the rudimental, errors of that Church in writings professedly Protestant; and who should be prompt to expose and refute those errors, if not they who have been foremost in laboring and in suffering for liberty of thought and speech,— the descendants, or successors of the old English Presbyterians, who in their day were the champions of religious freedom?

Mr. Madge, the minister of the chapel in which Lindsey and Belsham preached, has therefore performed an appropriate service in laying open to public view the pretensions of the new party in the National Church. He did right in giving his people the instruction which these Lectures afford, and he has done right in giving to all who will read, the opportunity of seeing, through his clear statements, supported by a conclusive array of proofs, the real principles and purposes of a movement which already includes a very large proportion of the younger clergy” of the Establishment. He has not confined himself, however, to an exposition of the errors which mark the new school, but has presented a lucid and able vindication of the principles which these errors would subvert. The book has therefore a value much beyond that which belongs to it as a demolition of Puseyism. It offers, in a condensed form, the great argument which underlies all religion and all progress. We have read the volume with much satisfaction, and if any one would understand the true character of the Oxford theology its actual developments, its unquestionable tendencies, and its real foundations we advise him to give these Lectures a careful perusal. They are written in the style which best became the subject and the occasion of their delivery. They avoid rhetorical embellishment and magnificent perorations, but exhibit throughout a correct and graceful diction, such as proves a nice taste and a practised hand. Occasional diffuseness and abundant amplification afford no ground of censure in discourses intended to be read before a promiscuous audience. Although prepared "in the course of each successive week previous to their delivery, and without the slightest view to publication," the author-more just to the public than some who offer this apology for printing their slovenly compositions has by a diligent revision removed whatever marks of haste may have originally impaired their worth; VOL. XXXIX. 4TH S. VOL. III. NO. I.

7

though Mr. Madge, we have reason to know, might well be imitated by many other preachers in the care he bestows upon his weekly discourses. The Lectures do not, indeed, seem to us to be all of equal merit. That on "Apostolic Succession" we should pronounce the best, though the one by which it is followed-on "Catholic Tradition and the Authority of the Fathers," we are inclined to believe, cost the writer the most pains. The last two Lectures were written, we should judge, more rapidly than the others. The volume discovers a calm and candid spirit. The severity which marks a few passages, is felt by the reader to be just. There is no intemperate abuse, and no idle declamation. Mr. Madge is earnest, but honest. He detests ecclesiastical arrogance and superstitious pedantry, but never loses his temper amidst the great provocation of such follies.

We cannot attempt to analyse the several lectures; yet in this way alone could we give a fair view of their contents. We will rather quote the titles, from which our readers may form some idea of the value of the book, and will make one or two extracts as specimens of the author's manner. The first Lecture treats generally of "the principles, spirit, and tendency of Anglo-Catholicism or Puseysim." The second discusses the original constitution of "the Christian Church," and shows the weakness of the Episcopalian argument on this subject. The third Lecture is a conclusive exposure of the false doctrine of "Apostolic succession." The fourth is on "Catholic tradition and the authority of the Fathers," whose claims to respect are handled without fear. The fifth maintains the "sufficiency of Scripture and the right of private judgment." The sixth considers "the Church of England in connexion with the State." The seventh presents "the essential principles of a Christian Catholic Church." And the eighth is "a recapitulation of the preceding lectures."

Mr. Madge introduces his sixth Lecture with the following statement of "the high ground of authority on which the Tractarian divines place that branch of the Catholic Church denominated the Church of England."

According to them it is divine in its origin, episcopal in its form, descends to us in direct succession from the apostles, and is the appointed judge in religious controversies. Its rulers are

the bishops, assisted by the clergy of their respective dioceses, and in them is vested the right to manage and direct all its affairs. This is the theory of the polity of the Church according to the views of the Anglo-Catholic party. They maintain that a visible society was established by Christ and his apostles, whose constitution and government are one and uniform, that in this constitution prelacy forms an essential element, without which no community of professing Christians can be considered a part of the Catholic Church of Christ, and that by the grace of the episcopal order alone is any efficacy imparted to the administration of the word and sacraments." — pp. 243, 244.

Add to this the language which Mr. Madge quotes from one of the Tracts for the Times, "Why should we not seriously endeavor to impress our people with the plain truth, that by separating themselves from our communion, they separate themselves not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but from the only Church in this realm which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord's body to give to the people," and then let any one say if he is not prepared to adopt Mr. Madge's judgment; of the correctness of which, if from want of further information he entertain any doubt, let him read the writings of Newman, Pusey, Palmer, Froude, and other advocates of "the Anglo-Catholic System :-"

"Of the Tractarian theology we may say generally, that false principles, false statements, false reasoning, and false inferences are among its marked and distinguishing characteristics. After having bestowed upon it much attention, I have been brought to the conviction that never before was there put forward a theory, -carrying with it such lofty pretensions and pregnant with such momentous consequences, so utterly wanting in everything like evidence, so entirely resting upon far-fetched inferences, subtle distinctions, and unauthorized assumptions."- pp. 87,88.

