day have entered. It is not necessary that we should defend all their words, writings, or actions; we could speak strongly of various things which we deem mistaken or exceptionable in the proceedings of some, perhaps many, of them; they were neither perfect men, nor perfect theologians; we do not panegyrize the high Calvinism of one, or the low Arminianism of another; the controversial bitterness of a third, the coarse humour of a fourth, or the ecclesiastical irregularities of several; but shall we, therefore, be ashamed to avow our conviction, that the church of Christ, and especially our own branch of it, owes to these clergymen a vast debt of gratitude for the intense zeal and piety with which they urged the Scriptural doctrines of grace, and of the Protestant Reformation; and for those unwearied labours which have led to results second only to those which followed the Reformation itself. We feel heartily ashamed of the coyness with which some very good men think it expedient to advert to such names as those of the Wesleys, Whitfield, Grimshawe, Walker, Talbot, Fletcher, Adam, Newton, Riland, Conyers, H. Venn, Romaine, Hervey, Toplady, the Stillingfleets, and the elder Milner; who were succeeded by the Simeons, Cecils, Scotts, Milners, Venns, Robinsons, Richmonds, Farishes, and Biddulphs, who lived to instruct the next generation; not to mention the lay Thorntons and Wilberforces, who aided their efforts, and were edified by their ministrations. And why this prudential reserve? Is it that these men, and others who were classed with them, were a small and despised minority among their brethren? If they were in the main right, and their brethren wrong; if they were zealously affected in a good cause, CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 14.

while the larger part of the clergy and laity of our church were somnolent, their being the few instead of the many is no reason that we should not be grateful for their labours. Or is it that they adopted theological opinions with which sound churchmen would not wish to identify themselves? We suppose that between the opposing views of Toplady and Romaine on the one hand, and Wesley and Fletcher on the other, there would be found sufficient shades of variety to prevent a general respect for their common piety being identified with any sectional school of doctrine. Such moderate men as Walker and Adam were denounced as Calvinists by Arminians, and as Arminians by Calvinists; and some of their brethren stood only a little higher or lower, as it is absurdly called, in the theological scale; the first Venn for instance, might be half a step above, and the second about as much below, their standard; and so on of others, till we come to the extremes; but that which has caused the whole body to be linked together in public opinion, was their union in the great outlines of evangelical doctrine, as distinguished from the pelagianism and semi-pelagianism, the practical popery and formalism, which had well-nigh shut out both the doctrine of justification by faith, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Whitfield and Wesley might separate; and Hervey and Fletcher might contend with more hardness, than sat gracefully on such gentle spirits; but, quarrel as they may, their common opponents will brand them together as "divines of the evangelical class ;"' and we see not why their common friends should not acknowledge the bond of union. The Christian is not obliged to bear his neighbour's reproach, when he is

R

buffeted for his faults; but he must not be ashamed to bear with him the reproach of the cross of Christ; and, disguise it as we may, these men were bearing that reproach, though some of them gave other causes of offence which might have been, and should have been, avoided.

And here we may notice, and we do so without scruple, the ecclesiastical irregularities from which several of the individuals whom we have named were not free. Mr. Venn had this acknowledgment to make in his interesting and valuable memoir of his grandfather; and Mr. Carus will have to record the same of the early days of Mr. Simeon. And why should it not be recorded? How stand the facts? At a time of great ignorance, lukewarmness, and irreligion, men of much zeal, devotion, and love to God and man, were raised up to stem the national torrent of ungodliness, and to disturb the Asphaltic waters of religious torpidity. Among them, some deviated into ecclesiastical irregularities, with a view to attack the kingdom of Satan more boldly and successfully than they thought was possible without innovating upon the discipline of the communion to which they belonged. They believed themselves not only justified in, but especially called to, their itinerant labours; but their misapprehension in regard to the mode of exercising their ministry, does not prove that the matter of their ministry was not essentially scriptural: nor need we disparage their zeal because we do not approve of their innovations. And then again be it remembered, that if a few individuals, in their laudable fervour to reclaim the wanderers from Christ's fold, overlooked the important considerations, which, for the sake of the common object, should bind to

