LYDIA SELLON.

Virgo. praeclara .

nobilis. dives. juvenis .

summa. prudentia. summo . ingenio. summa. eloquentia
summa. pietate. erga. Deum. atque. hominem.

praedita.

quae. non. odio. sed. amore. humanae . gentis.

domum. carentibus.

praeberet.

"primum. quidem. pudica . fuit. deinde. pacifica.
modesta. suasibilis.

XLVIII. Correspondence between His Grace the Duke of ARGYLL, and the Right Rev. W. J. TROWER, Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. London: Rivingtons.

WE have perused this Correspondence with interest. The Duke of Argyll is a writer by no means deficient in ability; but rather arrogant in tone, and very unsound in principle. The tone and spirit of the Bishop of Glasgow is all that we could have expected and wished. As to the main question at issue, "the right of Presbyterians to partake of the sacrament in the Church, from which they have dissented," the claim appears too monstrous to need refutation. If the Church was so seriously in error as to justify Presbyterianism rising in opposition to it, it cannot be fit to be communicated with: if it is lawful to communicate with the Scottish Church, Presbyterianism must be an unjustifiable schism. The separation of religious bodies is a serious and important thing : it is not afterwards to be treated as if it was a matter of no importance, and involved no difference.

XLIX.-Stray Suggestions on Colonization. By RICHARD WEST NASH, Esq., Barrister at Law, Late Acting Advocate-General at Western Australia. London: Effingham Wilson.

FROM all we have seen of this pamphlet, we have been much struck by the clear-headed and common-sense view which the author takes of the important subject of Colonization. His argument goes to prove the high importance or rather necessity of Colonies to the mother country, and to show that a very im proved system, including the creation of an aristocracy, and of the various ranks of civilized society, is essential to the prosperity of Colonies. We can recommend the pamphlet to our readers, as replete with vigorous argument, clear views, and suggestions deserving of the attentive consideration of all persons interested in the important subject to which it relates.

NOTE. We have received a letter from Dr. Peile, comprising an explanation of his views, in reply to some remarks which we offered in our last number (p. 465). We deviate from our usual course in this instance, in giving insertion to Dr. Peile's communication, the tone of which is very creditable to the writer, and which will evince his soundness of view on some important points.

SIR,

I HAVE just received the last Number of The English Review, to which I have been a subscriber from the first, and of the general tone and tendency of which I most heartily approve; and I trust you will excuse my freedom in requesting you to correct an utterly mistaken and injurious impression of my views as to the "Christian Ministry," and of the authority I attach to "German writers," which, towards the conclusion of your obliging notice of Part III. of my Annotations, you have conveyed to your readers-in the discharge, I am still willing to believe, of what is your duty as the accredited organ and advocate of those moderate "High-Church" views, to which I myself incline, as more than any other representing what I should call my "party" in the Church; but evidently on very slight knowledge of the publication which ostensibly you are reviewing, and under an excess of righteous zeal against German Rationalism and Idealism, for which your present Number abundantly proves that there is indeed a cause, but which, in the vigorous onslaught you are now directing against it (and from my heart I cry, "God speed you" in it), would sweep down a friend (I honestly am such) among those with whom, in so far as they are insidious foes to Christianity and the Church, I have and can have no sympathy whatever-I have made and can make no common cause.

You "regret to find that Dr. P. refers to Neander and others of the same class as authorities "-for what? For any important conclusions that he has drawn and endeavoured to establish? e.g. as to the Christian Ministry, or any other point on which Neander holds views, against which you would justly caution your readers? No! in my now completed first volume, of 459 pages, the name of Neander is found but once and, do me the common justice to see how far I build upon him as "authority," in the foot-note to Appendix, p. 14. It was not, in fact, until I had completed my volume, that I had so much as read one line of Neander; but I had begun to read the English Translation of his "History of the first Planting of the Church," as the sheets of my Appendix were passing through the press; and so, in giving a wider interpretation to ry rowvwvíg in Acts ii. 42, than had been given by Professor Blunt (who, with Mr. Garratt and others of that class, is an authority with me), I had opportunity to notice, when I might well have done without, Neander's still

wider acceptation of that term; a notice which has cost me dear, if it creates that prejudice against my book which your inuendo (more difficult to deal with than a direct assertion) obviously and inevitably tends, at least, to create. Who can believe that such mere passing mention of writers whom we love not, but whose works we cannot (if we would) expunge by our non-mention of them, would be sufficient in your sight to condemn a book? More, therefore, than meets the eye must needs be understood from your recorded "regret to find that Dr. P. refers to Neander."

