Limit of private judgment.

245

by those who compare the Reformed with the Unreformed Church, and trace out in detail the immense extent to which the former did refrain from uttering her voice, and obtruding her authority, not merely as to matters of doctrine, but as to the concerns and occupations of daily life.

(2.) On matters non-essential, however important or interesting in themselves, the individual may exert all lawful and constitutional means for impressing on the public mind his own sense of what is right, or even desirable; but he must not, though he may seek to have the law altered, break it while it stands ; nor, when in a position that demands his formal recognition of a doctrine or a practice that has received the public sanction, is he at liberty to reject it.

(3.) He cannot renounce the great fundamental doctrines, received by the Church at large in all ages, or at least the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity, and whatever that necessarily implies, without converting his Christian liberty into license; without, in fact, renouncing his Christianity, and ipso facto proving that he is not enlightened by the Spirit of Truth.

On the whole then, as to the extent of private enlightenment, and the consequent relation of the individual to the national Church, the impression seems to have been, that the conscientious Christian would be enabled by the Spirit not to pronounce with isolated and independent infallibility upon the sense of Scripture, but to assent sincerely and heartily to that interpretation which had from the first been, and was now once more to be, the generally accepted one; but that this superhuman aid was bestowed on him also, and at least equally, to produce in him holiness of life. Without this "fruit of faith," dogmatic truths, though in terms admitted, could not be really appreciated ("spiritually discerned"), and were not only worthless, but most perilous.

And this assistance he would now more than ever require, because as the perpetual supervision and all-embracing control of the priesthood were removed, along with the privileges he assumed the responsibilities, and incurred the peculiar dangers, of more independent moral agency.

With reference to the third answer above given, which represented the great reforming theologians as the authorised and supernaturally guided expositors of Scripture, here again the practical and comprehensive English mind was inclined to consider the statement as at once too broad and too narrow; but still as adumbrating, and with proper qualifications capable of expressing what was felt to be an unquestionable and most important truth.

The Spirit of God was at length moving, with extraordinary and regenerative influence, upon the face of the long stagnant waters of the Church, and stirring them to their inmost depths.

And some divines there were, active on the side of Reform, who combined more or less pre-eminent moral and spiritual qualifications with conspicuous abilities, learning, and knowledge of the Scriptures. In such men, who that sympathised with the movement would not recognise its true representatives and natural leaders? nay more-would not in them discern the decided and visible manifestation and fruits of the divine agency?

But that such men were “inspired” in any wise to the same extent, or in the same manner, as the Prophets and Apostles of old could not be admitted. Thus the statement was too broad.

But it was also too narrow. It implied neglect of the Church at large, of the Church of old, of the individual Christian. The same gracious aid had not been denied to them.

And once more, it seemed to imply, it would be very likely in practice to involve, what Englishmen have always been peculiarly given to detect and resent,-neglect of constituted authorities; a tendency to ignore, override, supersede, the "powers that be," and to forget that they are "ordained of God"; powers of both kinds, in fact, as we have already said they were called at the time, the Spiritualty and Temporalty of the Realm.

It may be objected that they who abolished so summarily, or at least adhered to the abolition of the papal supremacy, should have been the last to raise such a cavil. But the exception only confirms the rule. The Papal claims had been constantly resisted, checked, regarded throughout as an usurpation, undermined both by law and by public opinion; they had gradually become intolerable; they were at last indignantly and thoroughly repudiated, and by Roman Catholics themselves, and bitter persecutors for the distinctive tenets of Romanism. As a quaint old author observes, -"Did Roman Catholics themselves find right and sufficient reason to turn the Pope out of England at the fore-door in fair daylight, as an intruder and usurper; and do they expect that Protestants should let him in again by stealth at the back-door? It is true Queen Mary afterwards gave him house-room again in England for a short time. But he raged so extremely, and made such bonfires of poor innocent Christians in every corner of the kingdom, that it is no marvel if they desired his room rather than his company. "'*

The reverence for established authorities, however, remained * Bramhall. Just Vindication &c.

English scheme of Church reform.

247

strong in the country; was probably greatly confirmed and strengthened by the fear lest reform should degenerate into revolution, and the purification into the destruction of existing institutions both in Church and State. And the times offered abundant warning that this was no visionary fear. Sectaries, both at home and abroad, were beginning to question the first principles not only of Christianity, but of civil government. The Anabaptists and Levellers had run their wild course. The Pope, though rebuffed, was not unseated from the Throne of St. Peter. The Papal thunders were not silent; they might prove not ineffectual. The Papal party were secretly plotting or openly agitating for a Counter Reformation. Amidst such perils a work directly and vitally affecting the temporal as well as spiritual condition and prospects, the political hardly less perhaps than the ecclesiastical relations of Englishnien, was to be conducted, completed, consolidated, in a country where-the Papal intervention apart-Church and State had long been not only most closely united, but, to a great extent, absolutely identified. Nor was there any lack of precedents, derived from the most flourishing periods of the Church, for ecclesiastical reforms, and reassertions of primitive doctrine, being inaugurated and authoritatively enunciated by Christian Sovereigns.

