the very disciplina arcani, the existence of which Dr. Shuttleworth impugns, being an answer in full to his objection; it was not to be expected that what was taken for granted by those who knew it, and was to be otherwise imparted to those who were yet catechumens, would be made a topic of a hortatory epistle, or in the hour of public martyrdom.

And in order to bring before the reader the full force of what Justin Martyr has said, I will first set down what the Warden has quoted, and his remark on the passage quoted by himself—

"On the day which is called Sunday," says he [Justin Martyr], “an assembly of believers, through town and country, takes place upon some common spot, where the writings of the apostles, or the books of the prophets, are publicly read so long as the time allows; after which, the presiding minister in a sermon exhorts his hearers to the practical adoption of the good precepts which they have thus heard recited."

The Warden's remark is

"In this short account we might fancy that we are reading a description of the mode of performing divine worship in any modern protestant congregation.” What the Warden means by a "protestant congregation" he does not say.

But waving this point for the present, I must draw the attention of the reader to a circumstance about the quotation and the remark which has an air of unfairness very remote, I sincerely believe, from the intention of Dr. Shuttleworth. The quotation stands as if the subject were exhausted, and the argument amounts to this:-You see here Justin Martyr's description of Sunday worship in his day; there is no fuss about ritual, no particular ceremony observed, no mention of the necessity of frequent or regular Sunday communion; no-we might fancy that we are reading a description of the mode of performing divine worship in any modern protestant congregation.

Will the Warden's English readers believe, that in this very tract of Justin Martyr's, a little before, there is a long description of the cele bration of the holy communion,* yet avowedly leaving unsaid the larger part of its detail; and that the tract goes on with the subject, immediately after the last words in the Warden's quotation, as follows— ·

"We then all stand up together, and put forth prayers. Then, as we have already said, when we cease from prayer, bread is brought, and wine, and water; and our head in like manner offers up prayers and praises with his utmost power; and the people express their assent by saying, Amen. The consecrated elements are then distributed, and received by every one; and a portion is sent by the deacons to those who are absent. Each of those also, who have abundance and are willing, according to his choice, gives what he thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with him who presides, who succours the fatherless and the widows, and those who are in necessity from disease or any other cause."

Except in the circumstances of using water in the celebration, which the church of England nowhere disallows, and has been done by some of her greatest divines, and the reservation of the sacrament for the absent, we here have an account of what takes place on Sunday

* A part of it will be found quoted further on.

Referring to the description of the celebration of the holy communion which he has given a little before.

when the holy communion is celebrated in our churches. The time seems to be at hand when our church's reproach will be wiped away, and her priests will do as she enjoins them, and no Sunday will pass of which Justin's account will be untrue. If the Warden's book reaches another edition, as doubtless it will, he is bound in candour, after this notice, to give Justin Martyr's statement in full, and not by continuing the suppression of the part which I have now quoted to convey the suspicion, that Justin Martyr was at one with that cankered protestantism which can placidly acquiesce in the passing of a Sunday without a celebration of the great act of the Christian religion.

And I take occasion from this sentence of the Warden to notice his use of the words "protestant" and "protestantism." Now it is not possible to predicate protestantism of the church of England absolutely; for she is not protestant absolutely, but only relatively. The church of England, as is well known, nowhere calls herself protestant, but teaches faith in the one catholic and apostolic church of which she is herself a part. There is, however, no injustice done to her, when she is called protestant in such a manner as not to make her cause the same with heretical protestantism. Geneva, Scotland, and France, have each a protestant religious establishment, but without any apostolical succession of ministry, and so heretical. The term "protestantism" therefore, in a work by an English divine, ought at least to be so guarded as not to mislead incautious popular readers into a vague idea; but, on the contrary, so as to let them see distinctly when the Anglican church is included in it, and when not. I greatly regret to say, that Dr. Shuttleworth has not taken this necessary care, and that it might be inferred from his manner of writing that the Anglican church was absolutely protestant. The unfinished quotation from Justin Martyr may, for anything that I know, apply to Genevese or Scotchkirk worship: did Dr. Shuttleworth mean that it applied, so as to describe exhaustively, the worship of the church of England? I confess that, as far as I can gather from Dr. Shuttleworth's book, the pure protestantism (p. 67.) of which he speaks as identified with the cause of sound Christianity is meant by him to be a protestantism against Rome, by the church of England, in unity with the presbyterians and every other religious society. If such is the protestantism of which he is the advocate, I hope that not only the compilers of the Tracts for the Times, but all sincere members of the church of England, are its hearty enemies. Protestantism such as this has once already caused the king to be murdered, and the church uprooted in England; and has perpetuated the disestablishment of the church in Scotland; and causes the Scotch kirk still to publish, with such authority as it has, its revilings of bishops and catholic church-government. How far men who lean only upon protestantism may "proceed onwards to Socinianism," I think I can exhibit in a very striking manner, by two instances. The first is the late Adam Clarke, the learned Wesleyan preacher and author. In his "Succession of Sacred Literature," speaking of St. Gregory of Nyssa, (p. 445, vol. i.,) he says, analyzing the contents of the epistle to Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa," Towards the end, Gregory speaks of our Lord's birth, and asks, Who can be so bold as

