poetry; the flowing rythm of artificial eloquence, and the studied attitude of literary ambition, are miserable substitutes for the painful researches of a Mede, -the logical precision of a Sherlock,-the sober statements of a Newton,-the depth of the wisdom of a Horsley, and the variety of the learning of a Faber! What praise our author deserves, we freely award him; and yet, in the encomia, which we might pass upon the better sections of his sermons, we adopt the caution of the Roman orator, and say for ourselves, " Ita probo, ut me ab eo delectari facilius, quam decipi putem posse."- Cic. Orat. in Q. Cæcil. § 13.

ART. II.-Friendly and Seasonable Advice to the Roman Catholics of England. Fourth Edition, with an Appendix and Notes. By the Rev. WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, M. A. Chaplain in Ordinary to the King, &c. Rivingtons, London: Langbridge, Birmingham. 1829. pp. 197. Price 5s.

THIS work is "a little body with a mighty heart." Although in bulk scarcely exceeding the dimensions of a tract, it contains a great proportion of most valuable and important matter, as well as some most convincing reasoning. What its nature and objects are, will best be understood by reference to the editor's own words, which we subjoin:

For the re-publication of the following little volume at such a period as the present, the Editor presumes that no apology can be necessary. His attention was originally attracted to the subject of which it treats, by the circumstance of his residing in the neighbourhood of a large Roman Catholic Establishment, (Oscot College,) by means of which, it may almost be said, whole parishes have been converted to the Romish faith. He at one time intended to prepare for the press a work similar to the present, but on a larger scale, and was collecting materials for that purpose, when, by an appointment to a more extensive sphere of parochial duty, he was compelled, from want of leisure, to abandon his design. But having found in the following little Tract those opinions and principles which Churchmen have ever held to be sound and correct, briefly stated and calmly maintained, he considered that he might be rendering some service to the cause of true religion by re-printing it.

He has been chiefly influenced by two considerations,-relating, first, to the Romanists themselves; and, secondly, to Protestants. With respect to the former, it may be impossible to convert such as are confirmed in their attachment to the Romish church and faith, since to them the perusal of a work like the present will be prohibited. He does, however, hope to excite a spirit of inquiry in the minds of those who, without having ascertained what the claims of the Church of England to their allegiance really are, have forsaken the communion of their native land to embrace the pomps and vanities of a foreign, and, comparatively speaking, of a modern religion.

In the next place, although in the volume he now submits to the public, no allusion is made to the great question pending in Parliament on the subject of Roman Catholic Dissenters, he cannot but conceive that a knowledge of the

manner in which the Church of England differs from the Church of Rome must be highly desirable in those upon whom the discussion of that question will devolve. That, however, there is an unaccountable deficiency in this knowledge even among well educated persons, is a fact which may be lamented, but can scarcely be denied. Here, therefore, he also hopes to excite a spirit of inquiry. From this statement it will appear that the present Treatise is not intended to convey fresh information to the scholar or divine, but merely to repeat, for the advantage of the general reader, what to all scholars and divines is already known. To render it more useful for this purpose, several notes have been added by the Editor, in some of which the origin of the Romish innovations is pointed out, while in others the reader is referred to works that may be found in every respectable library, where the different subjects alluded to are more largely discussed.

The third edition, printed in 1677, is the basis of the present one. But since utility can be the sole object in such a work as this, the Editor has considered himself at liberty to omit some sentences and to insert others,—sometimes to re-model the greater part of a section, and throughout to make various alterations in the style.—Pp. vii.—xi.

The object of the work is well pursued, and we hesitate not to add, most satisfactorily attained. It has rarely been our fortune to meet with a book so appropriately entitled: it is, indeed, both "friendly and seasonable advice." The language is mild and Christian, "in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves:" every declamatory or intemperate expression is absent. No truth is disguised, but no prejudice is irritated. The work is a happy contrast to modern liberality, while it satisfactorily exhibits the perfect compatibility of firmness and decision with every Christian and gentlemanly feeling. Nor is it less "seasonable" than "friendly." The revival of the Romish controversy is the most curious feature of our times. The follies of Rome seemed to be quite out of date in England; an age of far more moderate pretensions than ours regarded them as incapable of renewal or serious defence; now, when we are become wise enough to contemn the wisdom of our ancestors, we are seriously addressed in behalf of absurdities which those despised ancestors would have scouted. Not contented with pleading what he calls his title to certain political immunities, the Romanist has the effrontery to attempt a defence of those transalpine legends, which were constructed with admirable address for the deception of those for whose especial benefit they were invented, but which, it must necessarily be supposed, are incapable of producing any but ludicrous impressions on a cultivated English mind. Indeed no small powers of sophistry have been called in on this occasion; Mr Butler tells us that it makes no part of Romanism to believe any miracles, except those recorded in the Bible. Staunch as Mr. Butler is considered to be in this country, such opinions as these would gain him no credit at Rome; they only serve to prove that no man of sense and information can be a genuine papist; and that while the Italian hypocritically conceals his unbelief, the Englishman more worthily proclaims it: and, perhaps, this piece of manliness

