salem scheme, in more respects than one. It is a great acknowledgment by the State of the independent existence of the Church, since it ascribes to her a dominion where the Civil Government has none,-and that, not as a mere "voluntary" Church, but as a formal branch of our own communion, having the countenance and assistance of the State.

There is another view, too, which has in it elements of comfort. That there is a growing sense of loneliness in the members of our Church-a feeling that they are placed apart, as it were, from the rest of Christendom-must have been observed by any one who has been at all conversant with the religious movement of the day. And far be it from me to deny, that, in the history of her outward acts, the Church of England may justly be so regarded by her children. She has in this respect, indeed, been for the most part an island Church -the Church of a proud, wealthy, isolated nation-a nation careless in things temporal of the opinions of the whole world, and in things spiritual regardless alike of the duties. and privileges of the blessed communion of the saints. But in her inward spirit she is far different-derived from the unity of our Lord and his Apostles, and seeking to identify herself with the oneness of primitive truth and love, she has adhered to that rule of Scripture explained by Catholic tradition, by the test of which all disorders may be appeased, and all communions fitted for being knit together in the body of Christ. In this temper she has ever warned her children against the sins of heresy and schism, and has taught them to pray for the conversion of all in error, and for the wellbeing and unity of the Catholic Church. That she has not hitherto done more than this may justly cause impatience of the outward fetters which restrain her; but when these very bonds are found a safeguard-when, on the eve of a dangerous venture, she is enabled to warn those engaged in it, that she cannot, if she would, give her sanction to their schemes, or become implicated by their acts, then surely we may even love those chains, which though they bind our hands from deeds of love and duty, render us equally powerless for self-destruction. True, you will say, that if the Church of England were altogether free, she could cast out those who

belong only to the Church, And as they choose a temso they may think Christian

without her authority might seek to compromise her character: but is she yet ripe for freedom? Is not a terrible struggle now active within her, and, were she not held together by outward bands, might not the evil become altogether severed from the good, and thus the gradual victory of truth over error be stopped short in its career, and many souls, now subject to her influence, be lost for ever to the Church? This Jerusalem scheme is, in many of its supporters, a type (though a distorted one) of higher and better things. Minds heated by the study of prophecy into a pious desire to anticipate the Providence of God, and lingering in faith and love over the ruins of a city hallowed by the last footsteps of our Lord, may look to the earthly instead of the heavenly Jerusa lem, and seek to invest the former with those attributes of truth, peace, and unity, which which is the mother of us all. poral instead of a spiritual city, unity to be one of concession instead of consent. But in the hidden source of these feelings, a noble principle is at work -a principle which bids men remember that they are not merely holders of external truth, but are involved in a mysterious system, new parts of which will one by one unfold themselves, until the whole be complete--and which, amidst the strange disorders which self-will has created, awes men into a recognition of our Lord's precept of unity, and drives them, as they best may, to endeavour its fulfilment. Such a principle as this, turned inward from irregular activity, and taught by the restraints of the Church to join patience and knowledge with zeal, is one to be cherished and loved by all who believe the religion of Christ to be an institution as well as a doctrine. And if the policy of our ecclesiastical superiors should be such as by a wise moderation to allow our Church, now troubled and cast to and fro, to settle down by free discussion into a gradual but general consent, the time may not be far distant, when, instead of a clandestine and unlawful attempt at union in a distant country, we may, as a nation and a Church, be enabled to stand forth fairly in the face of Christendom-to call men from both extremes of error-superstition and infidelity-and in joining together those bodies

which are still Churches, raise into that unity those which

are not.

Another issue, indeed, is possible, for the promise is to the whole Church, and not to our branch of it. And she may yet become unfaithful, and so her candlestick be altogether removed; or she may become so faint and powerless, that men may mistake her slumber for the stillness of death, and be driven to seek for warmer influences in other portions of the family of Christ.

We have, however, still grounds for hope and thankfulness, and, while these remain, though it may be our duty and our wisdom to prepare for the worst, yet this readiness to face should not make us less fearless in our endeavours to avert it.

Your's

Very faithfully,

JAMES R. HOPE.

POSTSCRIPT.

sary

IN publishing a second Edition of this Letter, it seems necesthat I should notice some of the statements and reasonings which have been put forward since the appearance of the first. But in so doing, I have no intention of altering the character of my previous arguments, more especially have I none of entering upon the doctrinal discussions which are so nearly and necessarily connected with it. To make good my former ground, and to clear it of such objections as have been advanced by others, is the sole design of the following remarks.

For this purpose there are but two publications which require of me more than a passing allusion-The "Statement"* put forth by Authority, and that portion of Mr. Maurice's pamphlet which is specifically directed against myself.

It will be remembered, that, in formerly dealing with the question of this Bishopric, I maintained that the theory of its constitution, as then to be collected from the Prussian document and from the advertisement of the English committee, was irreconcileable with the principles of our ecclesiastical

* "Statement of Proceedings relating to the Establishment of a Bishopric of the United Church of England and Ireland in Jerusalem. Published by Authority." Rivingtons, 1841. (See Appendix No. III. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this Statement, although dated December 9, 1841, was not published till after the appearance of my Letter.)

"Three Letters to the Rev. W. Palmer, &c.; with an Appendix containing some Remarks on a Pamphlet of J. R. Hope, Esq., &c. By F. D. Maurice, A.M. Chaplain of Guy's Hospital, and Professor of English Literature at King's College, London." Rivington, 1842.

The other publications of importance are Mr. Palmer's "Aids to Reflection, &c." Parker, 1841. Dr. Hook's "Reasons, &c." Rivington, 1842. "Tract 42. Published under the Superintendence of the Catholic Institute of Great Britain." "Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury." Mr. Abeken's "Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, &c." Parker, West Strand, 1842. And an article in a recent number of the British Magazine.

polity, and unsanctioned by the legislative enactment, under the permissive powers of which the consecration of Dr. Alexander had taken place.

Since that time, both the German and the English publications upon which I relied have been superseded in point of authority by the "Statement" now before us; and the first question which occurs is, whether this Statement has, or has not, so modified the supposed conception of the design, as to withdraw it from the reach of my objections.

Now it must be at once conceded, that the language which is used in this Statement with reference to the German Protestants is materially different from that which I had formerly occasion to cite. The Germans were told, that the Evangelical Church of the German nation is "the mother of all Evangelical confessions." The English Statement leaves it to take its place among "the less perfectly constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe."

The Germans were taught, that the Anglican Church is 'by origin and doctrine most intimately akin to the German Evangelical Church," and that "Evangelical Christianity should present itself, under the protection of England and Prussia, to the Turkish government, as an unity." The "Statement" acknowledges the existence of a Liturgy agree❝ing in all points of doctrine with the Liturgy of the English "Church;" but it is far from being dogmatic as to the existing relations between the two communions; it looks rather to the future than to the present, and says of the Bishopric, "Its "ultimate results cannot be with certainty predicted; but we may reasonably hope that, under the Divine blessing, it "may lead the way to an essential unity of discipline as well as of doctrine," between us and them.-(p. 5.)

66

66

As far then as general expressions of opinion are concerned, the "Statement" may be considered as varying in no unimportant degree from the Prussian document; and if current reports be true, this variance has not proved acceptable in Germany. If the "Statement" therefore had done no more than express these general opinions, English churchmen might have been bound to assume, with Dr. Hook, that the Primate had "pointed out the mistake of the Prussian