positive theory in other provinces of knowledge; but in theology it becomes practical. They perceive that there, what in itself is but an inquiry into questions of fact, tends to an encroachment upon what they think fit to consider their Christian liberty. They are reluctant to be confronted with evidence which will diminish their right of thinking as they please, rightly and wrongly; they are jealous of being forced to submit to one view of the subject, and to be unable at their pleasure to change; they consider comfort in religion to lie in all questions being open, and there being no call upon them to act. Thus they deliberately adopt that liberty which God gave His former people in wrath, "a liberty to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine'," the prerogative of being heretics or infidels.

It would be well if these men could keep their restless humours to themselves; but they unsettle all around them. They rob those of their birthright who would have hailed the privilege of being told the truth without their own personal risk in finding it; they force them against their nature upon relying on their reason, when they are content to be saved by faith. Such troublers of the Christian community would in a healthy state of things be silenced or put out of it, as disturbers of the king's peace are restrained in civil matters; but our times,

1 Jer. xxxiv. 17.

from whatever cause, being times of confusion, we are reduced to the use of argument and disputation, just as we think it lawful to carry arms and barricade our houses during national disorders.

Let this be my excuse for discussing rather than teaching what was meant to be simply an article of faith. We travel by night: the teaching of the Apostles concerning it, which once, like the pillar in the wilderness, was with the children of God from age to age continually, is withdrawn; and we are, so far, left to make the best of our way to the promised land by our natural resources.

In the following Lectures, then, it is attempted, in the measure which such a mode of writing allows, to build up what man has pulled down, in some of the questions connected with the Church; and that, by means of the stores of Divine truth bequeathed to us in the works of our standard Divines.

The immediate reason for discussing the subject is this: In the present day, such incidental notice of it, as Christian teachers are led to take in the course of their pastoral instructions, is sure to be charged with what is commonly called "Popery;" and for this reason,—that Romanists having ever insisted upon it, and Protestants neglected it, to speak of it at all, though it is mentioned in the Creed, is thought to savour of Romanism. Those then who feel its importance, and yet are not Romanists, are bound on several accounts to show

why they are not Romanists, and how they differ from them. They are bound to do so, in order to remove the prejudice with which an article of the Creed is at present encompassed; and on the other hand to prevent those who have right but vague ideas concerning it, from deviating into Romanism because no other system is provided for them. Till they do more than they have hitherto done, of course they hazard, though without any fault of theirs, a deviation on the part of their hearers into Romanism on the one hand, a reaction into mere Protestantism on the other.

From the circumstances then of the moment, the following Lectures are chiefly engaged in examining and exposing certain tenets of Romanism. But this happens for another reason. After all, the main object in a discussion should be, not to refute error merely, but to establish truth. What Christians especially need and have a right to require, is a positive doctrine on such subjects as come under notice. They have a demand on their teachers for the meaning of the article of the Apostles' Creed, which binds them to faith in "the Holy Catholic Church." It is a poor answer to this inquiry, merely to enter into an attack upon Romanism, and to show that it contains an exaggerated and erroneous view of the doctrine. Erroneous or not, a view it certainly does contain; and that religion which attempts a view, though imperfect or extreme, does more than those which do not attempt it at all. If we deny

that Romanists speak the truth, we are bound in very shame to commit ourselves to the risk of a theory, unless we would fight with them at an unfair advantage; and in charity to our own people, lest we tempt them to error, while we refuse to give them what is better instead of it. But at the same time, it stands to reason, that to do this effectually we must proceed on the plan of attacking Romanism, as the most convenient way of showing what our own views are. It has pre-occupied the ground, and we cannot erect our own structure without partly breaking down, partly using what we find upon it. And thus for a second reason, the following Lectures, as far as in their very form goes, are chiefly written against Romanism, though their main object is not controversy but edification.

Their main object is to furnish an approximation in one or two points towards a correct theory of the duties and office of the Church Catholic. Popular Protestantism does not attempt it at all; it abandons the subject altogether: Romanism supplies a doctrine, but, as we conceive, an untrue one. The question is, what is that sound and just exposition of this Article of Faith, which holds together, or is consistent in theory, and is justified by the history of the dispensation, which is neither Protestant nor Roman, but proceeds according to that Via Media, which, as in other things so here, is the appropriate path for sons of the English Church to walk in? What is the nearest approximation to

that primitive truth which Ignatius and Polycarp enjoyed, and which the nineteenth century has lost?

This is the problem which demands serious consideration at this day, and some detached portions of which will be considered in the following Lectures. Leaving to others questions directly political and ecclesiastical, I propose to direct attention to some of those connected with the pastoral office of the Church.

It is obvious to insist on certain supposed disadvantages of considering such a subject at this moment. In replying to this objection, which I shall now attempt to do, an opportunity will be given me to explain more at length the object contemplated.

It is urged, then, by conscientious and sensible men, that we have hitherto done sufficiently well without any theory on the subject, and therefore do not need it now or in prospect; that certain notions, in whatever degree abstractedly correct, have become venerable and beneficial by long usage, and ought not now to be disturbed; that the nature and functions of the Church have been long settled in this country by law and by historical precedents, and that it is our duty to take what we find, and use it for the best; that to discuss the question of the Church, whatever precautions be taken, necessarily involves the unsettling of received opinions; that though the views which may be put forward be in themselves innocent or true, yet