PRAYS FOR ALL WHO CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS.

O cruel Charity, soul-killing Love,

Or Blindness, false of heart, with speeches fair
And plausive gloss, to fan the popular air
Of Schism and Heresy! yet gentle prove,

Nor scorn the wanderer; while her pitying Dove
Heav'n sends to watch around thee with sweet Care,
Her soft parental tendings doth not spare;
And moon to light thee, if thou fail'st to prove
All Christ-like ways of gentleness and peace,
Holding Truth's hand, and giving no release
To lying Spirits; if Love leave undone,
What Love might offer, thou art no true Son
Of our dear ancient mother, who doth pray,
Though mourning, for her children gone astray.

PRAYS FOR THE PARLIAMENT.

Yea, may it ever be so, on them rest

The Royal Martyr's mantle from the skies,*
Though little they Heaven's sweet protection prize!
And haply so our prayers to our own breast
Unanswered may return, yet not unblest.

If so, we gather patience, and arise,
Good Charles, to thy diviner charities!
Albeit oft, by heavy thoughts opprest,

We see in them but clouds from our sick land,

And the dread sword unsheath'd in God's right hand.
Thus set we the soul's anchor, if it be

Right in the All-seeing eyes, then be it so!

May the vex'd church her higher wisdom know,
And rise in calmer heavens more pure and free.

TO MEMORY.

Not faithless-'twere too harsh to deem thee so-
O Memory! but a truant sure thou art,
Apt and well-skill'd to play a juggler's part
As best may seem; to hold, and to let go;
Dismiss the joy, and keep fix'd hold of woe.
Well, be it so; high discipline of heart,
Learn they, who meekly bear of life the smart,
And earthly triumphs calmly undergo.
Sad thoughts are heavenly teachers, and lead on
To spiritual wisdom; lighter ones soon fade-
They come like shadows, and like them are gone;
Their well-spring soon dried up, their root decayed.
There is, to thoughtful souls, deep joy in grief;

"Tis Sorrow, more than joy, that gives wise hearts relief.

* This Prayer was appointed by the command of Charles the First.

T.

Lyra Apostolica.

Γνοῖεν δ', ὡς δὴ δηρὸν ἐγὼ πολέμοιο πέπαυμαι.

NO. XL.

1.

THY words are good, and freely given,
As though thou felt them true;

Friend, think thee well, to sin and heaven
A serious mood is due.

It pains thee sore man's will should swerve
In his true path divine;

And yet thou venturest nought to serve
Thy neighbour's weal nor thine.

Beware! such words may once be said,
Where shame and fear unite;

But, spoken twice, they mark instead
A sin against the light.

2.

"In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die."

I saw a royal form, with eye upturned,
Rising from furnace of affliction free,
Upon whose brow of deep serenity,

Round which a something now celestial burned,
Was a calm smile, as if the death-cry turned
On his freed ear to seraph sounds on high.
Still in the guilty place the hideous cry
Barked as before. In quiet hope inurned
Was his poor fleshly mantle, though the breath
Of this bad world in hatred and in jest
Flouted his name, unpardoned e'en in death.
Thus, still his shade below, from age to age
Doth bear the cross, his Master's heritage;
But not a sound can reach him in his heavenly rest.

3.

"How long shall it be to the end of these wonders ?"

So day by day from earth for him ascends,
As steam in summer even,

The speechless intercession of his friends
Toward the azure heaven.

Ah, dearest, with a word he could dispel
All questioning, and raise

Our hearts to rapture, whispering all was well,
And turning prayer to praise.

And other secrets, too, he could declare;
By patterns all divine

His earthly creed retouching here and there,
And deepening every line.

Dearest, he longs to speak, as I to know,
And yet we both refrain;
It were not good—a little doubt below,
And all shall soon be plain.

CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions
of his Correspondents.

DR. WISEMAN'S LECTURES.

(Concluded from page 148.)

DR. WISEMAN'S last objection to the Bible, as a rule of faith, is drawn from the various and conflicting opinions maintained by protestants, all of which they profess to derive from Scripture. "What," he asks, "is the end to be attained by the use of any rule? Uniformity of thought and action in those matters which it regulates. The protestant rule of faith does not attain this end; it cannot, therefore, be the rule which God designed his church to adopt." The inference which Dr. W. wishes us to draw is, that "uniformity of thought and action can only be attained by the appointment of an infallible authority, from which there can be no appeal. Once admit the existence of such an authority, and all differences of doctrine vanish ;—we are no longer harassed by doubts and difficulties, either respecting the formation of the canon of scripture, or its inspiration, or its right interpretation. Thus the principle of church authority commends itself to the reception of every candid and reflecting mind, by its simplicity, its easiness of application, and its necessary tendency to promote peace and harmony among Christians." We might, perhaps, by an appeal to facts, disturb the complacency with which Dr. W. contemplates his rule. We might produce good reasons for believing that the uniformity of opinion which it professes to produce is rather apparent than real. But we wish not to dissemble the evils which have flowed from the freedom of private judgment, and must flow from it, so long as human nature remains unchanged. Still we would ask, whether there is any reason to suppose that God intended man to attain to the knowledge of the things pertaining to his salvation without any labour

