leaned upon it. While, and in proportion as we are bound to it, it is our duty to submit, as the duties of the Jews lay in submitting to Nebuchadnezzar, as Jeremiah instructed them. We will not side with a reckless and destructive party, even in undoing our own chains, where there is no strong call of duty to oblige us; nay, we will wear them, not only contentedly but loyally; we will be zealous bondsmen, while the state honours us in our captivity. It has been God's merciful pleasure, as of old time, to make even those who led us away captive to pity us. Those who might have been tyrants over us, have piously nursed the Church, and liberated her, as far as was expedient, in the spirit of him who "builded the city, and let go the captives not for price nor reward'." And while the powers of this world so dealt with us, who would not have actively co-operated with them, from love as well as from duty? And thus it was that the

Is. xlv. 13.

most deeply learned, and most generous minded of our divines thought no higher privilege could befal them than to minister at the throne of a prince like our first Charles, who justified their confidence by dying for the Church a martyr's death. And I suppose, in similar circumstances, any one of those who afterwards became non-jurors, or of such persons at this day as have the most settled belief in the spiritual powers of the Church, would have thought himself unworthy to be her son, had he not fallen in with a system which he had received and found so well administered, whatever faults might exist in its theory. This is the view to be taken of the conduct of our Church in the seventeenth century, which we only do not imitate now, because we are not allowed to do so, because our place of service and our honourable function about the throne are denied us. And, as we should act as our predecessors were we in their times, so, as we think, they too would act as we do in ours. They, doubtless, at a time when our enemies are allowed to legislate upon our concerns, and to dispose of the highest offices in the Church, would feel that there were objects dearer to them than the welfare of the state, duties even holier than obedience to civil governors, and would act accordingly. It is our lot to see the result of an experiment which in their days was but in process, that of surrendering the Church into the hands of the state. It has been tried and failed; we have trusted the world, and it has taken