to a strong conviction that the inclination is from above. The difficulty in the way of such is a pecuniary one. They would be content to toil hard, live poorly, and wear the most ordinary clothing, during the time of their necessary studies. But in most cases this humility of mind does not overcome the difficulty. To obtain ordination they must go to college: there they must remain for some three or four years; and in each year nearly £100 must be expended, even on the most economical plan, for their maintenance. This £300 or £400 places the ministerial office quite beyond the reach of many.

Yet we want the services of these men. We very peculiarly want the services of this class of men. From a deficiency in plain and homely preachers, taken from among the people, multitudes of our artizans and little shopkeepers give a preference to the more congenial style of preaching of the meeting-house. We desire not to acquire a vulgar class of preachers; but we do think that there is room for a large body of additional ministers in the Church, taken from among the working classes, and fitted to gain the ear of the working classes. This does not at all imply coarseness, or flippancy, and irreverent familiarity. Plain, everyday English, of the Saxon origin, with as few Latin or Greek words in it as possible; simple earnestness; clear and apt illustration, without any attempt at singularity, these are the preaching features which require to be cultivated, if we would render our ten new churches at Bethnal Green, or our other ten at Birmingham, of any real utility.

We want, then, a new college, or even several. These should be built, and provided with the requisite professors, at the public cost; whether to be raised by private benevolence, or by parliamentary grants, we need not stop to argue. So raised, and so provided, what should hinder an humble man, intent on his great object, from bringing his expenses, during his college course, within £30 or £40 per annum? But such institutions as these should be provided solely for those whose object was to serve God in the ministry of his word. Our Universities sometimes tell us, now, that they do not aim at giving a professional education. We want, then, a college or two which would give a professional education,-which would train men singly and solely for the service of the Church.

We might proceed to name two or three other matters of vast importance; but probably we have said enough on these points for the present time. In what we have written our object has been to draw men's minds from party squabbles, to things of somewhat higher importance. We would not undervalue what we trust may prove a great deliverance; but we strongly feel, and desire earnestly

to impress on others, that the ultimate fate of Britain,-which all will admit to be still in suspense, depends in a far greater degree on the improvement of the Church, and the increase of spiritual life among the people, than on any possible combination of parties, or any contrivances of merely human legislation.

DISCOURSES UPON THE POWERS OF THE CLERGY; Prayers for the Dead; and the Lord's Supper. Preached at the Temple Church, by CHRISTOPHER BENSON, M.A., Master of the Temple. London: Parker. 1841.

LIKE all other persons engaged in the conduct of a periodical, we are perpetually reminded of the fable of the Old Man and his Ass. Scarcely a point of detail can be named, on which we do not receive the most opposite counsel; scarcely a step can we take without meeting with reproof and applause, and both offered, from different quarters, at the same moment of time. Some wish for "more copious extracts from the works reviewed;" others, "larger original discussions, with less of minute details of this or that particular book." Some thank us for pointing out errors in the conduct of a Religious Society; others, in a most extraordinary tone, almost treat us as criminals for having ventured to suggest a doubt of the said Society's infallibility! We would desire to avoid a self-sufficient and dogmatical spirit; but to one class of advisers we would respectfully remark, that we have many differing tastes to take into our account; while to the other we must observe, that if we were required to conduct this periodical on the condition of approving everything that is done by every "Religious" society in London, we would not issue another number!

It appears to us obviously desirable to deal with different topics and different authors in different ways. In the last article we discussed a subject;-in the present we intend to give an account of a book. And the book before us is one of such intrinsic value; it is written by one who so thoroughly understands, and so admirably expresses, what he means to say, that we entirely believe that the best and most satisfactory account we can give, will be by letting the author speak for himself.

