passages, that a strong and forcible allusion to it may be discerned, and therefore arrives at the exactly contrary inference, that Job lived after that catastrophe. This, with the exception of the more absurd speculations, which remove the book to comparatively late times, and of the questions, whether it were a mere drama, and Job a real or fictitious character, constitutes the chief point at issue between them. We scarcely know which notion is the more wild, that which, after the Rabbin, styles the work a merely moral excursus (or as the Germans write, "moralischen Inhalts," that which creates it a drama, or that of Ilgen, which at once makes it an epic poem.

Of Professor Lee we shall say every thing, when we affirm

Magnis non excidit ausis."

We look forwards to the appearance of his translation of the other Hebrew books.

ART. II.-1. The Novelty of Popery, in matters of Faith and Practice; shown from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and later Ecclesiastical Writers: to which is added, a Statement of the Doctrines of the Church of England, and also of those of the Church of Rome; as set forth in their public Formularies: with the Confessions of learned Romanists, and a comparative Summary and Conclusion, severally, thereon. By the Rev. THOMAS P. PANTIN, M. A., of Queen's College, Oxford, Rector of Westcote, Gloucestershire. London. 1837. 2. The Churches of Rome and England compared in their declared Doctrines and Practices; wherein is shown the Disagreement of the two Churches in many of the Fundamental Articles of Christianity. By RICHARD MANT, D.D., M. R. I. A., Bishop of Down and Connor. London: Parker. 1836. 3. An Inquiry into the principal Points of Difference, real or imaginary, between the two Churches, with a view to Religious Harmony or Forbearance. Together with some Remarks relative to the present extraordinary Times. By the Rev. DAVID O'CROLY, Author of "The Essay on Ecclesiastical Finance," &c. &c. Dublin. 1835.

CONSIDERING the church of Rome as a distinct church, and not rather as that part of the Catholic Church which refused to follow a good example and reform herself, we willingly enough concede to that part a certain modern antiquity. If, as we suppose, she will not thank us for this concession, we must answer, that it is the most we can make. When, at the era commonly called that of the Reformation, the Church in this

country, as well as in others, became sensible of her own corruption, and sought deliverance, she did not indeed create a new church: she was the identical corporation after, as she was before, her reformation: just as an individual recovered from a disease is the same individual that was under the disease. The state, not the identity, is changed. This nearly self-evident fact will sufficiently expose the nonsense, which of late has so plentifully issued from the press, purporting, that the reformers put themselves in unjust possession of the property of their Catholic ancestors. As regards the term catholic, they had much better title to it after than before their reformation. At all events, there being no change of persons, either in an individual or corporate capacity, their rights were not in the slightest degree affected, much less damaged, by the improvement in their spiritual character. Allowing, however, the distinction between the two churches, in whatever it consists, the reformed part will readily permit the unreformed to call herself the old church,-that is, relatively the old church. But the matter does not end here. We must inquire, if relatively old, or older, how far does the priority extend? And, to save time and trouble, we admitfor many long centuries. But let us still proceed; and by the assistance of certain lights, yet accessible and usable, we retrograde through what we must be allowed to call the dark ages, till, like travellers in a tunnel, we see a glimpse of light in the distance, which keeps increasing, while, one after another, the dear peculiarities of Rome vanish from the view, and, on arriving at the source of light itself, they all disappear. We come to the light in a double sense, as respects both the evidence and the matter: we come to the best gift of the Father of lightthe holy Scriptures; and even in the epistle of the chief of the apostles, the apostle eminently of the gentiles, and directed to the city of Rome itself, not one iota or tittle do we discover of the ceremonies and doctrines by which the modern church of Rome is distinguished,-not one article do we recognise, (we do not say in precise terms, but by any fair inference,) agreeing with the articles which Pius IV. has added to all preceding christian creeds.* It is at this point completely, and increasingly long before this point is reached, that the antiquity of the Roman church is extinguished: and it is exactly at the same point that the antiquity of our Church, and of all the Protestant christian churches commences. Here is discovered the first stone of that Church, which, whether visible or not, and in whatsoever degree, has found its way to the times of the blessed

* The doctrine of this epistle on the subject of human justification and merit, which forms the great body of the argumentative portion, might almost be considered as an anticipatory confutation of the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent on those cardinal points.

revolution of Christianity in the sixteenth century, and given to this land, with many others, a pure creed and a holy ritual.*

This statement is so incontrovertibly provable by fact, or history, that we feel at perfect ease as to the issue of the contest respecting real antiquity between the two churches; and we are well satisfied in our own minds, that there is no one point of which Romanists are more sincerely, though painfully conscious, than the real and absolute novelty of the main peculiarities of their own church.

Mr. Pantin-a name honourably distinguished in the literary and Protestant world for his triumphant "Observations" in opposition to the antichristian, because antiprotestant, pamphlet of Dr. Arnold, entitled "The Christian Duty," &c., has undertaken to exhibit the novelty of Popery on three subjectsthe Rule of Faith and Practice; the Canon of Scripture; and the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. The work is small, being in all rather less than a hundred pages, and would serve admirably for general distribution, if it were more popularly written. As it is, with its accurate array of the most satisfactory, because original reference, it commends itself to the more educated class of readers, who may wish a compendious view of the subjects embraced, with directions for more extensive investigation of such particular sections as may be an object of peculiar curiosity. The argument is generally of a cumulative description, possessing this important advantage, that the parts are so distinct from each other, that should any fail in strength or application, the injury is confined to itself, and affects the body of the evidence in a degree hardly worth calculation: it is an independent contribution, not a link in a chain.

