with whom it is evident he has at heart more sympathy than he has for a large and influential party in his own Church."-(Close, pp. 29-30.)

Can anything be less unfair than to judge of those who remain by those who are gone?-or less unfair than to judge of Mr. Gresley by Dr. Hook, or Dr. Hook by Mr. Newman. Granted, that they sympathized at one time, must they sympathize always?—or is it absolutely necessary that sympathy must go on when circumstances alter? If so, how is it that Lord George Bentinck opposes the present Government, or those noble members of the Upper House who formerly supported Ministers with a zeal in no way inferior to that which they now evince in opposition? It is about as fair as it would be to charge Mr. Close with the indiscretions of the extreme section of his own party when he himself repudiates them. Mr. Gresley has not been guilty of anything like that, and Mr. Close ought not to have been guilty of the insinuations we are noticing, unless he wished, as he appears, to have a monopoly of unfairness and abuse.

Mr. Gresley has spoken strongly enough and exposed that which he conceived to be grossly dishonest; and he may have gone to a needless extent in using the word "Puritans;" but he abuses no man, and charges no one unfairly, with harbouring doctrines that are inconsistent with his avowals. He has taken the extreme section of a party, and argued as if the party all had the same view: he has no where said that those who deny that view are not to be believed in their denial. Those who do not go to that extent were allowed to deny it; and Mr. Close has come forward to do so "for self and friends;" but, as Mr. Gresley probably foresaw, he has but got out of the frying-pan into the fire. His plea is admissible, so far as it is negative of extreme views; but it is not admissible as a negation of heresy, for it proves the very point that it should have denied, were it to be taken for that purpose.

We have not to deal with the question of more or less, but with that of truth or error; and it is because there is the most palpable error in Mr. Close's doctrine that we speak out. No arguments will ever persuade us that it is right to condemn one man's error and to allow another's to pass unnoticed; and, in the instance before us, there is nothing to amount to an exception to the rule upon which our conviction proceeds. Nay, we think it is more than usually necessary that an accurate judicial investigation should be instituted into the tenets of any that may be supposed to be in error, since such investigations have already commenced. If all had been left alone, it might be a question whether we should now plunge the

Church into difficulty by urging the adoption of legal proceedings against any. But the Church will, under existing circumstances, be compromised if she be silent. Having taken up the business of correcting error she must go on, or she will adopt into her system all those errors she does not repudiate. Having punished some she must punish others, or she will be convicting herself of unfairness towards those she has punished. She must, at least, make examples in every class; and those who come forward as the champions of several sections are the most proper persons to select for that purpose.

We have not altered our opinions of Mr. Ward and Mr. Oakeley, or of those other gentlemen who seceded from the Church without so near an approach to expulsion: neither do we think it at all probable that we ever shall; but we cannot think it right that the doctrine of the Church should be set at nought by others, simply because those others were not Romanizers. If the Church be injured by the admission of erroneous doctrine, and morality be infringed by the dishonest occupation of places of trust by persons who are not what they pretend to be, we should like to see our rulers at work, in the repression of the one and in the expulsion of the other, in as short time as possible. If, from any respect of persons either on the one side or the other, or from any fear of the number that may be involved, the authorities of the Church do not act, it is idle to talk of doctrine or discipline-we shall have, henceforth, neither the one nor the other.

66

It may be said, indeed, that, as all of the Romanizing party were not brought into court, some who hold erroneous doctrines have been allowed to escape; and if some have, why not others ? But this is easily answered-the principle claimed has been solemnly repudiated-and this is sufficient for the present: others have been satisfied that they were wrong by the judgments pronounced, and have voluntarily gone over;" if, in time, all do not, such as may be detected in error will be expelled: but the principle of the extreme opposite party has not been adjudicated upon-as yet no example is made-as yet, therefore, nothing is done to free the Church of their presence. It was believed, at one time, that a large party existed who denied the doctrines of the Church and yet held office in it; and so it was thought necessary that something should be done to get rid of this anomaly; and now that doctrines which are, at least, equally erroneous are avowed on behalf of another and much larger party, who are quite as tenacious of their places, it is absolutely necessary to

VOL. XX.-0

go on, unless their number is to be taken to decide the matter, which we cannot allow.

There are very many estimable men, no doubt, in the party of which we are now speaking-men whose feelings or whose prospects we would not unnecessarily injure; but there are very many estimable men also among Dissenters, whom we take care to exclude; and why are these to be excluded, if the party we have spoken of be retained? There may be differences in the detail of the doctrines they advocate, but the principle they advocate is the same: as Mr. Ward would say, it is altogether "outrageous" to think of it: either we must admit those who are now excluded, or exclude those that are at present in the Church with no better title; otherwise, we shall not only become the laughing-stock of the world but pronounce our own condemnation.

