potisms have been able to supply the masses fully and freely with necessaries, like water, unattainable by their own efforts. If freedom is to hold its place in the respect of the masses, it must shew an equal, if not a superior power for the common good. The inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem were plentifully supplied with water both from reservoirs and pipes. Those of Rome had a gratuitous supply several times as great, in proportion to the population, as that which is considered necessary for London. The Peruvian Incas constructed aqueducts of 120 and 150 leagues in length. In Spain, both the Moors and Romans have left traces of their power in the form of enormous aqueducts and reservoirs to supply cities insignificant in comparison of London. The canals of Semiramis, and those of Egypt, are world-famous. Assyria and Mesopotamia are intersected by the ruins of vast water-courses; and through great part of the East, even at this day, the inhabitants are supplied with fresh and pure water by the beneficent will of their despots. Surely a free country ought to be able to do more, not less. It remains for England to shew that her boasted civilisation and liberty has a practical power of self-development, which can meet and satisfy the wants of an increasing population, and cleanse from her fair face such plague-spots as we have been-not describing, for too many of them are past description, but-hinting at, as delicately as the nature of the subject will allow. Unless some practical proof is given to the suffering masses who inhabit our courts and alleys-one single savage and heathen tribe of them, the costermongers, numbering according to Mr. Mayhew, thirty thousand souls-that a constitutional government can secure more palpable benefits to the many than a tyranny; unless anarchy ceases to be considered identical with freedom, and human beings to be sacrificed to a proposition in a yet infant and tentative science, we must expect to see, in the course of events, a revulsion in favour of despotism, such as seized France when she raised Napoleon to the Empire; a revulsion which is more possible even in Britain, to judge by certain ugly signs on both extremes of the political horizon, than the pedants of "constitutionalism" are inclined to suppose.

And though these permitted evils should not avenge themselves by any political retribution, yet avenge themselves, if unredressed, they surely will. They affect masses too large, interests too serious, not to make themselves bitterly felt some day or other. "This is no question," as Mr. Mill well says, "of political economy, but of general policy:" we should go farther and say-of common right and justice. Therefore it is that we make no apology for any foul details through which we have led our readers. We only wish that we could shew them the

realities, amid which thousands of their fellow-subjects are born and die. It is right that "one half of the world should know how the other half live." Neither do we apologize for having made use of severe expressions of condemnation. Such questions as these, involving not merely profits, but health, sobriety, decency, life, are to be judged of not by the code or in the language of the market, but of the Bible. Acts concerning them are not merely expedient or inexpedient, fortunate or unfortunate, but right or wrong; the wrong may be excused by ignorance, but a wrong, and therefore a self-avenging act, it remains till amended. Even the hard and soft water controversy is not a mere matter of soap and tea expenditure, but of humanity and morality. As Hood said of the slop-sellers, so we say of the hard-water-and-animalcule-sellers,

"It's not trowsers and shirts

you 're wearing out; It's human creatures' lives."

We may choose to look at the masses in the gross, as subjects for statistics-and of course, where possible, for profits. There is One above who knows every thirst, and ache, and sorrow, and temptation of each slattern, and gin-drinker, and street-boy. The day will come when He will require an account of these neglects of ours-not in the gross.

ART. X.-1. The Royal Supremacy not an Arbitrary Authority, but limited by the Laws of the Church of which Kings are Members. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon of Christchurch. Part I. Ancient Precedents. Oxford, 1850.

2. The Papal and Royal Supremacies contrasted. A Lecture delivered on Sunday the 12th of May 1850. By the Right Rev. N. WISEMAN, D.D., Bishop of Melipotamus, V.A.L.

3. The Queen or the Pope? the Question considered in its Political, Legal, and Religious Aspects. By SAMUEL WARREN, Esq., of the Inner Temple. 1851.

THE true Popish doctrine upon the subject of the relation that ought to subsist between the Church and the State, or between the ecclesiastical and the civil authorities, is, that the ecclesiastical power is superior, in point of jurisdiction, to the civil. This is the view which has been held by the generality of Romanists except the defenders of the Gallican Liberties, and it accords most fully with the general principles and spirit of the Church of Rome. The opposite extreme to this is, of course, the doctrine of the superiority of the civil power to the ecclesiastical. This doctrine is often called by continental writers Byzantinism, a name suggested by the unwarrantable control generally exercised by the Emperors of the East over the patriarchs of Constantinople and the Greek Church during the middle ages, while in this country it is usually known by the name of Erastianism. The golden mean between these two extremes, is the doctrine that the Church and the State are two distinct societies, independent of each other, each having its own separate functions and objects and its separate means of executing and accomplishing them, each supreme in its own province, and neither having jurisdiction, or a right of authoritative control, over the other. This we believe to be the doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures upon the subject. The defenders of the Gallican Liberties in the Romish Church of France, and the old Scottish Presbyterians, were led most fully to develop this doctrine, and it is now held by all the non-established churches in this country.

