priated to themselves A TREASURE which was ours as much as theirs. p. 1.

Hence he states: that the publication of the Selections, which it is proposed to give from these services, is, as it were, AN ACT OF RE-APPROPRIATION. p. 1.

Now there is certainly nothing objectionable in making Selections from the Breviary for the aid of private devotion, provided that all superstitious and idolatrous matter be carefully expunged for the Breviary contains very copious extracts from the Psalms and other parts of Scripture, associated with several excellent prayers which have descended from remote Antiquity and which have been adopted into our own Liturgy. Accordingly, the Writer, as indeed the very term Selection implies, professing to work upon this principle, distinctly states, that certain portions of the Breviary carry with them their own plain condemnation in the judgment of an English Christian : and, among them, he specially mentions and gives at large four idolatrous antiphons to the Virgin, in order to shew clearly the utter contrariety, between the Roman System as actually existing, and our own; remarking, that they are quite beyond the power of any defence which might be available for less explicit compositions. p. 9, 11, 23, 24.

Why the Writer should thus speak of the four antiphons, if he agrees with the author of the eighty-fifth Tract in strenuously maintaining ALL the Church Doctrines of the fourth century whether scriptural or extrascriptural, is not very clear; for a person, who can view with approbation the idolatrous prayers of the fourth century, needs not, I should think, be particularly squeamish respecting the four condemned antiphons. Be this, however, as it may, the Writer, in point of fact, condemns these said antiphons and then proceeds, first to enumerate, and afterward to give at large, those Selections from the Breviary which he recommends to our use in the practice of private devotion. p. 15, 16, 26-134.

The Selections, thus recommended, occupy a space of no less than one hundred and eight closely printed pages. ALL, therefore, contained in that ample space, with a single solitary exception, comes to us under the avowed sanction and recommenda

tion of the Writer. The solitary exception is one of the four already condemned idolatrous antiphons. This is introduced in the midst of the Selections, with a marginal note advertising the reader that it has already been animadverted upon. p. 86. But, why a piece of gross idolatry should thus, gratuitously and officiously, be introduced, in the very midst of a Selection professedly designed for our aid in private devotion, associated with a marginal warning, that, although introduced, it was not to be used: I shall not undertake to explain. Most persons would think, that, in making such a Selection, the vile abomination would, quite as a matter of course, have been omitted. However, there it stands, in all its naked deformity, with a Lege Cautè by its side (p. 86.): and the strangely injudicious Selecter (to employ the softest term) best knows his own motives, for thus scandalously shocking the eye of a Christian at his devotions, and for thus grievously disturbing him while in communion with his God, by thrusting into his very face a confessedly indefensible prayer. When we are told, that a good and unexceptionable Selection is to be made from the Breviary for the use of us Anglicans, we naturally expect, as a special part of the bargain, that we shall encounter nothing offensive, or, at all events, nothing which the Selecter deems objectionable : and yet an antiphon to the Virgin, described by the Selecter himself (p. 23.) as quite beyond the power of any defence, is nevertheless admitted into the Selection. We are guarded, indeed, against using it: but, if, though Selected, we are not to use it, and if it be quite beyond the power of any defence, why should it have been at all introduced? Certainly, the Writer entertains most original ideas, both as to the moral duty of a Selecter, and as to the nature of what is usually understood by the term Selection. Thus acted not our pious Anglican Reformers, when they eclectically compiled our unrivalled Liturgy. One foolery, indeed, they unwarily admitted into king Edward's first Liturgy the foolery of a Prayer for the Dead without the possibility of knowing it to be beneficial. But the Prayer was speedily erased: and, in the later Book of Homilies, the Practice itself was expressly condemned. If we will cleave only unto the Word of God, maturely theologises the Church of England, then must we needs grant, that we have no commandment

to pray for them that are departed out of this world.-The sentence of God is unchangeable, and cannot be revoked again. Therefore, let us not deceive ourselves; thinking, that either we may help other, or other may help us, by their good and charitable prayers in time to come. Homily concerning Prayer. part iii. p. 282, 283.

This single antiphon, however, excepted, all the remainder of the Selection, which, as I have remarked, occupies one hundred and eight pages, is avowedly approved of by the Selecter: and, under that precise aspect, is recommended to the devotional use of the Christian.

