pass over men's heads, they who know whither years are leading them are compelled, if not inclined, to ask themselves, whether these easy and amusing papers are good also,-good for the writer, good for the reader, good for the great cause to which both are bound alike to devote and consecrate the best member which they have. Is it not good, it will be said, to pass censure where you conscientiously think it is merited, and to expose with severity those whom you believe to be enemies of the good cause? But the reply to the question cannot, as the inexperienced may think, be made simply in the affirmative. This may be good sometimes doubtless, and sometimes it is necessary; but, beyond all doubt, sharp censures, where most justly and ably applied, very often do as much harm as good. They produce no effect whatever on those persons against whom they are directed, and they afford a plausible ground for accusing the professed champions of the Christian cause, of malevolent and unchristian, or of party and bigoted, feeling. How many very clever, very just, and very bitter letters of this kind one has seen, which have had exactly this bad effect, where the person to whom they are addressed has had coolness and shrewdness enough, to send a remarkably mild and gentle answer, and thus make a practical contrast between his assailant and himself. The justice and ability of the censure have their effect perhaps, and do some good, but not enough to outweigh the evil which the opponent's dexterity has effected.

Again, where we see persons with whom we agree, to a very great extent, injuring our common cause by running into extremes, and where we believe that censure would produce no effect because they conscientiously believe, that the course which they are pursuing is the right one, nothing is more tempting than the uttering a bitter complaint of these proceedings, thus shewing our own superior prudence and wisdom, and, in a sort of virtuous indignation, saying, "Liberavi," &c. But the real effect of this, in nine cases out of ten, would be, to give strength to the common enemy by exhibiting the divisions of those who oppose them-really to increase differences, and prevent all co-operation. Real prudence, in such cases, tells us, that while we are mortals, and connected with mortals, we must bear a great deal, and do, not what we would, but what we can; and that, consequently, it is better to be patient under the evil done by occasional vehemence, in the few cases of difference on minor points, in order to present an united front to the enemy, and to work with united and really cordial efforts in the many cases of agreement on vital matters. In short, it is easy enough to act on the offensive, but it wants a great deal of discretion to say where it is wise, right, and necessary, and where, on the other hand, besides increasing and exasperating the evil of one's own heart, it will increase and inflame external evils.

Thoughts like these considerably damp one's ardour for dashing off a strong picture of men and things as they are; and it must therefore be remembered that silence on such inviting topics is often the result of neither indolence nor fear, but of sober conviction that it will do less mischief than speaking. Yet there are some topics akin to those which have been spoken of which may perhaps not only be touched

on without offence, and so without harm, and yet may be really useful, and may present no ordinary degree of interest to those who can look at things rather than men, and at the line of thinking and acting adopted by parties rather than at the parties themselves. One topic, at least, seems to the writer fraught with interest and instruction,—and to one who is to write about it, it has this peculiar merit, that it requires very little to be said on it, beyond a very simple statement. The subject in question is the extraordinary change in the matters in controversy between members of the church of England since the beginning of this century. During the first years of the century, the old Calvinistic and Arminian questions were debated with the greatest vehemence, and the parties assumed a regularly hostile attitude towards one another. Then came the Bible Society question, or rather the general question of union with schismatics for religious purposes. From causes sufficiently obvious, they who were advocating the strong doctrines, whether as to reprobation, or as to sudden conversion and assurance, took what is called the liberal view, while their adversaries were decidedly opposed to all amalgamation schemes. They who remember the writings of Dr.Wordsworth, Mr. Norris, and others on these topics, or who know the works of Archdeacon Daubeney and Mr. Sikes, will be ready to declare that most able, learned, and high-principled champions of real churchmanship were never wanting. But it is beyond all question that the grounds of churchmanship were not matters which had been much studied for a considerable period previous to that which is now spoken of. Many who would have felt shame, as they well ought, at being ignorant of the grounds on which the doctrines of our church were to be established, had never thought of her discipline or government, or perhaps at all considered the nature of the church. Consequently, notwithstanding the strenuous and able efforts of the persons who have just been named and others, a vast proportion of churchmen entered into these amalgamation schemes because they did not know of any sound argument against them. But still the very fact of an opposition being made to them by eminent persons excited inquiry, and that inquiry turned men's attention, of necessity, to the long-neglected class of subjects just referred to. It is from these inquiries, under Providence, that the present condition of things has probably arisen. Some years passed away with little more than an occasional development of church principles or reference to them, in special controversies about some amalgamation scheme. After a time, the nature and value of the ministry, and the doctrine of the succession, were again publicly set forth uncontroversially in the pulpit, and, by degrees, all the great truths relating to the church catholic, its ministry, and its sacraments, have been brought forward in the same way. But though produced rather in a didactic than a controversial form, they have not only excited strong opposition, but it may be said with truth, that they are the great topic of controversy at present. It is this fact which deserves notice, that there is little or no controversy now as to the doctrines which were its sole theme five-and-twenty years ago, while matters little thought of then-episcopacy, the commission and succession of the ministry, the

