PRICES OF CANAL SHARES, DOCK STOCKS, &c.

At the Office of R. W. Moore, 5, Bank Chambers, Lothbury.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

THE Editor thanks two friends for their suggestions. Will they be so good as to read the Parliamentary Paper relating to National Education, which is given among the Documents, and then say whether they think it ought to open people's eyes? If not, what they do think.

Received"S. I. E.”—“ F. G."-" Oxoniensis”—“ W. de SS-.”—“ I. L.”— "Mr. Usher"-" H.” (poetry)-"A former Contributor"-" T. I. W.”—“ μ. p.” —“ E. B.”—“ A. J. T.”—“ A. M. Cler.”—“ R. B.”—“ Discipulus."

The Editor hopes to find room for the remarks on Mr. Paulis' work next month. He thanks Mr. Vulpy for some documents, which he hopes to make use of. The readers of this magazine are requested to look again at the notice of the "Gift for all Seasons" in the preceding number, as it appears that the offensive article was not (as might have been hoped) inserted by mistake or oversight, but that the Editor of the work, instead of withdrawing, is prepared to justify it. This is the more necessary, because three several articles in the same style of panegyric, in praise of the same infidel writer, have lately appeared in the "Church of England Gazette." This is what people would not exactly expect from the title, and therefore they ought to be put on their guard.

Mr. B.'s additions are received, and the Editor hopes to make the proper use of them and the desired alterations. He is afraid that, for reasons which he has already explained, they cannot be used this month. In the meantime, will his correspondent request some friend to call at Messrs. Rivingtons', in Waterloo Place, for a small parcel directed to him, and containing a pamphlet bearing on his subject, and which, not having been published in this country, he may not have met with?

"XXZZ" will see that the request which forms the first part of his note is complied with; as to the second, the Editor is really thankful for the communication, and has no excuse to offer but that it is one of the many things now in his hands which he has always intended, and still does intend, to use as soon as he can. The question which follows, when put generally, he does not (for reasons which may be easily imagined) know how to answer; as applied to himself, he thinks he may with great certainty answer not.

On

The Editor's notice has been called to a statement of "T. S.," in the preceding number of this magazine, p. 403, respecting the Pastoral Aid Society ;-" They only give to an exhausted incumbent what he wants to do his work, not theirs, and tell him that they only wish him freely to accept the aid for which he has applied." the preceding page he had (in allusion to a figure used by a former writer on the subject) supposed a body of men to unite, "not to fit out a company of coal-brigs to accompany the fleets,' but to send the Queen's own ships just what the commanders of those ships applied for and said they wanted." It is asked, do they not reserve to themselves the power of rejecting curates, personally selected and nominated by incumbents as just what they wanted? Whether they have ever thought of really exercising such a power as this has nothing to do with the question. The statement of their design seems to warrant the idea that they claim it; "clerical assistants will be nominated by the clergy who employ them; and being approved by the committee will be left, under the direction of the incumbent, to the full scope of their own judgment;" and the same thing is implied in the 8th regulation, in which we find"The nomination of an assistant shall always be left with the clergyman to whom aid is given, the committee claiming only full satisfaction as to the qualifications of his nominee."

The Editor is sorry that he did not receive " S. T. R's" alterations until the corrected proof had been returned to the printer. One of them, however, his having inadvertently written "chastity," instead of "virginity," three lines from the bottom of p. 517, may be mentioned.

In the number for April, p. 404, six lines from the bottom, for "scandal," read "stated." Will" R. B." favour the editor with his address, or will a letter reach him if directed to that under which he writes?

THE

BRITISH MAGAZINE.

JUNE 1, 1839.

ORIGINAL PAPERS.

ON THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE CHURCH OF ROME.

SECTION I.

THE controversy between the church of England and the church of Rome has been rendered far more difficult than it really is by a mismanagement to which it is subject in common with all other disputed questions. To say nothing of discussions where the truth of the refor mation is hazarded on the proof of an absurdity, we generally find that, from ignorance, on the one side, and it is to be feared too often from a desire to perplex and puzzle, on the other, the real point at issue between the churches is lost sight of, and the whole weight of the argument laid on matters of secondary importance. It is plain that, on some particulars of considerable moment, the two churches have no dispute. They both agree in the worship of the Holy Trinity. They both acknowledge the canonical books of holy scripture. They both adopt the three creeds as the confessions of those fundamental articles of the Christian faith which in all ages have been considered the depositum of truth. Plainly, then, our dispute may be brought into a much narrower compass if we can but discover what is the precise point where we begin to separate, and what is that essential difference between us which renders it unlawful in their judgment to communicate with us, and justifies them (in foro conscientia) in setting up a second church and maintaining a rival epis copacy amongst us, and which renders it impossible for us to unite with their pastors and their communion.

That there must be some such fundamental principle which keeps us asunder is evident from several considerations. To any one acquainted with the history of the church before the council of Trent, that is, until some time after the English reformation had been effected and the English liturgy established, it is needless to say that, until that ill-starred council transformed the vagaries of the schools into VOL. XV.-June, 1839. 41

articles of faith, and the creed of Pius IV. gave to the dreamy superstitions of the enthusiast a local habitation and a name, those dogmas which form the distinctive peculiarities of modern Romanism had been (however patronized by the dominant party) merely the undefined and floating opinions of particular divines, and the shibboleth of a small faction in the Western church.*

But even if this were not capable of demonstration, it is difficult to conceive that any calm-judging Romanist will rest the defence of his separation upon the mode of our worship or the terms of our communion. It may be doubted whether any Romanist who has ever taken the trouble to examine our liturgy can seriously maintain that any rite or ceremony used in our church, or even any expression in our liturgy and offices, is of itself and in its own nature so sinful, so contrary to either scripture or antiquity, as to justify a Christian and a catholic in refusing to unite with our episcopacy and communicate in our public worship. A Romanist may think it lawful, notwithstanding the arguments alleged by the reformed, to pray to or before an image or a picture; he may think that he is not without sufficient warrant when he invokes the intercession of the blessed Virgin or the saints: but does any one, in the smallest degree raised above the lowest depth of uneducated and unthinking ignorance, suppose that he should endanger the salvation of his soul if he were to pray to God without having an image or a picture before him, or that a prayer offered through the merits and intercession of Jesus Christ is unholy and displeasing to our Creator, unless it be accompanied by an appeal the merits and mediation of some other advocate? A Romanist may believe that, however contradictory it may seem to the voice of scripture and common sense, the public service may lawfully be performed, and the word of God read, in a language unintelligible to the congregation but still a reasonable man will hardly be persuaded that one cannot pray acceptably except in Latin, and that the scriptures cease to be edifying as soon as they are understood. He may have high precedent when he offers the sacrifice of prayer in behalf of the departed saints; but he will scarcely bring himself to believe, that supplications for the living are improper unless they are accompanied by supplications for the dead, and that we cannot maintain our mystical communion with those who are asleep in Jesus unless we express our belief in the existence of purgatory.

In fact, our church does not compel her children to pronounce in the language of our public services any condemnation of the Romish practices in these particulars, unless indeed the bare reading of holy scripture be in itself a sentence of condemnation, which, I take it, few Roman catholics will be found willing to allow. Their abstaining, therefore, from our communion, and deserting their parish churches, must have some other cause than the language or ceremonial of our public devotions.

This is further evident from the consideration that (as I suppose every educated Roman catholic will be ready to grant) the separation

* Field, Of the Church. Appendix to Book III.