victions, might prove serviceable to the cause of Christ, he has published it, retaining its original form of letters from a father to his children, "on removing them from the Roman Catholic place of worship, and taking them to the Church of England.' Mr. Duval has prefaced that portion of his work which details his reasons for abandoning the Church of Rome, by a view of the arguments for the existence of a God and the truth of revelation, which we agree with the friend whose advice is mentioned in the preface, in thinking he had better omit, should his book reach a second edition.

We now proceed to give some examples of the way in which Mr. D. has handled his subject. He thus sketches the origin of saint and relic worship in the Church.

"That the practice was early introduced into the Christian Church, there cannot be the least doubt: but, if antiquity was sufficient to sanction error, we should never have known truth, we should still be heathens, as our forefathers. The first traces of that veneration for the saints, which is carried to such an excess in the countries where the Roman Church predominates, go up very likely near to the apostolic times, when a great number of Pagans had already embraced the true faith. It is probably co-eval with the first persecutions. When the martyrs were dragged to torture and to death, a great excitement naturally prevailed among the members of the Christian community. All were eager to catch the last words of these intrepid confessors of the faith, to ask for their last prayers and to preserve something which had belonged to them. Accordingly their clothes were divided among the eager multitude and as the martyrs were generally some of the principal men among them, the greater was the desire of obtaining those precious remains or relics.

:

"These relics were at first kept as a mere remembrance, just as an autograph or something which has belonged to some great man, is kept at this day. But men did not stop at this tender remembrance of the cham

pions of their faith. They erected oratories near or over their tombs, according to the ancient practice of the heathen world; and the day of their death was set apart as a day of thanksgiving or feast.

66

Though no doubt those days were appointed merely to render thanks to God for having strengthened his Church by the example of his martyrs, the excitement which they causedthe recollection of the miraculous powers of Jesus Christ and his apostles, whose garments it had been sufficient at times for men to touch, in order to be healed-the belief that the blessed martys had received the same influence-all these considerations worked upon the lively imagination of a people naturally inclined to believe in the miraculous interference of God even in the least matters: so the power of healing diseases was insensibly attributed to those relics, which people began to carry about them as a preservative against evil, as well as to the sacred body of the saint, deposited in the shrine."

Hear, also, his clear refutation of the arguments of the Romish Church in defence of the use of images in public and private worship

"But it is said, relics, images, and statues are not worshipped; they are kept only to put us in remembrance of Jesus Christ, and his saints, and to excite devotion, though that devotion is not directed to these objects.

“The answer to this is: First, they are an infraction of a most solemn and positive command, which no man who believes that the Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, can break without incurring the charge of disobedience to the law of God, who has said, 'Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them.'

:

Second, affection is a feeling and not an operation of the intellect it is blind: it does not reason. The object, that moves it, must and does naturally absorb it begin to reason, and the emotion vanishes. Look at the

little girl coaxing her doll, pressing it to her bosom. The doll excites in her the same emotion, which her sister or mother would: and while the feeling lasts, she loves her doll. Let the most intellectual, the most spiritualized man, who is fond of praying before an image, analyze his feelings, if he can, when he is really moved; he will find that the image commands a much greater share of them than he is aware of.

“Besides images are consecrated: crucifixes, &c. are blessed, have indulgences attached to them, and are worn as a preservative against evil. There must be a virtue in that consecration, or there is none. If there be none, the consecration, the blessing, and the aspersion of holy water, are an useless piece of mummery; if there be any, then the image possesses a holy quality, which makes it resemble very much the statues or the little household gods of the Pagans. We accuse the ancients of having been idolaters: if they were present among us, they would deny the charge. They would deny that the statuary or carver had the power of making their gods. These, they would say, only make the images, and when the images have been duly consecrated by our priests, the virtue, the spirit of the gods enters into them, and it is that virtue, it is that spirit that we worship. Also the philosopher Olympus of Alexandria said to the Pagans under Theodosius, who had ordered the destruction of images: "The statues of the gods are but perishable images, the eternal intelligences, which dwelt within them, have withdrawn to the heavens." It is very evident, that such must have been their opinion, or else there would have been as many Jupiters, for instance, as there were statues which represented him.

"A few years ago, I was telling my countryman, Abbé S., (our old friend, whom you still recollect,) one evening that he slept at our house: Abbé, 'I have long been an iconoclast. If I had the power of doing it, I would remove from our churches all images and statues; for they lead to so much abuse, they absorb so much the feelings of the people, that it is nothing short of idolatry.'-'Halte lá, mon

ami,' cried he, 'you are mistaken, for I know better than you, and have had more opportunities of observing than you have. I have often seen some of my parishioners embrace the statue of a saint, and bestow upon it the most lively marks of affection. If I told one of them: "my friend do you know what you are doing? this is a mere stone: you must not show so much affection to it." The answer invariably was, "Oh, I know, Monsieur L'Abbé, that this stone cannot hear me but my prayers are directed to the Saint, who is in heaven, whom this stone represents." "So,' added the Abbé trimphantly, you see that they know very well what they are about.'

