6

but the author adverted to should have known, and should have been careful to state, that their deficiency in this respect, rightly viewed, is to their honour, and not to their reproach. They have long had more important work to do, and, with the blessing of God, they have applied themselves well to the doing of it. Let them only see the connexion between labour in the field of Christian antiquities, and real Christian usefulness, which they have seen for some generations past between the labours which have occupied them and the results which have followed, and they will not, we are confident, be found either slow or inapt in equipping themselves with the new weapons, or in adopting the new tactics which the service of their Lord may demand from them. Confident, too, we are, that it will be a bad day for 'Spi' ritual Despotism,' when men shall thus become better acquainted with the sources and workings of its iniquity. They will see, indeed, that it has its origin in human nature; but they will see one thing beside-that its great power to do mischief is dependent on its being permitted to wield the coercive machinery of the state. To put an end to that impure commerce, the union of church and state, and to the progeny of evils which have sprung from it, will then be the aim of all good men. But the author of 'Spiritual Despotism' is quite right in affirming that there is no short road to a full mastery of the Popish controversy. It demands, as we have observed, a critical knowledge of the sacred writings. There must also be such an acquaintance with the fathers, and with the best collections of the ecclesiastical councils, as may enable the disputant to refer to them with ease and accuracy. Added to which, his knowledge of general history must be much more comprehensive, and in the matter of law and its administration should be much more minute, than our present modes of education are adapted to furnish. Not a little, too, of the qualification necessary to the display of real skill in this warfare, consists in a knowledge of the motley character of the host to be assailed-for, strange to say, the sects of Protestantism are not more numerous, or arrayed in more deadly hostility against each other, than are the sects or factions which still find their place within the pale of Romanism. It is true we say, that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.' And so it is-so far as respects all the great principles of our faith and practice. In regard to all such matters we say, if they are not found in the New Testament it is because they are not of the things which our heavenly Father hath planted, and we know the fate awaiting them. But we have never met with the Protestant controversialist who has really kept the points in dispute within the limits which the Bible, and the Bible alone maxim prescribes. There is a wide difference between the Christianity of the middle age and that of the third century; and a space hardly less marked be

tween Christianity as taught in the school of Origen, and as exhibited in the writings of the apostles. Nevertheless, there is a relation between these very different things, and one which every man of sense will see it will not do to suffer the enemy to make his own showing upon without contradiction. If left to occupy that ground alone, he will not fail to represent the voice of antiquity as one unbroken utterance on the side of error; and to provide against the perilous disadvantage which would thus ensue, in a manner worthy of the cause, the various and profound learning adverted to must be brought into play. The question, we must repeat, is not whether ecclesiastical antiquity should be studied, and put into requisition on this subject, or not,-for that, on the ground of common sense, and according to the practice of every man on either side who has ever meddled with the dispute, is unavoidable. The one point to be settled, and to which we hope on a future occasion to give some attention, is -the kind or measure of authority to be conceded to that antiquity.

But it is time we should direct the attention of our readers to the books at the head of this article. Mr. Cramp's volume is strictly what it professes to be, A Text-Book of Popery: com'prising a brief history of the Council of Trent, and a complete 'view of Roman Catholic Theology.' On the authority of councils, as on every other point of its history, the church of Rome is wonderfully at issue with itself. The divines of the Gallican church, for example, reject four alleged general councils, those of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent, which the Italians admit; and admit four, those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the second of Pisa, which the Italians reject. By a third faction in the Romish church, the eight councils which occur in the Italian scheme from the eight at Constantinople to the sixteenth at Florence, are all rejected, either in whole or in part. The deference yielded to the council of Trent by full half of Europe was limited to its doctrinal decisions, exclusive of its regulations on discipline; and even those decisions were thus admitted simply because they were in agreement with the decisions of prior assemblies of less questionable pretensions, and not as the effect of any competent authority attaching to that convention, for that was denied. Still Mr. Cramp is right in speaking of the canons and catechism published by the Council of Trent, as an unquestionable exhibition of the acknowledged doctrines of the Roman Catholic church. The volume is highly creditable to his zeal, impartiality, and scholarship, and should not only be in the hands of every educated Protestant, but be made familiar to his memory. The term 'Text-Book,' though justly applicable, may suggest to some of our readers the idea of a dull scholastic production, little adapted for general perusal; but we can assure them the work is one of

more performance than promise in that respect, and that it will be found to contain much interesting and valuable information, both historical and biographical, concerning the times to which the proceedings of that memorable convocation belong.

