it as

is all lost; and men look upon 66 an institution for religious instruction and religious worship," thus robbing it of its life and universality, making it an affair of clergy, not of people, of preaching and ceremonies, not of living, - of Sundays and synagogues, instead of one of all days and all places, houses, streets, towns, and country. I believe that the Government are well disposed, and I wish at any rate to try them. I know at least what I mean myself, and have a defi nite object before me, which, if I cannot reach, I would at least come as near to it as I can.

CXIII. TO REV. DR. HAWKINS.

Rugby, November 4, 1835.

[After stating his acceptance of the office in the London University.] I hold myself bound to influence, so far as I may be able, the working of a great experiment, which will probably in the end affect the whole education of the country. I hold myself bound to prevent, so far as in me lies, the establishment of more sectarian places of education, which will be the case if you have regular colleges for Dissenters; and yet Dissenters must and ought to have Degrees; and you shut them out from Oxford and Cambridge. No man can feel more strongly than I do the necessary imperfection of the' proposed system, and its certain inferiority to what the old Universities might be made, or even to what they are, I suppose, actually. No man can more dread the co-operators with whom I may possibly have to work, or the principle which an active party are endeavoring to carry into education, that it shall or can exist independent of Christianity. But the excuse of these men, and their probable success, arises out of the Oxford sectarianism. You have identified Christianity with the Church of England, and as there are many who will not bear the latter - indifferent men, or unbelievers, believe that it must follow that they cannot be taught the for mer. The question goes through the whole frame of our society. Nothing more reasonable than that national education should be in accordance with the national religion; nothing more noble or more wise in my judgment than the whole theory of the Reformers on this point. But the Established Church is only the religion of a part of the nation, and there is the whole difficulty. The Reformers, or rather their successors in Elizabeth's time, wished to root out Dissent by

the strong hand. This was wicked, as I think, as well as foolish but then, if we do not root out Dissent, and so keep the Establishment coextensive with the nation, we must extend the Establishment, or else in the end there will and ought to be no Establishment at all, which I consider as one of the greatest of all evils. But I see everything tending to sectarianism; and I heard a very good man speaking with complacency of this state of things in America, where the different sects, it seems, are becoming more and more separated from each other. And this is a natural and sure con-sequence of having no Establishment, because then the narrowmindedness of every sect plays out its own play, and there is no great external reason for union. But on the present Oxford system or spirit, the Establishment is merely identified with a party, and makes half the nation regard it as a nuisance. I believe that that party and the party of the Dissenters are alike detestable, alike ignorant, narrow-minded, and unchristian; only the Church party are the least excusable, because they sin against far greater opportunities and means of light. My own firm belief is, that every difference of opinion amongst Christians is either remediable by time and mutual fairness, or else is indifferent; and this, I believe, would be greatly furthered, if we would get rid entirely of the false traditional standard of interpretation, and interpret Scripture solely by itself. I think that in your Sermon on Unauthoritative Tradition, you have unawares served the cause of error and schism; for I should just reverse that argument, and instead of saying that we should bring in tradition to teach certain doctrines, which Scripture appears to recognize, but does not clearly develop-I should say, that, because Scripture does not clearly develop them, therefore they ought not to be taught as essential, nor with any greater degree of precision than is to be found in Scripture: and then I believe that we should have Christian truth exactly in its own proper proportions; what is plain, and what is essential, being in effect convertible terms; whereas, I am satisfied, that Church authority, whether early or late, is as rotten a staff as ever was Pharaoh king of Egypt's,—it will go into a man's hand to pierce him.

CXIV. TO REV. F. C. BLACKSTONE.

Rugby, November 11, 1835.