"No doubt they do, when they merely look on, or coldly reason with a stranger: but when the internal feeling of devotion is excited, the material object placed before their eyes not only warms the devotion, but it entirely attracts and absorbs it they cannot figure to themselves any other object, but that which they actually see. If we add to this, that looking on an image or statue, saying so many prayers before it, in various postures, wearing a medal or crucifix, kissing them, pressing them to our bosoms, bowing our knees before them, &c., are so many means recommended and practised not only to excite the mind to devotion, but to secure and obtain the favour sought for; can we imagine any other ways of worship, used by our heathen forefathers? Unless it be said that they believed that the wood or stone was actually the deity which they worshipped, and not a representation of some invisible power. Which I maintain is a foul libel upon their common sense. Human nature is the same in all ages and countries."

Mr. D. thus exposes another fallacy :

"But those who protest against the superstitions and heresies of the Church of Rome, are asked to shew when and how all those abuses and errors of which they complain, suddenly overwhelmed the Church, which had been kept pure up to that period. Those who ask such questions, do not attend to the progressive steps of

the human mind; for else, if truth and not the triumph of party or of preconceived opinions be their object, they would readily find an answer to their questions within themselves. In every country, and under every clime, it is not suddenly, like an avalanche, that manners and customs are introduced and habits are formed. It is by degrees that practices creep in among individuals or small communities : they extend further as the public spirit becomes favourable to their reception, and at last they become national or general. What people were ever more deeply rooted in their manners and religious superstitions than the Hindoos are at the present day, or than they were two thousand years ago? Yet can we doubt but those manners and superstitions must have been gradual, and were not all introduced at once? If the Brahmins were to ask the Christians, who attack those superstitions, to shew how those errors which they wish to destroy, suddenly overwhelmed the Indian nation, they certainly could not do it, yet they would not conclude from their inability to bring such proofs as the Brahmins required, that these are divine institutions."

Before quitting the subject, we wish to reiterate the feelings which we have expressed in our opening remarks. The Romish controversy is far from attracting that attention from the English people which it merits, and will one day command. Had the great principles, on which we are at issue with Rome, been placed as prominently before the minds of the young men at our universities as they ought to be, and have been placed in former days, we do not believe that the sad spectacle would be presented to Christendom, of clergymen and laymen deserting the pure fountain of the Holy Scriptures, the precious deposit of the churches of the Reformation, to drink of the muddy pool of incongruous traditions which Rome offers to her votaries.

And, let it be borne in mind, as an inducement to an earnest study of the controversy, that, in the present day,

it would seem impossible to avoid it. The emissaries of the papacy are every where at work. And of late their labours, in this country at least, have obtained a success which no one could have anticipated at the commencement of the century. Romanism must be met-must be opposed-must be conquered, for the "weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." Let us oppose Romanism by vital Christianity—the crafty devices of men by the unerring word of God— the doctrine of the merits and intercession of saints by the doctrine of the prevailing mediation of a living, sufficient, and tenderly sympathizing Saviour and so on through the whole catalogue of Romish errors, placing each truth in distinct contrast with its antagonist heresy.

And, let the conflict come when and how it may, we have nothing to fear if only we stand true to our cause, and commit the result to God. The truth must prevail. Whatever triumphs the papacy be permitted to obtain, they will be but temporary. Our cause is the Lord's, and he at his coming will establish it for ever.

Above all, let us exhibit to Roman Catholics the spectacle not only of a purer faith, but also of corresponding, holy, self-denying lives. Let us persuade them not merely by arguments, but also by what has been called "the visible rhetoric of a holy life." Let us make manifest to them the presence of the Spirit in our Church by his powerful operations in the hearts, witnessed in the lives of its members. Let us strive to win them over to the truth as it is in Jesus, not by sinful compromises, but by faithful exhibitions in the spirit of love, and by devout and consistent demeanour.

Let us remember that the life of every professing Christian furnishes an argument either to embrace or shun the truth. Vital godliness avails more in converting from error than many syllogisms.

We have never changed our opinion regarding the Evangelical Alliance. We have hailed it, from its first appearance, as a mighty engine for good, as it regards both its object and its construction. We have regarded it as a movement which the Christian world specially stood in need of. The Lord's work throughout the world can never be effectually accomplished while they who ought to be carrying it forward are wasting their time, and injuring their spirits, and, what is worst of all, provoking the Comforter to withdraw, with his life-giving influences, by the jealousies and contentions to which they are yielding. Welcome, then, any project which contemplates the removal of such a fearful mischief. But we repeat what we have said from the first, that the Evangelical Alliance will only prove a blessing to the world, just in proportion as it leads men to reduce to practice, uniformly, and consistently, and unreservedly, the Scriptural rule, "Forbearing one another in love."

