"England and Rome," embodying the principal objections made by the latter, and defining the ground, as it were, on which the two Communions stand, is very much wanted at the present moment. Two reasons may be given for rehearsing such a need; one that the last few years have done a great deal towards lessening the number of those religious bodies to which educated members of the Church of England are, under any circumstances, tempted to secede. The various dissenting communities scarcely maintain the number of their more enlightened supporters; and where they do, it is as members of an aggressive political body, who claim new powers and rights at the hand of the State, rather than as a religious society wherein spiritual blessings and progress are more readily secured. The religious element is apparently dying out in the great dissenting parties; and as it leaves them secular and political it finds its way into those lower grades of Dissent from which the educated will ever, we believe, remain secure. Rome, then, is left as almost the only religious body to which a man really seeking rest for his soul might at present be tempted to be led away and while the Ranters and Mormonites endeavour to catch the religious sensibilities of the lower orders, Rome is straining every effort to draw aside from their faith the higher and better informed portions of society.

The other reason is, that of late the pretensions and claims of Rome have certainly become more bold. Objections which Romanists made years back, and which were combated, and even given up, are revived in full force; and questions that were formerly left open, are now fixed and confirmed. Every species of toleration is completely erased from her system, and she has become even more exclusive and dogmatic than in the middle ages.

We are not complaining of what in reality is no concern of ours, but are merely stating these altered circumstances, in order that the true position of this, our great aggressor, should be carefully surveyed and calmly stated, that her real standing-ground should be cleared away from those fictitious supports with which she delights to surround it; and that such an examination should be made as will enable us to perceive whether she has any stronger grounds for her present system, than the doctrine of Development, or the infallibility of the Papal chair.

And now, to give our readers such an idea of Mr. Scudamore's line of argument as is possible in a short article on a long and learned book,-written, we can safely say, from beginning to end without a harsh or uncharitable expression.

A very considerable portion of the book is taken up with a reply to the several arguments alleged by Mr. Scudamore's correspondent in support of the Papal Supremacy

"The reason why Roman Catholics acknowledge the Pope to be chief Bishop, is as follows. We believe that there is no truth more

clearly shown in Holy Writ, than that our Blessed LORD did Himself confer a spiritual supremacy on S. Peter."1

In taking up this bold challenge, Mr. Scudamore very wisely puts aside the whole question as to whether all the passages of Scripture taken together do assign to S. Peter an office and place of authority over the Apostolic college, or whether this internal evidence merely goes to show that he was "primus inter pares." Such a species of argument always must be shadowy, and never can be conclusive, however much it may avail as a corroborative and supplemental evidence. Mr. Scudamore, on the contrary, finds a far safer and more definite reply in the plain fact, that the various interpreters of Scripture in the early Church unanimously decide against any supremacy of S. Peter's position being contained in these passages, and that to put this meaning upon them was an afterthought, called up to support an opinion which had been arrived at by other means.

We must be content to give the conclusion that our author draws from the very copious extracts from early writers which he adduces, rather than make any analysis of the extracts themselves.2

"Here I may safely pause to claim your acknowledgment that the Church of Rome does not receive that sanction of her pretensions which you suppose from our LORD's promise to S. Peter, even if it be understood according to her own rule of interpretation. The Fathers, as we have seen, were not unanimous in their view of its meaning; some of them by the rock on which the Church is built, understood CHRIST; others, faith, of which S. Peter had just given a shining example; others the doctrine of which he had just made confession, or the faith generally of which that doctrine is a principal part; others, S. Peter himself. But of these a few only supposed the Church to have been built on him in an especial manner; while the remainder, observing that the promise respecting binding and loosing, which formed part of our LORD's address to S. Peter, was afterwards given to all the Apostles, and that the Church is elsewhere said to be built upon all, were led to consider His declaration as nothing more than an anticipatory allusion to that joint commission which they were soon after to receive, to go forth and make disciples of all nations. It should be observed, also, that many of the Fathers give different interpretations of the passage at different times. We must, therefore consider it settled, that they do not (on the principle of your Creed) furnish a conclusive testimony in favour of any particular interpretation. But there is one point on