or inquiry; or meant to render his path so smooth and secure that he should never meet with any difficulty, or be exposed to the danger of falling into error? Is such a supposition consistent with the notion of a state of probation and discipline? Does not the manner in which we apply our intellectual faculties to the investigation of religious truth bring our moral character to the test-a test to which it would not be brought, if the necessity of labour and inquiry was superseded by the power of resorting at once to the decision of an infallible judge? Is not, in a word, the appointment of such a judge at variance with the whole analogy of the Divine Providence in dealing with man, as a moral and accountable agent? We might further ask, whether evils have not arisen from the assumption of an infallible authority by the church of Rome, not inferior in magnitude to those which can be traced to the abuse of the right of private judgment; but Dr. W. will reply, that all this general reasoning is nothing to the purpose; that such an authority is expressly given to the church in Scripture; and thus all further discussion on the subject is precluded. It is not my intention now to enter into an examination of the particular texts on which the Romish church grounds its claim to infallibility; my object is to put the reader in possession of the real state of the question between the two churches. A volume is placed in our hands, purporting to contain a revelation from God to man; by historical testimony and human reasoning we determine that this volume is what it professes to be; we satisfy ourselves of its genuineness, of the credibility of its contents, of the divine mission and authority of Him whose ministry it records. Thus far the process pursued by both churches, according to Dr. W., is the same; both appeal to the understanding of the individual, whose assent is required; both recognise the right of private judgment. "But, in this volume," says Dr. W., "are texts which confer on the church an infallible authority to teach." All that protestants ask, is to be allowed to exercise their judgment upon those texts. If we are to rely upon our own judgment in determining the divine origin, why may we not rely upon it in determining the right interpretation of the New Testament?

The concluding part of Dr. W.'s second letter is occupied in shewing that the (Roman) catholic church has been always foremost, not only in the task of translating the Scriptures, but also in placing it (them) in the hands of the faithful. In proof of the former statement, he gives a list of translations made into different modern languages before the Reformation. I possess not the means of examining, nor am I disposed to question, the accuracy of the list. It would have been strange indeed if no portion of the eager curiosity which the revival of letters had excited respecting the other writings of antiquity should have been directed to the most important of all books. Be it remembered also, that all versions made before the time of Luther must have been made by men, outwardly at least, in communion with the church of Rome. But whatever might have been the readiness of the Romish church at first to translate the Scriptures, and to place them in the hands of the faithful, it soon, according to Dr. W., found reason to alter its policy. But mark, he says, the

change. The Scriptures had been diffused among the faithful, and would have so continued, had not dangerous doctrines sprung up, which taught that men should throw aside all authority, and each one judge for himself in religion; a system which we have seen fraught with such dreadful difficulties, that it is no wonder that it should have been made matter of discipline to check, for a time, their perilous diffusion. Dr. W. then proceeds to say, that the first interference was not on the part of the church, but of the civil government, alarmed at the levelling doctrines of the Waldenses and Wickliff. Such is Dr. W.'s statement. We, on the contrary, say that the attention of men was first roused by the gross practical abuses prevalent in the church of Rome; for instance, by the sale of indulgences; that, in their inquiries into the origin of those abuses, they were led to consult the Scriptures, which had been rendered more generally accessible by the invention of the art of printing,* and then found, to their astonishment, that many doctrines taught, and many practices enjoined by the church of Rome, not only received no sanction from Scripture, but were at variance with it; and that the Romanists, in consequence, perceiving that an appeal to the Bible was unfavourable to their cause, adopted the policy of checking its dissemination. The adoption of this policy is admitted by Dr. W. himself, though he traces it to a different cause. It is true that he qualifies his admission by the insertion of the words for a time; leaving us to infer that the restriction has been removed. But what authority has the church of Rome to keep from the laity, even for a time, that book which it admits to be a part of the rule of faith? though, in truth, to place the Bible in their hands, and, at the same time, to tell them that they must not exercise their reason and judgment upon it, but implicitly adopt the interpretation of the church, differs little in effect from prohibiting its perusal altogether.

I have already observed, that the subject of Dr. W.'s third lecture, is the (Roman) catholic rule of faith, which he states (p. 59) to be the word of God; the word of God alone and exclusively: "but here," he adds, "comes the great trenching difference between ourselves and others, in the inquiry what is the extent of God's holy word?" He then proceeds to give the answer of his own church to the inquiry. "We believe, in the first place, that there is no other ground-work whatever for faith, except the written word of God; because we allow no power in religion to any living authority, except inasmuch as its right to define is confirmed in God's written word. If, therefore, you hear that the church claims authority to define articles of faith, and to instruct her children what they must believe, you must not, for one moment, think that she pretends to any authority or sanction for that power, save what she conceives herself to derive from the clear, express, and implicit words of Scripture. Thus, therefore, it is truly said, that, whatever is believed by the (Roman) catholic, although not positively expressed in the written word, is believed, because the principle adopted by him is there expressly

The successes of the Turks, by causing many learned Greeks to take refuge in Italy, and thus introducing the study of the Greek language into the West of Europe, were, in the hands of Providence, among the causes of bringing about the Reformation.