We find in this volume another quotation from a writer of the same school, so remarkable in its character, that we cannot but transfer it to our pages. It is the ultimate point of Trinitarian “concessions," and gives up the Bible to the Unitarian. Hear what "the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, a clergyman nominated, it is said, by the Bishop of London to one of the largest churches in his diocese," can say, as his words "appeared in the Record newspaper."

"If we are satisfied that Scripture is Scripture — that is, that our Bibles, as we possess them now, do contain God's real word,

if in this we are satisfied, then let me mark out to you a few things which I do not think you could, or any Christian could, have found out for himself in that Bible, things which I do not imagine would have been articles of our faith so peremptorily pronounced as they are, had there not been such a thing as tradition, or the teaching of the Church; for instance, the doctrine of the holy Trinity. Is it possible, my brethren, do you think, that you, or I, or any one, be he ever so gifted with the powers of man, could have deduced and invented for himself this most wonderful and mysterious doctrine out of the Bible? There is no mention of the Trinity in unity to be found in Scripture in so many direct words. That God is one and yet three, three and yet one, is not said, in so many distinct words, in the Bible; and yet it is a most vital doctrine. We have always had it in the Church."-pp. 112, 113.

nett.

"We have always had it in the Church," says Mr. BenBut mark what another expounder of the new theology says, in "Tracts for the Times, No. 85."

"The early Church did herself conceal these same church doctrines. Viewing that early period as a whole, there is on the whole a great secrecy observed in it concerning such doctrines as the Trinity and the Eucharist; that is, the early Church did the very thing which I have been supposing Scripture does, conceal these high truths." p. 168.

So then the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be " found out in the Bible," and was "concealed" by the early Church. Yet it is a most vital doctrine." Is this the way God deals with his children — hiding from their sight the truths which it is important they should believe? We assent, with the heartiest conviction, to the statement that no marks of a belief in the Trinity can be found in the Bible or in the early Church; and the inference we leave to be drawn by any person of common sense.

A short extract which we will make from the seventh Lecture, includes much solid thought.

"Between the exercise of individual freedom of thought and action, and the authority assumed by the Church of Rome to determine absolutely what is Christian truth and what, therefore, we are to believe and profess, there lies no intermediate ground or position. If we deny to man the rights of reason and conscience, and establish an ecclesiastical domination in their place, it becomes merely a matter of calculation and prudence how far that domination shall be carried-whether it shall or shall not proceed to the length to which it has sometimes proceeded, that

is, to the enforcement of its decrees by the infliction of pains and penalties. The Church of England and other churches besides have substituted, instead of the infallible authority of the Pope or general councils, a priestly authority or a church authority, which is equally inconsistent with the right and the duty of individual judgment. But as this judgment will and must be exercised; as it is impossible to prevent men from exercising it; as all attempts to do so have been as vain and impotent as they have been cruel and unjust; no church, which does not recognize and concede this right, can have any claim to be called a Catholic or universal Church. It becomes at once a limited and exclusive church, not a general and comprehensive one. It draws around it a line of demarcation by which the wisest and best men must often be kept out of its communion."

274.

- pp. 273,

To this passage we may append another brief paragraph, from the same Lecture, in which Mr. Madge explains the principles of Church union as held by Unitarians.

"The basis of our union, as a Church, is simply that of agreement as to the Object of worship, the divine commission and authority of our spiritual lawgiver, and the right of every individual to interpret for himself the records of revelation, and to form, hold, and profess whatever opinions that interpretation may lead him to adopt. The principle on which our religious communion is founded is wide and comprehensive, — designed to include all who are content with scriptural forms of worship and scriptural terms of fellowship." - p. 288.

One more quotation we will give from the fifth Lecture, commending it to the perusal of those who find it difficult to understand what Unitarians mean.

In

"This is what we mean by the sufficiency of Scripture. contending for that sufficiency, it is not meant that Scripture. alone should be read and studied, and that we should throw aside every means, that we should despise and reject every help, that might enable us more correctly to ascertain its meaning, and more fully to enter into its spirit. This would be a monstrous perversion, a most pernicious abuse of the maxim, "that the Bible only is the religion of Protestants." All that is to be understood by it is, that no other work carries with it the same title to our regard and submission, and that when once its principles are clearly ascertained, they furnish the only authoritative rule for Christian faith and practice; that no other writings, of whatever age or country they may be, can be allowed to come into competition with them, to qualify their statements or to supersede their authority; that on every question, where

*7