We must satisfy ourselves with a brief notice of the first only of Mr. Pantin's tracts, that which respects the Rule of Faith. And we may in the outset observe, what may perplex some readers, that this designation, the Rule of Faith, in the primitive age of Christianity, signified a compendious outline of christian facts, very nearly resembling the Apostles' Creed, which should serve in particular as a test of christian truth, and a

* One of the definitions of the church by Valafridus Strabo, de Rebus Ecclesiast. cap. 6, is-Generalis Sanctorum unitas, in una fide et dilectione conjuncta, unde Una et Catholica dicitur Ecclesia. After the Reformation the pope was put at its head. We owe the above quotation, which, however, we have verified, to Dr. Alexander Geddes, in his anonymous "Modest Apology for the Roman Catholics," pp. 55-58, where he observes, that the Jesuit Canisius is reported to have been the first who made what he calls the "nefarious innovation." He is wrong in the edition of the catechism specified-the third, in 1567. We have before us an edition in 1558, Antwerp, apparently the second, in which the addition is found, fol. 29, recto.

discovery of heresy-not, as it does now, the ultimate authority on matters of christian controversy-a view nevertheless clearly and steadily maintained by the early professors of our faith, and applied exclusively by them to the holy Scriptures. This will be evident to any one who reads, and understands, and can abstain from misrepresenting, Tertullian's treatise "De Præscrip tionibus Hæreticorum." The modern sense of the designation is correct and important; but Protestants should show that they are aware of its ancient, and not inappropriate application. We are not quite certain, whether, in pp. 21-23, Mr. Pantin may not have made Bellarmine represent Scripture as the rule, when the cardinal intended simply to affirm it a rule; for to this admission the papal faith offers no objection. At least, if he admitted the former, he had two tongues for two different occasions. This indeed is no uncommon thing with Romanists : but they should understand the imprudence of using their privilege too freely. The ambiguity of the Latin language, which wants the articles, both definite and indefinite, would favour a misapprehension of the kind which has been stated. But we hasten to the more acceptable task of pointing to the substantial and general excellence of the discussion, and particularly to the whole of the "Conclusion," in which the celebrated cardinal, the best defender of Romanism, and, we might say, of Protestantism too, is produced, as telling us, that "when the Universal Church embraces any thing as an article of faith, which is not found in the holy Scriptures, we must of necessity say that it is maintained from apostolical tradition. The reason of this is, because the Universal Church cannot err, since it is the pillar and ground of the truth.""-(De Verbo Dei, iv. ix.) This quotation, which we have examined and know to be correct, is remarkable for the simplicity with which it lets out the whole truth of the reason, why the Roman church has battled so resolutely for the equal authority of tradition and Scripture—indeed, by her application and use of the former, given it the superiority. She was, at the Reformation, caught in a number of religious, external, and ostentatious observances, which she knew well enough could not be traced to Scripture. They might be traced to tradition, that is, to such a tradition as she had for the most part manufactured. But what if this source, however creditable, should prove, or be admitted, to be inferior? Where would Rome and religion be in the eyes of the world; particularly in the scrutinizing times while the Council of Trent was sitting? What was to be done? There was no help or remedy, but to make tradition an equal assessor on the throne, and bow to both pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia; and so the entire honour and inerrability of the Italian church were preserved. Mr. Pantin proceeds to present his readers with some passages from writers of that church, which are valuable and interesting, as stating

more fully and distinctly, than Romanists generally find it convenient to do, what they really understand as traditions, or doctrines, or usages, delivered by tradition. Our author closes this list with the appropriate declaration of Pighius, that the Church had been in a better state if her members had been mindful of the doctrine of tradition; and that heretics are not to be instructed or convinced out of the Scriptures. This, Mr. Pantin justly concludes," is in itself a full and ample acknowledgment, that the religion of the Bible is not the religion of the modern church of Rome."* P. 28.

We should have been happy to spend more time in exhibiting the contents of these Tracts, so suitable to the times, which are eminently Anti-Protestant, when there is the greatest reason that they should be the opposite. In the last two, as well as in the first, we might compare and contrast the doctrines of the two churches; but we must proceed to the next work at the head of this article, which goes over the same ground, and much in the same way.

This is likewise a small, but most comprehensive and decisive, tract. The substance of it first appeared, as a notice to the reader states, in a Letter to Lord Viscount Melbourne, in confutation of a reported assertion of his Lordship, that "the Roman Catholics in all the fundamentals of Christianity agree with Protestants." No wonder a Protestant, especially a Protestant Bishop, and chief of all an Irish Protestant Bishop, should protest against such a position. The position, that being

It is with true tact that the Romanist makes tradition the main pillar of his church: it keeps the rule and judge within his church, and subject to her control. The scripture, as supreme judge, would be external and independent, if nothing more. It is a remarkable but natural circumstance, that in the case of converts to the church of Rome the motives to conversion are but slightly regarded. Indeed, the more insufficient the better. Accordingly Dr. Wiseman, in his pretty romantic way, talks of various motives producing the desired object. The fact is, that if there be a rational motive, (which is not easy to be conceived,) the momentum is in the person, not in the church. The object is to bring him into the fold, or den, no matter how; and then the church will instruct him, which will be her doing. This literally preposterous method is natural and wise enough, as the church of Rome is constituted: but first to be converted, and then to be instructed what a person is converted to, is a course not marked by human wisdom, and perhaps still less by divine. If for wisdom we substitute policy, the case is altered. In a collection of pieces relative to the conversion or reconciliation of Henry IV. of France, which we have seen in manuscript, the instruction follows the conversion in due order. Tertullian has a pungent and applicative remark on this subject in his book against the Valentinians, cap. i., Habent artificium, quo prius persuadeant, quam edoceant. Veritas autem docendo persuadet: non suadendo docet.