DEBARY'S HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

A History of the Church of England from the Accession of James II. to the Rise of the Bangorian Controversy in 1717. By the Rev. THOMAS DEBARY, M.A. London: Bell and Daldy.

THIS is not the first time of late years, that an attempt has been made to sketch the fortunes of the Church of England between two great epochs in her history-the Accession of William III. and the silencing Convocation by George I. They are indeed two great and important epochs, for they mark her permanent coming under the influence of foreign Protestantism, and its natural and legitimate results. But the attempt has not been very successful. The compilers have put together historical facts of the period, and gone over the ofttrodden ground of James's flight and William's deprivation of Sancroft and his suffragans; have sketched over again the position of the nonjurors and repeated the oft told story of Whiston and Hoadly; but we are as far as ever from any real history of the Church of England during that period. We want to know something of her internal history; not merely the names of her Bishops, but how they ruled their dioceses; not simply a record of the assemblings and prorogations of her Convocations, but how the clergy who composed the Lower House carried themselves in their cures; whether they possessed as a body the confidence and affection of their parishioners; whether the rules of the Church were generally observed, festivals kept, daily services said, Holy Communion celebrated with greater frequency than now, or the reverse. Interesting questions too occur connected with the social position of the priesthood, and their gradual rise from the low esteem in which the country clergy especially were held, to the recognized position in society which the same class holds now. These and many similar questions which will occur to the reader's mind have yet to be settled, and Mr. Debary in our opinion would have done much better had he tried to present us with a picture of the inner life of the Church during this period, than by adding another to the numerous compilations of her external history.

And some how or other it comes to pass that dulness seems inseparable from every attempt with which we have met to illustrate this period of history. Its importance cannot be denied. The Church entered upon new relations to the State, or rather the State won a victory over her, the effects of which are felt up to this day, for the Church has never been able to carry herself in so independent a manner as formerly, since the Revolution of 1688. The policy of Henry VIII. bare its fruits

then, and every succeeding year can only bear its witness to the consummate skill with which that monarch forged and riveted the chains on the spirituality. There is not a rivet loose, though they are three hundred years old. But important as the Revolution of 1688 was, and apt disciple as the Dutch usurper showed himself in the school of Henry, and connected as the Reformation and Revolution epochs are, yet the interest attaching to the latter by no means equals that of the former. There is an atmosphere of dulness inseparable we believe from the period, and we are sorry we cannot say Mr. Debary is exempt from the epidemic which pervades all attempts at Church History between 1688 and 1715. The very names of William III., Queen Anne, and George I., are sufficient to set us yawning.

We will now note one or two points which we should like to see more carefully handled in any future history of this period. If there was one man who more than any other thoroughly entered into the spirit of the age in which he lived, and in turn influenced the age itself, whose views of the Church and Church government have become a text book among Whig politicians, and who may be justly regarded as the father of the Latitudinarian and Erastian school, it is Gilbert Burnet. No one who pretends to write the history of the times can pass him by without notice, but we imagine his life is yet to be written, and the influence he exercised in matters affecting the Church brought to light. Clever, active, bustling man as he was, and far superior in intellect to his colleagues, he must have told upon them. Burnet was, we know, at the bottom of the "Comprehension Scheme," and would willingly have allowed Parliament to have interfered with the most spiritual functions of the Church, ignoring altogether Convocation. Burnet was the advocate of recognizing the so-called orders of the Foreign Protestants. Burnet had no hesitation in communicating in the so-called churches of Holland and Geneva. Add to this his reputation as an historian, and we shall see how far more than men who occupied more prominent positions he has influenced the after current of English theology. Mr. Debary is alive to the important part he played, but we wish he had gone into the matter more at length than he has done in the following extract.

