sees Protestantism in a false light; dwelling only on its abuses and errors; having no eye for the vast world of truth which it reveals, no sense by which to appreciate properly its inward significance and power. But it is no less clear, that Kirwan is full as much in the dark, as it regards the opposite side. The fundamental meaning of the Roman Catholic Church, is hid from his view. There is a whole region of Christianity there, which he has never yet been brought to explore or comprehend. He confounds Catholicism perpetually, as we have seen, with the abuses heaped upon it by Popery. However valuable his own form of piety may be, (and we wish not to dispute its worth,) there is another style of piety altogether, forming a complete terra incognita to his experience and beyond the horizon of his thinking, which we are yet bound to acknowledge as of high and necessary account also to the complete conception of the christian faith. The most comprehensive and significant designation for this order of religion, is found in the term Catholic; as we may employ the term Puritan, on the other hand, to express what we mean by religion under the opposite type. We use both terms in an honorable sense, and simply to express in brief the general distinction now noticed. Catholicism stands in the sense of the outward and objective in Christianity, as a supernatural constitution actually at hand in the world under a historical form; the idea of the Church, as the bearer of heavenly powers; submission to authority; resignation of individual judgment and will to the apprehension of a divine rule, embodied and made concrete in the Church as a whole; sympathy with the symbolical, mystical, sacramental interest in religion. It will not do to treat all this as an obsolete fiction. It has too much countenance from the Bible; it finds too much to appeal to in the inmost depths of our religious nature. Any scheme of piety, however excellent it may be in other respects, which breaks in full with the faith and devotional life of the entire early Church, eviscerates the Creed of its true force, and makes it impossible for us to feel ourselves at home in the society of such men as Ignatius and Polycarp, Irenaeus and Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Anselm, Fenelon, and the ten thousand others whose saintliness had been more or less like theirs from the beginning; any scheme

of piety that goes thus virtually, by its pretensions, to sap the very foundations of the Church itself, must be in its own nature defective and insecure. Puritanism must learn to do justice to Catholicism, before it can do full justice to itself. Its proper mission will be complete, only when the two forms of thinking are brought in some way to flow together, excluding on both sides all that is found to be incompatible with the idea of such a marriage.

We know full well, and have not forgotten for one moment, in all this review, that there is a Charybdis here as well as a Scylla, which we are bound on vast peril to shun and avoid. These Letters of Kirwan lie all on one side, covering at no great depth the treacherous rock we have now tried to expose; at some future time, if God permit, we shall take notice of the whirlpool, in an article, not on Bishop Hughes, but on "Brownson's Quarterly Review." J. W. N.

ART. XVI.-ZUINGLI NO RADICAL.

THE following extract is translated from Professor Ebrard's great work, on the History of the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper. It forms part of a somewhat extended vindication of the general character of the Swiss Reformer, against certain injurious views which have been entertained of it, in Germany particularly, and in the bosom of the Lutheran Church. He has been held up to reproach, as a man whose zeal for the Reformation was more bent on pulling down than on building up; and who was ruled by the cold mechanical abstractions of the understanding, more a great deal than by proper power of the christian faith. It has been the fashion widely to associate with his name, the idea of a somewhat rationalistic and revolutionary tendency in religion; which is supposed also by the high Lutheran school, to have communicated itself, as a reigning permanent distinction, to the entire Reformed Church. This whole supposition Dr. Ebrard meets, as being in the case of Zuingli, no

better than a pure fiction of fancy, or theological prejudice. He insists upon it, that his theology was characterized throughout by a regard to the inward positive life of christianity, in its supernatural mystical form; and that even his sacramental doctrine itself, was based all along on the assumption of a real participation in the very life of Christ, as the necessary result of faith-something far deeper, of, course, than the rationalistic conception of a mere moral union with him, which now so often affects to take shelter under the respectable authority of Zuingli's name. As for the notion of his being a fanatical radical, in his reformatory action, it is treated as wholly destitute of foundation. The extract here given, is intended to show, and it must be allowed indeed to do so very triumphantly, that this father of the Helvetic Reformation was, to say the least, full as conservative in his spirit as Luther, or any of the leaders of the same movement in Germany:

If to some of our readers the quotations now presented may perhaps seem too large and long for the end immediately in hand, we would remind them that they all go not merely to meet particular complaints against our reformer, which have no direct connection with the doctrine of the sacraments, but also at the same time to give us an insight into the fundamental character of his theology, which is of the utmost consequence for the right understanding of his view of the Lord's supper. We see at once, that Zuingli does not sunder faith scholastically from sanctification, but on the ground of his historical and biblical education apprehends both in their living organic union. Everywhere he opposes the totality of what Christ does, to the totality of what man can do without Christ, the decree of redemption through Christ to all humanly devised ways of salvation, deliverance from guilt by Christ's death to satisfaction by good works, sanctification by Christ's Spirit to the power of legal obedience. The vicarious action of Christ appears thus in the most intimate association with the vicarious passion of Christ. He makes good our shortcomings, not simply by suffering punishment in our stead, but also by bringing to pass in us works which we could not bring to pass of ourselves. Sanctification is taken here not as a subjective act growing out of faith, but as the immediate operation of Christ living in us; and the oneness which holds between the working of the Holy Ghost in us, and the life of

Christ himself in us, is thus apprehended in its deepest depth. With Zuingli accordingly, faith is not distinguished from sanctification, good works, the communion of the Holy Ghost, and the mystical union, but is regarded as the totality of the new life, which of itself involves all these from the start.

This will be very important for us hereafter. For the present we remark only how far Zuingli had entered into the true idea of Christian freedom. We see, that his opposition towards particular abuses proceeded not at all from the mere legal application of certain legally construed passages of Scripture, but from the most free and inward principle of faith. Allowing, however, the ground of this opposition to have been good, it is still asked whether the manner of it is not to be blamed as radical. Did he not mercilessly sweep away all that was old, even where it was free from harm?

Before we enter here upon the actual state of facts, it seems necessary first of all to clear out a whole Augean stable of prejudices and fables which busy mythology has contrived to throw around this part of the reformer's labors. To the Lutheran theologians, rather than to the Roman, belongs the credit of having vented their spleen upon him in the way of these ingenious imaginations; what one relates as dreadful, is made still a little worse in the hands of the next; and so the tattle runs through the polemical tradition, till it gains at last the show of well accredited history. What, did not Zuingli abolish everything! Not simply altars and images, but church music also, organs, ringing of bells, nay, the bells themselves, possibly even the steeples along? Is not the stale ory still in circulation, that he presented a petition to the Council for the suppression of church music, singing it himself, as he did so, to show practically the absurdity of using song in prayer-is not this flat story in circulation, we say, even in books and quite respectable theological journals, some of which we could easily name? Is it not the general impression that, while Luther retained all the old forms, and removed only what was doctrinally offensive, Zuingli made a clean sweep of the whole, and, then, constructed a poor scheme of his own in its place?

Against all this, at the outset, speaks the entire spirit of the good city, which Schiller has styled, not without reason, "the

VOL. I.-NO. III.

18*

old Zurich." What is new in Zurich springs from 1830, or, at farthest, from 1790. It is questionable, if any German imperial city (Nuremberg even scarcely excepted) has retained its ancient manners, institutions, and usages, with so little change, for any like time, as Zurich. The small, narrow streets, whose hurdlework still shows plainly, by towers, citadels, and remains of walls and trenches, the three several enlargements the city has gone through in the course of history, threw open the outermost ring of their gates and barricades, only a few years since, for free intercourse with the country. The old democratic usages prevailed universally down to 1830; and are still, at least, half in force. Even since the old corporations have lost their importance politically, they still continue to stand, as social fraternities, proud of their old guild houses, which, under different names, are familiar to every child. In a city, whose spirit has cleaved for centuries with such attachment throughout to what is old, it is not so easy a matter to make any such clean sweep as is here supposed. If now, however, we compare the Zuinglian changes with those of Luther and Calvin, we reach the surprising result, that, so far as the principle and spirit of the changes are concerned, Zuingli stands throughout on the side of Luther against Calvin. Calvin created entirely new forms; Zuingli, like Luther, retained all the old, and set aside only what gave offence. Only in result, not in principle, does he differ from Luther; in this namely that the images as such seemed to him doctrinal stumbling-blocks, while Luther made a more nice distinction between their edifying use as works of art, and their misuse as objects of idolatry.

It is regarded as an essential difference, that Luther retained the existing church organization; provosts, chapters, and archdeacons, parish priests, and deacons, all remained in their place; while Calvin proclaimed all ministers equal, and brought in with violent novelty the presbyterial and synodical system. We inquire not here which is best; we say simply, that Zuingli took the course of Luther. The cathedral chapter of Zurich, with its canons or prebendaries, stood till within a few years past, and the number of the members has not even yet died out; while the distinction between priest and deacon continues to this day in all its old legal force. The archdeacon too, or "chief