THE

CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

AUGUST, 1844.

Religious Life and Opinions of Frederick William III. of Prussia. Translated from the German of F. R. EYLERT, D.D., by JONATHAN BIRCH. J. Hatchard & Son.

THE hasty and visionary scheme for establishing something like terms of union between the religious associations of Germany and the Church in this country, which was sought to be carried into effect by the consecration and mission of Bishop Alexander to Jerusalem, in 1841, has given to members of our Church so melancholy and anxious an interest in acquainting themselves with the living principles, character, and "religious life," if we may adopt Mr. Birch's expression, of the Protestant communions of the Continent, that the life and opinions of so distinguished a character as the late King of Prussia, can hardly fail to be very generally read. By some special and kind protection of Providence, we have up to this time been preserved from all definite act of amalgamation with the communions that were thrown into a state of separate existence at the Reformation. In so saying, of course it is not meant that the theology of Luther and Calvin has, in no degree, been able to find a dry place whereon to rest, among the clergy of our Church, or that we have been wholly preserved from the servilities of Erastus, the theories of Arminius, the unbelief of Rationalism. It must be confessed that we have suffered from all these diseases, in their turn, and that they are by no means characteristic, indigenous evils of Germany. The history of the people of England and of Germany, since the sixteenth century, would, on being examined, prove that many of the peculiar evils under which the Gospel has laboured in both countries, have had not only a

kindred origin, but have been favoured by many concurrent and kindred circumstances. And, perhaps, it may be the general perception of this circumstance that gives whatever consistency it may possess, to the current notion of an identity of interest, between ourselves and the German Christians who reject all communion with Rome; the fact of a common liability to the same forms of evil being presumed to indicate some inherent fitness for corporate unity, which cannot too speedily assume its proper outward form, and proclaim itself in some substantive shape, and by appropriate visible tokens. Up to this time, however, the good providence of God has preserved to us in this land a body of Christians under the apostolical rule of bishops, fenced in and guarded by an ecclesiastical regimen, administered by them, and from which each several bishop is bound in conscience, in virtue of oaths, and by the vows of his consecration, not to depart. Owing to the spiritual power of this very ecclesiastical constitution, up to this day no formal act of amalgamation with any other body of Christians has been carried into effect. Moreover, it requires nothing beyond the merest elementary acquaintance with the divine nature of the constitution of the Church, as governed by her bishops, to see that all union with any other body is a thing of its own nature impossible, the formal act which would be supposed to effect a union with any other society not really effecting what it would seem to effect. For this plain reason: There is but one Church of Christ upon earth,—that is, wherever there is a bishop lawfully consecrated, and Christian people submitting themselves to him, and rendering to him lawful canonical obedience, there the Church exists. The whole number of Catholic bishops and their flocks constitute the whole visible Church Catholic; neither is it possible, under ordinary circumstances, to have communion with the visible Catholic Church, except through the medium of the bishop, and by rendering lawful canonical obedience to him:-the Catholic maxim, avεU TOυ ETίOKOTOV undεv Toάrrεv, rendering it impossible to obtain regular admittance into the fold of the Church, except by and through the living bishop-(of course we do not speak of surreptitious acts of communion in times of negligence and disorder, upon the validity of which no opinion is here offered). But as a fundamental maxim of catholic government, which cannot be set aside by any power of man, the bishop alone has the necessary power to admit to catholic communion; and forasmuch as the bishop is bound, by the most solemn sanctions, to the canons of the Church over which he presides, and may not depart from them without incurring the heaviest guilt, and perilling his own soul, the catholic principle admits of no dispute, that none can be admitted to the communion of the Church without acknowledging the apostolic authority which is vested in the bishop;

