reasoning for them to say, "Here is a doctrine or a custom existing in the days of Ambrose, and Ambrose must have received it from the Apostles." As far as mere probability goes, it is in the utmost degree unlikely that the Church in 390 was identically the same with the Church in 65. "Man never continueth in one stay;" and we have the clearest proof of the law of mutability in our own native history. The Church of England under Laud differed essentially from the same church under Parker; and the Church under Tillotson was unlike either. But we need not rest our case of the mere improbability, or almost impossibility, of the identity of the church of Ambrose with the church of the apostles; we may appeal to existing documents which abundantly prove the existence of a great disagreement. We say that the worship or excessive veneration of the Virgin could not have been an apostolic practice, without some vestige of it appearing in some one of the twenty-one apostolic epistles. We say that if invocations of, and prayers to, departed saints, had been held by the apostles to be allowable, we should have met with such, in the writings of John, directed to James, his departed brother; or to Peter, his fellow-apostle, or, at least, in some of the epistles, directed to Stephen, or some of the earlier confessors. We say that if the bones of the martyrs had been counted fit objects of veneration, and vehicles of miraculous power, the Church, in apostolic days, possessed the remains of Stephen, of James, and of many others, and we should assuredly have found some allusion to them. We say that if the vow of a vestal life had been regarded as raising man or woman to the rank of angels, it is quite inconceivable that no sentiment of the kind, or encouragement to such a vow, or directions to the nuns, should appear in the apostolic writings. In fine, we take Mr. Newman's whole portraiture, of what he rightly describes as "the church of the fourth century," and we say, that it wholly differs from the Church of the first. It matters not, whether we are able to trace the first appearance of each error in the bud, or not; it matters not whether Ambrose or some one before him, had first conceived the thought of digging up the bones of dead men, giving them fine names, inventing histories of their martyrdom, and contriving false miracles for their glorification;-one thing is perfectly clear, that, once more to repeat the most true and emphatic words, the religion of the fourth century is so unlike that of the first, "that it is impossible for the same mind to sympathize with both. You must choose between the two lines. They are not only divergent, but CONTRARY." The faith of the Church of England is built wholly upon ScripThis she plainly and constantly avows; in her Articles, in ture. her Homilies, in her Ordination Service. And-however Mr. Newman may have allowed himself to declaim, in the passage quoted above, against "the free and easy system now in fashion,” as one wholly unsupported by evidence,"-others of his own party have more candidly admitted, that as far as "apparent evidence" goes, the sense of Scripture is against "the Church system," and in favor of the Protestant. We take up, for instance, the British Critic of October, 1841, and we there read such admissions as these: "The prima facie evidence of the New Testament is what may be called strongly anti-formal." (p. 423.) "We are disposed to concede to the Calvinist, that in his objection to these (Holy days, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Altar, &c.) and such like matters of external religion, he has the apparent evidence of Scripture with him.” "A subject which the New Testament appears remarkably to discredit, is that of the religious veneration of St. Mary." "Would the mere private study of the New Testament, as a general rule, lead a person to adopt the ritual and ceremonial system of the Church." "We think not." (p. 424.) "The Church system appears to be so exactly anticipated by parts of the Pharisaic, that, so far from wondering at all which is said of the resemblance between Papists and Pharisees, we much rather wonder, that there is not more Puritanism on Scriptural principles in the world than there is." (pp. 424, 425.) "How almost irresistible, for instance, is the temptation to trace a prophetic reference to the Papal power in Matt. xxiii. 9, 10." Again, the Catholic system of penance appears to suggest a very inviting counterpart to the case of "binding on men's shoul ders burthens heavy and grievous to be borne." "Again, the paradox involved in at once 'shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men,' and 'compassing sea and land to make one proselyte,' appears to be exactly realized in the union of intense zeal for the Church, with a restricted circulation of the Scriptures, and a measured disclosure of divine mysteries." (p. 425.) The writer then proceeds to meet all this clear and direct evidence in favor of Protestantism, by searching out for "indirect evidence for the ritual system." All, however, that we have had in view in thus citing him, is, to shew that while Mr. Newman so triumphantly asserts, that "all the evidence that is extant, is on our side-Protestants have none;" one of his coadjutors frankly admits that the apparent drift of the highest evidence of allScripture, is against "the Church system," and in favor of the Protestant! And this important fact is tacitly admitted, we must further add, by the whole Tractarian body, in their firm and unanimous resolve never to admit Holy Scripture to be the sole and sufficient Rule of Faith. They show thereby their conviction that the admission of God's word as the sole umpire, would be fatal to their cause. Hence, with one consent, they require another arbitrator, on their own part, namely, "Antiquity," or an undefined, indiscriminate assemblage of ecclesiastical writers, dispersed through ten or twelve centuries, and maintaining all kinds of errors and corruptions. This earnest appeal from Scripture to Antiquity, declares at once their sense of the impossibility of reconciling their "Church system" with the word of God. And the records of "The Church of the Fathers" declare the same thing. "Throughout the east, throughout the west, throughout the African church," "virginity they put first and foremost; then came maceration of the body, tears, psalm-singing, prostrations on the bare earth, humiliations, alms-giving, expiatory labours and sufferings, the kind offices of the saints in heaven, the wonder-working efficacy of the sacraments, the unutterable powers of the clergy, these were the rife and favored themes of animated sermons and prolix treatises; and such was the style, spirit, temper and practice of the church, from the Tigris to the Atlantic, from the Scandinavian morasses to the sands of the great desert." Such was, in truth, "the Church of the Fathers," and no sophistry can conceal the plain and obvious fact, that it differed in all these, its leading features, fundamentally and irreconcileably, from THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES. SHORT NOTICES. TRUTH ON BOTH SIDES; or, can the Believer finally fall? By STAFFORD BROWN, M.A., Perpetual Curate of Christ Church, Derry Hill, Wilts. 