to call the mother of God, the mother of a man ;" and he explains himself a little farther on by saying,-"There is hardly one error of the Romish church, which he (Gregory) does not, not merely incidentally mention, but strongly express and defend. I will embody his creed on these points, and give the treatise where the erroneous doctrine is supported:of the mother of GOD, (Orat. V. in Pasch. and Ep. ad Eustath. Ambros. and Bas.)" The other is the anonymous author of a tract, (12mo. Nisbet, London, 1837,) entitled "Popery at Rome," which appears, from an advertisement on the back of the title-page (signed "E. H."), to have been sent as a letter to the Rev. Dr. Baggs, head of the English Roman-catholic college in Rome during the absence of Dr. Wiseman, in May, 1836. The writer says, (p. 10.) "With respect to the Virgin Mary, no doubt, Mr. Burgess [the clergyman of the church of England in Rome] would give her the reverence God permits, and no more-that of being blessed among women. To call her the mother of God is blasphemy. If God had a mother, he had a beginning. And does your church presume to say, the eternal God had a beginning? The Virgin Mary was the mother of the Man Christ Jesus by a miraculous conception; therefore, as man, Christ had a mother; as God, he had no mother: and no subtlety or logic can overturn the scriptures on this head." I shall not spend any time in remarking on the daring ignorance of this writer: his want of information is the strongest ground for thinking charitably of him. I ought to mention that he throughout speaks of himself as a member of the church of England, and is contending warmly in behalf of the English clergyman at Rome.

Now, both these persons, Adam Clarke and E. H., have here openly avowed the old Nestorian heresy condemned in the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, one of those four general councils on which the church of England is supposed to rely implicity. Johnson in his "Clergyman's Vade-Mecum," in the short preface which he has compiled to this council, says, that Nestorius "asserted that there were not only two natures, but two persons in CHRIST JESUS; and that the Deity was not hypostatically united to HIM, but only by way of inhabitation; and that consequently the blessed Virgin could not properly be styled OEOTOKOS." And this is exactly the ground taken by Adam Clarke, the orthodox (as he would be called by certain persons) dissenter, and E. H. the ultra-protestant church-of-England man. It is almost unnecessary to put in words, that the direct and undeniable consequence of stating that the blessed Virgin is not corÒKoç, the mother of God, is that her Son was not GOD. Such is the way by which protestantism "proceeds onward to Socinianism."

My present letter is already, perhaps, longer than may be convenient to you: I will therefore leave my review of Dr. Shuttleworth's book at this point, and resume it in another. Your most faithful servant,

D. P.

MR. AUSTEN ON MR. SHAW LEFEVRE'S BILL.

SIR,-I am sorry and surprised that my saying, "I hope you will not decline to print this letter," gave you so much offence as you expressed in your "Notices to Correspondents" this month. I am sorry you spoke of me as at liberty to "write anything I pleased about the clergy,' and as "thinking the clergy were very unreasonable," whereas what I said was, "rather hasty and unguarded." You have imagined various reasons for my inserting the offensive expression, any one of which would have been discreditable to me; I will give you another-viz, that I considered it possible you might not think my arguments worth occupying the place of more valuable matter. If all the world entertained the same opinion of them which you have expressed, the letter had better not have been printed; but as one of your correspondents at least considers that I have given a "clear and just view" of the subject, perhaps I was not wrong in wishing to see my letter in print. You have challenged me with Mr. Jones' pamphlet. I have read that publication, and am prepared to argue that it is not conclusive against me. I will offer a few remarks upon his arguments, which is all that the limits of a letter will permit. I must premise, in regard to what Mr. Jones says of the introduction of Mr. Lefevre's bill, that I did not, any more than himself, commend that proceeding; I went so far even as to say that the real purpose of it was not honestly avowed.

