Keeping to the sense of the above Greek words, I appeal to Anglicus's own feelings when viewing the Agony in the garden of Gethsemane, the Crucifixion, or the Ascension, on our beautifully painted windows, whether his thoughts have not recurred to the reality, whether his mind has not been impressed with awe at the representation of the different periods of our Lord's abode on earth? Or even taking a lower grade, have not the figures of Moses and Aaron, the royal Psalmist, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, with the symbols by which they are recognised, led him to grateful reflections on the divine revelations, of which they were the inspired penmen? And cannot he or I thus feel without being ranked among transgressors of God's holy law? Indeed, I do not envy the man who can fix his eye on the splendid works of art, whether of the pencil or the chisel, and be unmoved.

Taking this view of the question, and I am convinced no other is intended, I quite agree that "in the case of the uneducated," such honouring of images may be dangerous; because of the remaining infection of nature inclining them to sink down into the worshipping of them. Such, however, is the absurdity of Image-worship, that any of the elder pupils of a well-conducted Sunday School would at once distinguish between honouring and worshipping them. And because the gifts of Providence may be abused, are their proper uses to be rejected? While therefore I crouch as a dog at the foot of the Great Supreme, I can honour the representation of the circumstances and persons which directly or indirectly effected our salvation.

It has been remarked, that "Popery is more the corruption of truth than the invention of error." Popish image-worship is one instance among many which it is the object of the Tract-writers to expose.

I shall briefly notice Anglicus's last question. "Do the authors of the Tracts for the Times condemn ROMISH Image-worship as positively idolatrous, as it is condemned in the Articles and Homilies of our

apostolic Anglican Church? All I desire is an answer to this simple question." My answer shall also be simple--YES. The object of the Tract-writers is to prove (and they have triumphantly succeeded) that the corruptions of Popery, and the errors of ultra-Protestantism, are neither part nor parcel of Catholic Christianity.

July 20.

I beg to subscribe myself, Sir, your obedient Servant,

PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.

CAUSES OF THE RECENT GROWTH OF POPERY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

SIR,-In my letter which you permitted to be inserted in your number for October, I showed that Queen Elizabeth, and the great divines of her days, as well as those of the greatest name in the subsequent reigns down to the time of the Revolution, held somewhat different notions of the way in which popery was to be opposed, than

those which are adopted in the present day. They were comparatively merciful to her theological errors; but fully alive to her exorbitant claims to political power, and spiritual domination. We, of the present day, have reversed this mode of treating her adherents; full of the loudest denunciations of her doctrines and practices, we meet her claims to political power and ascendency with a smile of incredulity, and admit her to the fullest share of power under the abused name of religious liberty, and the new lights of modern liberalism. The Revolution of 1688 having just delivered us from the most imminent danger both to our liberties and religion, gave, as it were, formal sanction to every topic which could be urged to render popery odious. Hence the doctrines of the Romish Church formed one of the main points of attack; and Protestants, instead of confining themselves to the political and tyrannical character of the papacy, and to the dangers with which this feature of the Church of Rome threatens the liberties and independence of every other church and nation, seemed to think that the confutation of her errors was the only thing necessary. On the contrary, though every error of her creed and practice were reformed, there could be no security against her machinations while the evil spirit of temporal power and spiritual supremacy which she claims, is suffered to exist within her. The wisdom of the policy pursued by Queen Elizabeth was fully borne out by the event; nearly the whole nation spontaneously adopted the Reformed Church of England; and the Queen and her counsellors were contented with this, and thought the doctrines of the Romish Church were matters which concerned her members alone, and not those who had thrown off her yoke. Nay, they went further; they saw that any unnecessary exaggeration of the differences between her and the Church of England, was only the means of preventing conversions to the Reformed Faith, and hardening the hearts of papists against all the evidence of truth, and all possibility of conviction ! This policy, dictated by reason and truth, was generally pursued by the divines of our Church, instances of which I alluded to before, in the facts, that the charges of idolatry, sabbath-breaking, ard apostasy, now so frequently brought against the Romish Church, were not countenanced by our great divines; insomuch that Joseph Mede himself lost all hopes of preferment, though in every other respect perfectly eligible, because he maintained the Pope to be Antichrist. This interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which is perfectly contradictory to the whole tenor of the early Fathers, seems to have been first hit upon for merely political purposes, in the quarrels between the Pope and the German emperors; and was fixed in our English theology, having passed from the Puritans to the Theologians who succeeded the Revolution. But, surely, no one that has read the unsatisfactory Dissertations of Bishop Newton on the Prophecies, or been acquainted with the numerous and discordant interpretations of these obscure points even by the most learned and able writers, can doubt the wisdom of those who explain them in accordance with the Primitive Fathers, and look to them as relating to events yet future. To distort the Apocalypse, and its cognate prophecies, into an accordance with the past history of the Church, is only to expose the whole evidence of prophecy to the cavils and sneers of infidelity; and to hold

