claims, then, I ask, is it nothing that the tempest tossed understanding is not left merely to abstract speculation founded upon its own antecedent perceptions of the rules and laws of truth, but that he who has come to supply its need is able to say, in addition to the ostensible goodness and comfort of his assurances, that which I say is said under an awful responsibility: I who speak, have been commissioned to carry a message from God to man, the message of the gospel of Christ. His commission came to me by no mere fancy or conclusion of my own, but from the hands of those to whom He in the flesh, seen by their eyes, heard by their ears, handled by their hands, intrusted it, to be delivered down in perpetual descent: so not the wit or will of man, but He, the Holy One, has given me the power and the charge to minister to your soul, at the most awful peril of my own. I ask, are there no more elements of probability in such an historical commission than in a supposed inward message, of which there is no example in Scripture, and to which it is not in the nature of things that any test adequate to prove its genuineness should be applied?'

-pp. 271, 272.

On this we remark, first, that Mr. Gladstone has as usual ingeniously evaded the case of the minister who has the supposed criterion of the apostolical succession, but who has not the moral requisites, and, secondly, he must very well know that the criterion of those he opposes is not that of a supposed 'inward message;' but is furnished by the simple application of the already oft-quoted words of our Lord, By their fruits ye 'shall know them; do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of 'thistles?'

Mr. Gladstone, like many other writers on the same subject, finds a difficulty in replying to the objection, that the title of the bishops as successors to the apostles, and of the doctrine of episcopacy generally, as understood by writers of his stamp, are so little sanctioned (we should say, are so utterly unsanctioned), by scriptural authority. His mode of getting over it is not a little amusing.

6

'Nothing, I may add, can be more contrary to reason than to complain because Scripture does not convey to us a full account of the establishment of the order of bishops. And this not simply because the notices which it does furnish are entirely analogous to the general character of the New Testament in its historical bearings, which is not systematic, but occasional; but further and more especially, because to expect from Scripture a full account of the establishment of an order, whose function it was to replace the apostles, is to anticipate what is absolutely precluded by the nature of the case, inasmuch as Scripture only records what took place during the lifetime of the apostles, mentioning the death of one alone, and in no other case carrying down the account of their proceedings to the conclusion of their ministry or life.'-p. 240.

And so it appears that it is unreasonable to expect the apostles plainly to tell us that they intended the bishops should be their successors, inasmuch as during their lifetime they themselves were discharging the functions of bishops! Now though it would undoubtedly be very unreasonable to expect that dead men should speak, yet it is not altogether unprecedented, we believe, for persons to give utterance to their intentions before they die. The above reasoning of Mr. Gladstone is about as good as would be that of a man who should lay claim to a certain estate, and upon being told by the lawyers that there was no will, document, or scrap of paper left behind by the owner which devised it to him, should reply,' How can you be so unreasonable? while he was alive, it was his own, but it could not be expected that he should put me in pos'session before his death! Whether this reasoning would be likely to be satisfactory in a court of justice we leave our readers to say. If so, it would be a very cheap and easy way of becoming rich men, and of obtaining good estates.

Not less amusing is Mr. Gladstone's reply to the argument that we cannot be certain of the apostolical transmission of ministerial power, inasmuch as we cannot be certain that there has not been a flaw somewhere in the long chain. Some ordinations of bishops may have been for some cause or other invalid, and though such ordinations may have been very rare, yet as no one knows which they are, it is impossible to say in what lines the succession may have been incorruptibly transmitted, and in what vitiated. It must fill the soul of a presbyter with horror to think that he may possibly have been ordained by a bishop who had not been himself properly consecrated, or who had been consecrated by those who had no right to consecrate him. Unless this argument can be fairly refuted, no individual presbyter is absolutely certain that he has the mysterious gifts conferred by ordination; that he has the inestimable benefits of apostolical succession. The superficial thinker, indeed, might be ready to suppose that possessions could not be so very inestimable of which a man is not certain whether he has them or not; which if he has them not, he never misses so long as he supposes he has them, and which if they could be taken from him, he would be absolutely ignorant when, how, or by whom, they were filched away. Not so, however, with Mr. Gladstone and his party; and our author has accordingly brushed up his arithmetic to meet the difficulty. By working several interesting sums in the rule of three, he endeavors to show that even on the least favorable computation, the chances against the validity of the ordination of any one bishop are as eight thousand to one. And truly, if the general notions of the succes- sionists be admitted, that there is scarcely anything that can

invalidate orders, except some trumpery irregularities in the rite of ordination itself (and those who attach weight to such doctrines are always more solicitous about what is circumstantial than what is essential); if it be true, we say, that a man may be a very sufficient bishop but a very bad man, we think it very likely that Mr. Gladstone's computations may not be very far from the truth. But if we are to adopt the doctrine of common sense, that true Christian character is essential to the validity of ministerial claims, that purity of doctrine and purity of life may be justly demanded, there are not a few ages of the church in which the difficulty would be to find an ordination that was valid, and when, so far from the probabilities in favor of the validity of any one ordination being eight thousand to one, they would rather be as one to eight thousand.

