why they are not Romanists, and how they differ from them. They are bound to do so, in order to remove the prejudice with which an article of the Creed is at present encompassed; and on the other hand to prevent those who have right but vague ideas concerning it, from deviating into Romanism because no other system is provided for them. Till they do more than they have hitherto done, of course they hazard, though without any fault of theirs, a deviation on the part of their hearers into Romanism on the one hand, a reaction into mere Protestantism on the other.

From the circumstances then of the moment, the following Lectures are chiefly engaged in examining and exposing certain tenets of Romanism. But this happens for another reason. After all, the main object in a discussion should be, not to refute error merely, but to establish truth. What Christians especially need and have a right to require, is a positive doctrine on such subjects as come under notice. They have a demand on their teachers for the meaning of the article of the Apostles' Creed, which binds them to faith in "the Holy Catholic Church." It is a poor answer to this inquiry, merely to enter into an attack upon Romanism, and to show that it contains an exaggerated and erroneous view of the doctrine. Erroneous or not, a view it certainly does contain; and that religion which attempts a view, though imperfect or extreme, does more than those which do not attempt it at all. If we deny

that Romanists speak the truth, we are bound in very shame to commit ourselves to the risk of a theory, unless we would fight with them at an unfair advantage; and in charity to our own people, lest we tempt them to error, while we refuse to give them what is better instead of it. But at the same time, it stands to reason, that to do this effectually we must proceed on the plan of attacking Romanism, as the most convenient way of showing what our own views are. It has pre-occupied the ground, and we cannot erect our own structure without partly breaking down, partly using what we find upon it. And thus for a second reason, the following Lectures, as far as in their very form goes, are chiefly written against Romanism, though their main object is not controversy but edification.

Their main object is to furnish an approximation in one or two points towards a correct theory of the duties and office of the Church Catholic. Popular Protestantism does not attempt it at all; it abandons the subject altogether: Romanism supplies a doctrine, but, as we conceive, an untrue one. The question is, what is that sound and just exposition of this Article of Faith, which holds together, or is consistent in theory, and is justified by the history of the Dispensation, which is neither Protestant nor Roman, but proceeds according to that Via Media, which, as in other things so here, is the appropriate path for sons of the English Church to walk in? What is the nearest approximation to

that primitive truth which Ignatius and Polycarp enjoyed, and which the nineteenth century has virtually lost?

This is the problem which demands serious consideration at this day, and some detached portions of which will be considered in the following Lectures. Leaving to others questions directly political and ecclesiastical, I propose to direct attention to some of those connected with the Prophetical Office of the Church.

It is obvious to insist on certain supposed disadvantages of considering such a subject at this moment. In replying to the objections thence arising, which I shall now attempt to do, an opportunity will be given me to explain more at length the object contemplated.

It is urged, then, by conscientious and sensible men, that we have hitherto done sufficiently well without any recognised theory on the subject, and therefore do not need it now or in prospect; that certain notions, in whatever degree abstractedly correct, have become venerable and beneficial by long usage, and ought not now to be disturbed; that the nature and functions of the Church have been long settled in this country by law and by historical precedents, and that it is our duty to take what we find, and use it for the best; that, to discuss the question of the Church, though under the guidance of our great Divines, necessarily involves

the unsettling of opinions now received; that, though the views which may be put forward be in themselves innocent or true, yet under the circumstances they will lead to Romanism, if only because the mind when once set in motion in any direction finds it difficult to stop, and because the article of the Church has been accidentally the badge and index of that system; that the discussions proposed are singularly unseasonable at this day, when our Church requires support against her enemies, and must be defended by practical measures, not by speculations upon her nature and historical pretensions, speculations of a past day, unprofitable in themselves, and in fact only adding to our existing differences, and raising fresh parties and interests in our already distracted communion-speculations, it is urged, which have never been any thing but speculations, never were realized in any age of the Church; lastly, that the pretended Via Media is but an eclectic system, dangerous to the religious temper of those who advocate it, as leading to arrogance and self-sufficiency in judging of sacred subjects. This is pretty nearly what may be said.

Now it is obvious that these objections prove too much. If they prove any thing, they go to show that the article of the Holy Church Catholic should not be discussed at all, not even as a point of faith; but that in its most essential respects, as well as in its bearings and consequences, it may be determined and interpreted by the law of the land. This con

sideration in itself would be enough to show, that there was some fallacy in them somewhere, even if we could not detect it. However, let us consider some of them in detail.

One of the most weighty of these objections at first sight, is the danger of unsettling things established, and raising questions, which, whatever may be their intrinsic worth, are novel and exciting at the present day. When, for instance, the divinely intended office of Holy Scripture, or the judicial power of the Church, or the fundamentals of faith, or the legitimate power of the Roman see, or the principles of Protestantism are discussed, it is natural to object, that since the Revolution of 1688 they have been practically cut short, and definitely settled by civil acts and precedents. It may be urged, that the absolute subjection of the bishops, as bishops, to the crown is determined by the deprivations of 1689; the Church's forfeiture of her synodical rights by the final measure of 1717; the essential agreement of Presbyterianism with Episcopacy by the union with Scotland in 1706-7; and our incorporation with dissenters, on the common ground of Protestantism, by the proceedings of the Revolution itself. It may be argued that these measures were but the appropriate carrying out of the acts of the Reformation; that King William and his party did but complete what King Henry began; and that we are born Protestants, and though free to change our religion and to profess a