And what "other authorities of the same class" have I used? None that I know of. Whitby, Wells, Macknight, Burton, Bloomfield; Bishops Middleton and Shuttleworth, Grinfield's Scholia Hellenistica, Calvin's and Küttner's Latin Commentaries -these, and, above all, the Greek text of the Apostolical Epistles themselves, are the books at this moment lying open before me: and, far from "allowing German writers to have too much influence with me," I am almost as much a stranger to their names and books, as to the language in which they have written. On the Epistle to the Romans I made much use of Hodge, an American, and some of Walford, a Dissenter; and thereby drew down upon myself some extreme High-Church censure; but will any one read my Preface, and say that have allowed either the ultra-Calvinism of the one, or the subdued Sectarianism of the other, to have any injurious influence on my own Annotations? I hold that in Theological, as in other kinds of warfare, "fas est et ab hoste doceri." At the same time I cannot bring myself to think that every writer, who is not, in the extreme sense," with us," must therefore be essentially and of necessity "against us." On the Corinthians accordingly I made free use of Billroth; and whilst there is much in him of which I do not approve, I trust I have extracted from his notes much also that is good, and put forth a Commentary on those Epistles which may haply supersede the use of two volumes in Clark's Biblical Cabinet.

I pass on to notice your further expression of "regret that I have been misled" by Chevalier Bunsen "into the adoption, (as you state it,) of views on the Christian Ministry, which, in their legitimate operation, tend, in our opinion, to the subversion of Episcopacy," to which you add, "If Episcopal Ordination be held to be needless, &c. &c. ;" manifestly leading your readers to conclude that Dr. Peile (a would-be useful and trust-worthy guide to pains-taking students of the Greek text of Scripture) holds Episcopal Ordination to be needless.

This, every one must see, is a grave, an overwhelming charge to have even indirectly preferred against me; but where, I may be permitted to ask you, Sir, is your proof? The utmost you could by possibility deduce from any thing I have published is, that Episcopal (as distinct from purely Presbyterial) Ordination is not so needful, is not such an absolute sine quâ non, as to make every other ordination, if we may venture to pronounce so much, invalid. I have nowhere said this in so many words; but it is the conclusion which I appear to myself to have established by fair induction from Scripture, and I am prepared to abide by it. But is yours a fair representation of this opinion, when you make it appear in consequence that "Episcopal Ordination is held to be needless?" I solemnly protest against, and repudiate, such perversion and exaggeration of the conclusion which I have formed for myself from the prayerful study of the pure Word of God, under no misleading influence either of preconceived system or of party; and certainly, "Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri ;" and in which I do not find myself a whit more latitudinarian than the framers of our Articles, who have not defined what we are to understand by THE CONGREGATION; nor who they are who give, or who they "who have given unto them public authority IN THE CONGREGATION to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." These points,-wisely, I think, and in the Catholic spirit of genuine Christianity, left undetermined in a nation's Articles of Religion,-I have endeavoured with the Scriptures only before me, to determine for myself, and for those whom I may influence. And the conclusion to which I have been led is, that Episcopacy in the restricted sense, which in the Gentile Churches (beginning from Antioch) dates properly from the latter part of the first century, appertains rather to the perfect organization and finish, than to the first constitution and essence, of a Christian Church. But, because I represent it to myself as the keystone and centre, rather than, what

the entire CHURCH is, the pillar and groundwork of that outward building of the holy and inspired Apostles, the one Ecclesiastical arch which spans the entire interval between Christ's ascension and His second Advent, must I therefore hold Episcopacy to be needless? Surely not. And yet, to carry men safely over from time into eternity, less may be absolutely needful than a bridge of such stable, at once, and symmetrical structure, as it is our privilege to rejoice in. Again, because St. Paul represents the perfection of Church-membership, outwardly developed in us, under the figure of "a full-grown man ;" and because of that allegorical Man, “which is CHRIST in us," I hold Bishops to be the eyes, not the entire head, without which we could not live; is it right or reasonable to infer that any function whatever of Episcopacy is "held to be needless," because as the OCULUS ECCLESIÆ, Episcopacy is not so needful, as that without it there would be no ECCLESIA, no spiritual Life in us? Let me persuade you to read what I have written on this subject, and you will see that, though I do not hold that Divine promise, "Lo! I am with you always, unto the end of the world, to mean " with you and your successors in an unbroken (?) line of bishops ;" but "with you (oi Lŵvres, oi περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Κυρίου : 1 Thess. iv. 15. 17 ; 2 Cor. v. 15) who, because I live, shall from this time live also," with you, in that Church of the living God, against which the gates of the grave shall have no more binding power than against Me, your Head and Representative (Acts ii. 24), no longer now Son of Man, but, in Man's Ransomed and regenerated nature, Son of God (Rom. i. 4); I yet am very far indeed from holding that to be "a mere form of Church government of human invention," which I have represented as the gradual development of the Gentile Churches, "on the suggestion, doubtless, of the Spirit" (I quote from my Appendix, p. 10), so largely poured out on that first age of THE CHURCH, "after Apostolical precedent," the delegation, I mean, of the joint supremacy of the Twelve, to James the Just at Jerusalem, and of the supremacy of Christ's one Apostle to the Gentile world, to Timotheus at Ephesus, and to Titus in Crete; "and under the sanction and benediction of at least one surviving Apostle ;" I allude, of course, to St. John. In all this, where am I misled by Bunsen? what mention have I made of (not to ask what conclusion have I built upon) "the universal Priesthood of Christians?"-a truth which, in the sense in which it is asserted by St. Peter, is intelligible enough, and interferes as little with the co-existence therewith of a Christian Ministry, as the similar language used by their prophets in reference to the Jews interfered with the simultaneous existence of a Levitical ministry, both the one and the other of these being of Divine appointment. On "the authority of a congregational and local ministry in the succession of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church," (see Appendix, p. 6), I have spoken most plainly and unequivocally, and as widely apart as possible from Neander's views; and if I have not yet said enough to vindicate my orthodoxy, I say now that the presence of a specially-consecrated order of "Ayyeλot (so the Apostles term them, and such they are, as they stand ministering between God and the Churches of His Saints), enters as essentially into my definition of a bona fide congregation in Christ, as the presence of water, specially consecrated as the outward and visible sign of the cleansing grace of the Spirit, enters into my definition of the Sacrament of Baptism; and as the presence of bread and wine, specially consecrated as the outward and visible sign of the Body and Blood of Christ, enters into my definition of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper-" specially consecrated," I mean, in all three cases, by the prayers of the assembled congregation, accompanying the outward laying-on of ministerial and representative hands.

