REVIEWS.

The Kingdom of Christ Delineated, in Two Essays on our Lord's own Account of his Person, and of the Nature of his Kingdom, and on the Constitution, Powers, and Ministry of a Christian Church, as appointed by Himself. By Richard Whately, D,D., Archbishop of Dublin. 8vo. London: Fellowes.

Is it possible that these Essays can emanate from a dignitary of that church in which such men as Blomfield and Maltby occupy episcopal thrones? Where the Bishop of London thunders in our ears, the doctrines of baptismal regeneration, apostolical succession, and the Divine right of episcopacy; and where, at the same moment, his bland and gentle brother of Durham describes dissenting ministers as "Motley and mongrel predicants, centaurs in the church, half clericks, and half laicks, the by-blows of the clergy, unordained, unblessed, untried, unclean spirits, whose calling, commission, and tenure, depends on popularity, flattery, and beggary; whose excellency consists in tautologizing and praying extempore, that is, out of all time, restraint, order, or method, being eminent in nothing above the plebeian pitch and vulgar proportion,"-this, and a great deal more in the same elegant style and Christian meekness of spirit, we have ex-cathedra from this 'Prince and Prelate," in his sermon on "Itinerant Preachers and Haranguers in Private Houses."

"

In these exhibitions of true church-of-Englandism, we have the doctrines of Rome without her consistency-her intolerance, without her plea of infallibility. And is it in this church that Archbishop Whately proclaims the kingdom of Christ, and maintains principles, and breathes a spirit worthy of the purest age of Christianity? It is even so. We state. the fact, and leave the author to satisfy his reverend and right reverend brethren that his views sustain and have no tendency to subvert the constitution of their church as by law established. We are willing to bring Congregationalism to the test of Archbishop Whately's anti-church principles, and to adopt his reasoning in justification of our dissent. We are not surprised that, though for twelve years he has in various publications avowed and expounded the principles which he has more fully developed in the Essays before us, that he should have had none to answer him. We believe there is not a high churchman among them all, whether clergy or laity, that dares venture upon the task. The thought has sometimes passed through our minds, that a dissenter might fairly call upon his Grace to reconcile his principles with his position, the kingdom of Christ as he has portrayed it, and which is not of this

world, with the church of England, which emphatically is of the world. This, we think, would call into requisition both his logic and his rhetoric. For instance, as dissenters we cordially approve of every word that is contained in the following extract-were we churchmen, we think we should not be able to regard it with quite so much complacency.

"That the introduction into the Christian religion of sacrifices and sacrificing priests is utterly at variance with the whole system of the Gospel, and destructive of one of its most important characteristics; and again, that the implicit deference due to the declarations and precepts of Holy Scripture, is due to nothing else, and that it is not humble piety, but profane presumption, either to attribute infallibility to the traditions or decision of any uninspired man or body of men; (whether church, council, fathers, or by whatever other title designated ;) or, still more, to acknowledge in these, although fallible, a right to fix absolutely the interpretation of Scripture, to be blended therewith, and to supersede all private judgment.”—p. vii.

-“That to attempt the propagation or support of Gospel truth by secular force, or by establishing in behalf of Christians, as such, a monopoly of civil rights, is utterly at variance with the true character of Christ's kingdom, and with the teaching and practice of himself and his apostles; and that to attribute to them any such design, is to impugn their character not merely as inspired messengers from heaven, but even as sincere and upright men."-p. xi.

This citation is from the preface, and is a cheering prelude to the work itself, which for scriptural simplicity, clearness of statement, and force of reasoning, is every way worthy of the author's high reputation.

We know not, indeed, that we fully apprehend the archbishop's views, when he describes the kingdom of Christ as "a spiritual dominion over the souls of men"- a kingdom of the next world"-nor, perhaps, is it necessary for us here to pursue the inquiry-it is a spiritual kingdom upon earth-the Lord Jesus Christ is its only head-and the only source of spiritual influence by which it is supported and extended. His reign is personal though invisible-he is now invested, as mediator, with all power and rule in heaven and on earth and the period will arrive when that kingdom, which is now advancing, shall become universal-when there shall be "one Lord in all the earth, and his name one." All true Christian churches form portions of this kingdom-and altogether constitute it. This we suppose Dr. Whately will be ready to admit. The contents of the first essay will afford our readers a tolerably fair notion of its scope and design. Two or three quotations will illustrate the calm cogency of the writer, when elucidating a question or pressing an argument. Christ's own account of himself and of his kingdom at his two trials-his trial and condemnation by the Jewish council-Jesus the Son of God in a peculiar sense Christ charged with blasphemy, as claiming to be the Son of God, in a sense authorizing adoration-proofs that he was so understood-a Divine Messiah not expected by the Jews-proofs that the sense in which he was understood, was that which he designed-his testimony