forth to the world that fertility of invention, and ingenuity of criticism, can make it speak any thing at pleasure. I do not, therefore, think myself a worse protestant, because, with Archbishop Laud and Jeremy Taylor, and Bull, and the other great divines of our Church, I look upon the Apocalypse as yet entirely unfulfilled; or at least, as not relating to Papal Rome! I do not feel myself called on to pronounce an opinion on the degree of doctrinal corruption she has arrived at; but it is the duty of every son of the Anglican Church to restrain her power, and to exorcise out of her the foul and cursed lust of worldly power and spiritual supremacy!

Now it was this very fact, the placing the controversy mainly in the doctrinal differences, which blinded the eyes of the statesmen of the past generation to the dangers of popery. Whether a papist worshipped the Virgin and the saints, or whether the adoration of the host were to be called idolatry or not,-things on which the controversy seemed to hinge,—were in their estimation points in which papists alone were concerned; and the circumstances of the world seemed to forbid the possibility that the lust of worldly power in the Romish Church should ever again be dangerous. They had not, however, seen, as we have seen, the union of popery with democracy, dissent, and infidelity, which the last few years have exhibited both here and on the continent. Fully right in their views of the harmlessness to others of popish doctrinal errors, they were blind to the real sources of danger.

Again; I may remark that the progress of popery in England is not so dangerous to others (whatever it may be religiously to the souls of its adherents) from its errors in doctrine, as from its union with dissent, infidelity, and democracy, for political ends. I believe the real increase of popery in England has been much exaggerated. Popish mass-houses are now generally erected on mere speculation, and in hopes of forming a congregation afterwards; hence their number is no fair criterion of the spread of popery up to the present time; and the influx of the Irish, and their marriages with English protestants, will account for much of the increase; nay, for almost the whole of it. Still, as a great increase, though inconsiderable when compared with the popula tion, has undoubtedly taken place in very recent times, it may seem expedient to point out some of the causes of that increase.

One important cause, I am persuaded, is to be found in the spread, both within and without the pale of the Church, of what is called Evangelicism. This has been pointed out in a pamphlet which was lately reviewed in the pages of the CHRISTIAN Remembrancer; from which I will beg to make a few extracts.

The title is," The True State of the Case Considered; or, the Oxford Tracts, the Public Press, and the Evangelical Party. By G. P. De Sanctâ Trinitate."

Every one at all acquainted with the subject knows that the doctrines called Evangelical had no existence in the Church of England at the time when Wesley and Whitefield commenced their labours. Those doctrines, in fact, date their origin from them; for Evangelicism (and I do not use the word in any offensive sense, but merely as a convenient term to designate a system) differs widely from the old systems, both of puritanism and dissent, though it has much in common with them; and thus, Dr. Watts himself, and several

eminent writers among the old dissenters, are now esteemed far too legal, cold, and formal, for the modern school; which, however, freely admits the popish writers of the more warm and imaginative character! The system itself is, in one word, Methodism; that is, a modification of Calvinism, with a view to render it spiritual. It may seem strange to call methodism a modification of Calvinism, since the far greater portion of that sect are professed Arminians. But, in reality, there is less difference between the systems of Calvin and Arminius than is generally imagined; or rather, I should say, their two systems are only different aspects of one and the same theological code. Both of them profess to investigate the secret decrees of God, and to make them the foundation of religion; both very largely rest their system on metaphysical and philosophical discussions, and bring Revelation down to the level of the human intellect; both alike make religion entirely to consist in certain operations of divine grace upon the mind, which operations also may be judged of by a man in his own case, and are the lawful subjects of investigation and of human cognizance in others; both affix new and unheard-of definitions to all the old ecclesiastical words and phrases, as regeneration, justification, sanctification, and faith; both lower down the notion of faith into a mere simple assurance of our having a personal interest in Christ, and thereby make religion a sentiment, and the feelings the test of our salvation; both of them in this way virtually reject the sacraments and the church, which in a system so completely one of inward feelings only are either not necessary at all, or, at most, are so in a very subordinate degree; in the same way they laid the foundation of the rationalistic errors of the present day, which, not regarding the verities of Revelation as absolutely true and existing in themselves, and apart from any relation which they may bear to us, or any influence which they may exert towards us, chiefly regard these latter only, and receive the doctrines not as true in themselves, or to be believed further than they can be comprehended by the mind, and made subservient to purposes of personal comfort and edification; and, lastly, both systematized, that is, assumed the infallibility of the human intellect to be such, that it could enter into the whole meaning of the Holy Scriptures, and reduce them into a complete and perfect theological system; nay, they seem to have thought that a fuller knowledge of the gospel was reserved for these latter times, and that protestants were in far more favourable circumstances for acquiring it, than even the generation which immediately succeeded the apostolic age!