gether the various ranks and degrees of the church militant upon earth in well-adjusted order; there were others as devout, as laborious, and as zealous, who maintained the duty and necessity of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and subordination; and dreaded every approach to confusion and schism. Of this class were Romaine, Adam, and Walker; with others whose names are on record; not to mention the many more whose names are not blazoned, only because they discharged their sacred duties diligently and efficiently in their allotted sphere of action, unknown beyond the range of their benignant influence. Be it recollected also, that some, who at first were hurried into irregularities, were led, by more mature reflection and experience, to discern the importance of conformity and order, and their own duty as clergymen of the Church of England; and have left upon record, both in their writings and by their example, a far stronger protest against irregularity, than if they had never fallen into it. The remarkable "revival" (as such effusions of Divine grace are usually called,) at Truro, under the pastoral care of Mr. Walker, was in strict connection with the discipline as well as the doctrines of the Anglican Church; and even those at Huddersfield under Venn, at Haworth under Grimshawe, and at Everton under Berridge, were not the result of the irregular itinerating labours in which those clergymen indulged-or rather toiled-but of their zealous exercise of their sacred office in the parishes assigned to their charge.

When, then, the conduct of some of these good men is adduced to convict those who in the present day preach, in the main, the same doctrines, of being bigots, because they discern the duty and necessity of ecclesiastical order, or of

being lax churchmen, because they symbolize in their theological opinions with some who were so, the argument fails on either side. To take the extreme case of Berridge himself, it is no more necessary to applaud or imitate his breaches of church discipline, than his eccentricity of conduct, or his frequently coarse humour; which, if his good and serious intentions were not taken into the account, might sometimes be called, as Southey calls it, "buffoonery." And yet when we think of the ardent devotion, the intense labours, the irrepressible energy, the largehearted self-denying charity, of this remarkable man; of his love to his Redeemer, and his anxiety for the salvation of souls; and of the thousands whom he was the instrument, in the hands of God, of turning from darkness to light, and who, at the last day, will call him blessed; we can well understand what Mr. Venn meant, when he spoke of him as "the venerable father Berridge ;" and readily can we believe what he wrote in a letter to Mr. Harvey, that when Mr. Simeon preached the funeral discourse (from 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8; probably that published in his Skeletons in 1796), "Everton church could not contain half the multitude who came to the burial of their beloved pastor; nor is it easy to conceive what tears and sighs were to be seen and heard from those who had been called to Christ through the word of the dear deceased." If vituperations were as plentiful as crimes in Tipperary, we should be sorry to be hurling them at such a man as John Berridge, however little some of his doings and sayings may approve themselves either to our taste or our understandings.

The recent Memoirs of Walker by Mr. Sidney, Venn by his grandson, Adam by Mr. Westoby, Newton in the enlarged and very

interesting narrative of him in Mr. Bickersteth's Christian Library; and now Berridge by Mr. Whittingham, (to which we hope shortly to add Simeon by Mr. Carus), have greatly enlarged the knowledge of the readers of religious biography, respecting the characters and proceedings of such men as we have mentioned, and the state of religion in England in their times. It is impossible to read those narratives without perceiving the need of adding sobriety to zeal; of refraining from acrimony of discussion; and, we must add, of maintaining the due order, as well as the doctrines, of the church which God, in his mercy, has established among us. Mr. Wesley had often urged this, though he violated his own precepts. Whitfield does not appear to have had any settled judgment upon the subject, as we think Mr. Philip admits in his recent memoir of him; a book full of diligentlycollected matter connected with "The Life and Times of Whitfield," but which, coming from the pen of a Dissenter, often draws the very contrary conclusion from facts to that which Churchmen must conscientiously be of opinion they fairly suggest. The life and exhortations of Walker are an invaluable antidote to the example and arguments of his vagrant friends. Mr. Sidney, we recollect, tells us that Walker was once summoned to a conference respecting the itinerancy of Berridge, at which Whitfield was present. Whitfield strongly encouraged his irregularity, Walker taking the contrary side; “but," says Walker, "nothing was concluded." Berridge must have been hard pressed for arguments when he placed in the fore-front of them Nathan's reply to David concerning his design to build the temple; "Do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee;"