concerning himself at his trial must have been true-his declarations concerning himself at his second trial, that before Pilate-sense in which his disclaimer of a kingdom of this world is to be understoodimpiety of attributing to him a hidden meaning-spiritual societies and secular not to be confounded-intolerance a natural accompaniment of insincerity-tolerance the fruit of Christian faith and knowledge. At the first trial, Jesus was accused of blasphemy-and he was condemned by the Jewish council, who yet did not possess the power of inflicting capital punishment; at his second trial he was charged with treason against the Roman emperor, and on his defence he was acquitted by Pilate. The Jews, however, insisted upon his death, and prevailedbecause they had a law, as they said, and according to that law he ought to die. He died for blasphemy, of which the Roman power ought to have taken no cognizance-of treason he was acquitted by that power which was bound to protect the interests of Cæsar. But Pilate found no fault in him. However clear this is as a matter of fact, there are churchmen who still adhere to the notion that our Lord was a martyr to his confession before Pilate. In Hetherington's History of the Church of Scotland, just published, the assertion is made, that it was for this "Christ was accused, condemned, and crucified."

The first part of the essay fully establishes the supreme dignity of Christ as the Son of God; the argument is ingeniously constructed, and the conclusion is of the greatest importance, as, "The whole question of Christ's Divine mission, and, consequently, of the truth of Christianity, turns on the claim, which, on that occasion, he so plainly appears to have made to Divine honour for himself." In the second part of the essay-which relates to our Lord's declaration concerning himself at his trial before Pilate, there is the amplest development of the great principle, that his kingdom is not of this world, but which the learned prelate has left his readers to apply or not as may best suit their interests or their prejudices. We recommend the whole to such lecturers on church establishments as Mr. M'Neile and Dr. Chalmers, and particularly the following passage:

"Much ingenuity has been expended, I must needs say, has been wasted, in drawing out from our Lord's expressions before Pilate, every sense that his words can be found capable of bearing; while a man of little or no ingenuity, but of plain good sense and sincerity of purpose, seeking in simplicity to learn what Jesus really did mean, can hardly, I should think, fail of that meaning, if he does but keep in mind the occasion on which he was speaking, and the sense in which he must have known that his language would be understood. The occasion on which he spoke was, when on his trial before a Roman governor for treason,-for a design to subvert, or in some way interfere with the established government. To this charge it is plain, Pilate understood him to plead not guilty, and gave credit to his plea. Pilate, therefore, must have taken the declaration, that Christ's kingdom is not of this world,' as amounting to a renunciation of all secular coercion,-all forcible measures on behalf of his religion. And we cannot, without imputing to our blessed Lord a fraudulent

evasion, suppose him to have really meant anything different from the sense which he knew his words conveyed. Such is the conclusion which I cannot but think any man must come to, who is not seeking, as in the interpretation of an act of parlia ment, for any sense most to his own purpose, that the words can be made to bear, however remote that may be from the known design of the legislature; but who, with reverential love, is seeking with simplicity and in earnest, to learn what is the description that Christ gave of his kingdom.

"But the ingenuity which has been, as I said before, wasted in trying to explain our Lord's words in some other way, has been called forth by a desire to escape some of the consequences which followed from taking them in their simple and obvious sense. Those who are seeking, not really to learn the true sense of our Lord's declarations, but to reconcile them with the conduct of some Christian states, and to justify the employment of secular force in behalf of religion, are driven to some ingenious special pleading on the words employed, in order to draw from them such a sense as may suit their own purpose.”—pp. 28—30.

Archbishop Whately goes into the marrow of the question, where he represents our Lord not only as asserting the spirituality of his kingdom, a kingdom not of this world," but as making his solemn and distinct renunciation of all intercourse with civil government, and by inference condemning, as utter impertinence, the interference of civil government with the affairs of his kingdom.

