the Romish faith; and if any appeal be made by Protestants to any private works, any older councils, or Papal decrees, he is reminded that it is disingenuous to attribute to the Romanist what he does not maintain. His faith must be sought in the Council of Trent.

On the other hand, those who regard Romanism as an anti-christian foe to truth, and as a collection of errors subversive of the essentials of Christianity, are in the habit of referring to documents both prior and posterior to the Council of Trent, as equally authoritative declarations of the Romish faith; and taking this ground, affirm that it is to this day one of the principles of the Romish Church, that no faith is to be kept with heretics; and another, that oaths contrary to the advantage of the church are not binding." To such as incline to a favourable judgment of the Romish Church as a communion holding the essential doctrines of our faith, and as a church that on the whole worships God in a scriptural manner, and has as just a claim to be called Christian as any other, it is natural to take that view of the standard of the Romish faith which is, or which appears to be at first sight, less repulsive to their own associations, and less injurious to the cause of Rome. But the question is, not what representation of "our erring sister" is least prejudicial to her claims as a Christian Church, but what representation is the true?

Is it true, that the Romish faith is to be judged solely by the Council of Trent? Is it true, that nothing but the decisions of general councils can and do bind the Romanist? Is it true, that the actual faith of the Romanists is derived from the Council of Trent? And if not, whence is it deduced? For this is of the greatest practical importance, that in our intercourse with Romanists, we should know what really are the sources of their faith.

In order to correct the popular error, that the Council of Trent is the sole and complete standard of the Romish faith, I observe, that the Council of Trent did not claim so much for itself. It did not nullify previous councils it did not take their place. It professed to follow their example, and to have especially in view the extirpation of what it stigmatized as heresy, and the reformation of the church.†

Not only so, but soon after the Council had closed, Pope Pius IV., to follow up the provisions of the Council, that the clergy, both inferior and superior, should make a public profession of their faith, and swear that they would continue in obedience to the Roman Church, published his Creed, that it might be received by all the clergy accordingly; subject, in case of non-compliance, to the punishments denounced by the Council against all who should resist it.

What, then, are the sources of faith which the Creed of Pius IV. acknowledges? or rather, to what does it bind the Roman clergy? To the profession of all things that have been delivered, defined, and

See an excellent Letter to the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, Roman-catholic Archbishop of Dublin, in Answer to his Appeal to the Protestants of Great Britain. By a Protestant. London: C. F. Cock, 24, Fleet-street.

Decretum de

See Concilium Tridentinum. Sessio III. Die iv. Febr. 1546. Symbolo Fidei ad initium: et "Patrum exempla in hoc secuta," &c. P. 17, ed. Paris. 1823.

+ "Sub pœnis per concilium ipsum in contravenientes latis."—Ibid. p. 328.

declared by the sacred Canons and General Councils, and not by the Council of Trent only. "Cætera item omnia à sacris Canonibus, et ecumenicis Conciliis, ac præcipue à Sacrosanctâ Tridentinâ Synodo tradita, definita, et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteor." So various are the sources whence we must learn what is the Romish religion! Whether, then, it be the obnoxious third Lateran, or any other General Council, the Protestant has a right to adduce it as an evidence of the Romish belief. In the same way he may appeal to the Creed of Pius IV.

But is it true that we are to confine ourselves to General Councils, if we would learn what is the Romish faith? In answer to this question, it must be remarked, that, if we are to believe the Romanist himself, his religious belief has varied and does vary in different countries. The Bull Unigenitus was disputed in France: it is received both in England and Ireland. So that if we discourse of the Romish faith with an English or Irish Romanist, we may enter upon the discussion of the Bull Unigenitus, as containing propositions to the belief of which he is bound. And this is of the utmost importance, for this Bull of itself is a tissue of blasphemies the most profane.

Lastly, whence is the actual faith of the Romanist derived? Certainly not from the Council of Trent, any more than it is from the Scriptures. It is a gross delusion to represent the Council of Trent as that to which the great body of the Romanists appeal for either a statement or rule of their faith. How can they? although they are so careful in controversy to refer Protestants to that Council as a standard, they have not so much as a translation of the Council, its Decrees and Canons, into the English tongue. So far are the laity from having the Council of Trent as the rule of their faith.

