6 6 6 ing all place to good works, Luther deprived them of their conditional place; he took from them all contemporary action in the process of justification, and gave them a subsequent one. 'I allow,' he says, that good works also are to be inculcated, but in their own time and place: that is to say, when we are 'out of this capital article of justification.' I, too, say, that 'faith without works is null and void;' but not, he adds, that 'faith has its solidity from its works, but only that it is adorned by them.' Christiani non fiunt justi operando justa, sed jam justificati operantur justa. Wholly irrelevant to the understanding as may be the distinction here drawn between-the necessity of good works being acknowledged-their necessity prior to and subsequent to the act of justification; practically, we see a meaning and a difference. The one view practically attaches less anxiety to good works than the other does. It allows the mind, reposing upon a justification already past and complete, to proceed to good works as a sort of becoming and decorous appendage of that state. Thus set at ease, the Christian can, if he likes, fall back upon an easier and more casual and secular class of good works; and Luther advises him not to be spiritually ambitious. There is no such great difference between a good Christian and a good citizen, in the matter of works. The works of the Christian are in appearance mean. He does his duty according to his calling; governs the state, rules his house, tills his field, does good to his neighbour."1 Such appears to be the practical upshot and meaning of Luther's dogma. Not absolutely denying the fundamental truth of natural religion, that man should do good works, the practical doctrine periculo animæ, aut tanquam conditio Novi Fœderis ad salutem observatu necessaria, nobis imposita. Ex his principiis, incautius ab iis positis, atque a theologorum vulgo avide arreptis, per necessariam consequentiam deducta fluxerunt execrabilia Antinomorum, Libertinorum, Familistarum atque ejusdem farinæ aliorum dogmata, de quibus fortasse boni illi viri ne per somnium quidem cogitarunt. Verum utut sit, qui talia docent et tamen in Libertinos magnis clamoribus vociferantur, quid aliud agunt, quam ut, dum illos damnant, seipsos condemnent? Quippe in præmissas consentiunt, conclusionem tantum respuunt. Ut huic pessimo errori obviam eatur, illud pro certo statuendum est, Christum in concione a Matthæo,' &c. &c.-Bull, Harmonia Apostolica, Dissert. Prior, p. 40. Nec ita magnum est discrimen inter Christianum et hominem civiliter bonum. Nam opera Christiani in speciem vilia sunt. Facit officium juxta vocationem suam, gubernat rempublicam, regit domum, colit agrum, consulit, largitur, et servit proximo. Ea opera carnalis homo non magnifacit, sed putat esse vulgaria et nihili, quæ laici, imo gentiles, etiam faciant. Mundus enim non percipit ea quæ Spiritus Dei sunt, ideo perverse judicat de operibus piorum. Monstrosam illam hypocritarum superstitionem, et eorum electitia opera, non solum admiratnr, sed etiam religiose de eis sentit, et ea magnis impensis fovet. Contra piorum opera (in speciem quidem vilia et exilia tamen vero bona et accepta Deo cum fiant in fide, lætitia animi, obedientia, et gratitudine erga Deum) tantum abest ut agnoscat esse bona, ut etiam vituperet et damnet ea, tanquam summam impietatem et injustitiam.'— Comment. in Ĝal. Opp., vol. v. p. 377. makes the distinction between one class of works and another, and one mode of doing them and another. This dogma of justification, then, has unquestionably had an important and influential career; and Luther has succeeded in impressing an idea very deeply and fixedly upon a theological posterity. It covers all Protestant Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway; it has always had, and has now, a considerable reception within our own Church. Its effects are too apparent; and wherever the idea of works, as mere appendages to a state of justification, extends, it is seen to ease anxiety about them: a popular view of their practical unimportance arises, and displaces them as regular marks by which Christians are to be distinguished from the world. It is difficult to over-estimate the power of a dogma which brings to a point, and concentrates in one definite and portable distinction, a whole mass of vague thought and inclination, existing at large in human nature. With a basis of such a kind to support it, the pointed statement lays marvellous hold upon minds, penetrates them, and becomes their central informing principle. Our divines, as a body, have, indeed, done their duty with respect to this idea, and have exposed its one-sidedness and hollowness, its opposition to Scripture and to reason, and they have prevented English Lutheranism, or Calvinism, though it has gained extensive influence, from getting predominance. To one, more especially, the English Church owes her thanks, one whose exceeding clearness, vigour, and solidity, though running into occasional prolixity and minuteness, is well adapted to defend the truths of reason and Scripture. In the pages of Bishop Bull we are in a world of substance and reality, by the side of which the theology he was opposing appears like a dream. But the Lutheran dogma goes on, being the comfort and stay, the one Christian creed, the one religion of many minds. For the long continuance of such an idea it would be vain to attempt any philosophical account. We see the facts before us, and must be mainly content with them. It would be still more idle to prophecy than to explain. The Lutheran dogma, however, can only stand by the suppression of a large part of Scripture; and it seems reasonable to expect that any part of Scripture which is violently overborne must vindicate itself at last. 189 ART. V.-1. The British Chaplaincy in Madeira. By VISCOUNT CAMPDEN. Reprinted, with additions, from The Theologian and Ecclesiastic,' for November, 1847. London: W. J. Cleaver. 1847. 2. A Brief Statement of Facts with regard to the British Chaplaincy at Madeira. Funchal. 1846. 3. Correspondence between the Lord Bishop of London, the Chaplain, and the Congregation of the British Church established in Madeira. London: Hatchard. 1846. 4. A Letter to R. Stoddart, Esq., Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Madeira. By S. CALVERLY BEWICKE, Esq. Funchal. 1846. 5. Correspondence between the Rev. T. Sapwey, of Oswestry, Salop, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Madeira, R. Stoddart, Esq., and the Rev. H. Landon. Funchal. 