which Mr. Jebb has thought fit to advance on this subject. The conclusions, which it seems natural and obvious to draw from the Appendix in question, are as follows: 1. That the Church of England acknowledges a standard, to which, in the interpretation of Scripture, authoritative and decisive appeal is to be made. 2. That she distinctly points out that standard as existing in the writings of the fathers of the Christian Church, up to the year of Christ 451, and in the decisions of the first four general councils. 3. That she differs from the Church of Rome, as well in the nature of the authoritative standard which she erects, as in the liberality with which she permits every individual to examine this authority for himself, and, in making his appeal, to use his own judgment and good sense, 4. That, however, as it is highly imprudent and unsafe, if not impossible, to interpret Scripture without the aid of antiquity, she sanctions the dissemination of the Scriptures among those only who have leisure and abilities to examine the records of antiquity, and to compare them diligently and judiciously with the inspired writings. to whom the Scriptures are entrusted, when every individual is for himself to examine the documents of antiquity, and to judge of them and of the sense of Scripture, after all, according to his own interpretation of the one and the other? The great majority of Christians, who on these principles will be deprived of the use of their Bibles, are to be guided and influenced by their more favoured fellow-Christians; but, as these will arrive at widely different and often contradictory views, and will exert their influence correspondently, it is not difficult to foresee that differences of opinion will be as great and as numerous as they now are, when it is understood that every man is at liberty to study the Scriptures for himself. Passing by these preliminary considerations, however, let us examine how Mr. Jebb supports the conclusions above ascribed to him; conclusions that may well startle many, who have hitherto thought themselves good churchmen, but who have now to learn, that by their efforts to distribute the holy Scriptures, and to place a copy of them in every cottage of the land, they have been acting in direct opposition to the principles of the English Church. One would naturally expect, that principles thus important and calculated to be of so direct and extensive an operation, would be supported primarily and principally by reference to the Articles of our Church: it is not, however, attempted to rest a single proof on their authority. In fact, the Articles are completely silent on a subject, on which, if the sense of our Church had been what Mr. Jebb contends it is, they ought to have spoken with the utmost explicitness. The silence of the Articles, however, does These conclusions deserve serious consideration, and are such as ought to rest on no uncertain or unsatisfactory grounds. In the first place, one is disposed to inquire where is the warrant for seeking any decisive authority for the interpretation of Scripture, in addition to, and independently of, the Scriptures themselves? And then, supposing it allowable to seek such authority, one cannot but inquire what advantage is gained by the standard assigned by Mr.Jebb? If any such standard is to be erect-any man Impartially read and fairly they not more than silent? Let en ed, surely the advantage to be construe the 6th, 20th, 21st, and 34th looked for from it is the promotion Articles, and then let him say whether of unity of sentiment; yet how is they are not absolutely irreconcileuble such unity secured among those with Mr. Jebb's view, not imply, that the proofs actually adduced are without weight or importance. What then are these proofs? In the first place, appeal is made to our Liturgy: "Regard for an cient faith and piety is manifest in every page, and almost every paragraph of that incomparable work." (p. 358.) This appeal is, in a subsequent part of the Appendix, (p. 379.) resumed and carried on at considerable length: yet, surely nothing is advanced in the whole course of it, which is not quite consistent with far different views from those ascribed in this Appendix to the Church of England; much less is any thing brought for ward in itself sufficiently strong to substantiate and prove those views. The utmost that can be said of the evidence alleged under this head, is, that it may be admitted, and may be allowed to have some force as concurrent, though it be by no means to be relied on as independ ent evidence. The next argument is drawn from the act of the first of Elizabeth, by which "the king or queen for the time being is empowered to appoint commissioners for restraining heretical pravity." Who does not see that this act, as far as it is referred to in the Appendix, recognises the authority of the aucient church, in matters of discipline only, and does not even intimate the existence of any correspondent authority with regard to doctrines? The argument derived from this source is of great importance to Mr. Jebb's purpose; for the act referred to is employed to ascertain the exact limits within which the ancient church, whose authority is decisive, is to be confined. To ascertain these limits is an affair of the utmost moment; yet it is here done only incidentally and in an instrument, which, to say the most of it, was connected with only one half of the whole subject, viz. the discipline, and had nothing whatever to do with the doctrines of the Church. Some fuller and more decided statement might fairly have been expected, if the meaning of the Church had been that which Mr. Jebb infers from the act alluded to. The third argument is founded on the words of a canon, respecting the rule of doctrine to be ob served by public preachers. In this canon the Church rather recommends "the catholic fathers and ancient b shops" in general to the attention of her preachers, than inculcates the study of them as absolutely indispensible for understanding