In assigning different mental constitutions to different classes, the writer would be distinctly understood as attaching only a qualified and limited degree of importance to this hypothesis, aware, as he is, of the influence of a thousand other agents in the midst of which we are placed, and which may greatly counteract the predominating faculty, and cause others, by constant exercise, or by special excitement, to become active and powerful.

There is likewise a wish to be understood, as considering these conjectures to be in perfect agreement with each man's personal responsibility, and with the doctrine of renewing and sanctifying grace-grace which can make even the heart of a stone a heart of flesh.

Happy will it be for those whose creed, weighed in the balance, is found not wanting, if their moral and spiritual constitution, whatever may be the physical, is so well adjusted, as to resemble the cranium, which having every organ proportionate, from its very symmetry is without any particular developement; and still more happy they, whose natural predispositions, and all their powers, under the influence of divine grace, are brought to constitute the Christian character.

J. K. F.

NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES IN MR. M'NEILE'S LECTURES ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE CHURCH'S CREED UNCHANGEABLE.

CLOSELY allied to the preceding subject,* is that of the fixed and unalterable condition of the doctrines and formularies of the church. On this subject, Mr. M'Neile, after having endeavoured to show that "it is no usurpation in spiritual things, on the part of the state, to require from the church a defined, written, and published code of doctrines, and ordinances, and discipline;" and that "a defined code of laws on the one side, and a defined formulary of doctrines and discipline on the other, are indispensable towards a well-regulated union of safety and liberty," goes on to observe-" In this you see the true answer to the charge so frequently brought against us by dissenters, that the state fixes our creed, and that we cannot change an article of our creed but by an act of parliament. Our creed is fixed, not by the state, but by the Bible. There we find it, and present it in intelligible formulas to the civil ruler. He may disapprove of it, and refuse to enter into any alliance with us. This he does at his own risk. And as to the charge that we cannot change an article of our creed, it is our glory that our creed is unchangeable. It is the one, the ancient, the true, the divine creed, which no man can change, which no Christian man can consent to change."-Lect. iii. p. 58.

This is a sore subject to churchmen, and one of increasing soreness, as the galling and degrading bondage is more and more felt. The fetters, however, cannot be thrown off by declaring them nonentities. Whatever Mr. M'Neile may say about the creed not being fixed by the state, history says, that by the state, nevertheless, it was fixed. It was drawn up by the clergy, if we will; but by act of parliament, and the royal approval, was it fixed, and so remains; and Mr. M'Neile knows, that without the same royal and parliamentary warrant, not a tittle of it can be altered. But then, he asserts, it does not want altering. "It is our glory that our creed is unchangeable." It is a happy thing when a man can reconcile himself to that which is without a remedy. But whether all who have taken this yoke upon them can, after twenty years of reflection, talk with the confidence and selfsatisfaction of Mr. M'Neile on the subject, we may be free to doubt. Nay, we have only to turn to his remarks on the absolution of the sick, in the second lecture, (p. 33,) to perceive, that, notwithstanding this vain-glorious boast, Mr. M'Neile himself is not quite so much at ease as he would make us believe. This vaunted unimproveableness has, indeed, so much the air of a Romish boast, that it can carry neither conviction nor respect; and it is, besides, a fair challenge to show, that this unchangeableness is not the church's glory, but her misfortune and her disgrace. If, by the church's creed, he meant the rule of faith embodied in the articles, we should not have to lament so much over our neighbours' infirmities. It is not this creed which dissenters reproach their brethren of the church as being tied down to; although they think a forced subscription to any articles of human construction objectionable. On the contrary, this creed is preached more faithfully and universally by them than by the ministers of the church themselves. When dissenters bring such charges against the church, they allude to the extra-scriptural, and anti-scriptural additions made to the scriptural creed of her articles in her offices and formularies; and which are included when speaking in a comprehensive sense of her creed, which remain, a wonder to those out of the church, a grief to many in it, and blots in the church herself; but of which, at present, there appears no hope of removal.

TENDENCY OF THE CHURCH, IF LEFT TO HERSELF, TO PERSECUTE.

The argument brought forward by Mr. M'Neile to prove the necessity of a union of the church with the state, from the tendency of the former to aggrandisement and an abuse of power, is an extraordinary one indeed for a churchman to use. Speaking of the voluntary provision made for the church in the time of Constantine, referred to by Dr. Wardlaw, he says, "Yes, doubtless, a state-endowment for the supply of the church was rendered unnecessary; but at the same time, and by the same means, a state enactment for the restraint of the

church was rendered imperative, if civil liberty was to be maintained upon the earth. Some such enactment is a matter of indispensable self-defence on the part of the civil ruler, to ward off the prostrating power of the clergy. He cannot, if he would, expatriate the church; and therefore his only refuge from the thraldom of ecclesiastical tyranny lies in some such mutually-regulating alliance with the clergy, as will secure to them certain safe and manageable privileges, in lieu of an indefinite power of aggression, which they consent to sacrifice. We claim such an alliance, then, on behalf of the civil government, for the security of its liberties; and on behalf of the clergy of the church visible, not for their temporal aggrandisement, (as many ignorantly suppose,) but for their salutary restraint and comparative purity; in order that the temporal supremacy, which would otherwise be inevitably at their option, may not be allowed to tempt them into tyranny."Lect. iii. pp. 50-54.