The chief difference among the non-established churches, in regard to this matter, turns upon these two questions-1st, Does the denial to the State of any jurisdiction or authoritative control over the Church, involve or imply a denial, that the State is entitled and bound to exercise its proper authority in its own province, with a view to promote the welfare and extension of

Practice of the Early Church.

255

the Church? and, 2d, Does the independence of the Church as a distinct society, with the Church's obligation to maintain this, necessarily preclude it from entering into a friendly union or alliance with the State? The advocates of what is commonly called the Voluntary principle, answer these two questions, which are virtually and substantially one, in the affirmative, while the advocates of what is usually called the Establishment principle, answer them in the negative. Both parties, however, concur in holding the entire independence of the Church and the State as two distinct societies, and in denying to either any superiority, in point of authority or jurisdiction, over the other; while, on the points on which they differ, the advocates of the Establishment principle undertake to prove, that an obligation lies upon the State to aim, in the exercise of its proper authority in civil matters, at the welfare of true religion, and that there is no consideration which necessarily and universally precludes the Church from entering into friendly union with the State, and of course treating and arranging with it about the terms on which mutual co-operation may take place.

No sooner had the civil authorities made a profession of Christianity, than we find indications of their assuming to themselves jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, and encroaching upon the Church's province. Before the end of the fourth century, the Church was obliged to pass canons prohibiting the clergy from applying to the civil power in order, by its interference, to secure or to retain their ecclesiastical status and privileges, canons identical in their substance and objects with the law passed by the Church of Scotland, in 1582, against Mr. Robert Montgomery, when, in defiance of the Church, he attempted to intrude, on the nomination of the king, and by the aid of the secular power, into the archbishopric of Glasgow. The encroachments of the civil power led to a setting forth of the fundamental principle of the independence of the Church upon the State, and of the supremacy of each in its own province, and we find this principle very fully and accurately stated by some of the popes, and other leading ecclesiastical authorities, in the fifth and sixth centuries. This important doctrine, however, did not obtain permanent practical ascendency; for, during the middle ages, the Eastern Church lost all its rights and liberties, and sunk into a condition of abject slavery to the civil rulers, while the Western Church, by the marvellous skill and unscrupulous dexterity of the popes, succeeded, to a large extent, not only in obtaining exemption from civil control in civil matters, but in securing supremacy over the civil power. The principle of the superiority of the civil over the ecclesiastical was established in the East, while that of the superiority of the ecclesiastical over the civil,

was established in the West. Both these principles are opposed to the Sacred Scriptures, and both, in their practical results, operated injuriously to the interests of religion, and to the general welfare of the community.

At the Reformation, the civil authorities who espoused the Protestant cause, were called upon to repel the encroachments which the Church of Rome had made in many ways upon the secular province, and to assert to the full their own legitimate power. This tended again to lead them to assume too much to themselves in regard to ecclesiastical matters, and to make encroachments upon the Church's province, a tendency which some of the Reformers did not a little to countenance. In most of the Reformed Churches, accordingly, the rightful independence of the Church was more or less encroached upon, and the civil powers practised an extent of interference with ecclesiastical " matters, which Scriptural views of the duties and functions of the Church and of the State do certainly not sanction. There is good ground to believe that Luther and Melancthon became at last sensible that they had erred in conceding too much power to the civil authorities in the regulation of ecclesiastical matters, but they could not repair the evil they had done, as their rulers were not disposed to abandon any portion of the power they had acquired. Calvin, whose comprehensive and penetrating intellect raised him far above all even of his great cotemporaries in the discovery and establishment of truth, promulgated from the first sound views in regard to the right mutual relation of the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities, but he did not succeed in getting these views practically adopted in all the Churches which embraced, in the main, his system both of theology and church government. Of all Protestant countries, that in which the Scriptural independence of the Church was most strenuously maintained in argument, and most fully realized in practice, was Scotland, and that in which the civil power secured the largest share of unwarranted authority in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs, was England. The ecclesiastical supremacy of the Crown in England, the transference at the Reformation to the sovereign of the authority which had formerly been enjoyed by the Pope, a result which the old Scottish Presbyterians used to denounce as implying a change in the Pope but not in the popedom, has always been regarded as a peculiarity of the Anglican Church, and has given rise to a good deal of discussion. It is exciting much interest in the present day in consequence of the peculiar views held upon the subject by the Tractarians, especially as these have been developed in connection with the Gorham case; and it has also been brought largely to bear upon the exciting topic of the recent Papal Aggression.