My attention has been drawn lately, by one or two circumstances, to the spread of Henry Drummond's party, who claim to possess a renewal of the spiritual gifts of the Apostolic age, and as a consequence, call themselves the only true Church. I should like to know whether you have lately heard any more of the question, or have seen any reason to alter your views about it. The intolerance of their presumption in calling themselves the only true Church, would, to my mind, go very near to decide against them; but in all respects they seem to me to resemble those fanatical sects, which have from time to time arisen, and will do so to the end of the world. But with regard to the cessation of the miraculous powers in the Church, which I think at first sight is startling, I am inclined to believe that it is truly accounted for by the supposition that none but the Apostles ever conferred these gifts, and that therefore they ceased of course after one generation. I do not think that the state of the Apostolical Churches was so pure, or that of the Churches in the next century so degenerate, as to account for the withdrawal of the gifts as a sign of God's displeasure, seeing that the graces of the Spirit were then and ever have been vouchsafed abundantly, which is inconsistent with the notion of God's abandonment. Nor do I see that the Church of Christ has at any time plainly apostatized, although it has been greatly unworthy of its privileges; nor that the doctrine of Christ crucified and Christ risen, has been so forsaken, as that the very standard of Christianity should need to be planted afresh. But, if so, then the parallel with the Jewish Church fails; for the final guilt of the Jewish Church consisted in refusing to admit of the full development of its system, as wrought in Christ; and therefore, without apostatizing from the old, they fell because they refused the new. But ours being the dispensation of the fulness of times, a new system is with us not to be looked for; and, if we hold fast the principles of the Gospel, we have no other object to look to than that great one, which indeed has been enough neglected, the working out and carrying into all earthly institutions the practical fruits of these principles.* I have always

* See Appendix I. to "Fragment on the Church."

thought that the Quakers stand nobly distinguished from the multitude of fanatics, by seizing the true point of Christian advancement, the development of the principles of the Gospel in the moral improvement of mankind. It is a griev ous pity that some foolishnesses should have so marred their efficiency, or their efforts against wars and oaths would surely ere this have been more successful.

.

CXV. TO MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE.

Rugby, December 16, 1835.

It is ill answering your long and kind letter between nine and ten o'clock at night, when I am liable to be interrupted every moment by calls from my boys who are going home, and when I am going myself to start with a patriarchal party of seventeen souls at seven o'clock to-morrow for Westmoreland. I think that there runs through your letter, perhaps unconsciously, a constant assumption that the Conservative party is the orthodox one; a very natural assumption in the friends of an existing system, or, as I think, in any one who has not satisfied himself, as I have, that Conservatism is always wrong; so thoroughly wrong in principle, that, even when the particular reform proposed may be by no means the best possible, yet it is good as a triumph over Conservatism;- the said Conservatism being the worst extreme, according to both of Aristotle's definitions, first, as most opposed to the mean in itself, since man became corrupt; and secondly, as being the evil that we are all most prone to -I myself being conservative in all my instincts, and only being otherwise by an effort of my reason or principle, as one overcomes all one's other bad propensities. I think Conservatism far worse than Toryism, if by Toryism be meant a fondness for monarchical or even despotic government for despotism may often further the advance of a nation, and a good dictatorship may be a very excellent thing, as I believe of Louis Philippe's government at this moment, thinking Guizot to be a great and good man who is looking steadily forwards; but Conservatism always looks backwards, and therefore, under whatever form of government, I think it the enemy of all good. And if you ask me how I can act with the present Ministers, with many of whom I am far from sympathizing, I answer, that I would act with them against the Conservatives as Cranmer and Ridley acted with Somerset and Northumberland and the Russells of that

day, not as thinking them the best or wisest of men, but as men who were helping forward the cause of Reform against Conservatism, and who therefore were serving the cause of their country and of mankind, when Fisher and More and Tonstall, better men individually, would have grievously injured both. This I should say, even if I judged of the two parties as you do. But I am running on unreasonably, and time is precious; my meaning is, that had I been a Conservative, I am quite sure that no act of mine would have ever been considered as going out of my way into politics; but on the other side, "defendit numerus;" and that is called zeal for the Church, which in me is called political violence. We are all well, and I am marvellously untired by our five weeks' examination; but I still expect to rejoice in the mountains.

CXVI. TO. W. EMPSON, ESQ.

January 8, 1836.

I find even in private life, and amongst men of the Tory party who are most favorable specimens of it, a tone of increased virulence, interfering even with private relations, which really seems almost like the harbinger of civil war. In London, I have no doubt all this, externally at least, is softened; but in the country, where men live more apart, their passion seems to me to be daily exasperating, and any interruption of the present commercial prosperity would find, I fear, a bitter temper already existing to receive the increased embittering of private distress. My great fear is, that the English are indifferent to justice when it is not on their own side, and that therefore in this Irish Church question the Ministers will fare as Lord Chatham did in the beginning of the American war, be outvoted, overruled, and driven from power. And then what is the "Avenir" which any Tory can image to himself within the very limits of possibility? For whether Ireland remain in its present barbarism, or grow in health and civilization, in either case the downfall of the present Establishment is certain; a savage people will not endure the insult of a hostile religion; a civilized one will reasonably insist on having their own.