Another fault of the author's system is, that he deduces the category of existence from that of cognition. Things are, according to him, only because we know them, and in proportion as we know them. He regards the object as the creation of the intellect, the product of the me. The true doctrine is precisely the reverse of this. Things are not because we know them, but we know them because they are. This seems to us so plain, that it need only be pointed out to be admitted. For we cannot see how any one can so far reject reason, as to hold that we may know an object when there is none to be known.

We might also object to the improper, or at least extraordinary, use which the author makes of words, and which in some instances, as when he says of absolute beings that one only is necessary, is incorrect. But our object is not to find fault with Professor Ferrier's language or his style. And even while pointing out the errors of the work, which are not few nor slight, we have no wish to deny that there is much that is good in the book. There are frequent outbursts of eloquence, which would afford grounds to believe that the learned professor, whatever may be said of his philosophical genius, might rise to eminence in other occupations would he but be persuaded to try them. His mind is not subtle or acute enough for the depths of metaphysics into which he would dive. He has glimpses of truths which he thinks have heretofore been overlooked; but not making nice and accurate distinctions where they are requisite, he is led to deduce what he supposes is a newly discovered truth, but which, not unfrequently, is an old, exploded error. Accuracy is as essential as depth of thought, in a metaphysician. Better that the last should be dispensed with, if either, than the first. Professor Ferrier, like the German speculators almost without an exception, makes small account of the former in comparison with the latter. Truth is not their chief aim, and consequently they cannot be expected to attain it. To philosophize for the sake of philosophizing, is so much labor thrown away, and the sooner those who are speculatively inclined become convinced of this, the better it will be for the human race generally.

In taking our leave of the author, we feel that when next we meet him, in whatever dress he may appear, it will be as a friend with whom we may have differed, but with whom we have had no wish to quarrel.

ART. IV. An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority; or, Reasons for recalling my Subscription to the Royal Supremacy. By the REV. R. I. WILBERFORCE, M. A. Baltimore: Hedian & O'Brien. 1855. 12mo. pp. 333.

MR. WILBERFORCE appears to have written this book before his reception into the bosom of the Catholic Church, and while still an archdeacon in the Anglican Establishment. It therefore cannot be regarded precisely as a Catholic work, and if it should not always speak in a Catholic tone or in strict accordance with Catholic doctrine, no particular blame can attach to the author. He does not appear while writing it to have fully made up his mind to do more than to divest himself of the preferments which he held in the Establishment, and to "put himself as far as possible into the condition of a lay member of the Church." Yet, though he speaks perhaps of the Episcopacy, as distinguished from the Papacy, somewhat too much as an Anglican, his work is substantially Catholic, and admirably adapted, we should think, to make a favorable impression on all Anglicans who really mean to be Churchmen, or who believe the Church to be a Divine, and not a mere human institution. We have read it with deep interest. It is written with rare ability and great learning, and we see not how any man can read it without being convinced that the Anglican Establishment is no part of the Church of God.

The great trouble with Protestants in discussing the question of Church authority is, that they have no principles, and always reason from detached facts, which are often no facts at all. They run over ecclesiastical history, and seize upon certain statements, sometimes true, sometimes false, and bring them forward as disproving some Catholic doctrine or some claim of the Catholic Church, without ever stopping to inquire on what principle they do it, if they do it at all. A Father says all bishops are equal; therefore say they, The Bishop of Rome has no primacy, forgetful that all bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, as bishops may be equal, and that the Papacy, that is to say, the Apostleship, a distinct office from that of Bishop, though including it, may be attached to the

See of Rome, and inherited by its occupant. Mr. Wilberforce in this work proves that his mind has attained to unity, and that, though educated a Protestant, he is capable of reasoning from principles, and of explaining facts and appearances by them. He starts from something solid, clear, and definite, and shows a firm basis for his superstructure. He sees that at the outset of his inquiry it is necessary to settle what is to be understood by the Church. He proceeds first to determine the nature of the Church, and then to prove, as Anglicanism concedes, that "the Church hath authority in controversies of faith." What he says on the nature of the Church is so true, so profound, so important, and so well said, that we cannot forbear laying it before our readers.

Now that a paramount authority was possessed by Our Lord Himself, and that He committed the like to His Holy Apostles, is admitted probably by all Christians. The question in dispute is, whether any such powers outlasted their times; whether they founded any institution, or appointed any succession of men, to which the office of judging in matters of faith was intrusted in perpetuity. Before considering what can be said on this subject, it will be well to ask, what was meant in those days by the Church, what were understood to be its characteristic features, and the origin of its powers. For there are two leading views respecting the nature of the Church; and according as men take the one or the other view of the nature of the Church, they will commonly adopt a corresponding hypothesis respecting its authority.

