Breviary by Thomas Aquinas, teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation.

"Directing his schoolmaster to teach, and himself teaching, the children in his school, that there are seven sacraments, and that the holy communion might be properly called the mass.

"That in the administration of the holy communion he elevated the cup, and mixed water with the wine.

"That he crossed himself after the Romish fashion during the celebration of divine service.

“That he made the sign of the cross upon the water at baptism."

Upon the first of the above charges, viz., the using in his church a hymn of Thomas Aquinas teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation, we may remark, that Thomas Aquinas, was a vehement defender of that doctrine (see Milner's Church History), in a hymn on the Eucharist must have meant to teach it, and does teach it in the following words :

"Word made flesh! Thy own word maketh

Very bread thy flesh to be;

Wine the blood of Christ becometh

What no human eye can see:
Yet to every guileless spirit

Faith will teach the mystery."

:

The original Latin of Aquinas is as follows:

"Verbum caro panem verum
Verbo carnem efficit;
Fitque sanguis Christi merum
Et si sensus deficit,

Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides sufficit."

In teaching the doctrine contained in this hymn, Mr. Randall contravenes the 28th of the Thirty-nine Articles, which asserts that:

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

"The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith."

The second charge is his teaching the children of his school that there are seven sacraments, and that of these, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, and Matrimony, are sacraments of the New Law, i.e., of the Gospel.

* In another version of this hymn in use in Lavington Church, the words are:"Though no outward change we see.”

This is a violation of the 25th of the Thirty-nine Articles, which states that,—

"There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel, i.e., Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

"Those five commonly called sacraments, i.e., Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted as sacraments of the gospel."

The next charges are, that in the administration of the Lord's Supper he elevated the cup, and mixed water with the wine; that he crossed himself during the celebration of divine service, and made the sign of the cross upon the water at baptism.

In all these particulars, Mr. Randall violated the Act of Uniformity, 1 Elizabeth, which forbids the use of " any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, or matins, evensong, administration of the sacrament, or other open prayers," than is mentioned in the "Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England;" which Act of Uniformity is referred to and confirmed by the Act xiv. Car. 2.

And further, in elevating the cup at the administration of the Lord's Supper, he again violated the 28th of the Thirty-nine Articles, which says that, "The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped."

Such were the charges brought against the rector of Lavington, under which he remained silent and passive, neither asking for a commission of inquiry, nor yet to the published letters of his choirmaster and schoolmaster making any reply,-a course not open to an innocent man. But though the accused party did not ask for a commission, why did not the Bishop of Chichester issue one? We believe that the reason was not only that he had twice pronounced the rector "clear and upright," but that there was another party behind the scenes, by whom the bishop suffered himself to be guided, who was well aware that the laws ecclesiastical had been violated by the rector, and had his own reasons for dreading the exposure of the fact.

The Church Protestant Defence Society now took up the case. A letter from the secretary to the bishop, containing a full review of the circumstances, and calling his lordship's attention to them, received a bare acknowledgment. A second, signed by Lord Shaftesbury as President, was somewhat more successful. In a short but not very courteous letter, the bishop replied that "he thought it probable that Mr. Randall would give publicity to some further statement from himself." Six weeks having passed away without any further communication, the committee then made a formal application to the bishop for a commission under the Church

Discipline Act, which was met by a virtual refusal, his lordship referring the committee to a "printed correspondence between himself and the rector of Lavington."

This correspondence is now lying before us; from which it appears, that in lieu of referring the charges brought against the rector to commissioners, according to the provisions of 3 and 4 Vic. cap. 86, the bishop constituted himself judge and jury, and, utterly ignoring the published letters of the choirmaster and schoolmaster, called upon the rector to state the charges against himself, (!!) and give explanations. The parallel case is this. Richard Smith breaks into a house. John Hobbs and Thomas Dobbs swear that they saw him in the act of breaking in. The case is brought before a magistrate, who refuses to listen to John Hobbs and Thomas Dobbs, and only asks Richard Smith what he desires to say for himself. The Church Protestant Defence Committee remark upon the rector's statement :

"An accused person cannot be blamed for stating his own case in the most favourable point of view, and in a manner which can be most easily answered. Yet even upon this partial showing, it appears that Mr. Randall was in the habit of catechising the children upon the existence of the seven sacraments, of mixing water with the wine in the eucharist, and of crossing the water in baptism."

He also admitted that he had been in the habit of crossing himself during divine service. At a subsequent period, he denied that he had elevated the cup, but acknowledged he had made use of Thomas Aquinas's hymn. The bishop, in reply to Mr. Randall's explanations, acquits him of teaching Romish doctrine, but condemns him for his adoption of Romish practices, viz., the crossing himself, and crossing the water at baptism, as also mixing water with the wine at the eucharist; and calls upon him to lay them aside,-practices, it will be observed, which had been going on at Lavington, without rebuke from the bishop, whose attention had been called to them in February, for nearly eight months. He also requested him to lay aside the use of Aquinas's hymn; at the same time denying that it taught transubstantiation; upon which we have only to remark, that this identical hymn is to be found in Bishop Gibson's Preservation against Popery, as a sample of the teaching of Rome in reference to this very doctrine. Upon the publication of this correspondence, the bishop declined to receive any further communication from the Church Protestant Defence Committee.