1847. THERE are few parts of the world in which the good and bad qualities of the English nation have been more curiously exemplified than in the Island of Madeira, to which we must for a short time call the attention of our readers. To begin with the favourable side; we consider it a high and peculiar distinction that it is not a British colony. For nearly 200 years, since the re-establishment of the independence of Portugal, the mother country has leaned upon British aid. During this whole period England has maintained her supremacy at sea. In a large part of it her peculiar craving seemed to be for the extension of her colonial and specially her insular empire. Yet while it would be difficult to estimate the expenditure which we have incurred in defence of Portugal, we believe that it has never been proposed that this island should be ceded as a very inadequate compensation. We do not think it would be easy to show an instance in the history of any other people of conduct so liberal and magnanimous towards a wholly helpless ally. We know from history what has been the usual result of alliance between the strong and the weak. Greek democracy, Roman aristocracy, French kingdom and empire, have exhibited them in turn. Here we see the peculiar honour of England. And it has been shown also in the high character and position of many of our principal merchants, whose houses of standing extending now beyond the memory of man, have made Funchal, in truth, a British factory, and exhibited British energy, per severance, and integrity, in the most marked contrast to the failings of our faithful allies. So far well. Meanwhile, in this British factory, we find the English church so much a stranger that her House of Prayer was erected only in 1823. Until very lately we might have found the services of that Church so much corrupted, that an English Churchman could hardly have recognised the Church of his fathers. We find the British factory divided against itself into a number of sects, which as recapitulated by Lord Campden are really quite startling. As if to complete the miniature picture of English society, we find the epidemic ecclesiastical diseases of the day imported in their worst forms into the factory, and contending there with the Church of England, which seems also to have put on there her brightest apparel. We find the notorious Dr. Kalley boasting himself (with characteristic equivocation) ‘a member of the Churches of England,' while in truth, he has been first, we believe, an independent, then a member of the Scotch establishment, and now of the Free Kirk (see Christian Remembrancer for April, 1846), harbouring himself under the insulted name of the Church of England while busy in making converts from the National Church to his own sect. Not to dwell on his disgraceful history, we have it followed up by the sad dissensions in the Church of England congregation of Funchal, to which we are now to call the attention of our readers, and in which the scenes which we have lately witnessed in England seem to have been caricatured; the supporters of the Church exhibiting an unusual degree of earnestness, moderation, respect for authority, firmness, and patience under outrage; while the assailants seem to have betrayed an unusual spirit of virulence, persecution, and unscrupulousness; and at the same time the British Government, we regret to say, has conducted itself as little to its credit, as in any instance with which we are acquainted. Before detailing any particulars of the Madeira controversy, we must remind our readers of some circumstances in the position of the English Church abroad. We are not purposing to examine the state of things which warrants, because it compels, the formation of English churches in countries, where the Catholic Church is indeed in possession, but where her rulers refuse to admit English Churchmen to their communion except upon condition of renouncing obedience to the Church of England. This state of things we admit to be anomalous, and we can defend it only as a temporary expedient to meet a present need. While it lasts, however, it becomes us to be doubly careful that in exercising so extreme a right, and discharging functions so irregular, the Church of England shall never forget or conceal her true character and claims. This is the more necessary, because in most of those countries there are heretical sects, which falsely indeed, but pertinaciously, claim kindred with her, on the ground of a common protest against the Roman supremacy; and even where the whole native population is in external commerce with the Catholic Church (Greek or Roman), there are to be found English subjects members of the many sects which beset us at home, and who, being entitled to all the rights of Englishmen, are not unwilling to claim and assume, in that character, privileges which belong to us, not as Englishmen but as members of the Church. Under such circumstances it becomes even more important in foreign countries than it is at home, that our administration of Church affairs should be in all respects regular and Catholic; that every officiating priest should feel himself, and be recognised by others (whether within' or 'without' the pale of the English Church), to be authorized not by himself, nor by his congregation, nor by the civil government, but by the Church and by the Bishop as her representative; that the services and rites of our common faith should be solemnized regularly, seriously, devoutly, and, therefore, in one word, according to the rules of the Church, not after the caprice of individuals. The course actually adopted to secure these ends is as follows: British congregations abroad are to be distinguished into two classes, those which are established in factories where there is a resident consul, and which are recognised by the civil government; and those which exist in towns where the British residents, though often far more numerous, are mere sojourners without these advantages. We shall not now enter at large into the latter case, to which, however, we have before this called attention, and shall probably take occasion to do so again. Few steps, we fear, have been taken to prevent abuses in the British congregations of such towns: at least we have yet to learn what they are. We believe the arrangements at present to be these, that any clergyman, or any other person not in orders, or not a member of the Church, is at full liberty to open a place of worship in any town where the English congregate, and give himself out as the representative of the Church of England that (as there are many places where numbers of English reside, more or less permanently, without any chaplain at all) such a person, if he select his place judiciously, is pretty sure to obtain a congregation and something like a maintenance adequate or otherwise. It sometimes happens that an adventurer, ordained or not, is hired by some speculator (the practice is not limited to the tribe of Dan) to become his priest, when he is desirous to attract English visitors to some watering place; and in this case he becomes part of the staff in common |