a text which had nothing to do with the question of clergymen of the Church of England becoming itinerant preachers; though, even if it had," the context," says Walker, "shewed that it was contrary in the case of king David."

THE decision of Sir H. Jenner, in the matter of the Carisbrooke superstitious inscription, is beginning to work its baneful effects. We do not mean that the Papists exult, and that the Oxford Tract sect exult with them; or that the Protestant Dissenters taunt us, and that the friends of the Anglican reformation are deeply afflicted at the disgrace brought upon our Church, and our common Christianity, by that ill-judged and lamentable decision; though all this is true; but we refer to the practical effect, as exemplified in some recent proceedings in the Roll's Court, in which the decision of Sir H. Jenner is urged in proof, that property devoted to purchase prayers for the dead is not dedicated to a superstitious use. We confess, that if Sir H. Jenner is right, we see no honest way of avoiding this conclusion; and hence immense masses of property held by cathedrals, colleges, parishes, municipal corporations, endow ed schools, public companies, and private individuals, bequeathed, or otherwise devoted, to praying for the souls of the departed, are fraudulently retained, and ought to be restored to Chantry priests, and others, who will duly exercise the appointed trusts. We do not know whether the Rolls case requires the judge of that court to give an opinion upon this question; we speak only of an argument in the pleadings. It is gravely maintained, that "Ora pro anima," or "animabus," is not accounted by the Church of England a superstitious condition annexed to property. If so, land and funds, of the value of millions of money, ought either to be restored to the popish owners, or conferred on Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Keble, and others, who may think it right and charitable to perform the conditions. The wire-drawn distinction, that prayer for the departed does not imply purgatory, and that it is proper to pray for the dead, though not perhaps to offer masses for them, affords no extrication from the dilemma;

for the state or place out of which it is desirable to pray a soul, is surely a purgatory, and dropping the name will not alter the thing. Harding the Jesuit was right, when he told Jewell that the one inevitably implies the other: "Oratio pro mortuis, purgatorii doctrinam invehit necessario." Archbishop Usher, and some other eminent men, anxious to wrest from the papist the doughty weapon of tradition, have shewn that the practice, in early ages, was wrought into the abominable system which the Church of Rome built upon it; but we are quite ready to concede, that if we take one step, we must take two, and perhaps many: and that Usher had done better if he had appealed from fathers and councils, to the word of God, which offers not a shadow of argument for the practice.

nat

We had a strong foreboding, when the Carisbrooke case was pending, that it might end as it did. We should not, however, to prevent that result, have been satisfied that the case should have been tried upon the mere technicality of the clergyman's consent not having been obtained; for clergymen might be found who would readily give their consent to such an inscription. It was better, therefore, that the question, if tried, should be tried upon its merits; but our anxiety was caused by observing, that the line of pleading took very much the turn that prayer for the dead is forbidden by the Church of England. Now, for ourselves, we have not any doubt that it is forbidden, as we have often shewn, and not longer ago than in our very last Number. But we have had so much experience in our contest with the Oxford Tract party, of the specious manner in which those who wish to foist superstitions upon our Protestant Church, construct their sophisms, that instead of chiefly searching for passages which directly, or by implication, forbid the practice, we should have dwelt mainly upon the conclusive fact that it was rejected; rejected by