"He [Burnet] died March 17th, 1714-15, in the seventy-second year of his age, of a pleuritic fever, and was buried near the communion table in Clerkenwell Church. The popular High Church feeling (on that occasion), which had not yet entirely succumbed to the altered state of public affairs, was exhibited in the rude treatment which was shown by the rabble to the hearse conveying the Bishop's remains. Stones were thrown at it; and the windows of the carriages which conveyed the mourners were broken. But this disgraceful conduct must be set down as a sign of the times rather than any indication of the general estimate in which Burnet was held. He was a man of varied and

great parts; and his opinions on many subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, have certainly exercised an influence upon his countrymen, even to the present times. In the Conclusion' to his History of his Own Time, which, on the whole is written in a spirit superior to the work itself, we have a fair summary of his political and ecclesiastical creed: and although he did not always exemplify his own doctrines, his moral sentiments are unexceptionable. He was opposed to enforcing subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, thinking that the integrity of the Church might better be preserved by penal statutes, and always having been himself a great advocate of comprehension. Although he highly esteemed the Liturgy of the Church of England, he thought it would have been improved by the adoption of the changes suggested by the Committee of Divines in 1689. He was for leaving out the Cross at baptism; laying aside the surplice; and suppressing, in some degree, the choral services in cathedrals. He was greatly in favour of that which it has been reserved for our day to witness, the erection of a Court of Probate and Divorce, having imbibed his sentiments, no doubt, upon this subject, from those lax communities with which he was familiar, both in Scotland and Holland. He was of opinion that, since auricular confession was not tolerated amongst Protestants, the clergy should have some other means of enforcing Church discipline, the neglect of which he deeply lamented. Although he condemned separation from the National Church, his views on the subject of Toleration were of the most liberal nature. Popery, as the reader may have already discovered, was, in his estimation, the one great source of all religious discord and evil. He recommended the clergy to acquire a thorough mastery of the controversies on Popish Infallibility and Transubstantiation. His general views upon the discharge of the pastoral office were sound and excellent, although he thought the clergy of the Church of England less eminent for zeal than any other clergy in the world. The zeal of such men as Dodwell, and High Churchmen generally, he regarded as a subtle poison, which would, unless restrained, entirely alienate the affections of the laity. Thus, no earnestness, but such as was after his own model, was the least esteemed by him. His general remarks on the Episcopal office are very sound; yet no prelates ever violated them so much as some of his own school. verely condemned a time-serving carriage in the House of Lords. He recommended that Bishops should aim at simplicity of living; should be fonder of residing in their respective dioceses than in the metropolis; and he condemned all self-seeking and worldly ambition in their families."-Pp. 461--463.

He se

We may observe in passing, the family likeness in many points which exists between Scotch Bishops at all times.

Nor did the principles established by the Revolution receive any material check from the Church reaction under Queen Anne. This is again-we mean the revival of Church feeling under Queen Anne-a subject we do not remember to have seen adequately treated. It was short-lived, it is true, and absurd also in some of its developments, e. g., the popularity of Sacheverell, nevertheless

it was real, and much was done. Anne, though her faults were many, we believe really loved the Church, and not only exercised self-denying liberality in its favour, but used the powers committed to her for its well-being conscientiously and justly. Church building received an impulse-schools were set on foot-prayers said daily-communion celebrated more frequently than had hitherto been the case. Church feeling was strong enough to upset a ministry, and to procure for Convocation greater licence and authority than had been conceded during the late reign. Had the queen lived longer it may be hoped that the movement would have struck its roots deeper. But the accession of George I. at once threw things back, and the Court influence in England since the Reformation has always told in an extraordinary degree upon the Church.

Another point on which we should like to know more is the opportunity which seems to have occurred in Queen Anne's reign of conveying the gift of the Episcopate to Prussia. It is doubtless one of the many marks of God's Providence over the Church of England, that the scheme miscarried. Tenison, for some reason or other, threw cold water over it. There have not been many Archbishops to whom we would voluntarily have entrusted such a delicate commission as negotiations with a foreign body, as to the terms on which they were to be admitted to the Communion of the Catholic Church, and certainly Tenison is not among the number. The Prussian monarch, however, seems to have been in earnest, for he renewed the negotiation with Archbishop Sharp of York, after the failure with Tenison, though political combinations rendered him eventually cooler on the subject.