Is this strange exhibition of the natural tendencies of the church from excess of candour, or from conscious weakness? Or, have ominous visions of cowls and crucifixes, and figures clad in the blood-stained livery of Rome, flitting through the cloisters of Oxford, disordered the lecturer's imagination? Be it which it may, what a libel is here on the Christian church! and what an argument against any churches ever being swelled into national ones! Why, this is just the policy of the old governments of Europe towards the African nest of piratessubsidising them to save their subjects from slaughter or slavery; or that of taking a banditti into pay, when the means of subduing them are wanting; or of giving a salary to the Romish priesthood of Ireland, proposed some time since. It is, however, perfectly natural, that they who have not confidence enough in their church, nor faith enough in the promises of Christ as its head, to believe that it could either extend, or stand, without state countenance and control, should contemplate its falling back into popery, usurpation, and tyranny, if that control were taken away.

66

The same argument recurs when speaking of the appointment of bishops by the crown, in the last lecture, (p. 109.) From what is called the independence of the church, as some of the writers now alluded to understand it," says Mr. M'Neile, "I would anticipate nothing in the sequel, but the prostration of the civil power under ecclesiastical usurpation." "The only human safety for what dissenters esteem and extol as religious liberty, is to be found in a national establishment, which restrains, and in fact prohibits, ecclesiastical usurpation." "The dissenters may rest assured, that if our establishment (which I will, for distinction sake, call Cranmerism) has been felt by them as a whip, the revival of Laudism would be felt by them as scorpions; and not by them only: none could escape punishment, but by submission. Both swords would again be wielded by clerical

hands." Is it, then, come to this with the church, that she cannot be trusted to walk alone? that her own power must be given up to the state, as unable of herself to exercise it without usurping that of the latter, and adding the sword of the magistrate to her own?-that, like a maniac, she should request that her hands might be tied, lest she should cut the throats of unoffending people? Where, then, is the Holy Spirit? Has he entirely left this state-trusting church? Has he nothing to do in preventing and withholding, as well as sustaining? Can so little trust be placed in him, that even if the appointment of its bishops by the state be abandoned, "our hope of safety, under God," vanishes? But so it ever was, and ever must be, if the word of God be true. Whenever a church, or an individual, departs from the living and true God, to lean on an arm of flesh, the faith which he has appointed as a shield drops from the arm; the hopes and dependence which he has appointed for their encouragement give place to baseless fears and false dependencies; and the strength which is in him alone melts into utter weakness. "Cease from man," is a warning which

the church has yet no ears to hear.

Dissenters may feel grateful to Mr. M'Neile for this premonition of the persecuting tendencies of his church, if left unchecked by the civil power; but the alarm will make no impression. They know their strength, and the strength of what, in Puseyite phrase, is termed Popular Protestantism, better than Mr. M'Neile does. But how a man could take up this argument, and not perceive that its bearing on the doctrine of establishments is absolutely withering, is perfectly marvellous. If the church were truly independent, that is to say, if it were entirely detached from all state alliance and state protection, it could play none of these pranks: if it had the desire, it would want the means. No popular government would submit to her usurpations, or have its eyes shut to her encroachments, any more than in the case of any other organised essay at treason. If there were no favoured sect, the worst civil government in existence, still more any one deserving the name of paternal, would see to it that no one should thus sport with the lives, and fortunes, and liberties of all the rest; nor would permit them to lord it over their brethren at all. The tacit acknowledgment from a clergyman, that such was the practice of the Laudean hierarchy, is something in these days. It was indeed the practice, to an extent which comes short only of that of the church of Rome; and that not in the days of Laud only, but in all the days of the Tudor and Stuart rule. And then what was it that arrested it? a closer alliance with the state, or larger endowments at the price of civil liberty? Nothing of the kind; but the strong arm of the civil power, which, when supported by an intelligent and determined people, will ever be equal to the same achievement.

Mr. M'Neile alludes to what he calls Cranmerism, as most aptly de

scribing the character of the present church establishment. Mr. M'Neile has, in more instances than one, shown a surprisingly partial acquaintance with ecclesiastical history, considering that he has taken upon him to lecture his countrymen on the benefits of national religious establishments. But can he require to be told, that Cranmer knew no more about the principles and practice of religious liberty than Laud; and that he went to greater lengths than Laud ever did, in the zenith of his power, in sending those he was pleased to call heretics to the stake? We certainly lie under a large debt of gratitude to Mr. M'Neile for his warning voice. We know, indeed, very well, what all history confirms, that the inevitable tendency of establishments is to persecution. But still we must feel indebted to a gentleman, who, from knowledge belonging only to the initiated, comes forward to assure us, that but for the salutary restraint of the state, we should again be dealt with by the Laudean arguments of star chambers, high commissions, the scourge, the pillory, fines, confiscations, and perpetual imprisonment.

COMMUNION OF CHURCHES.

It is reasonable to suppose, that a man entertaining such sentiments as the above should have very limited notions respecting a "reciprocity of communion" with others holding the same head, and faith, and hope, and baptism-in other words, of the communion of saints. In proportion, however, to this limitation, agreeable to a law of our nature, he is the more likely to take credit to himself for such as he has. Mr. M'Neile has given us his sentiments on this subject very briefly at the close of his fourth lecture; by which he would make it appear, that the English church is a pattern of moderation and excellence in this respect. Every church, it will be admitted, has a right to maintain her "preferences for congregational communion inviolate." But if, while doing this, she refuses to hold communion of any kind with other churches, as the church of England does, she has one of the recorded marks of antichrist upon her. And as to holding communion personally, to which, Mr. M'Neile asserts, the church "interposes no barrier," how little is even this done, especially by those who ought to set the example-the ministers? and how much less still where it would be most expected, and most valued-by ministers with ministers? How, indeed, should it be done, when all ministers, not of their own order, (except the popish,) are denounced as unordained and unauthorised intruders-all other churches as conventicles-and all their members as schismatics? Truly, Mr. M'Neile has small cause to glory in the excellence of his church in this respect.

PATRONAGE.

On the subject of patronage, the crying evil of the church, Mr. M'Neile has saved the necessity of offering many remarks, by placing its defence,