Mr. Gladstone's seventh chapter is devoted to the discussion of the 'Practical Relations' of 'Church Principles.' He here considers the various objections which may not unreasonably be brought against them. The first he touches is their alleged tendency to Romanism. But though there are some particularly amusing things in this section, we must not pause to notice them, as the space which this article has already occupied admonishes us that we must speedily draw to a conclusion. We cannot so easily persuade ourselves to pass over the second section, in which he vainly endeavors to combat the objection grounded on the tendency of these principles to unchurch' all communities of Christians not possessing episcopal ordination. That they not only have this tendency, but necessarily deprive the ministers of such communities of all authority, and the sacraments they administer of all efficacy, is indisputable, and it is not a little edifying to see the sophistical nonsense by which our author endeavors to defend his principles against such outrages on all charity. He argues the case on a variety of grounds, most of which we have no room to notice; amongst others, that if there be any uncharitableness in church principles as professed by episcopalians, it is equally shared by those who make similar claims to the 'succession,' only in the line of the presbyterate.' To this we have merely to reply, Honi soit qui mal y pense;' 'let the galled jade wince.' It is no argument to us, who do not allow the arrogant claims of 'succes'sion,' whether made by Episcopalians or Presbyterians. In the meantime it does discredit the claims of 'succession' to perceive that such very different parties are at endless strife as to which has the rightful title to make them.

Another argument of like force is, that these church principles admit far more than they exclude. According to them, the church of Rome immediately becomes a great body of

Christians, a glorious portion of the visible church;' while they exclude only Presbyterians, the Lutheran churches, Independents, Baptists, Wesleyan Methodists, and a few other bodies. Now, argues our author, these latter bodies, who deny the said 'church principles,' would deny the title of the Romish church to be considered a part of the true church of Christ. We are sorry to spoil the triumph of Mr. Gladstone's argument, or to hint that he has argued here with his usual unfairness or his usual obtuseness. He must know very well that it is not the denial of what he calls church principles which would make the Independent or the Baptist withhold the title of church of Christ from the church of Rome. She might hold the doctrine of apostolical succession and welcome, like the Church of England, or like the Episcopal church of America, without any danger of being denied to be a church, if this were the only thing objected to. It is purely on account of other more enormous and vital corruptions, that we deny her the title, and as long as she holds those corruptions, we must deny it to her. The denial of 'church principles,' therefore, does not unchurch' a single community of Christians; the only, but the all-important difference on this point between Mr. Gladstone and us is, that the assertion of these principles is not sufficient per se to constitute a church of Christ. This he must surely believe, for if the mere possession of these principles amidst all the gross superstitions and corruptions of Romanism be sufficient to justify its title of a true church of Christ we are really ignorant that anything could annul it, where these all-saving principles are but retained. But Mr. Gladstone will probably glory in this theory; he certainly speaks in very different terms of Romanism (purely because she retains his church principles') from those which would have been employed by the reformers. Like many others of the Oxford school, he has well learnt the charitable lesson inculcated by its poetical forerunner:

'Speak gently of our sister's fall!'

But to return to the argument. We have shown that the denial of Mr. Gladstone's church principles 'unchurches' none; their assertion unchurches many. Other arguments, therefore, must be sought besides those of recrimination; and Mr. Gladstone has plenty, though the quality of them is by no means proportioned to the quantity. And to make short work of the matter, he boldly denies that his church principles imply any outrage upon the privileges of a single Christian! The following passages contain his curious explication of this point.

'But now, with respect to those who confessedly have no right apostolical succession (whether the episcopal succession only, or the presbyterial also be entitled to that appellation), I repeat my fourth proposition, namely, that church principles do not logically deprive them of anything substantial which they themselves claim to possess ; that they go to exclude no true lover of Christ from the true church of Christ; and therefore à fortiori, no such person who, according to the criteria established by his own professed opinions, belongs to it; that they do not represent persons of piety in any communion as debarred from membership in the church, in any sense in which they themselves lay claim to it. I have varied the verbal forms of the proposition only with a view to explain and to impress the meaning.

The question whether the name of church' be predicable of this or that religious society or communion, is one whose importance wholly depends upon the answer which is given to a preliminary inquiry; namely, to this, what is signified by the term 'church.' If we reply to that inquiry, the church is a body visible, permanent, authoritative, bound to unity of faith and of communion, and empowered to administer sacramental ordinances, in which spiritual graces and gifts inhere; the disciple of Protestantism as it is represented in many of our dissenting bodies, will reply: I know of no such church: I disclaim the idea, and deny the existence, of any such church, in which the invisible is tied down to the visible. I believe in an invisible church, whose members on earth have no association of a palpable and external kind, but only that of unseen bodiless communion of love, and charity, and Christian graces, held in common, at least, if not positively interchanged. And I believe in many visible churches, making up, if you please to call it so, one visible church; which are spontaneous associations formed by the will of man, without anything more than God's general command to form them; or any restriction to particular modes; or any corporeal conditions, like succession in the ministry, on which their essence is dependent. They are in their nature external. The ordinances they administer have no grace abiding in them, though they become occasions of grace to those receivers whose minds they stir up to the energetic emotions and acts of faith, love, and prayer. A man may be a true church member without being in them: a man may be in them, and yet not a member, in any sense, of the spiritual church.' -pp. 410-412.

'If such and such only were the nature of the visible church, and of visible churches, of Christ, I do not see that the name given or the name withheld, could be, upon its intrinsic merits, worth the labors, the pains of a contest, and the hazard of that bitterness which all differences upon matters of presumed concern are so apt to engender. The character of societies thus constituted, whether it be in itself a thing good or bad, or indifferent, is at least something quite apart from the Christian church as represented in the records of ecclesiastical antiquity, and in the documents and institutions of the Church of England, which ascribes visibility and authority to the church; requires episcopal succession for the assumption of the ministry, and teaches that the sacraments have in themselves, and are actually made