12mo. London: Hatchards. 1842. We have been much better pleased with the Christian spirit than with the conclusion which is drawn in this work. We are much afraid of that system which is so popular now, of weakening, one after another, the great doctrines of the Gospel. Under the appearance of maintaining the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that doctrine is here, in fact, removed; for if it be maintained that saints who have passed from death to life, and who have the incorruptible seed that liveth and abideth for ever, can finally fall away and perish, the truth of their perseverance is in reality abandoned. It is impossible that two really contradictory doctrines can be true: though we readily admit there may be a point of perfect harmony in apparently contradictory doctrines. We think that Mr. Brown has wholly failed in proving, in his third chapter, that truly converted men can fall from grace. His strongest statements are gathered from the 3rd and 18th chapters of Ezekiel; but when we consider how an external righteousness entitles a man to the name of being righteous, so that St. Paul could say before his conversion that touching the righteousness of the law he was blameless,-the nature of this righteousness is sufficiently clear. How often it pleases God to expose the vanity of trusting in an external righteousness, by leaving such a person to the power of temptation. How important to the divine life is godly jealousy and fear! We may easily account for, and should abundantly profit, therefore, by the statements in Ezekiel. In the way of solemn caution and warning, and to lead us to take care that we do not mistake even the most perfect counterfeits of grace for grace, and so perish in our sins, these passages and those in the Hebrews, and in St. Peter, are full of instruction. God's people are thus instructed not to be high-minded, but to fear, and to remember that they stand by faith. The scriptural examples of Solomon and Demas furnish no evidence in this controversy in favour of Mr. Brown's views. Remembering that Solomon died at fifty-eight, the great probability is that Ecclesiastes was the record of his repentance. It is most improbable that one whom the Lord specially named Jedidiah, beloved of the Lord, should ultimately die impenitent. We allow that the warning is more solemn from his repentance not being mentioned. The evidences either of Demas's real conversion, or of his apostacy, especially when what is connected with his departure is weighed (2 Tim. iv. 10,) are far too inconclusive to found any argument upon in this subject. The pious and amiable writer of this volume will see that we wholly differ from his conclusions; and we cannot but fear they may grieve and weaken the hearts of real Christians. Nothing can set aside the plain account given of apostacy by the Apostle"They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they "had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; "but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." Nothing can set aside the sweet assurance of our Lord's promises-" My sheep hear my voice, and I know "them, and they follow me. They shall never perish, neither "shall any pluck them out of my hands ;"—nor of the Apostle's confidence" He which hath begun a good work in you will per"form it to the day of Christ." THE BISHOPRIC OF SOULS. By the Rev. ROBERT WILSON THERE is much that is awakening, practical, and very stirring, in this book, and we regret that we cannot commend it unreservedly. But there are partial and defective views, calculated to do much mischief, and in the hope that they may be modified, or wholly omitted in a second edition, we will point them out. Our experience has been very different to Mr. Evans's, that foreign missions are preferred to home schools. We wholly object to the statements therefore (page 175, 176,); and to the sarcastic comparison of foreign to home duties, and the assurance that "this is nothing more than the reality of things, as every clergyman can tell." Why should Mr. Evans seek to lower the feeble zeal of our Church for diffusing Christianity among the heathen? Why disparage, again, all Commentaries (p. 187,) and bid ministers "use no Commentary at all," and assert, "one is often tempted to wish that every Commentary, at least of modern days, were burnt?" Are indeed Jerome, Origen or Chrysostom so very superior to Patrick, Lowth, Henry and Scott, or so much more likely to be useful? The extravagant commendations of the early Fathers, and the exclusive attention to be paid to them, in page 190 and 191, are both partial and rash statements; while we cordially approve of the course of study which he points out, as far as it goes. Α complaint is made that students "will devote sufficient time to the perusal of second-hand modern trash, and at the end of this period, when they might have come from the course recommended by Mr. Evans with such a knowledge of Christian antiquity, as not all the modern ecclesiastical histories put together, can give, they will be proud of having mastered the ignorant misrepresentations of Milner, or the perverted views of Neander." When Mr. King so ably replied to the misrepresentations of Mr. Maitland, he gave his work this designation-" Maitland not entitled to censure Milner." With far less research and ability, is Mr. Evans entitled to censure either Milner or Neander? In page 195 does Mr. Evans mean by "the Well-head," the Holy Scriptures or the early Fathers? It would be desirable to make this point clear in another edition. It is with no unfriendly view that we notice these things. We have a real esteem and love for Mr. Evans as a laborious and faithful minister in our church. This work, purged from these partialities, and with more of the great peculiarities which dis AUGUST, 1842. 4 N |