66

sacraments, and a variety of minor subjects connected with them—are now warmly and eagerly discussed. The" Record" has several times stated its bitter anger and mortification at finding how many persons, of whom it little expected such things, have seen the strength of the argument on the other side, and have, in consequence, to the deep dismay of the latitudinarians in church principles, become true and good churchmen. This is an offence so rank and foul, that nothing can atone for it, and by the amalgamation party-the Schismatics, the "Record," the Patriot," and Co.-all who have advocated the church doctrines are, as we see daily, attacked as papists, and stigmatized as members of Anti-Christ. From the last solicitation, too, of the "Christian Observer" for fresh subscribers, it appears that that journal also, is much alarmed at the progress of these doctrines, and resolved to make such vigorous opposition as it can to them. Still these opinions spread and strengthen, are avowed boldly by men whose lives are irreproachable, whose talents are undoubted, and who are ready, as far as learning goes, to meet the gainsayer at any time. We saw only the other day for example, that the "Leeds Mercury," in making a furious assault on Dr. Hook, was obliged to allow him almost every good quality which a clergyman ought to have, in an eminent degree, but alleged against him, as his crime, an exclusive love for "the church."

Surely the transition here spoken of is an important one. Doubtless the miserable controversy about the Calvinistic and Arminian schemes cannot be avoided, if men are running into Antinomianism on one hand, or preaching "salvation by works," in the ordinary sense of the words, on the other. But it is a miserable necessity, for the simple reason, that there is no end to that controversy, and can be none, and that more good is done towards bringing men to act happily together who differ on it, by silence, than by any arguments which have ever yet been offered. In the present topic of controversy, on the other hand, great practical results have been obtained, and greater may be expected, the more completely it is known. To have attached more strongly to the church many most exemplary and pious men,-to have detached many from a connexion with the political dissenters who (with what salvo to their conscience they best know) are trying to work the destruction of a branch of the church whose place they cannot take, whose work they cannot do, and from whose doctrines they scarcely profess a material difference, this is much. To have supplied to many hearts which longed for something more than a bare list of doctrines to which they assented, that which could go far to satisfy the affections, and teach them that, as members of the holy catholic church, they became parts of a vast brotherhood, united by ties more close than human ingenuity could devise for any human society, and full of rich and precious gifts, both for the present and the future-this is yet more. And this is done, and is being done daily, and will be done wherever the true doctrine is taught, and the true nature of the sacraments and the ministry, as well as of the word of God, faithfully made known.

Here, then, is a subject of great interest, and worth full consideration' respecting the state of things among us, suggested to the reader at the