and whosoever refuses to acknowledge and pay lawful obedience to this authority, is ipso facto disqualified and excluded from the enjoyment of whatever spiritual benefits the visible bishop is appointed by the invisible Head of the Church to be the channel of communicating to his people. It being contrary even to natural piety, to suppose for a moment, that it could be possible for men to receive spiritual blessings, otherwise than upon terms of submission to the Divine Giver. If, therefore, the catholic bishop be really an authorized servant of the invisible Head of the Church, and divinely empowered to become the minister of spiritual blessings,-then before any human being,. not in communion with the Church, can enjoy and share in the spiritual blessings appointed to be thus communicated, he must fully, entirely, and canonically acknowledge the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop, that he is the authorized minister and servant of the Invisible Bishop, and that, in virtue of his authority so received from heaven, and ratified by the Invisible Head, he is able to dispense spiritual gifts to all faithful and obedient people. Now, if the catholic bishop be not thus authorized, where is the advantage of catholic communion? Why should any man, in his senses, desire communion with the Church? What good in the world can it do him? What possible privilege can he have in the Church which he could not have equally in any other society of Christian worshippers? Learned teachers, literature, theological learning, the society of pious, thoughtful, and educated men, social worship, liturgic rites and ceremonies,-all these are privileges that can be had without submitting to pay canonical obedience to the apostolical jurisdiction of a bishop. What possible religious motive, therefore, can there be for seeking union with the visible Church, except it be on purpose to participate in those spiritual blessings which the Apostolical Episcopate is alone commissioned to convey? And yet, can anything more monstrous be conceived, than to expect a blessing through the means of a divine commission, and at the same time act towards the bearer as if he were only an ordinary human instrument? Is not the rule of God's government declared to proceed upon the principle of His scorning the scorners, and despising them who lightly esteem Him; and if He has condescended to make individual bishops His instruments, how can they be His instruments for blessing, except to such only who acknowledge Him in them, and show homage and reverence to God in His servants? It seems to follow, from the very nature of God, as the Almighty Ruler of the universe, that either the belief in the Catholic Episcopate, according to which the individual bishop is accounted to be the channel of spiritual blessings to those who acknowledge him, must be a visionary notion, without reality, that has deceived the world since the Christian era; and consequently, all desire

to be united to his communion unreasonable and devoid of all adequate cause or motive; or else, admitting the catholic doctrine, it must be inexpressibly offensive to Almighty God, when His creatures presume to come to His authorized servants for a blessing upon any other terms than the most implicit and devout recognition of the authority which they bear. The nature of the case entirely precludes even the notion of compromise. Either the authority of the bishop is from God, and, as such, cannot be honoured upon any terms short of entire obedience; or else it is not from God, and consequently, not of a nature to excite any sort of interest, or to be of any imaginable value.

When, therefore, as in the case of the so-called Evangelical Church of Prussia, a body of Christians, who reject the Catholic belief respecting the divine powers intrusted to the Bishop, and are not themselves paying any kind of canonical obedience to any one member of the Catholic Episcopate, imagine that they have become united to the body of the Catholic Church because an individual Bishop, in a foreign country, and within a jurisdiction canonically belonging to another Bishop, has received directions to admit such as shall apply, without requiring canonical obedience from them, to an outward share in the ecclesiastical constitution, of which the Bishop is the divine centre and steward,-this supposed union, from the very nature of the case, neither has, nor can have a place. Individual Bishops become, by their consecration, bound to the Church, and their spiritual powers are not exerciseable ad libitum. Canonical and not autocratic powers are committed to them at consecration, and each several Bishop is answerable to God, and under God to the Canon Law, for the due and legitimate exercise of his powers. Now, could an individual Bishop be found, to whom the powers of the Catholic Episcopate have lawfully and canonically been committed, who should unlawfully and uncanonically admit to the privileges of Catholic Communion, or should confer Holy Orders upon persons not canonically qualified and thereunto entitled,-such acts would not necessarily concern any other persons in the world, beside the Bishop in question, and those who may have been admitted by him. They neither create or imply any ecclesiastical union between the proper subjects of the Episcopate, and others not subject to it. the acts in question are canonical, they remove the persons to whom they apply from all other spiritual jurisdiction, and place them under the Church; if uncanonical, they place the persons affected by them in an anomalous position, and every such act becomes a separate sin on the part of the Bishop against the canonical obligations under which he received his Episcopal powers; for these obligations are incapable of being set aside. And though they may not invalidate the acts that are done contrary to them; yet they certainly lay the Bishop's conscience

If