Hence may be seen the fallacy of that trite controversial apophthegm, that the Romish faith is to be sought only in the creeds and councils of that church. We deny not, that the substance of that faith is to be found in the Council of Trent; but would be careful to attest, that they perform a most useful work, and one altogether unimpeachable, who, far from confining their attacks to the Council of Trent, expose and refute the catechisms, theological text-books, and books of devotion, that are published by permission of the Hierarchy of the Roman Church, as containing the actual belief of the members of that church. It is of great advantage to the Romanist to have the consideration of these books excluded the field of controversy, for they comprehend the actual working of the system, while in the formularies of faith we have only the theory; at the same time that the Council of Trent by its apparent ambiguities, if not contradictions, affords a handle to the unwary and inexperienced observer, of occasionally vindicating the Church of Rome, by garbling and misunderstanding her Tridentine oracles.

But on the other hand, let the actual, the popular belief and practice of the Romish communion be adduced to illustrate her formularies, and we have not a partial but a complete portraiture of the religion; and only then have we before us all the evils against which it is our duty, as Christians, to protest; only then have we before us what is not in theory, but in reality, the Romish faith.

But will it be replied, that this is unfair and dishonest? that we do

not vouch for the private publications of our clergy, as containing the public doctrine of our church, so fully and invariably as to constitute together a standard of our faith?

To this I reply, not only is it not unfair and dishonest, but it is the only course that is left us in treating with the Romanist; and this I think I have proved by the facts of the case. But we need not fear a retort. According to the custom of the Primitive Church we encourage the reading of the Scriptures; and, as St. Chrysostom exhorted, so do we instruct our children in them; we also place an authorized Catechism in their hands; and that they may know definitively what is the doctrine of the Church of England, and by what standard our laity are to judge of the doctrines they hear preached, together with the Book of Common Prayer, are printed the Articles of Religion, with a Declaration, in which all the laity are required "to continue in the uniform profession thereof." Our Church professes to draw her faith from the Scripture, and gives a compendium of her faith in her Articles, and places both in the hands of her children. Not so the Church of Rome. Her own Bishops assert that the reading of the Scriptures is only permitted to such as their clergy think are fit to possess them. Their laity have, if their Catechisms and books of devotion are excepted, no authorized declaration of the faith of their church, unless they can translate Latin, and read all the Canons of all the General Councils. Romanism therefore must be sought rather in the authorized books of catechetical instruction and devotion, than in these folios of Canons and decrees, which to the laity generally are no more than a dead letter.

A. T. R.

VINDICATION OF HOOKER.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN REMEMBRANCER.

SIR,-Among the volumes of the "Christian's Family Library," there is "A Memoir of the Rev. Legh Richmond," written by the Rev. T. S. Grimshawe, which contains an error of a somewhat serious character; and which, if it has not already been pointed out (as I am told some others of a similar complexion have), you will perhaps allow to be rectified in the pages of the REMEMBRANCER.

In page 62 of the "Memoir," the following are quoted as the words of Hooker :- "He which is not a Christian before he comes to receive baptism, cannot be made a Christian by baptism; which is only the seal of the grace of God before received."

On referring to the passage in the Book of Ecclesiastical Polity (B. v. p. 276, fol.), from which the extract professes to be taken, I find the words in question are not the words of Hooker, but the words of Cartwright, Hooker's opponent, as may readily be perceived by the initials "T. C." which are prefixed to them, and by their standing apart from the text, in the margin.

How Legh Richmond, who is eulogized by his biographer as being fitted for the task of exposing the errors of others "by his extensive research, his matured experience, his acknowledged powers, and the

benignity of his character," came to commit so egregious an error himself; or how his biographer, having read, as we may presume, the writings of Hooker, happened to overlook such an error, is by no means easy to conjecture.

But surely it is to be lamented, that a work which has been so extensively circulated as the Memoir of Legh Richmond (having reached a ninth edition)—a work written by one, and edited by another minister of the English Church-should still contain in its pages a statement which cannot otherwise be considered than as a calumny (though doubtless undesigned) against the religious principles of one of the Church's ablest and most zealous defenders-Richard Hooker.

Let us hope, that in the next edition of this "Memoir," justice will be done to the orthodoxy of that good man; and that the readers of "The Christian's Family Library" will be apprised that they have been inadvertently led to receive, as the sentiment and creed of Hooker, a statement which he deemed to be at variance with catholic truth. I am, Sir, yours,

J. P.

EXTRACTS FROM THE NOTULE OF THE REV. S. ISAACSON, B.A. RECTOR OF FRECKENHAM.

1719.