While all was quiet, and no one made a display of his tenets, much as it was to be lamented if there was in any of our ministers want of allegiance to the Church, it was, comparatively speaking, a matter of little importance; but now that the stillness of the Church has been broken in upon, and men are set upon the open advocacy of their opinions, without regarding, for one moment, either the authority of the Church or the peculiarity of their position, it is necessary that we should act, and act promptly. It is like a fire, which we may be excused if we do not observe while it slumbers in a corner, but which the general danger demands that we should extinguish as soon as it breaks out; and we cannot refuse our attention to it without criminality. But it is worse than any such mere temporal calamity, as it destroys the integrity of the Church and endangers souls. Any argument, therefore, that may be derived from the case to which it is analogous must be carried out to a larger extent, and not be allowed to be contracted. Contraction and, much more, negation are out of the question: if, in the case of fire, we must put it out if possible, or in some way secure the neighbourhood, much more, in the case of heresy, we must put it out, or secure the Church we have no alternative-that is the only course we can pursue; circumstances force it upon us.

We have read both of these pamphlets with great care-one of them with great sorrow, as we consider it to be not only indicative of the presence of a most subtle heresy in the Church, but also of an attempt to inflame prejudices to cover it. We need hardly say we allude to the pamphlet of Mr. Close, the heretical part of which we have set before our readers, and with the otherwise objectionable part of which we

might fill volumes.

But we do not want to dwell upon mere matters of taste: our care is about the doctrine and the Church. Our purpose now is not to defend Mr. Gresley-he is very well able to do that office for himself, and we are satisfied that he is more than a match for his opponent-but to put the matter before the Church in its most important light, and to urge upon the consideration of the friends of the Church the necessity of the adoption of even-handed justice.

If it was right to suspend Mr. Oakeley and to degrade Mr. Ward-and of that we neither have doubted nor do doubt-it must be right to bring Mr. Close's pamphlet before some authorized tribunal; otherwise we shall be attempting to keep out ubiquitous evils by one-sided measures-an attempt which will utterly fail us. The Church cannot, under existing circumstances, rest without the repudiation of heresy, wherever it may be found to arise; and we must not be afraid to repudiate it, even though it should spring from the foes of Rome and come to us immediately from Geneva. In running away from one we must not throw ourselves into the arms of the other-that would be a very sad error.

ART. X.—AIOKAAYVIE: or, The Revelation of Jesus Christ Minutely Interpreted and Considered, in Relation to the Church's Expectation of the Nearness of the Lord's Appearing and Kingdom. By the Rev. JOHN HOOPER, Rector of Albury, Surrey; Author of "The Ecclesia," &c., London: Painter. 1846.

THE last of the books of Scripture is that portion of the sacred volume which has met with the most unequal treatment from the Church, having been in some ages omitted from the canon, and at other times held in peculiar veneration; and, amongst those who have regarded it with the greatest reverence, there are to be found almost as many different systems of interpretation as there are interpreters. Moreover, many of those who hold the Apocalypse in reverence, and mean to treat it with honour in their interpretations, are so inconsistent in the application of their own system, or so blend it with other inconsistent systems, as to arrive at conclusions the fallacy of which they would perceive if based on any other book of Scripture-having been misled by loose applications of the symbols in the Apocalypse, forgetting that the very purpose for which symbols are introduced is to give greater

precision, and to bind us down to the reality by another sense, and body forth the coming events in visible form, as well as describe them in explicit terms.

The Apocalypse, as one of the sacred books, requires the same critical knowledge of language, the same just appreciation of sound doctrine, the same steadfast abiding in the orthodox faith, in the man who would correctly interpret it as in arriving at the true meaning of any other book of Scripture; but, being a symbolical book, it also requires strict attention to this peculiar this additional element, which does not run counter to or supersede the general principles of interpretation common to all the books of Scripture, but, retaining all these, contains, in addition, the symbolical principle to give greater clearness and force to the instruction conveyed.

We must assume the Apocalypse to be that which it professes to be, and therefore that it is intended to forewarn and forearm the Church by showing her the things which would shortly come to pass: but, being meant for all generations of the Church, instruction is conveyed to those who lived at the time when the revelation was given, and is meant for us, also, who live so much nearer the end of time: for all are expected to watch and to be prepared for the coming of the Lord, who saith, “ Behold, I come quickly and iny reward is with me, to give to every man according as his work shall be." This instruction it may seem possible to impart, either by narrating the order of events in regular sequence or by symbols, representing, in living pictures, the chief incidents which would arise and the course of action which would be pursued. It is obvious that a narrative of the regular succession of events could only be clear and intelligible where these events were of a connected character, and proceeded in orderly sequence; but that jarring elements of any kind, and above all those which involved contingencies-where one course of conduct would lead to one result, another course of conduct would lead to a widely different result-instruction to meet such contingencies could only be given through symbols.

The Church for whose use the instruction was intended kept not an uniform course, and the enemies with which she had to contend were of many kinds, and her prosperity or adversity would depend upon the steadfastness with which she might keep the faith, and so receive continual blessing from God; or the loss of faith, whereby she would lose also the favour of God and become a prey to those who are, at the same time, both his enemies and her own. Christ, in warning the disciples concerning the coming judgments, and the course