The Nation and the Church accordingly fell back upon their several, yet united, constitutional agents as the organs and ratifiers, if not the originators, of the required changes.

Sovereign, Parliament, Convocation :-These already existed as a fact, with provinces, however liable to confusion and mutual infringement, yet to a certain extent clear as a fact also, and forming collectively the supreme civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the Christian Realm of England.

In brief then, combining these several elements to form an answer, as practically given on the whole to our original questions, by those who determined the course of the movement within that Realm-Let the Reformation be based upon Scripture, as interpreted, where doubtful, by learned, able, and pious reforming theologians; guided and controlled in their interpretation by the precedents of the early, undivided Church, so far as the latter are attainable by fair historical and moral evidence. Let measures be framed to bring the present Church, as far as possible (mutatis mutandis), into accordance with the requisitions of Scripture, so interpreted; and let these measures be sanctioned by public authority, in Church and State. Lastly, conscientious enquiry; modest appreciation of his own advantages, as compared with those of the

VOL. VI. NO. II.

32

many eminent men similarly occupied with himself; faith in divine assistance as befriending properly conducted public, not less than private investigations; finally, loyalty to the combined institutions in Church and State, under which he finds himself placed by Providence-all these will jointly commend and certify to the individual the system of reform proposed to be effected in the manner just stated. Where such is not the result-where the individual is still dissatisfied and unconvinced-the fault must be in himself. He must be insincere, presumptuous, uncharitable, or disloyal.

In that case he cannot justly complain if he is punished, not for the mere act of differing with a Church, but for violating so many plain obligations to conform to such a Church system, so carefully and temperately framed.

Such appear to have been, in the main, the theory and practice of the English Church Reformation at the time.

No one at the present day advocates in England persecution or punishment for religious opinions, as such. Some are still disposed to visit with legal penalties religious practices that they consider involve immediate or remote danger to the established constitution in Church and State. Many would withhold offices of responsibility from those who, by their stand-point as inferred from their avowed principles, appear ipso facto incapable of fully and conscientiously discharging the duties of those offices. All would admit that there is a certain point-however difficult it may be to determine in a particular case precisely where that point is -at which it becomes absolutely necessary to "restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers," whether sheltering themselves under the plea of conscience and religion, or under any other less solemn but not more mischievous pretext.

Churchmen themselves now feel that, granting the politico-religious body of which they are members-the English province of that kingdom which is in this world and yet not of this worldwas reformed on the right pattern, and by the proper authorities; and granting also that between such a reform and any individual disposed to question its correctness, the balance of probability is immensely on the side of the National Church; yet that men must be dealt with as they are, not as they ought to be;-that ignorance, dulness, a bad life, idiosyncracy of mental or moral constitution, still more early education in a dissenting community, may actually, whether they ought to do so or not, render an individual unwilling, if not unable, to accept the Church system.

*Which of course raises on the other side a prima facie argument as to providential position.

The Monetary System of British India.

249

That in such a case, to exact compliance, or an affectation of compliance, by legal penalties, is at once a crime and a mistake, and tends to destroy religion altogether..

That therefore, however obligatory the claims of the established Church upon the allegiance of the individual may be in foro conscientia; and however strongly he may still be bound to take them fairly, fully, and seriously into account as one great fact, one powerful element, in determining his religious convictions and practice: yet, after all, his adhesion or discidence must be left to himself; and if he continue to dissent up to his last hour, none but the unerring eye of God can discern whether, and to what extent, he may really deserve censure;-none but the all-righteous Judge presume to absolve or punish the recusant.

ART. III. THE MONETARY SYSTEM OF

BRITISH INDIA.

THE currency of a country may, to use a homely illustration, be aptly compared to the blood in the human body. If it circulate too rapidly, a state of feverish excitement is betrayed; if too slowly, a falling-off in social health or prosperity becomes quickly apparent. There may be too much or too little iron in the blood; so likewise there may be too much or too little paper in a currency. A sudden accession or diminution of wealth from extraordinary causes has, moreover, an injurious effect on a country, somewhat similar to that which a sudden change from high to low living, or vice versa, produces on the human constitution. The circulation of the blood is, comparatively speaking, but a recent discovery. We are of opinion that the problem of the monetary system, best adapted to the wants of mankind, still remains to be solved. The question has lately received much of that attention which its importance demands; and as many thoughtful men are apparently devoting their best energies to its solution, we may reasonably conclude that, ere long, they will throw light upon this obscure subject.

It must be admitted that the problem is an exceedingly com