Mr. Benson is one, and perhaps nearly at the head, of a class of divines, who are not, possibly, very numerous, but who are exceedingly valuable. Numerous, in fact, they can hardly be, for, unreasonable

as it may seem, we can scarcely help ranking talent among the characteristics of this class. Among its members we should reckon such men as the Bishop of Chester, Archdeacon Hare, and several of the most eminent of the Irish clergy; who, without being in the line of "succession" to the Romaines and Newtons and Scotts of former days; and without having sought or incurred, at least at their first entrance on the ministry, the distinction or the stigma conferred by the term "Evangelical," have yet, each for himself, read, and thought, and prayed, until the tone and character of his ministry, without being impressed by mortal hand, came to be that which fully and honestly agrees with the standard laid down by the Church of England in her thirty-nine articles. We earnestly desire that this "school" may increase; and we do so because it has no human head or master. All history proves, and the annals of our own Church as clearly as any other, that the tendency of all human systems, and schools, and parties, is to deteriorate. We look, therefore, with the greater anxiety for new effusions of divine influence; for fresh uprisings of men who can say, with the apostle, though in a lower and restricted sense, "I neither re"ceived it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation "of Jesus Christ.'

The work now before us will form, with its predecessor, a seemly and most precious volume. The first publication of these "Temple Discourses," On Tradition and Episcopacy,-is already in its third edition, and will live at least as long, we will venture to say, as the errors which it is designed to correct shall continue to trouble the Church. The present continues the course, by prosecuting the inquiry into the validity of those high pretensions now advanced by some of the clergy of our Church, to exercise what they term "the power of the keys,' and to "possess the sole power of making the body and blood of Christ."

In the first of Mr. Benson's present discourses, he considers the text, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: "and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in hea"ven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed "in heaven." (Matt. xvi. 19.)

"By some," says Mr. B., "it is held that these words were spoken to St. Peter as the representative of the apostolic body, and so the type of the Christian ministry throughout all succeeding ages. It is consequently argued, that the episcopal clergy at large are to be regarded as heirs of the same promise and possessors of the same power of the keys.

"But why should we ascribe this representative character to the Apostle in the present case? In answer to this question we are referred to the peculiar position which St. Peter on so many occasions occupied, and to the remarkable manner in which he so frequently spoke and acted. But it does

not follow from this, that we are bound to attach any deeper meaning to every thing he said and did than we should at first sight conceive to belong to them. Still less does it authorise us to resolve that deeper meaning into his being at all times, and consequently also in the present instance, the exact type of Christ's legitimate ministers.

66

For what is it that the Gospels tell us of Simon? Sometimes they record the superior strength, and at others the greater weakness of his faith. They speak sometimes of his being honoured, together with a few of his fellowdisciples; sometimes of his being honoured alone and above them all. They mention the severer reproof, as well as the higher commendations, which he received from his and our most gracious Lord. They relate how his zeal led him to promise far more of fidelity to his Divine Master, and also how his infirmity caused him to fall into a far more shameful denial of that Master, than the rest of his brethren. We read not only of the gracious declaration with which his confession of the divine sonship of Jesus was recompensed, but of the solemn prediction of his fall, called down by the presumption of his boasted firmness. They give to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but they give to him also the appellation of Satan, and accuse him of a carnal mind.

"From a survey of all these particulars it is clear, that Peter was, on many occasions, the most prominent of the Apostles both in what was right and what was wrong. In a word, his character was marked by several peculiarities; a fact which, instead of constituting him the general representative of the rest of the Apostles, would seem more especially and personally to distinguish and separate him from them all, both by his excellences and defects.

"If the general tenor of St. Peter's conduct does not make it necessary to consider that in every address to him from our Lord we are to look on what was said to him as applicable also to every other minister of the Gospel, neither do the circumstances of this particular address give it a claim to be locked upon in that light.