THE MASS.-There are several cases put into the rubric of the Mass, De defectibus circa missam, wherein the consecration is void, and then there is nothing there but plain bread and wine. As for example: if there be a greater mixture of any other grain than of wheat in the wafer, or if the wine be made of sour grapes, or grapes not ripe, "Si vinum sit uvis acerbis, vel non maturis.' Preposterous nonsense!

THE EGYPTIAN MIDWIVES. "Because the midwives feared the Lord, he made them houses;" i. e. gave them a numerous offspring, out of which arose many families, which in scripture language are called houses. Or the meaning may be, He increased their estate, and gave them great riches. Thus, says David, "Except the Lord build the house," i. e. preserve and increase the estate of the family, "tis in vain to attempt it."

CHIPS.-1. The Pleiades are comprehended in these two verses:

Alcione, Meropeque, Electraque, diva Celano,

Taygete, Sterope, præclaro numine Maia.

2. Iceni, Thetford-men: Durobriges, Dorsetshire-men: Trinobantes, the people of Middlesex and Essex : whence London is called Augusta Trinobantum.

3. Omne patrimonium apud majores peculium dicebatur, a pecoribus; in quibus universa eorum substantia constabat. Unde etiam PECUNIA dicta fuit a PECULIO: i. e. the ancient riches consisted in cattle.

4. A die quo ego sum. Ever since I had a being.

5. There never was a cause so bad, but one or other would justify and maintain it; witness, in particular, the barbarous and unparalleled murder of that best of kings, Charles I.

1.

2.

3.

4.

BENEFICES PLURALITY BILL.

ABSTRACT of a BILL to abridge the holding of Benefices in Plurality, and to make better Provision for the Residence of the Clergy. Showing in what respects it proposes to alter the existing Law.

NOTE.

The figures on the left hand denote the clauses in the Bill; those on the right, the sections in the Act 57th Geo. 3. c. 99.

Those clauses, sentences, and words which are printed between brackets [], are contained in the Act, but omitted in the Bill.

All new or substituted matter is printed within inverted commas.

When both marginal numbers appear, and there are neither brackets nor inverted commas, the clauses inthe Bill correspond in substance with the sections in the Act.

[The first clause in the Act 57 Geo. 3. c. 99. recites the following statutes:- 1. 21 Hen 8. c. 13., 28 Hen. 8. c. 13., 13 Eliz. c. 20., 14 Eliz. c. 11., 18 Eliz. c. 11., 43 Eliz. c. 9., 3 Charles 1. c. 4., 12 Ann. stat 2. c. 12., 36 Geo. 3. c. 83., 43 Geo. 3. c. 84., 43 Geo. 3. c. 109., and 53 Geo. 3. c. 149.; and repeals so much of the first seven as relates to Farming and Trading, by spiritual persons, -and to Residence ;—so much of the two next as relates to Curates' Stipends; --and the whole of the three other Acts.]

The effect of this was, to repeal the whole of the then existing Statute Law, as to FARMING and TRADING, RESIDENCE, and CURATES' STIPENDS; but to leave unaltered so much as applied to PLURALITIES.

"Recites and repeals, in effect, the whole present Statute Law upon all these "subjects, including pluralities; with a saving as to penalties already incurred or licenses already granted."

66

Note. The present law of PLURALITIES rests partly upon canons, and partly upon statute; and involves so many nice and technical points, that any attempt at a close abstract of it must afford a very imperfect view. (But see Burn's Ecclesiastical Law, vol. iii. tit. PLURALITY.)

The following clauses in the Bill (2. to 9. inclusive) propose to establish a complete and uniform law upon the subject of Pluralities.

"Holder of more benefices than one, or of one cathedral preferment and one "benefice, may not take any other preferment whatever. Holder of any "cathedral preferment may not take preferment in any other cathedral. But "this not to prevent an Archdeacon from holding two benefices if one within "his archdeaconry, or a canonry in the cathedral of the diocese and one benefice "in the diocese; nor to prevent the holder of any cathedral preferment from "also holding any office the duties of which are statutably or accustomably per"formed by the holder of such preferment.

"Holder of cathedral preferment or benefice of

7. value may not take

"benefice or cathedral preferment, as the case may be, of more than
"value; but this not to apply to holders in possession 12th March 1836.

1.

"No two benefices to be held together, unless within ten miles of each "other.

"Two benefices within that distance, neither exceeding 500l. per annum, nor 5. " with a population of more than , may be held together.

"If the Bishop think it expedient that two benefices within distance, one 6. " above and the other below 5007. should, on account of the small value or "large population of one of them, be held together, he may state the reason "in writing to the Archbishop; upon a report of whose approval, the Queen in