"The Lower House of Convocation appears at this time, by a paper which they drew up with a view to presentation to the Upper House, to have turned their attention to a subject of much interest, the introduction of Episcopacy into some of the foreign Protestant churches, which was brought to their notice more particularly by the state of the Church in Prussia; and there is no question that an admirable opportunity of introducing what we are fond of calling our Apostolical form of Church government into that country, was allowed at this period to escape us.

"The Elector of Brandenburgh had in 1701 proclaimed himself King of Prussia, under the title of Frederick I., and concurrently with his new kingdom he was disposed to have established an episcopal hierarchy. He had recourse to a very uncanonical proceeding in the first step he took to further this object. He gave the title of Bishop to two of the chiefs of his clergy. The Prussian Church was at that time divided into Lutherans, and what were called Reformed, and one from each of these bodies was selected for this honour; at first, apparently, only with the view of adding éclat to his coronation: however, he was afterwards anxious to make this subserve to the union of the Lutherans and the Reformed, and the introduction of a common Liturgy and Episcopacy. The King,

who was married to the daughter of the Princess Sophia, the heir to the English throne, had a great esteem for the English nation and the Church of England, having been favourably impressed respecting the constitution of the Church by his Chaplain, Dr. Daniel Ernestus Jablonski, superintendent of the Protestant Church in Poland. Jablonski had been in England and at Oxford, and had formed his opinions of the merits of the English Church from personal observation. The King therefore commissioned Jablonski, and Ursinus, one of the bishops alluded to above, to move in the matter. The English Liturgy was first of all translated into German, and Dr. Ursinus was desired to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and acquaint him with what had already been done, and also to inform his Grace that it was the King's intention to commence the Liturgy in his chapel on the first Sunday in Advent. Together with this letter were sent two copies of the German translation of the English Liturgy-one for Queen Anne, the other for the Archbishop. The King also expressed a wish that a general correspondence should be opened between the Prussian Churches and the Church of England, with a view of eliciting the most feasible scheme for the furtherance of the end in view. The copy of the Liturgy translated into German, transmitted to the Queen, was duly acknowledged by Lord Raby, the English minister at Berlin, and thanks were returned both to the King and Ursinus; but not the slightest notice was taken by Tenison of the copy or of the letter, supposed to have been delivered to him. The Archbishop_afterwards declared that he had never received the communications of Dr. Ursinus. They doubtless miscarried, but it is scarcely possible to believe that Tenison (remembering the late address of the Upper House of Convocation to the Queen) could have been ignorant of the friendly disposition of the King and these Prussian divines to our Church. It was on account of his unfortunate silence that the King of Prussia grew cool about this scheme, and suffered it to drop.

"There is too much reason to suppose that Tenison was silent and indifferent from political considerations. Anomalies, no doubt, existed, in the state of the Prussian Church, which might have made it difficult to assimilate that Church to our own in doctrine and discipline; but the experiment was well worthy of attempt. Time might have perfected what at first was irregular. A further correspondence on the subject took place some years afterwards, between Dr. Sharp, Archbishop of York, and Jablonski, to which allusion will be made hereafter."Pp. 371-373.

"Another subject, of which some notice might have been earlier given, was the renewal of the correspondence between the Prussian and English divines upon the feasibility of introducing the English Liturgy into Prussia. As Tenison had failed to interest himself in the matter, the overtures which proceeded from Prussia were addressed to the Archbishop of York. Sharp was, from every inclination of his mind, much better fitted to consider these proposals than his brother Archbishop. He was, with respect to the discipline and Liturgy of the Church of England, quite an optimist, and he enjoyed a much readier access to Queen Anne than Tenison did. Moreover it was thought that the pre