"In fact, the mere assertion of his spiritual dominion, and one extending beyond the grave, would have been at that time, and in reference to the charge brought against him, wholly irrelevant and foreign to the question. He was charged with 'speaking against Cæsar'-with making himself king in opposition to the Roman emperor. The Jews expected (as Pilate could hardly have been ignorant) a Christ who should be a heaven-sent 'king of the Jews,' professing both temporal and spiritual authority; a kingdom both of this world and of the next; for the great mass of the nation believed in a future state. Any man claiming to be such a king of the Jews, would evidently be an opponent of the Roman government. His spiritual pretensions the Romans did not concern themselves about. It was the assumption of temporal power that threatened danger to the Romans, and it was of this assumption that Jesus was accused. Did he not distinctly deny it? There was no question about the rewards and punishments of another world. The question was, whether he did or did not design to claim for himself, or his followers, as such, any kind of secular empire could any words have disclaimed it more strongly than those he used? And can any one in his senses seriously believe, that when Jesus said 'my kingdom is not of this world,' he meant to be understood as saying, that his kingdom was not only of this world, but of the next world too?'-pp. 31, 32.

What presbyter of nonconformity could express himself more candidly against any alliance between civil and ecclesiastical power, because of the necessary consequence, monopoly and coercion, than the Archbishop of Dublin, in the first note of the appendix to these Essays?-We agree with him that there ought to be a monopoly, as it regards the government of the church; none ought to rule in it who are not members of it. But on the subject of coercion, we think his remarks of pre-eminent importance, for they cut at the root of all state legislation in the church of Christ.

"There are some, who, from want of the habit of attentive reflection, are with difficulty brought to perceive the unsoundness of any false principle, except when it is fully developed in practice, and produces, actually all the ill effects that it can consistently lead to. They cannot perceive which way a wind is blowing, unless it blows a perfect gale. They not merely know a tree only by its fruits, but except when it is actually bearing its fruits, and when it has brought them to the full perfection of poisonous maturity, they do not recognise the tree.

"This defect may often be observed in men's judgments in the employment of secular coercion in religious matters, with a view either to compel men to conform to the faith and mode of worship prescribed by the civil government, or to give more or less of political ascendancy, and monopoly of civil rights and power to those of a particular persuasion. To burn dissenters under the title of heretics—or to put them to a less cruel death--or to banish, fine, or imprison them-or to exclude from all, or from some, of the rights of citizens, and reduce more or less to the condition of vassals or Helots those who do not profess the religion which the state, as such, enjoins these are widely different, indeed, in respect of the actual amount of evil inflicted, or good denied to individuals; but the principle is in all these cases the same, viz., the assumed right of the secular government, as such, to interfere with men's conscience, and, consequently, (when the government calls itself Christian,) to make Christ's kingdom, so far, a kingdom of this world.' ”—p. 234.

The confused notions entertained by some respecting the duty of the civil magistrate, in regard to religion, Archbishop Whately has cleared away from every mind capable of thinking. Civil rulers are undoubtedly to govern their subjects on Christian principles, without assuming any authority either in or over the church. It is when they do not govern on Christian principles that they assume this authority. To the question-must not Christians, as legislators or civil magistrates, act on Christian principles-Dr. Whately replies:

"No doubt; but they would cease to act on Christian principles, if they should employ the coercive power of civil magistrates in the cause of Christianity—if they should not only take a part in civil affairs, but claim, as Christians, or as members of a particular church, a monopoly of civil rights? It is this, and this only, that tends to make Christ's kingdom a 'kingdom of this world.""-p. 40.

And in making the distinction between spiritual and secular societies, which forms an important branch of his subject, the archbishop supplies the following very apt illustration :—

"This is a distinction, which, in all other cases, is readily perceived by every man of common sense. For instance, there are many well-known societies in this, and in most other countries, which no one would call, in any degree, political societies; such as academies for the cultivation of mathematical and other sciences-agricultural societies-antiquarian societies, and the like; now, it would be reckoned silly even to ask respecting any one of these societies, whether the members of it were excluded from taking any part in civil affairs, and whether a magistrate or a legislator could be admitted as a member of it. Every one would see the absurdity of even entertaining any doubt on this point; and it would be reckoned no less silly to inquire whether the admission of such persons as members, constituted that academy a political society. It would at once be answered, that the society itself, and the members of it, as such, had nothing to do with political, but only with scientific matters;