design, and upon deliberation, as altogether contrary to the principles of the Church of England. Those readers who have been pleased to peruse our various papers upon the Oxford Tracts, will remember how often we have had occasion to allude to this obvious but very important distinction between rejecting and forbidding; and Sir H. Jenner shewed himself a somewhat young and rash judge in not assuming this ground. The largest portion of popery is not suppression but addition; and our Church, in conducting the work of reformation, threw off innumerable exuvia of superstition; but it was neither necessary nor practicable to catalogue every rejected article. She prohibited, when she expelled. This is no new argument invented to meet the present case; for we have had many occasions of urging it, when the Oxford Tract divines have speciously asked us in which part of the Prayer-book such or such a thing is "forbidden." To save our readers the trouble of referring back, we will quote the following remarks from our Number for last April, relative to the introduction, by Mr. Newman and others, of shew-bread tables, as Dr. Pusey confesses them to be, beside the "sacrificial altar."

66

"We did not say that the side-table "has been expressly forbidden by the Church of England." We shewed that our reformers rejected the Oxford Tract sacrificial hypothesis, which is the real matter in question, and not merely a piece of church furniture; we shewed that throughout the whole communion office they speak of " the table;"THE table-without the slightest allusion to there being two tables; and we added that the canons, in enumerating "things appertaining to churches," even to "the alms-chest" and "the ten commandments and chosen sentences," pointedly exclude this piece of furniture, which the Laud school divines consider so important as to be worth making a schism about; and we also quoted the ritualist Wheatly as actually complaining that "WE HAVE NO SIDE-TABLES AUTHORIZED BY OUR CHURCH;" and his testimony is the more memorable, because he wished for a side-table, and grievously lamented its absence; for the ancient church, he says, "had generally a sidetable near the altar;" so that the pretermission by the Church of England was not by chance, but in accordance with the whole spirit of the English ritual; which does not recognise a table of prothesis, just because it does not recognize "an altar." All this, however, and much more to the same effect, the Canterbury Presbyter passes

66

It

over as silently as though we had never adduced a single argument; and instead of attempting to answer either us or Wheatly-who was too honest not to admit this unwelcome truth;-instead of grappling with our statement, that this article of furniture was rejected" or "excluded "-for those were our words; -he pretends that we said, that it was "expressly forbidden;" which we did not say; and he then triumphantly calls upon us for proof of that assertion. We proved by facts, by canons, by rubrics, and by the dolorous lamentations of Wheatly himself, that it was "excluded;" all which our correspondent discreetly passes over, and asks us to prove that it was expressly forbidden," which we never asserted. would be absurd to suppose that the Church, in giving directions what articles parishes are to provide, should give a list also of what they are not to provide. The negative is included in the positive; they are to provide what the canon declares to " "appertain to churches," and a shew-bred table is not among the number. It was enough that the church "excluded" and " rejected" these appendages; and she did scores of other articles which popery made use of, and the loss of some of which the Oxford Tract divines bitterly lament. To shew the unfairness of the Canterbury Presbyter's arguments, take a parallel instance. Suppose that we said that chrism and exorcising are "excluded" or "rejected," by our Church, from the administration of baptism, would it be honourable to keep out of sight all the arguments by which we prove this deliberate exclusion, and to pretend that we had asserted that they are "expressly forbidden;" and to ask us to prove in which part of the Prayer-book we find this prohibition? It is for those who wish to have a table of prothesis, to shew us where it is enjoined; to account for its marked omission, as a part of church furniture, in the canons; and for one "table only being mentioned in the Communion-service, as well as for the word altar being wholly suppressed; and for the consecrated emblems being called only 'bread and wine.'

Apply this reasoning to the case of praying for the dead. Suppose that it were not directly forbidden; though we feel assured it is, both in the Homilies and in the Article on purgatory; still its being banished with abhorrence from all our formularies, struck out wherever it occurred in the corresponding parts of the Romish liturgy-is the strongest prohibition. Take one instance among many. Some Oriel Master of Arts has