tian convent once stood; and this plain, which is called Cappel, and lies on the frontiers of Zurich and Zug, soon beheld the approach of armies, once united under one banner, but now bearing fratricidal arms. This was in the year 1529. But the loving and much-respected Landamman Apply of Glarus stood like an angel of peace between the two armies, beseeching them with tears to refrain from dyeing their hands in each others' blood, and asking but a few hours' respite, as, under God's blessing, he still hoped to bring about an honourable peace.

Zwingli, who accompanied the Zurich forces as chaplain, looked sadly upon the good and zealous mediator. None knew better than he the kind intentions and earnest purpose of the Landamman; but there were others in the camp who combined the cunning of the fox with the voracity of the wolf. However, time was granted, and the troops encamped to await the issue of the negotiations.

During this first campaign, a little episode occurred which wipes away many of the blots which stain Swiss history, and plainly shows how deeply love of their brethren was rooted in the soldiers' hearts. The sentinels of both armies were placed so close to each other that they could converse. No sword had yet been drawn, but the harmless arrows of wit and jest flew swiftly to and fro. Presently the sentinels of Zug brought forward their white milk-pails to prepare their evening meal; but, alas! they had no bread to eat with it, for there was none to be found in these five unhappy cantons. The Zurich outposts had plenty of it, but no milk.

A bright thought flashed through the brain of one of the soldiers of Zug. "Let us," said he, "cross over, and allow ourselves to be made pri

soners; I know they will not hurt us, and we may prevail upon them to give us a morsel of bread." The proposal was received with a shout, and carried out at once. They were not mistaken! The Zurich sentinels. made them prisoners, but permitted them to pay their ransom-in milk! which they consented to do, on condition that the Zurichers should furnish bread sufficient to admit of their partaking together of a friendly meal of "milk soup." Very soon several pails of the richest milk were placed upon the landmark. The Zurich sentinels brought loaves on the points of their halberds, and the impromptu feast began.

"This is the boundary!" shouted one, drawing a line with his spoon across the thick cream; "you are not to cross it-neither shall we." "Agreed!" cried the rest; yet many a morsel was slyly ladled from the forbidden side, and many a rap on the knuckles, accompanied by shouts of mirth, punished the audacious trespasser. As they sat thus, eating like children of one family, sharing

one

common repast, the angel of peace might have looked for a moment with joy upon the scene-alas! too soon to veil again his face.

Had these troops but been governed by wise rulers, the spark of brotherly love still burning in their breasts might once more have been fanned into a generous flame; but it was not to be: and the hand which now dealt harmless blows in play, in a few years more was but too ready to bury the sword in his neighbour's heart.

The stratagem of the Catholic leaders succeeded. In vain did Zwingli warn and beseech;-pity for the distressed Catholics outweighed every motive of prudence, and blinded the eyes of the reformed rulers, so that they perceived not the cunning of their enemies. Peace

was concluded-but a peace which bore the germs of still greater dissensions, and Zwingli was sad at heart as he retired with his army. He saw farther; he knew that they had let slip a golden opportunity for settling the weightiest matters, and that henceforth words and pens could never suffice to unloose the gordian knot. That must be severed by the sword alone!

They had stripped the plant of rebellion of its leaves, but the root was left in the ground, soon to spring up again, and throw out stronger shoots. Sadly, like a vanquished general, Zwingli rode back to Zurich.

And now another and deeper sorrow overcast the heart of the brave reformer. Luther, the servant of the same master, the champion of the same king-Luther, who ought to have been one with him, was against him! His party opposed the reformed Swiss, and slandered their noble leader; whilst the Lord's Supper-that feast of love instituted by the Saviour to be a strong tie binding soul to soul-became the apple of strife and discord. And this at a time when it was of the utmost importance that the labourers in the cause of Christ should be united, for the whole world appeared arrayed against them.

The noble Philip of Hesse, whose upright soul yearned to see the two greatest men of his time working together hand in hand, invited Luther and Zwingli to a disputation at Marburg; and thither Zwingli accordingly repaired in October, 1529. There they met; there for

three days they argued together, whilst Zwingli employed every power of his great soul and loving heart to win over his stern antagonist, and to persuade him to make common cause with him. But all in vain! Zwingli's soul had caught the spirit of that freedom whereby Christ makes us free; he saw but the symbol, where Luther found the real body. Luther could not throw off all remnants of the monkish garb in which he had suffered so much; he would not part with it, although his more spiritual fellow-labourer besought him with tears!

"This is not signifies-the body of Christ," wrote Luther with chalk upon the table, and to this doctrine. he was determined to cling to the last. No proofs from Holy Scripture availed with him. Firmly as he had defended the cause of truth in every other point, he now advocated his error, and bitter words were his only answer to Zwingli's loving invitations to join him in holy brotherhood. No! Luther had no need of Zwingli's friendship. He preferred to stand afar off! he determinedly shut his eyes to the occasion for offence which this disunion would give the world; he would not see how it injured the cause of that Master for whom both were willing to lay down their lives. After three days, fraught with deep anguish, Zwingli returned almost brokenhearted-alas! only to meet with fresh trials, and, during the two remaining years of his short career, to drain the cup of bitterness to the dregs.