The Essays on Romanism' are agreeably written, and may be placed with safety and advantage in the hands of persons who would shrink from any thing more bulky or erudite. The great aim of the author is to refute the reasoning of Dr. Milner in his End of all Controversy,' and of Dr. Wiseman in his recently published Lectures, and most readers, we think, will admit that he rarely fails to accomplish his object. It is, however, a little amusing to observe the readiness-we may almost say the constancy, with which the author departs from his avowed principle as to the proper mode of conducting this controversy. He professes to lament the conduct of those unwise Protestants who appeal to antiquity' and 'tradition' as a means of refuting Popery, and has published a book some three fourths of which may be said to consist of materials of evidence deduced from those prohibited sources. In short, whenever antiquity or tradition, in the secondary shape in which he is acquainted with them, can be made to serve his purpose, he avails himself of them freely; and though we may smile at this inconsistency, we are not disposed to censure it very severely, while we see it turned, in general, to so good an account.

The Variations of Popery' present a subject which no man, not of transcendent ability, could take up without disadvantage. The comparison with the great work of Bossuet under a similar title, is of course immediately made; and Mr. Edgar, unhappily, is weak just on those points on which the author of the Variations of Protestantism is strong-in the graces of style, and the masterly disposal of his materials. The combination of refinement and power in Bossuet, had it been allied with honesty, and a good cause, would have been admirable almost beyond example. Mr. Edgar's style, particularly in the parts which he means should be most effective, is exceedingly artificial, and has nothing of the ease of nature. At times, he indulges in a lightness of expression, which we think ill-placed; and there is often an evident aiming at a trenchant epigramatic smartness in exhibiting his sentiments, which is by no means to our taste. In his reasoning, too, he would have written with much more effect had he shown himself more skilled in uniting urbanity with force. We are not in the way to convince men by telling them at the outset, whether directly or indirectly, that they are either fools or rogues. Mr. Edgar's book, however, is one of great value. Indeed, we are disposed to regard it as a more valuable contribution to the cause of Protestantism than has appeared in our language during

the present century. It contains a large mass of materials, so disposed as to be easily available, on all the points at issue between Catholics and Protestants, and will form a most appropriate companion to the Text-Book of Popery. It is the result of great labour, and evinces a large and accurate acquaintance with the ecclesiastical learning of ancient and modern times. The following passage relates to the attribute of universality, said to be essential to the validity of all general councils, and, as a specimen, will serve to show what we are to understand by the boasted absence of variations' of opinion within the pale of the Romish church.

'Some condition or peculiarity should distinguish an ecumenical from a diocesan, a provincial, or a national synod. This characteristic distinction, however, has never been ascertained. The attempt, indeed, has been made by Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Jacobatius, Holden, Lupus, Arsdekin, Fabulattus, Panormitan, Bosius, and Martinon. But their requisitions differ from each other, and from the facts of the councils. The theory of each is at variance with the rest, or inapplicable to the councils, the universality of which is admitted.

'One party would leave the decision to the pope. These reckon it the prerogative of the Roman pontiff to determine on the universality and sufficiency of a general council. This condition has been advocated by Panormitan, Martinon, and Jacobatius.* But its application to the acknowledged general councils would cause the partial or total, the temporary or permanent explosion of six which have been admitted into the Italian or French system.