1 S. John xxi. 15, 17; S. Luke xxii. 31, 32; S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19.

S. Cyprian writes, He gives an equal power after His Resurrection to all the Apostles..... The other Apostles were what Peter was, endowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power. There is one Church throughout the world, distributed by CHRIST into many members. Similarly, there is one Episcopate, diffused over the united multitude of many Bishops."-Epist. lv. p. 112. Eusebius, quoting from an earlier writer; "After the Ascension of our SAVIOUR, Peter, James, and John, though they had been honoured by the LORD above the rest, did not lay claim to dignity, but chose James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusalem." Hist. Eccl. 1. ii., c. 1.

which their consent is unanimous. Their expositions, however various, one and all exclude the interpretation which the divines of modern Rome desire to thrust upon the text. Not one of the Fathers, as you must now be aware, ever supposed that our LORD, in using these words, intended to grant to S. Peter a prerogative of power over his co-Apostles, or that the privileges which He at that moment conferred on him, whatever might be their nature, were to belong after His departure in an especial manner either to the Bishop or the Church of Rome."-Pp. 126-7.

In a previous number1 an endeavour was made with the assistance of Dean Milman's learned work, to account for the prominent position at which the Church of Rome arrived; and considerable stress was laid upon the secular advantages which ever must give eminence to the Bishop and religious establishment of the metropolis of the greater part of the world. We are glad to find that this historical view of the rise of the Papacy is corroborated by a large amount of documentary evidence brought by Mr. Scudamore to bear upon this very point. To give some extracts under this head :

"Since the comparative dignity of a Bishop varied with the political importance of the city in which he presided, a rule became necessary which would enable the Church to adapt herself without delay or difficulty to changes that might take place in the civil status of imperial cities. Such a rule was accordingly provided in the seventeenth canon of Chalcedon, enacted in the year 451. If any city have received a new constitution from imperial authority, or hereafter receive such, the order of the ecclesiastical parishes (i. e. in modern language, dioceses,) shall follow the civil and public pattern."-p. 191.

Again :

"Governed in all things by the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon just read of the hundred and fifty most religious Bishops (viz., the third Canon before cited of the great Council of Constantinople,) we also decide and decree the same respecting the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers granted those privileges to the chair of elder Rome, because it is the Imperial city, and the hundred and fifty most religious Bishops, gave equal privileges to the most holy chair of New Rome: rightly decreeing that the city honoured with the seat of government and a senate and enjoying equal privileges with elder Rome, should be raised to the same rank with her in matters ecclesiastical, being the second after her."-xxviii. Canon of Council of Chalcedon, p. 192.

As an appendage to this portion of the argument, it is important to notice the reply which is made to the claim, that "all the Bishops of Rome during the first three centuries were martyrs, in number thirty-four. Besides these, forty-three more were canonized saints,

1 August, 1854. "Milman's Latin Christianity.”

and of the whole number only eleven have been very bad, and seven more not good."

We need not say that every portion of this statement is carefully examined by Mr. Scudamore, who quotes largely from Tillemont, to show that the grounds on which the martyrdom of so many of the Popes rests, are very uncertain.

"The Latin Church honours Linus among the martyrs in the celebration of the holy Mysteries; and therefore we have reason to believe that he deserved this title by suffering for JESUS CHRIST: though apparently he did not suffer for Him unto death, except in the disposition of his heart."

Of Anacletus, his successor, the same author says, "We must believe that he deserves the title; but only in the same manner as S. Linus."

Of Clement, the third Bishop, he remarks, "The authority of Irenæus does not permit us to declare as certain that he ended his life by martyrdom."

Of Evaristus, who followed Clement :-"The martyrologies of Florus, Adon, and others, say that he was crowned with martyrdom, which does not appear to have been known to the ancients; not even to S. Irenæus.”

Of Pius, who died A. D. 157:-" The Roman martyrology says that he was crowned with martyrdom in the persecution of Antoninus, whom we do not find to have been guilty of one."-p. 222.