We can never expect to be all of one mind in the non-essentials of religion, nor, under the present.dispensation, to get under the same ecclesiastical enclosure and jurisdiction. There will be those who are conscientiously churchmen, and those who are conscientiously dissenters. There is room enough for all, and work enough for all, and the labours of all may be most usefully and successfully directed. But the grand thing wanted, is for the one to let the other alone; for all to live in love and mutual forbearance. We cannot expect, or for a moment require, a churchman to be blind to what he considers the evils of dissent; nor have we a right to expect that a dissenter should

abandon his conscientious objection to an established church; but we have a right to expect that all bitterness, and wrath, and clamour, and evil-speaking should be put away by the one as well as by the other; that each should give the other credit for conscientious principle; and that where they cannot agree, they will at all events agree to differ with mutual consideration and tenderness. Hence it is our decided opinion, that the Evangelical Alliance is only valuable just so far as it effects this: and consequently, that if it admits of a dissenter being as loving and affectionate as possible in words and professions at a meeting one day, and the next day to be inveighing with the bitterest acrimony against all establishments-perhaps speaking of the Church of England as having destroyed more souls than it has saved-it just does nothing, or, rather, worse than nothing; because it gives a handle to the sceptic, and holds forth our highest interests to ridicule and contempt.

We ardently hope that the Evangelical Alliance will eventually prove an atmosphere in which only the honest-hearted makers for peace and unity can possibly exist; an atmosphere which will either melt, or disperse the turbulent and stiff-necked.

The Tractarian and the High Churchman cannot possibly breathe there, neither ought the furious and rabid Dissenter to venture within its

FEBRUARY-1847.

To the Editor of the

SIR, I have perused with great interest your well-merited strictures upon Mr. Gresley's recent publication, "The Real Danger of the Church." A work so uncharitable and intolerant in its spirit, and supported by arguments so illogical, carries, I think, its own refutation along with it; and might well be left to its own fate; and you have perhaps honoured it too much by a refutation so elaborate. The petulant tone of Mr. Gresley's remarks indicates also pretty clearly a consciousness that he belongs to a falling party, and so far supplies in itself a triumph to his opponents. And such, indeed, would appear to be the fact. Tractarianism is, in its original characteristic features, as a theological system, evidently declining. It is otherwise, however, with respect to its consequences. Several of its earliest and most influential promoters have already joined, and others are likely ere long to join, the ranks of Romanism; and thus to supply to that grand apostacy such an accession of influence and authority, as the proselytism of distinguished men always confers. But this result is as nothing, when compared with that widely-spread spirit of formalism with which it has infected the Church itself; and especially the younger and more seriousminded portion of the clergy, who might otherwise have been expected to unite themselves with the Evangelical party. This formalism, which has also adulterated, to a great extent, the juvenile religious literature of the day, is even more to be dreaded than Popery itself. It is more subversive of earnest and heartfelt piety, because it possesses less fervour.

It

is more insidious, because it is apparently more rational. It is more likely to be permanent, because it requires less of self-sacrifice, and provokes neither the contempt nor the opposition of the world; and it is, moreover, eminently congenial to the natural indolence of human nature. It is in this point of view that Trac

Christian Guardian.

tarianism at present assumes its most formidable aspect; and on this account Mr. Gresley's pamphlet, if undeserving of direct reply, yet merits attention, and supplies indeed abundant subject of remark as a note of warning to the Church. In one respect, indeed, he deserves the thanks even of those very men whom he wishes to expel from her communion, I mean for his plain speaking, and for the anxiety he manifests to have the matter in dispute brought to a speedy issue; an event much to be desired, for undoubtedly there must be danger to the Church from such unhappy dissensions as those by which she has now for many years been distracted. Quiet separation (call it schism if you please,) is less pernicious in its consequences, and indeed less criminal in itself than deep-rooted aversion, and angry recrimination, existing among those who profess to be one body in Christ; and than such an exposure of the feeble influence of Christian principle over the hearts and tempers of its professors, as a contest of this kind generally exhibits to the world.

"The Real Danger of the Church." How suggestive is this title at the present moment of the Church's history; and how pitiful the use which Mr. Gresley has made of his subject! What folly to point it as a dagger to the breast of those whom in common charity he ought to acknowledge as fellow-labourers in the Gospel. Surely he ought to know that all the energy of the Church's champions is needed to repel the attacks of her internal and ostensible, but yet insidious foes ;that the powers of darkness are in array against her; and gaining strength and courage by every symptom of dissension and weakness within her walls. Let not the professed soldiers of the cross fight with one another, and so become an easy prey to the common enemy. Let them admonish one another indeed, with all fidelity, but war only with the common foe: here is a contest worthy of the courage