66 The circumstances were these. When our Lord came into the coasts of Cæsarea-Philippi, he asked his disciples this question, Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.' The question here was addressed to them all. Upon this general reply our Lord proceeded to inquire into their own opinion, and said, ' But whom say ye that I am?' This question was as general as the other; but it produced a very different result. To this inquiry none gave answer save one. All allusion to the rest of the Apostles is now dropped by the Evangelist, and St. Peter alone is brought forward, as giving the reply, and saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' This is all that he is represented to have said. Not one word is added which has a tendency to convey the idea that he spoke for others, or in their name, or even to imply that the rest of the Apostles had so much firmness or clearness of faith as to unite in the expression of the same creed. Yet upon other and less important occasions it is the habit of the Evangelists especially to notice this circumstance. So when Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter said, and they that were with him said also, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?-Luke viii. 45. So again, when St. Peter vowed never to forsake his Master, we are told by this very same Evangelist, St. Matthew, that the other Apostles made a similar vow. Peter said to Jesus, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said all the disciples.-Chap. xxvi. 35. But there is nothing of the kind added here. There is, on the contrary, a marked and sudden change in the form of the reply, from the plural, they said,' as applied to the Apostles in general, to the singular, he said,' as confined to St. Peter in particular. We are thus led naturally, and almost inevitably, to infer, that

the confession belonged exclusively to him, and are not authorized to include the other Apostles in the answer he made.

"In confirmation of this view, we find that the blessing with which our Lord rewarded the confession was as strictly confined to St. Peter as the confession itself. For Jesus answered and said, not, blessed are ye, but 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona.' This commendation is made pre-eminently personal, not only by being framed in a singular number, but by the special addition of his name and parentage. Simon, the son of Jona, is the person designated; and the exclusive application of the blessing to him is established by the reason so pointedly assigned for it, Blessed are thou... for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' If the same clear revelation of Christ's sonship had been made to all the Apostles-if all had received the revelation with the same assurance of faith, and made, through Peter, the same full acknowledgment of their creed-is it consistent with the usual kindness of our Lord, and his desire to render to every one his due praise, that, instead of including them all in his blessing, he should single out St. Peter alone? But more especially, is it not singular, if such were the case, that he should have singled him out in a manner so marked that every unprejudiced reader is, at first sight, led to consider him as the individual who, having exclusively proclaimed his faith, was exclusively commended for the openness of his declaration?

"But if this be so-if the faith and the commendation belonged to Peter alone-then must the gift of the keys, and the authority to bind and to loose, be subjected, so far as this passage is concerned, to an equally limited interpretation. For the promise of these things is inalienably attached to the blessing, and can be referred to none but him upon whom the blessing was pronounced. In a word, there is not in the narrative itself the smallest hint that Peter spake in the name of his brethren. On the contrary, there is much to lead to the conclusion that he spake only for himself, in his more abundant zeal, and that, out of the fulness of his own convictions, and the energy of his own native character, he uttered that which the rest of the Apostles wanted either conviction of mind or sufficient warmth of feeling to proclaim. As pre-eminent above his fellows in these qualities, Peter was, therefore, pre-eminently rewarded with praises and personal privileges from his Lord.

"This opinion will be strengthened as we proceed to examine what follows in the chapter. We there read that, immediately after the divine dignity of our Lord had been thus confessed by Peter and acknowledged by himself, he then turned once more to the disciples in general, and commanded them not to make his character as the Messiah known:-Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.' This would not surely have been thus spoken had all that went before, and was addressed to Peter, been addressed to them all in his name. There would then have

been no necessity for any change in the form of our Lord's language. It would have been enough, and have been more natural and proper, to have continued the discourse to Peter as the representative of his brethren, and to have commanded him, and consequently his brethren in him, not to tell others what he had confessed.

"The Evangelist goes on in the next verse to inform us, that Jesus now thought fit to prepare the Apostles' minds for his sufferings and death. 'From that time forth he began to show unto his disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and raised again the third day.' And here the forwardness of Peter led him a second time to interpose his own opinion, and to state what he thought it became Jesus, as the Messiah, to do. So he took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not happen unto thee. But Jesus turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of man.'