God forbid, then, that, when in my wish to see THE CHURCH, the living Temple of our God (by some such improved organization as you, Sir, from time to time have advocated), so exalted in the length and breadth of our favoured land, as that it shall stand forth before all men in its full and fair proportions, I declare myself ready to "assist in clearing away what ruins of the old clergy-Church are yet obstructing our path,"-God forbid that I should so much as dream of clearing away the clergy from the Church! Nor can I believe that Bunsen (whose words, in part, I may seem here to have too unguardedly used) even so much as dreamed of this. I take his definition of what he means by clergy-Churches-i. e. " all ecclesiastical communities in which the body of the clergy, practically at least, steps into

the place of the Christian people, and makes itself alone the Church-(Eng. Rev. No. xx. p. 433.) In this sense only would I be understood to speak of "the old clergy-Church" in this country, and by "clearing away its ruins," the getting rid of the ruinous and absurd, but still deep-seated notion, that "the Church " is in some sense distinct from the people; whereas these are in truth the very glory and joy (1 Thess. ii. 20) of that building of God among us, which is the Pillar of His Truth. "For of God are we called to be fellow-labourers with Him; God's field, God's building, (1 Cor. iii. 9) are " those among whom we labour; whether, as Paul, we plant, or, as Apollos, we water, for God. More particularly, I wished to see the ruins of our ancient Houses of Convocation, which can never again be tenanted in their present form, make way for that highest manifestation of THE CHURCH, viewed (Matt. xviii. 17) as the centre of religious unity in this country, which our Houses of Parliament have now ceased to be, and we can realize only in some such re-construction and enlargement of a church (not simply clerical) convocation or synod, as is recommended in an able article "on Church Union," which appeared in your last Number, and in which I more especially admired the tone and temper of the writer's concluding remarks.

To that spirit of Catholicity, and of charitable construction of the views of those from whom we differ-for which believe me, Sir, I give you the fullest credit,—I now appeal with confidence for such reparation as, after reading my Appendix (with or without the Preface, with which it has been separately published), you feel that you can make for that very erroneous impression of my Church views, which, on no sufficient evidence, you have allowed to go forth to my prejudice. I claim to be judged only by what I have actually written, and what I have actually quoted from "German writers," which is in truth very little. Of Bunsen's book I have read little more than I have cited as bearing upon our present anomalous position in respect of purely Church legislation; and of that I cannot yet see reason to feel ashamed. With many apologies for the unreasonable length at which I have written, I remain, Mr. Editor, Very respectfully yours, THOMAS W. PEILE.

Repton Priory,

Jan. 2, 1849.

We rejoice to see that Dr. Peile has so satifactorily and clearly justified himself from all suspicion of sympathies with the pernicious system which we have been lately obliged to comment upon. We certainly regret that Dr. Peile should in any way have identified his views with so heretical and revolutionary a book as Bunsen's "Church of the Future;" but the explanation which he gives of his intention in employing the language of that work, is very satifactory, though we are satisfied that he is wholly mistaken in his interpretation of Bunsen's meaning. As to our observation on views which in our opinion tend to the subversion of Episcopacy, in regarding Episcopal ordination as nonessential, we must be permitted to say, with all personal respect for Dr. Peile, that we are still of opinion, that to represent Episcopal ordination as non-essential in itself, without restriction even to any case of imagined necessity, is to regard it as an ordinance which may be subverted by man for any sufficient reason; and would go therefore to justify the abolition of Episcopacy, in case it should be found expensive or unpopular. We do not mean that Dr. Peile would in any way desire the abolition of Episcopacy, or that he does not esteem it a great benefit to the Church; but we think his views on the subject of Episcopacy are rather confused and inconsistent.