beginning of the new year, (or very near it,) without " personal talk" about parties, or hostilities, or controversy. More amusement for the moment, doubtless, might be derived from discussing the chief actors on the scene, but quite at the expense of the just consideration of the thing itself. Some of the great features of the case will readily suggest themselves, and they happily are not of a personal kind, but rest on general views of human nature. For example, a long time has passed since what are called "evangelical views" were first declared strongly among the clergy of the church. When opinions are new, or newly revived, many of those who adopt them (from the common power of novelty, in addition to the value, or supposed value, of the opinions themselves,) urge the matter to the extreme, and give themselves, heart and soul, to the propagation and maintenance of their new opinions. They think, speak, and act with reference to them alone. But when a new generation arises, which has been brought up in them, to which they have never been presented with the attractions of novelty, this cannot possibly be the case. The new generation may have as full a conviction of their truth, and may maintain them as firmly and as sincerely as they who first adopted them; but the sort of passionate attachment which novelty inspires is absent, and calmer views of opponents' notions and opinions will be taken. It will be seen that men may act to a great extent with, and feel sincere respect for, persons from whom they differ on some speculative points, and that it is not needful to live in a state of separation from them; nay, that on some points, not perhaps directly connected with the primary grounds of difference, and overlooked or set aside by the prior generation, there may be reason on the opponent's side. In a word, they who first adopt, and they who grow up in opinions, (whatever they may be,) are under the influence of different feelings, and the calmer feelings are the better, for those who experience them, as well as for the world at large. That this is no theory, but matter of fact, every one who has had the pleasure of being acquainted with persons of both classes cannot but be aware; and such works as the "Record" would prove it (if proof were wanting) by their bitter outcries as to the diminished numbers of those who cherish such feelings, and hold such views, as they do.

Again, it is mere truism, that there will be, among the followers of those who so ably uphold the wholesome views of church government now happily revived among us, as in every other body of men, persons of different degrees, as well as of different kinds, of capacity. There will be high imaginative natures, making demands which no ordinances used by man can ever gratify, and which, as far as they ought to find gratification in religion, must seek it (like Thomas à Kempis, for example, or, in a different way, Jeremy Taylor,) by the exercise of their individual powers, under the control of Christian views, and the direction of Christian ordinances. These will at first, however, expect to find what they seek, in the urging on of their new views, and in promoting and producing attention to what had been neglected before. There will be others who, in the most high-minded and admirable, though perhaps mistaken, spirit, think it a matter of duty to

be

state everything to their opponent in the strongest and (almost) the most hostile shape,-to urge every point, small or great, to the extreme, and to sigh for contest, and struggle, or even persecution, that they may shew how honestly they hold the opinions they express. There will be others, again, who look at details as everything,-dwell on minutiæ almost altogether,-require obedience to every word of every canon, possible or impossible, just as, a few years ago, others sought to bind us to every word of every homily,-think of compliance with rubrics as a matter on a par with adherence to articles of faith, and thus wear themselves, and alarm scrupulous consciences by suggesting doubts as to every imaginable point of detail. It would very easy to give some interest to such a paper as this by instancing, if not persons, yet cases. But here, again, no good could be done; for, while human nature is human nature, all these things always will attend the propagation and establishment of new or revived opinions; and by degrees and by lapse of time, what is merely the result of human weakness will die away and be forgotten, while solid and substantial good will be done (partly through these very errors) by the establishment of great truths or useful practices. For example, every one must see that uniformity is very desirable,-that the point which one would wish to see attained as to rubrics and rules would be, that there should be such an habitual obedience to them that no one should ever think about them, or imagine there was any more merit in obeying them than there is in a soldier's going through the platoon exercise regularly. So different has been the case among us, that there are now constant discussions about minute rules. Some persons laugh at these, and try to involve the whole party of those who bring them forward in the ridicule which attaches to attributing great importance to little things. But the consequence of these things will be, to a great degree, to produce the condition alluded to; that is to say, even careless persons will find that they are expected to know and to follow the rules laid down by the church; and thus, by degrees, an habit of following them, without the necessity of particular attention, will be produced. Perhaps this could not be produced so readily in any other way as by these little discussions, sometimes in themselves of no value, and sometimes, perhaps, made of far more importance than they deserve. And, if this is true, evil, and not good, would be done by directly attacking, or complaining of, or laughing at, them, even where justly obnoxious to attack.

It is hoped that, in what has been said, two objects have been attained the one, the direction of the reader's attention to an important view of our present condition; the other, the giving, at least indirectly, reasons why many things, if not persons, are not noticed here, either for praise or blame, after the usual fashion-viz., that in some cases, on general principles, it would be unreasonable to hope that any effect could be produced; the other, that in some cases, where good might be done, more harm than enough to overbalance it, would often be done at the same time.

There is another subject, also not personal, which deserves and demands notice, more than that which is here treated, and that is, the