The grounds on which these claims to martyrdom are made to rest, is the fact, that the names appear in the Calendar and Services of the Roman Breviary. In examining these, Mr. Scudamore incidentally notices a circumstance which is very damaging, though, we fear, rather characteristic of the Roman Church :

:

"Another distressing and very mischievous peculiarity of the Breviary, is the occurrence in it of Lessons taken from writings which it ascribes to the Fathers, but which every man of learning acknowledges to be falsely attributed to them. I need hardly add, that by this means an early writer is often made to lend the sanction of his name to doctrines of which he never heard. The following are examples :—(1.) Feb. 22. S. Peter's chair at Antioch. Lessons iv.-vi. purport to be from a sermon of S. Augustine, preached on this festival. The original may be seen in the appendix to his works, tom. v. col. 2836, Serm. cxc. (olim 15 de Sanctis.) The Benedictine note says, 'It is not Augustine's, in the judgment of the Louvain editors, though read in the Roman Breviary under his name on this day. This festival seems to have been unknown to the Africans in the age of Augustine; nor is it found in the calendar of the Church of Carthage very recently published.' (2.) Sept. 8. The Nativity of B. V. Mary. Lessons iv.-vi. are quoted as from S. Augustine, Serm. xviii. de Sanctis, quæ est secunda de annuntiatione Dominica.' The same discourse also supplies three Lessons for the next day, which are repeated Dec. 9, in Fest. Concep. B. V. Die 2da. The Benedictine editors say, 'Verlinus and Vindin

gius reject it altogether as spurious; not without reason, in truth, though it is read in the Roman Breviary and some others under the name of Augustine. . . . . To whatever day sacred to S. Mary the opening may be referred, the ancient Calendar in use in the Church of Carthage, at least down to the death of Augustine, (who is marked in it) assuredly shows no such Festival of the Virgin.' Serm. cxciv. in App. tom. v. col. 2842. (3.) Sep. 12. The fifth day within the octave of the Nativity of the B. V. Lessons iv.—vi. are said to be from a Sermon of S. Chrysostom apud Metaphrasten.' Nothing like them are to be found in the Benedictine edition of S. Chrysostom, either among the genuine or spurious writings there published."-Pp. 227-8.

The whole subject of the principle of Development is very carefully treated; and the rise of the theory is illustrated by a large number of very valuable extracts from Roman Catholic Divines. One passage we give, because that in it there appear the seeds, so to speak, of a most interesting inquiry, which we would recommend to the consideration of our readers :—

"A party of Divines at the Council of Trent, expressed their direct approbation of the theory of Development. It was well said by Cardinal Cusanas, a man of surpassing learning and integrity, that the interpretation of the Scriptures should be adapted to the time, and that they should be expounded according to the accustomed manner; that so it did not appear strange, if the custom of the Church interpreted the same passage of Scripture differently at different times. Nor ought the last Council of Lateran to be taken in any other sense when it decided that Scripture is to be explained according to the doctors of the Church, or as long custom has approved. So that new expositions are not to be forbidden, except when they are at variance with the sense of the age."-p. 332.

There has occurred so lately an instance of the Church of Rome imposing a new article of faith1-the Immaculate Conception-on the authority of her own personal inspiration, that it is superfluous to endeavour to fix the charge of developing doctrine upon her rulers. It is, however, an interesting subject of inquiry to try and ascertain how far many of Rome's distinctive tenets were adapted to the time," and made to suit the sense of the ages in which they were successively introduced. It is not fanciful, maybe, to detect certain moral deficiencies, the result of culpable ignorance, that would be the cause of the introduction of images, or to suppose

1 "It has so happened through the good Providence of GOD, that some have expressly named His Mother as subject to the universal law of our fallen nature. Petavius quotes to this effect from S. Augustine, Fulgentius Ferrandus, Peter Damian, Anselm of Canterbury and Rupert of Duytz. I give an instance from Anselm, a man of deserved weight in his day, and representing a comparatively recent period. Although the conception itself of that same Man (JESUS) was pure . . . . nevertheless the Virgin from whom He was taken, was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did her mother conceive her, and was born with original sin: because she, too, sinned in Adam, in whom all have sinned.' "-p. 420.