Scripture: she does not refer back to a certain portion of the ancient church, as an infalli ble and authoritative standard to which appeal is to be made; but contents herself with speaking of the fathers in general terms, and in such a way as was likely to hold them up to the reverence indeed, but not to the blind devotion, of her sons. Exactly accordant with this intention is the direction of King James, quoted by Bishop Bull immediately after the canon in question (vid: App. p. 395); and as well might one contend for the decisive authority of “the fathers, councils, scholastic writers, ecclesiustical historians, and polemical divines," from the direction of King James, as for the decisive authority of "the catholic fathers and ancient bishops" from the canon of Elizabeth. What view then is to be taken of the constitution and character of the Church of England, according to which she may be distinguished from the Church of Rome on the one hand, and from the Protestant Churches of the Continent on the other? An answer to this question will be in itself interesting, and will enable us more effectually to dispose of the arguments and authori ties employed by Mr. Jebb. The Reformers of our Church then, in common with those of the Continent, maintained not only that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation,” bút farther, that every man was to be allowed to examine the Scriptures for himself, and was able by the use of his natural faculties, and by such assistance as would be vouchsafed to every honest inquirer, to find therein what would prove abundantly sufficient for his own personal guidance in the way to happiness and heaven. This was the great principle of Protestantism, in which all appear to have agreed: our Reformers speak on the subject in the most unambiguous and decided terms. Yet neither did they nor the continental Protestants set aside all helps for the study of the Scriptures, which the preceding ages of the Church had furnished: they in fact distinguished between such a use of Scripture as was necessary to salvation, and such a study of it as would reveal its sacred mysteries, explain its difficulties, answer objections, and thus silence every adversary. In the one case, they contended, that the bare text, accompanied by honest intentions and serious prayer, would be sufficient; in the other, they recommended the use of all aids within reach, and duly appreciated the labours of those wise and pious and laborious men, who had gone before them in the interpretation of Scripture. Here, however, the English Reformers appear to manifest advantage. Their co operators on the Continent, having made a wide breach by changing the ancient order of church discipline, did not find it convenient to yield in practice to that influence which they in words allowed to be due to the early fathers. Our Reformers, on the other hand, having been prudently and wisely auxious rather to lop off excrescences, than to make any positive changes, found themselves closely connected with the great body of the Catholic Church in every age; and more closely connected, the higher they ascended and the more nearly they reached the pure ages, before the corrup tions of Popery had begun their baneful operations. Their reverence for antiquity did not evaporate in idle words: it accompanied them in action, and influenced them in all their proceedings. To it we owe a liturgy, "derived" (as Mr. Jebb justly represents it) "for the most part from the actual forms, and accordant, in all parts, with the spirit and feelings, of Christian antiquity," a form of church go vernment primitive and apostolical in its institution-and a summary of doctrines admirable for its tem perance, and for the wisdom with which it shuus extremes on all sides. This reverence for antiquity, however, to which we owe so much, was far from being a submission to authority: it was a rational and enlightened deference to the learning and piety of preceding inquirers; such a deference as men ordinarily pay to the eminent professor of the science they desire to study. The Reformers of our Church looked up with respect to the early Christian writers, as to guides who had already explored the region through which them selves were passing. In matters of discipline, when Scripture was either silent, or contained only obs scure intimations, and where con sequently tradition was to be their guide, they unequivocally acknow ledged the authority of the ancients; in matters of doctrine, they listened to the teaching of the fathers, and maintained with so much the more cheerfulness and firmness, any opi nion which their own best judgment approved, and which they found sanctioned by the consent of anti quity. Thus indeed it is true, and may safely be maintained; that the Church of England steers a middle course. Her pious and venerable founders differed from the Church of Rome in common with the great body of Protestants: they differed from the Protestants themselves, inasmuch as they manifested in their practice a due respect for timents similar to those of Mr. Jebb. Vincentius Lirinensis, of whose name and writings so frequent use is made in this Appendix, is not urged as an authority, but rather called in to illustrate the views which Mr. Jebb thinks to be those of the English Church. There is indeed an exact correspondence between the sentiments of this father and those of Mr. Jebb; nor is it unimportant to ob serve, that after the disclosure of his opinions which is on this occas sion made, he may be employed as a powerful testimony against the infallible standard of interpretation maintained in the Roman Catholic Church, and deference to the legitimate have had individuals holding senauthority of the ancient church. By this practice of our early Re formers the Church sets her memhers an example, which we of the present age shall do well to follow: she hereby strongly recommends the propriety, and inculcates the necessity, of consulting the documents of antiquity; she sends the theological