is solely owing to the atmosphere of a Protestant land. Mr. Butler's doctrine on this subject is indeed absolutely Protestant. But this defence of Popery, although apparently the most plausible, is, in reality, the worst that can be set up: for it is giving up the very citadel into the hands of the enemy before the attack is begun. These absurdities, indeed, are what constitute Popery; remove them, and we have nothing to object;-why? because what remains is only pure Christianity-the Christianity of the Church of England. Remove the combatant, and the battle is at an end; but the withdrawn party has no claim to the honours of a victory. Other Romanists, however, steer a more unhesitating course, and, in fair set terms, invite the attention of reasonable men to the claims of their belief in the gross, and, with the happiest simplicity, feel confident of proving the truth of their most outrageous absurdities.

Again, we say, the revival of the Romanist controversy is the most extraordinary feature of the present age. It had been successfully consigned to rest by the pens of the greatest reasoners and profoundest scholars whom this or any other country has produced; the doctrines of Romanism had totally fallen beneath that advance of intelligence of which the present age is so eminently proud, but, in this respect at least, with so little reason. Take, for instance, the doctrine of Transubstantiation: a doctrine so intimately interwoven with Popery that a divorce must be fatal. Scripture, tradition and reason have been brought to play upon this doctrine with an irresistible energy, and have laid it prostrate. With it, of course, the fabric, of which it is the keystone, has fallen: yet nothing daunted by the fall, the builders have accumulated the fragments of the shattered stones, and are preparing to resist a second assault from foes, who, independently of the confidence inspired by victory, have most materially strengthened their lines and improved their enginery.

The great stratagem of Popery has always been misrepresentation. Sensible of her danger on her own ground, she is always anxious to shift the seat of war to a more advantageous position. Thus at one time she openly denies, at another artfully conceals such tenets as are most unpopular with her antagonists. It is by this class of tactics that she has made her proselytes, and evaded her opponents. It should therefore always be manfully unmasked. We do not, as the Romanists affirm, charge them with any opinions they are not bound to entertain. We do not reproach them with Bellarmine or Baronius, any further than as such writers are authentic expositors of Romish opinions. We take a much more impregnable ground. They claim for their church immutability and infallibility. We go to the authoritative, unrepealed, UNREPEALABLE, decisions of that church, through her authentic officers and ministers: and we seek our clearest exposition

in the living commentary furnished by her PRActice. If they leave this ground, they must desert the whole cause.

It is this invincible weapon which has been taken up by the author of the " Friendly and Seasonable Advice;" and well he has wielded it. He has shown, that the religion of the Church of Rome differs most importantly from primitive Christianity; and that, therefore, her audacious claim to antiquity is unfounded, while that of the Church of England is supported by the testimony of the Scriptures and early Fathers. He has given us the dates and the history of those abuses which distinguish Rome from that Catholic Church with which she claims an exclusive identity; and, above all, he has verified every fact adduced, by the minutest as well as the most authoritative references.

In the first section, the author inquires-" Whether the Roman opinions which differ from the Church of England be the old religion?" He then examines them in order, and shows that they are either absolutely contradicted by Scripture, and primitive antiquity; or that the time and occasion of their origin may be traced. Mr. Hook has illustrated his author with some very valuable notes: one, on this part of his subject, we think will be acceptable to our readers :

It was in this sense that the term Catholic was applied to the Church in the primitive ages. Literally signifying Universal, it was used at first to distinguish the Christian from the Jewish Church,-the latter being confined to a single nation, the former open to all people and nations universally who choose to comply with the conditions it requires. When various sects, heresies, and schisms arose, they each took the name of the founder; the Novatians from Novatian, the Arians from Arius, &c. But the true church, homo-ousian in its faith, and episcopal in its discipline, refused any other cognomen than that of Catholic (Pacian, ep. 1, ad Sempronian) or of the nation in which it was established. Hence those doctrines which were peculiar to the true church, were denominated Catholic doctrines. By the Catholic faith is meant that true homoousian faith in the Holy Trinity professed by the true episcopal apostolic church, wherever its several branches existed, in contradistinction to that kind of faith in the Trinity acknowledged by the Arians, Sabellians, &c. This, therefore, is what our divines mean when they speak of a Catholic doctrine, namely, a doctrine of the primitive Catholic church before it was corrupted by Popery, as distinguished from similar doctrines held by heretics.