753

Case as to the Legal Force of the Judg. ment of the Privy Council In re Fendall v. Wilson. With the opinion of the Attorney-General and Sir Hugh Cairns. And a Preface to

them who love God and His truth. By the Rev. E. B. B. PUSEY, D. D. London: J. H. & J. Parker.

It must always be an occasion of deep sorrow to a Christian to find himself compelled to give up hope concerning a system to which he has turned as the means of upholding the truth of God amongst men, but it by no means follows that he proves himself entitled to the sympathy of bystanders when he has made the sad discovery. He may not only have hoped against hope, but against the most astounding array of facts; and his cherished dream may have appeared to all other people nothing better than a wilful delusion.

Such are our feelings in regard to Dr. Pusey's "Case, as to the Legal Force of the Judgment of the Privy Council in re Fendall v. Wilson, with a preface to them who love God and His truth." He is grieved, indignant, and astonished, that the Anglican Church can no longer speak her own mind, but is merely the echo of parliamentary and judicial decisions as to what may be taught by the clergy to the people of England. He has suddenly discovered what all Nonconformists have always proclaimed as a principal reason of their Nonconformity, that let Anglicans do what they will in Synod or Convocation, their decisions are worthless, and their projects cannot be carried into effect until ratified by the authority of the State. And his grief is rendered distressing and poignant, because he has also discovered that the State claims the right of defining for all legal purposes the meaning of the documents which it has endorsed, and to which it has given currency.

Hence this "Case" which we have read with due care, and with every wish to look at the several points raised in it through the eyes of Dr. Pusey, but which we have laid down with the conviction that it proves how unworthy of our sympathy is Dr. Pusey, as a clergyman of the Church of England.

The differences between Dr. Pusey and ourselves are most momentous in their nature and influence. We do not wish to disguise our solemn conviction, that he, and all others, who teach the doctrines associated with his name, mislead the souls of men. They say, "the Lord saith," when the Lord hath not spoken; and they would have us vacate our places at the feet of Jesus, that we may listen to the jargon of Councils, and accept their decisions as to what we should believe and do. We are not about to follow them, for we see that themselves being witnesses, we should have continually to account for our deviation from the plain meaning of the written Word of God. But our disbelief of their tenets only makes us feel the more anxious to do them justice, and to show them all possible consideration, short of calling bitter sweet, and sweet bitter.

"The Church is in danger" cries Dr. Pusey, and he intimates that this "will again be a strong rallying-cry." He calls upon Churchmen to "league themselves for the protection of the faith," and says, "the peril is not of some miserable temporal endowment, but of men's souls;" and-when we ask the reason why-he points us to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which he describes as "a court which has in principle declared God's Word not to be His Word, and eternity not to be eternity!" Of course our readers will observe those very convenient words "in principle," because, so far as words go, the Court has not de

clared anything of the sort. Its members have simply given judgment upon certain issues raised before them as the final Court of Appeal in Causes Ecclesiastical, and have decided adversely to those who hoped to obtain a penal sentence against two prosecuted clergymen. This is the head and front of their offending. Dr. Pusey would not have found any fault with them as a court if they had only decided the case as he wished his quarrel is caused by their pronouncing a judgment in directly the opposite sense. How can "those who love God and His truth" have sympathy with him, when it is manifest that he does not on principle object to the Court altogether?

:

6

"The Church is in danger," quoth he. In danger of what? Of losing her spiritual power? She bartered that away, when she became the ally of the State! It is nonsense for Dr. Pusey to try to make Englishmen believe that "the Church," as a spirituality, has had any inherent and recognized independence from the time of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth; for the ecclesiastical statutes of the realm, with which he is, beyond all doubt, familiar, settle the question. "The Church" has never had any inherent authority to frame "Articles of Religion," or Canons Ecclesiastical," from the time of its union with the State; but has obediently proceeded to do the bidding of its supreme head in both respects from time to time. There is no " danger," therefore, of its losing a spiritual power, which it surrendered in the hour that it became "the church established by law." For whatever pretensions to the exercise of "godly discipline" have since been made in the various ecclesiastical courts, have rested absolutely upon the will of the civil power, and have always been subject to the supervision and control of the courts of law, according to the theory and spirit of our constitution.