student back to the first and purest sources of information, and forbids him to rest contented with the ingenious hypotheses or refined subtleties of modern date. She is, however, equally far from establishing any thing like an authoritative standard of interpreta tion for Scripture, and from limit ing the circulation of the Bible within the narrow sphere of those, who have access to the writings of antiquity. Now it is easy to see how the arguments principally insisted on by Mr. Jebb harmonise with the conduct of the Reformers, as it has just been described. It is almost needless to remark this of what Mr. Jebb calls the liturgical department of evidence. The act of Elizabeth is strictly consistent with a conduct which had taken the ancient church as the model of discipline. The canon respecting preachers is satisfactorily explica ble from the twofold view of the use of the Scriptures above mentioned. The Church in that canon is addressing herself to the clergy, to assist whom, in their researches into the treasures of Sacred Literature, she enumerates among the principal aids, the writings of " the catholic fathers and ancient bishops." The authorities quoted by Mr. Jebb may all be understood consistently with the same view of the subject: should any one, however, consider one or two of them too strong to be so understood, let him remember, that the opinions of individuals are not to be regarded as the sense of the Church, and that it is not impossible that our Church may But Mr. Jebb triumphantly con trasts the condition of the English Church with that of the continen: tal Protestant Churches, and does not hesitate to ascribe the favourable circumstances of the former to the operation of the principles for which he contends.. It is incum bent on him to explain how principles, which (as he himself acknowledges) have been very inadequately recognised for the last century, have been during the same time so effectually operative. It seems rather puzzling to understand what difference there is, as far as practical effects are concerned, between principles not recognised and prin÷ ciples not existing. It is not denied, that the English Church has the decided advantage in her present state over her continental neighbours: it may farther be acknowledged, that she owes her superior situation, under Provi dence, to her founders; not, however (as I would say), to the principles established but to the conduct pursued by those venerable men. That temperate conduct of their's, which it has been attempted to describe, was the means of handing down to their posterity rites and ceremonies and forms of worship that have perpetuated and consecrated all the observances, and all the doctrines of Christian antiquity. These rites and ceremonies, and forms of worship contain with in themselves the never-failing principles of reviviscence; so that, how degenerate soever her mem bers may become either in opinion or in practice, there exists continually a standard which reproaches every departure from primitive faith and conduct, and which can hardly escape the notice or fail to secure the serious regards of the whole body of the Church at once, or even of a considerable part of it, for any length of time together. In proportion as the continental churches want such a standard, in such proportion does every degeneracy threaten to become universal; and when it has once taken place, the less likely is it to admit of recovery. If the forgoing remarks have all the weight which the writer of them thinks they have, it follows from them that Mr. Jebb has failed to prove, that the character of the Church of England is such as he describes it to be; for the argu ments he has employed and the authorities he has quoted seem quite inadequate to the purpose for which he has used them, and are at the same time perfectly reconcileable with a view widely different from that which he has taken. It only remains to add, that the writer of this paper begs that he may not be thought to undervalue the works of the fathers, or to intend any disrepect to the piety and learning of the excellent author, on whose work he has been ani madverting. this period, peculiarly important; I mean, the preaching of St. Paul in Britain. When I read the learned and elaborate theory of the present venerable Bishop of St. David's on that subject, it left. I must confess, at that time, a strong conviction on my mind, that the Apostle of the Gentiles was certainly the founder of the church in Britain. However, as I was reading the other day, your Magazine for April 1841, which accidentally came into my hands, I was surprised at the objections which your correspondent H. N. T. S. makes to the principal arguments contained in the Bishop's publication. Though the objections contained in that Number, (I have not seen their continuation,) do not appear to carry such weight as to justify a change of the favourable opinion I had previously formed, yet they have induced me to think a little more on the subject, and caused some doubt in my mind as to certain passages, quoted in proof of the Apostle's journey to Britain. I shall, at present, take notice of one only, that of Clemens Romanus, which the worthy Bishop considers as the best and most important. Admitting Clemens επί το τέρμα της δύσεως, to mean thie utmost bounds of the west, the application of it to Britain will de pend not only on Britain being so desiguated, but also on its being the only country or place so designated. If it be shewn that that expression may equally, nay more properly, be applied to other places than Britain, I think that it will require more than has already been written on the subject, to determine, whether among the several countries and places strictly and properly denominated the utmost bounds of the west, Clemens meant Britain. In Horace, Epode 1. 1. 13. we have a passage exactly corresponding with that of St. Clement already quoted, wherein Horace, in expressing his great friendship to Maecenas, says that he would follow |