"Was the Church, then, a mere congeries of individuals, gathered together, indeed, according to God's will, but not possessing any collective character, except that which is derived from the conglomeration of its parts; or was it an institution, composed indeed of men, but possessed of a being, and action, which was irrespective of the will of its individual members, and was impressed upon it by some higher authority? This, in fact, is to ask whether it had any inherent life, and organic existence. By a wall is meant a certain arrangement of bricks, which, when united, are nothing more than bricks still; but a tree is not merely a congeries of ligneous particles, but implies the presence of a certain principle of life, which combines them into a collective whole. Such a principle we recognize, when we speak of an organic body. Our thoughts are immediately carried on to one of those collections of particles, which Almighty God has united according to that mysterious law, which we call life. Thus is an impulse perpetuated, which having its origin from the Author of

nature, displays its fecundating power in all the various combinations of the vegetable kingdom. Its sphere, indeed, is inert matter, and the continual assimilation of fresh portions of matter is necessary to its prolongation; but its being is derived from a higher source; it is the introduction of a living power into the material creation.

"The notion entertained of the Church, then, would be entirely different, according as it was supposed to be merely a combination of individuals, or an organic institution, endowed with a divine life. In the first case it would have no other powers than those which it derived from its members; in the second, its members would be only the materials, which it would fashion and combine through its own inherent life. In one case it would stand on human authority; in the other, on Divine appointment. On one side would be reason, enlightened it may be, but still the reason of individuals; on the other, supernatural grace.

"Now there can be no doubt which of these views is favored by Scripture; whether we look to its express words, to the general tendency of prophecy, or to the analogy of doctrine. The word Ecclesia, indeed, by us rendered Church, is used for any combination of men: but of that particular combination, which Our Lord established, we have a specific definition, wherein it is declared to be the Body of Christ. This definition, repeatedly given, implies certainly that the Church is not a mere combination of individuals, but possesses an organic life from union with its Head. No doubt it has been affirmed to be merely a figurative expression, founded upon the use of certain analogous words. But it is the only definition we have of the Church; it is a definition frequently given; and if we are at liberty to get rid of such Scriptural statements by saying that they are figurative, the use of Scripture as a guide to our belief is at an end. Besides, the word which St. Paul employed could not have been understood by his readers in a figurative sense, because it has no such meaning in the Greek language. The English reader is so familiar with the application of the words body and head to those who are merely related together as members of the same community, that he not unnaturally supposes St. Paul's expression to be founded upon a similar idiom. But in Greek such an usage was wholly unknown: the word oua (body) was never used for a society composed of different persons; nor kepaλń (head) for its chief. And though there are a few expressions of the sort in Latin, yet the prevalent use of the words body, corporation, corps, &c., in modern languages, appears to be founded upon the analogy which St. Paul suggested, and which has since given shape to the languages of Christendom. So that to assert St. Paul's words to be figurative, because the terms have gained

this force in later times, is to mistake an effect for a cause. To cross the Rubicon has been a figurative phrase since the time of Cæsar; are we to suppose, then, that the Rubicon was not really crossed by Cæsar himself?

"Again: When we turn from individual expressions to the general course of prophecy, we find its whole scope and tendency to be built on some real identification of the great Renewer of man's race with the race which He was to renew. The prophecies of Isaiah associate the new system which was to prevail in the world with the Rod, which was to come forth out of the stem of Jesse'; and Daniel beheld that stone that was cut out without hands,' that is, the Incarnate Nature of the Son of God, expand itself into a mountain, which was to fill the earth. And this exactly accords with what is revealed to us respecting the purposes of our Lord's Incarnation. For was not Godhead and Manhood combined in Him, that the inferior nature, which was exalted in its Head, might be communicated to His brethren? 'He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.' To resolve St. Paul's assertions, therefore, into a figure of speech, is not only to violate the analogy of language, but to detract from the mystery of our redemption. The Apostle surely was well aware how wonderful was the truth which he was communicating, when he affirmed Christians to be members of' Christ's 'Body, from His Flesh, and from his Bones'; for he himself declared it to be a great mystery.' There can be no pretence, therefore, for refusing to take his statements in that natural and obvious sense which his words imply. He declares the Church to be that which Our Lord had Himself predicted it should be, an organic body, deriving its life from perpetual union with the Humanity of its Head. I am the vine; ye are the branches.' As the whole race of mankind inherits that life which was infused into nature in Adam, so the Church's life results from that power which was bestowed upon humanity, through the taking it into God. The mystical Body of Christ has an organic life, like His Body natural; for Christ was personally Incarnate in that Body which was slain, but by power and presence will He be Incarnate in His Church till the end of the world. As the Gospels are the record of His Presence in the one, so is Church History that of His Presence in the other. What else could be intended by His promise to His chosen representatives? Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.' Or what less could be implied in that Scriptural statement which identifies His members with Himself? For as the Body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ.'