Upon the ulterior proceedings in this case we shall dwell very briefly, as from their recent occurrence they are already familiar to our readers. On the part of the Bishop of Chichester there had been a clear denial of justice. The rector of Lavington was punishable by law for his acknowledged violations of the Act of Uniformity; but the bishop sheltered him from all legal consequences, by refusing to issue a commission, and dismissing him

with a slight rebuke. With reference to the charges brought against him of teaching the children of his parish false doctrine, he had accepted the rector's unsupported assertion against the united testimony of the curate, choirmaster, and schoolmaster. Will it be credited, that at a later period he refused all further investigation of the case, though pressed upon him by four-fifths of the principal parishioners of Lavington and Graffham, headed by three of the churchwardens? If such a course were open to a bishop, it is quite clear that no departure from our Articles, or innovation in our church services, could be impeached to any good purpose in a diocese where the disposition of the bishop coincided with that of the trespasser, or where he was inclined to shelter him as a relative or personal friend. The first private inquiry would stifle the matter, and the bishop would shelter himself behind his discretionary power. Under these circumstances, no clergyman in the diocese of Chichester seeming to be willing to move, Mr. Golightly, of Oxford, threw himself into the breach, and after being refused a commission by the Bishop of Chichester, like the preceding applicants, applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus. In spite of the well-known reluctance of the Court to entertain applications involving theological questions, he obtained a rule, and the bishop was compelled to show cause why the mandamus should not issue. The cause was admitted by the Court to be one of great importance, and was ably argued by counsel on both sides. Judgment was deferred for a fortnight. It unfortunately happened that during this interval Lord Campbell became Chancellor, and Sir W. Erle, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Of the remaining judges, Mr. Justice Wightman held that the Bishop of Chichester had a discretion under the Church Discipline Bill, and had therefore the power to withhold the issue of a commission, if he thought proper to do so. Mr. Justice Hill was of opinion that the question of the bishop's discretion was a doubtful one, and that if the cause had turned upon this, the rule ought to be made absolute, in order that the decision might be submitted to the review of a Court of Error; but that Mr. Golightly was not entitled to the relief of the Court, not being an aggrieved party. Judgment, therefore, was given in the bishop's favour; and it was stated that Lord Campbell and Lord Chief Justice Erle concurred in the decision, though it was not stated upon what grounds.

We regret this issue as most unsatisfactory. A stigma rests upon the diocese of Chichester, which the clergy have shown no anxiety to remove. Serious charges have been brought against an incumbent, who has shirked when he ought to have courted inquiry. The bishop has sheltered the accused party, and the law courts refuse to interfere. Still we hope that good will have been done by the publicity thus given to the proceedings at Lavington. The laity have been forewarned, and we trust

forearmed, against the attempts making to un-protestantize our church, by a party of which Mr. Randall is too faithful a representative. A warning has also been given to the younger clergy. May the great Head of the Church overrule these and all our Church's other troubles to His glory!

Life of Mary Anne Schimmelpenninck. Edited by her relative, Christiana C. Hankin. 3 Vols. 8vo. Longman: 1858.

SEVERAL female autobiographers have, within no very long period, occupied our attention in the Christian Observer. Among the most eminent of these have been Madame Guyon and Mrs. Sherwood; and now comes a lady with a name which we must at once take the liberty of expressing our intention, for very obvious reasons, to abridge into the shabby diminutive "Mrs. S."

The first of the above-mentioned memoirs, collected and arranged by an American editor from a whole acreage of the curious volumes of Madame Guyon's work, was of the highest interest, opening up topics of deep theological importance, giving by far the clearest exposition of the real mind and temper of the leaders of the Gallican church in her days with which we are acquainted, and displaying in the lady herself a mind adorned with almost all those qualities which constitute the charm of life, and awaken the admiration of the saints of God. It was our endeavour, in a review of that work, to do full justice to it; and, produced as that criticism was before our own assumption of the editorial office, we may speak of it as a really valuable gift to the church of Christ; inasmuch as it touched, with the nicest discrimination, many theological topics of extreme delicacy, pointed to the strange amalgamation of conflicting principles in the minds of that particular body of persons, and endeavoured to solve the enigma of those who, like Madame Guyon and Fénélon, essentially protestant in their main principles, still cleave to that corrupt church with which they have so little in common.

The autobiography of Mrs. Sherwood is also a work of much interest. Nothing can well surpass the cheerful, touching, affectionate sketches which it presents of her earliest years. The pictures are no doubt strongly illuminated by the sunshine of her own mind. That autobiography also it was our endeavour to review, and to shew the dark and bright sides of it.

And now we have a third specimen, in the work before us, of a female autobiographer whose work does not yield in interest to that of either of her predecessors. It is this lady's sketch of herself which we now propose to place before our readers.