But to the subject of my letter. Mr. Jones' first argument is, that tithes, being a payment to the clergy for the performance of professional duties, the value of them does not represent the rateable ability of the clergy; he begins:-" The clergy of the church of England are supposed to constitute a body of nearly 20,000 men; of these, about half have benefices; of those benefices, 4861 are under 2007. per annum. The poverty of so large a body of ministers of religion is a subject of public sorrow. The educated persons who perform the duties of these benefices have, during the mutations of the law of rating, become subject to a tax on the wages of their personal labour, from which that same law exempts the members of all other callings and professions however rich; and from which, I firmly believe that the law, consistently interpreted, as to the wages of labour, from the beginning, would have exempted them."... (8) "I declare in the outset it is this great preliminary hardship which I mainly wish to see removed: the manufacturer, physician, and lawyer, ought not to escape direct taxation, while the scanty wages of the labouring clergy are made less by that anomalous exception." I answer, that, beyond question, the circumstances of the country demand that the incomes of the clergy should generally be increased; but it does not follow that the exempting them from rates would therefore be a right measure: it would be more to the purpose to require for them an exemption from such taxes as are borne by the whole community. But it appears to me that Mr. Jones has fallen into a great mistake in advancing this argument at all. Tithes are a property, the property of the church; but if they are treated as the wages of the clergy, this point is in a manner given up. Let us supVOL. XIV.-Nov. 1838.

3 Y

pose that, in the case of a benefice where the tithes are only 1507. per annum, the incumbent has a plea to be excused a portion of the rates on account of the inadequacy of his wages; then in a benefice of 1000l. per annum, the landlords will have a good plea to be excused a portion of the tithe on account of the redundancy of that income. A clergyman's small income from tithe is rated, and (say) a clerk in a public office has a large salary from a different source which is not rated; but if a clergyman derive his income from such other source, he would not be rated; and if the clerk were to derive his salary from landed property, he would be so. As to the value of the tithe which the church possesses, it must be admitted that the church has by no means so large an interest in the property of the country as it formerly possessed, or ought reasonably to have; but I am inclined to think, that the tithe of any particular farm, even when saddled with modern rates and taxes, gives to the tithe-owner as great an interest in that particular property as he ever enjoyed; for against the disadvantages of rates and taxes, with which it was not originally burdened, we are to set the advantages derived from a large capital applied to cultivation.

Mr. Jones contends, secondly, that by the statute 43 Eliz., upon which the law of rating is founded (6), "no thing is made the subject of taxation, it is wholly persons." (25), "The act of Eliz. would have given the clergy from the beginning the right of deducting the mere wages of professional duties, before their rateable ability was determined." He says (17), "The fullest exposition of this principle will be found in Nolan on the Poor Laws; the law is there found fully and clearly stated as I have stated it, and will do away the effect of those incorrect assertions regarding the case of Joddrell.”— I answer, in the first place, that whatever might have been the principle on which, in 1597, the statute was framed, it is not denied that it it is now administered on the principle of rating things and not persons. A lawyer, physician, &c., occupying only premises worth 1007. per annum, would be rated only at 1007., whether his income were 5001. or 20,000l.

But it appears to me that Nolan has decided against Mr. Jones' views. He (Nolan) says (72), "Two great principles were laid down by all the judges very soon after 43 Eliz. was passed respecting the rateability of property; 1st, the assessment is to be made according to the visible estate of the inhabitants both real and personal." Again (165), "It was unusual to assess personal property for near two centuries subsequent to the statute; and (145) "Both rectorial and vicarial tithes have always been deemed rateable; for the legislature intended, when rates were made, every person should contribute according to the benefit which he received in the parish; and this is a profit without any risk run." Observe, according to the benefit received, not according to his ability. How, admitting this exposition, can it be argued that a clergyman is not to be rated according to the value of his tithes? Nolan certainly says (225), “The principle that the rackrent (of a farm) is the criterion of the actual value upon which the tax is laid, is fallacious; rent being only so much of the actual value