In this system, which is that of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, for it is quite distinct from that of Luther, as also from the principles on which the Church of England was reformed, will be found the germ of the new doctrines so zealously propagated by Wesley, Whitefield, and their co-religionists. In an age remarkable beyond all others for religious indifference and infidelity, when the dissenters were sinking gradually from the coldness of Arianism into the deadness of Socinianism, and the latitudinarian spirit of the times had rendered the Church less watchful, these zealous men unhappily were tempted to let every thing be subservient to the mere purpose of making an impression. Provided a lively impression could be produced, they too little regarded the means by which it was effected. Hence, they dwelt far too much on the value of excited and strong feelings in religion, and selected those topics for preaching, and dwelt almost exclusively on those parts only of the system of Geneva which could be turned to such a purpose. The mighty energy of divine grace, regeneration, sudden impulses, and instantaneous conversions, the necessity of a personal assurance of salvation to the Christian in order to his peace and comfort, which assurance might be, in some case, measured by the strength, or coldness and formality of his feelings and devotions; these, and similar topics were the main points of their system. These doctrines were most strongly and universally opposed at the time by the clergy. By degrees, however, they won their way, till at length they found, even in the Church, a considerable number of professors; and, having been adopted by some leading and wealthy individuals,

a complete and systematic mode of propagating them in the Church was organized. It is well known, that the University of Cambridge was the scene of this new propaganda, where every engine was set at work to convert the future candidates for orders to these opinions; and so widely spread was its influence, that, in many cases, it became difficult for those who had not wealth or connexion, to obtain curacies or advancement in the Church, except through its patronage and recommendation. The propaganda borrowed a leaf from the history of the puritans, only with better success; by purchase, or influence, or other means, (and let it be borne in mind, that there have generally been at least one influential person connected with this party in each successive administration of government,) a vast number of livings in the Church, situated in populous or other central positions, have gradually been transferred to clergy professing evangelical opinions.

But this plan for establishing a party in the Church itself was not sufficient to satisfy the propaganda; those who were ministers of the Church, were still in a great degree bound by her rules and discipline, and compelled to acknowledge the authority of their diocesans. They could not exchange pulpits with the dissenters, or openly join them in public worship. How greatly this object was desired may be judged of from one instance. The Rev. Legh Richmond observed to a dissenting teacher, "Dear brother, I feel assured that you are a child of God, and I know that you believe me to be one also; and yet I cannot preach in your pulpit, nor dare admit you into mine. My brother, there must be something wrong in this." Of course there was something very wrong, though the Rev. Gentleman could not perceive where the error lay, nor yet the inconsistency (to use a very mild word) of eating the bread of a church, whose principles he condemned and would wish to overturn! Since, then, this complete and open amalgamation with all the various shades of dissent, at the caprice of each individual, could not be brought about, nor the yoke of Episcopacy completely thrown aside, something as near as possible to it must at least be effected. Accordingly, the very next thing to all this was done by the establishment of various societies of a professedly religious character, where the much-longed-for union with dissent in all its forms might take place, and where the leaders of what is called the religious world, (what a monstrous and unscriptural expression!) might be elevated, under the name of presidents, vicepresidents, committees, and secretaries, into a sort of episcopal power, patronage, and leadership. If any bishops condescended to join such institutions, they were very gladly received; but then it was at the expense of their episcopal character, for they were in these societies only on a level with any other influential members of the religious world. In those societies, men assuming that they could subject the operations of Divine grace to the scrutiny of their reason, and pronounce on the hearts of men, set up a conventional standard to judge one another by, and freely gave the right hand of fellowship without any reference to the church whose discipline they were breaking, and with very slight (if any) open reference to creed or profession of faith. The language of these churchmen amounted to this, that good men must do good, and do it in their own way; if the bishops approved of it, they were glad; if not, they could do without the bishops! Thus several objects were attained at once: there was an amalgamation with dissent; an escape from the discipline and order of the Church; the gratification afforded by choosing their own leaders; and the acquisition of a character for zeal and liberality and benevolence, at the expense of the great body of the clergy, who were thus held up to public scorn, as hostile to the great cause of moral and religious improvement, because they would not adopt the same means of advancing it.—Pp. 17-23.

Many will, of course, dispute the writer's definition of Evangelicism; but any one must see that such a system is a great preparation for the introduction of Romanism; and the following quotations from the notes