If, then, "the church" is not "in danger" in that respect, what is the danger" which has now overtaken it? Dr. Pusey says it is "not [the loss of] some miserable temporal endowment," though these words sound strangely in

our ears, as we recall the language used in recent times respecting the measures of Parliament and the Crown. We cannot but congratulate him, however, on having learnt the salutary lesson, that the revenues of "the Church" are an "endowment," and not the property of the Church. They are, therefore, subject in their very nature to the control of their civil ruler, and must be administered according to the trusts which are the condition of their use and enjoyment; so that any attempt to displace a clergyman from his benefice, and thereby deprive him of the emoluments assigned to it, resolves itself into a question of trust, upon which the civil magistrate must pronounce. It is ridiculous for men like Dr. Pusey to maintain that such a question should be determined by bishops,for the simple reason that neither bishops as such, nor bishops and clergy combined, finally settled the trusts upon which the revenues of "the Church" were assigned to their several offices and cures; these trusts were settled by the King, Lords, and Commons in Parlia ment assembled, and can therefore only be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law, or by a special court which King, Lords, and Commons may think fit to constitute for that purpose. The bishops have no more claim to jurisdiction in such matters than an equal number of cobblers would have. An "endowment" falls naturally under the control of judges learned in the law; and the settlement of causes which affected the rights of two clergymen to the "endowments" of their respective benefices, could not, therefore, involve "the Church in danger." The ecclesiastical legislation of the country has always involved that jurisdiction, and by no fair use of words could it be described as a new" danger" in our times.

Dr. Pusey falls into the very common error of confounding "the faith," as taught in the Holy Scriptures, with "the faith" defined in the Articles of his own communion. Now, it is quite possible that a man might hold and teach "the faith" of the Anglican Church, and by doing so deny "the faith" delivered unto the saints in the Scrip

tures. Dr. Pusey may be so far deluded by education and the associations of his life, as to think that Anglican doctrines are the doctrines taught in the Scriptures, and that to controvert or deny them is to "deny the faith" of God; but, by this time, he ought to have been undeceived.

The Judicial Committee

of Privy Council, like the Court of Arches, is not constituted a court to interpret Holy Scriptures, but simply to interpret the legal documents of the Church of England established by law, and to administer justice accordingly. For all that appears, it may be a matter of astonishment to the members of that Committee, that any clergyman should be able to persuade himself that the dogmas on which the judgment of the Court has been called for are scriptural; but that was not the point they were entitled to pronounce upon. In the sense, then, in which Dr. Pusey evidently intends his words to be taken, it is misleading to call the solemn and legal interpretation of the formularies of the Establishment "this Anti-Christian tyranny of the State," and to insinuate, in forgetfulness of what he had said, that it is not a question of some miserable endowment," that "the State will not withdraw the temporals of the Church from clergy who deny the faith." The Court has simply performed its duty in determining whether the clergymen arraigned at its bar had taught doctrines inconsistent with the formularies of the Anglican Church. Those formularies, to which Dr. Pusey has himself subscribed, may be, and we think are, a fearful engine of "anti-Christian tyranny

over the consciences of those who submit to them; but it is an abuse of language to call a legal interpretation of their meaning by any such name. We would have him remember that whatever be the teaching of the Scriptures, or the subjects embraced by those formularies which he has subscribed and pledged himself to use, he is bound to uphold the teaching of the formularies only; so that if it happened that the Scriptures pointed one way, and these legal documents another, he is voluntarily pledged to forsake the guidance of

the Scriptures and to follow the directions of the Church. May we not then fairly quote as applicable to himself and his brethren the words he uses of "those who, as he says, teach the people lies as to God, and preach another Jesus, who made no atonement for our sins, and another God, who will not punish," and brand his and their teaching alike, so far as it is merely Anglican and not scriptural, as "slaying the souls that should not die, by their lying to My people that hear their lies?" For Dr. Pusey knows that were he on his trial before any Ecclesiastical Court, to say nothing of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, the judge would refuse to listen to any defence of his doctrines as scriptural, and would tie him down to the proof that they were in accordance with the formularies of the Anglican Church. To be in subjection to such human compositions, is to be under "Anti-Christian tyranny indeed; and from our hearts we thank God that we allow no such documents to have "dominion over our faith."

But "the Church is in danger!" "Of what?" we ask again. But we will this time answer the question frankly for Dr. Pusey's information. Meaning by "the Church," the Anglican Establishment, we say it is" in danger" of discovering that "every attempt to require that the clergy should not deny what [in the opinion of Dr. Pusey and his party] they profess to God and man that they believe must throw open a fresh Article of the Creed." It is "in danger" of absorbing into its bosom all the speculative unbelievers of the country, for they will be able to minister at its altars, and to use its forms of worship, without troubling themselves with the inconvenient question of-What saith the Scriptures? It is "in danger" of receiving constant accessions from the ranks of nominal Nonconformity, in the persons of all those who wish to be the associates of the fashionable and the aristocratic, and who are impatient of the restraints of spiritual religion. It is "in danger" of becoming more arrogant, as it thus becomes more comprehensive in its sweep-more worldly, as it is the natural resort and congenial