The Press.
London, England, 1857-10-24 00:00:00

THE QUARTERLIES.

THE Quarterly Review for October is a rather
dry number, and contains one or two articles
written in a somewhat unpleasant tone ; but
on the whole its standard of ability is pre-
served. The articles to which we object are
those upon Rugby and " The Parish Priest."
On reference to our own columns, it will be
seen that we have on numerous occasions
referred to the late Dr. Arnold in terms of
eulogy and respect. We believe him to have
been a man of large mind, considerable
scholarship, and rare honesty. We have
always quoted his views upon Greek and
Roman history as of the highest valuo. His
success as an educator in the highest sense of
the word was marvellous. But there are points,
nevertheless, upon which our own opinions,
and we should have fancied those of the
Quarterly Review, are wide as the poles asunder
from Dr. Arnold. We little thought to have
met with a passage like the following in the
old champion of Conservatism :

He was not seldom misrepresented by the odium theo-
logicurn of powerful parties of every sect and creed, for—
impartial in his dislikes—his hand was against all, and
consequently all were against one standing thus aloof.
Not only did his opponents inveigh against many of his
schemes as pernicious or Utopian, but Oxford became an
absolute workshop of lies, romerrapoy 4.tuLiv, when set
in action by theologians, who would have dealt with him
as mercilessly as the only English Pope, Adrian IV., did
with his namesake, the bold freethinker of Brescia.
Arnold distinguished Christianity against all Churches
that claimed to be chartered corporations and the privi-
leged channels of salvation. He did not limit his defini-
tion of the " Church" to the clergy alone, but inclailed
the laity also in this " Congregation of Christians," of
which be maintained that the true Ecclesia was consti-
tuted. He also upheld the authority of Scripture against
the technical phraseology of Councils, Fathers, and Trac-
tarians, which he condemned as distorting the truth,
tending to Popery and priestcraft, and substituting un-
realities for realities.

Now, calling names will not alter the nature
of things. What is the meaning of "a pri-
vileged channel of salvation ?" The words
are dexterously suited to catch the applause
of latitudinarians; but what, we ask, do they
mean? Clearly nothing more than some
exclusive system by means of which it has
pleased Providence that mankind shall work
their way to heaven. Now, what is there in
such an idea not thoroughly analogous with
God's dealings towards the world, whether
shown by revelation or in nature?, Or in
what respect does the Church occupy towards
Dissenters a position one whit more exclusive
or " privileged" than Christianity does
towards Paganism? The history of the Jewish
Church shows how the Almighty sometimes
chooses to carry out His own purposes. And
who is to set limits to His will in this
any more than any other direction? The
question, therefore, is reduced to one of
simple evidence ; and the balance of evidence
is decidedly in favour of the Church theory.
That is, that the distinction between Judaism
and Christianity does not consist in the fact
that the one had peculiar institutions which
the other has not, but in this—that whereas
certain blessings were then confined to one
nation, they are now thrown ellen to the
whole world. But if the world chooses to
reject them on account of certain conditions
annexed to their acceptance, it most take the
consequences. None of God's gifts are un-
conditional, and the notion of a Church no
more militates against the universality of the
Gospel than the restraints of virtue against