The English churchman believes that the Catholic church, of which he considers himself a member, and to the existence of which the episcopal order is necessary, remained, during the first ages, holy and pure, that in the dark ages it was corrupted by the innovations introduced, in the west, through the influence of the Roman Pontiff,-in the east, through a variety of other circumstances; and that thus, in England, although at first catholic and pure, it became, in process of time, Roman Catholic, that is, the true Catholic church corrupted by the errors of Romanism;-he also believes that, at the Reformation in England, through Divine Providence, these novel errors of Romanism were discarded by the clergy and the laity, and that the church was thus rendered once more truly Catholic by being restored to its primitive purity. Upon this point I shall quote two divines of very different schools. " "Be it known," says the excellent Bishop Hall, "be it known to all the world, that our Church is only reformed or repaired, NOT MADE NEW. There is not a stone of a new foundation laid by us; yea, the old walls stood still, only the overcasting of those ancient stones with untempered

mortar of new inventions displeaseth us,—plainly set aside the corruptions and the church is the same."

“ I would have them remember," says Archbishop Laud, “ that we live in a church reformed, not made new; now all reformation that is good and orderly takes away nothing from the old but what is faulty and erroneous; if any thing be good, that it leaves standing.”—Abp. Laud, his Hist. of his Trials and Troubles, p. 113. Thus we may conclude with King James, "For my part, I know not how to answer the objection of the Papists, when they charge us with novelties, but truly to tell them their abuses are new, but the things which they abused we retain in their primitive use, and forsake only the novel corruption."— Hampton Court Conf.

That these principles were those upon which the English reformers acted, is clear from a variety of circumstances, but chiefly from these two:-first, from the fact that neither Ridley nor Cranmer renounced Transubstantiation until the former discovered, by the perusal of Bertram or Ratramne, who flourished A. D. 840, that it was a Popish, not an ancient or Catholic doctrine; secondly, from the memorable challenge of Bishop Jewell.

In short, the principles of a true member of the Church of England were never better expressed than by good Bishop Ken on his death-bed. "As for my religion, I die in the holy Catholic and Apostolic faith, professed by the whole church before the disunion of the east and west. More particularly Í die in communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from papal and puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross."-Hawkins's Life of Bishop Ken, p. 27.—Note, pp. 35-38.

In the second section, it is inquired-" Whether the said opinions were not introduced for evil ends ?" and in the third-" Whether they were not established by evil means?" which two propositions are most decisively confirmed. We shall adduce the third instance of the latter practice, which substantiates both the arguments.

My third instance shall be of suppressing or corrupting true records, of which take a few examples:-the legates of Rome, within less than a hundred years after the general Council of Nice, produced two canons (to prove the pope's right to receive appeals) in a famous Council of Carthage, An. 419, which canons they pretended were made in the aforesaid Nicene Council; but these canons wholly differed from all the best manuscripts of that council then extant, particularly from two eminent ones, which the African fathers sent for from Constantinople and Alexandria; nor do they agree with those genuine editions of the Nicene Council now extant. Indeed the Council of Carthage received not these pretended canons of Nice, but esteemed them to have been corrupted, as we do at this day. Not long after (to abet the Roman supremacy) Pope Leo writing to Theodosius the Emperor, cites a canon of a particular and dubious Council at Sardica, of later date and less authority, affirming it to be a canon of the general Council at Nice. The edition of the Councils published by Dionysius Exiguus about An. 520, being for a long time the sole approved copy extant in these parts of the world in favour of the pope's supremacy, omits several canons even of general councils, which seem to make against it, though the said canons are recorded in Zonaras and Balsamon, and in this age confessed to have been made in those councils by the Romanists themselves; but in the time when the supremacy was hatching, it was not thought expedient that those canons should be known. It were endless to reckon up all the additions, diminutions, and altcrations which all the Roman editions of the councils since are guilty of, but because an ingenious Essay has been made that way by a late author, I shall refer my reader to it, and out of infinite examples conclude with one evident piece of falsification; the XXXVth canon of the Council of Laodicea forbids the faithful to call on the name of angels, which being a condemnation of the doctrine