The popes, for a long lapse of time, rejected all the canons of the second at Constantinople, and have never recognized the twentyeighth canon of Chalcedon. Vigilius, for some time, withstood the fifth cecumenical synod, and his acquiescence was, at last, extorted by banishment. The council of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, applauded by the French school, deposed Gregory, Benedict, John, and Eugenius.

A second class, to constitute a synod universal, require the attendance of the pope, patriarchs, and metropolitans, together with subsequent general reception. This requisition has been advocated by Bosius and Paolo, and is in discordance with the system of Martinon and Jacobatius, as well as that of Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza,

Pontificis est declarare, an congregatio generalis sufficienter. Martinon, Disput. V. § 7. Maimb. c. vii. Anton. c. V. xxxi. Posset numerus episcoporum, cum quibus tenendum est concilium relinqui arbitrio Papæ. Jacobatius, II.

Concilium generale necessario non potest, quando,-Papa tali concilio præest. Panormitan, 2. 53.

+ Dico adesse oportere Sedem Apostolicam, omnes ecclesiæ orthodoxos Patriarchas. Bosius, V. 8. Paol. Rig. Sov. c. iv.

VOL. VI.

T

Canns, Gibert, Lupus, and Fabulottus. Its application would exclude many of the oecumenical synods. The Roman hierarch attended the second and fifth neither in person nor by proxy. The patriarchs were present in neither the third, fourth, nor seventh, nor in any of the ten western councils. The Ephesian and Chalcedonian synods condemned Nestorianism and Eutychianism without the patriarchs of Antioch or Alexandria. The pretended vicars of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in the second of Nicæa, were impostors. During the ten general councils which assembled in the west, the eastern patriarchs were accounted guilty of heresy, or at least of schism. Subsequent reception would extend universality to several diocesan, provincial, and national councils, such as those of Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Laodicea, and Gangra.*

A third faction, prescribed, as the condition of universality, the convocation of all, the rejection of none, and the actual attendance of some from all the great nations of Christendom. The presence of the patriarchs in person, or by delegations, may be useful; but as they are now heretical, or at least schismatical, is not necessary. This system has been patronised by Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Canus, Gibert, Lupus, Arsdekin, Jacobatius, and has obtained general adoption. These requisitions, nevertheless, varying from those of other critics, vary also from the constitution of all the acknowledged councils. Bellarmine's prescription, exploding all the preceding, would, in its practical operation, exterminate, with one sweeping reprobation, all the Grecian, Latin, and French œcumenical synods.

The eight Grecian conventions, from the Nicene to the Byzantine, met, as Alexander, Morier, and Du Pin have observed in the east, and the ten Latin, from the Lateran to the Trentine, in the West. The eastern councils were, with very few exceptions, celebrated by the Greeks, and the western by the Latins. In the chief part of the general councils, celebrated in the east, there were present, says Alexander, only two or three westerns. The second, third, and fifth of the eastern synods, which met at Constantinople and Ephesus, were wholly unattended with any westerns. The first council of Constantinople, say Thomassin and Alexander, was entirely Grecian, and became general only by future reception: and its reception was confined to its faith, exclusive of its discipline. Vigilius, with some Latins, was in Constantinople at the celebration of the fifth, and refused notwithstanding to attend. The Ephesian council had effected the condemnation of Nestorianism, which was its chief or only business, before the arrival of the Latins, and was, in consequence, restricted to the Asians and Egyptians.

Lupus. 306. Bell. I. 17. Carranza, 4. Theod. Stud. Ep. 1. + Satis est, ut sit omnibus provinciis, omnibusque liber sit ad illud accesFabulottus. c. V. Majore parte Christianarum provinciarum, aliqui adveniant. Carranza, 4. Bell, 1. 17. Arsdekin, 1. 160.

sus.

In plerisque conciliis œcumenicis in Oriente celebratis, duos aut tres duntaxat episcopos accidentalis ecclesiæ adfuisse. Alexan. 25. 632. Moreri, 3. 539. Du Pin. 2. 388. Pithou, 29. In secundo et tertio concilio generali, nullus