Let us see, then, what Prayers, the Selecter, BY AN ACT OF RE-APPROPRIATION, would make our own: so that, in future, under his sanction and (I conclude) the sanction also of his brother Tract-Writers, certainly under the sanction of the Writer of the eighty-fifth Tract who enforces the entire Church System of the fourth century, we may duly and safely use them in our private devotion.

Holy Mary, succour the wretched, help the weak-hearted, comfort the mourners, pray for the people, interpose for the Clergy, intercede for the devoted females: let all feel thy assistance, who observed thy holy commemoration. Pray for us, holy mother of God. p. 53, repeated at p. 80.

I beseech thee, blessed Mary, ever Virgin, the blessed Michael Archangel, the blessed John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all Saints, and thee, my Father, to pray the Lord our God for me. p. 61. repeated at p. 82.

Holy Mary, and all the Saints, intercede for us to the Lord that we may be worthy of his help and salvation, who liveth and reigneth world without end. p. 62.

Blessed Laurence, Martyr of Christ, intercede for us. p. 125, thrice repeated.

READER. Sir, pray for a blessing. MINISTER. May he (Laurence), whose festival we keep, intercede for us to the Lord. p. 133.

These prayers sufficiently speak for themselves: and the last extract is specially important on account of the open acknowledgment which it contains. The Reader, a person in one of the lower Orders of the Romish Church, begs the Priest to pray for a blessing: and his request is answered by the offering

up of the requested prayer to Laurence, that he would grant the benefit of his intercession. We may remark, that the service in honour of Laurence, and indeed all the other services in the Selection, are calculated rather for public, than for private, devotion: and I know not what we are to understand by the circumstance, except that, when the Church of England shall have been reformed on the principles of the Tract-Writers, the services in question are to be adopted and used in all our places of worship.

It will be observed, that the Prayers, which I have extracted from the Selection, exactly correspond, in form and principle, with those which enter into the Church System of the fourth century so that, by such a comment upon the text, we may perfectly understand what Church Doctrines and what Church Practices we are required by the author of the eighty-fifth Tract to receive, on pain of being compelled to reject along with them the Canon of Scripture.

2. The ground of this requisition is: that the evidence for the Canon is not a whit better than the evidence for the extrascriptural Church Doctrines of the fourth century. I shall now, therefore, proceed to offer some few short remarks on the evidence for the Canon.

(1.) Here it may be useful to begin with pointing out the sophism, which lurks in the very comparison itself.

Two cases are compared together, between which there is no analogical resemblance.

The Canon of Scripture cannot be established on the evidence of Scripture itself: it must, in the very nature of things, be established by evidence derived aliundè.

But there is no natural impossibility, that Doctrines, received by the Church, should be established on the evidence of Scripture: nor is there any inherent necessity, that evidence, derived aliundè, should be called in for their establishment. How, then, stands the balance, as held by the Writer of the eighty-fifth Tract?

Why, truly, thus.

The evidence for Doctrines, which ought to be, but which cannot be, established on scriptural testimony, is pronounced to be equipollent with the evidence for the Canon, which, in

the very nature of things, cannot be established on scriptural testimony, and which therefore (if established at all) must be established on extrinsic or extrascriptural testimony.

:

Or, more briefly the Canon which physically cannot be settled from Scripture, and certain Church Doctrines which practically cannot be settled from Scripture though there is no abstract physical impossibility of their being thus settled, are yet declared to rest upon strictly analogous and perfectly equipollent evidence.

But this is not all. The Writer, even as he himself marks out the lines of his comparison, suicidally cuts the throat of his own argument.

In the case of the Canon, he tells us, the unanimity of the fifth century acted upon A PERPLEXED AND DISORDERED TEXT: meaning, I suppose, upon various Books; some of which, in the previous centuries, had been doubted, and some accepted, according to the measure of evidence then before each particular Church.

But, in the case of Extrascriptural Doctrines, he tells us, the unanimity of the fourth century acted only upon A CONCISE TEXT: that is to say, upon a text so scanty for such a purpose, that we cannot fail to admire the ingenuity, which, out of its acknowledged poverty, could extract the ABUNDANCE (as the author speaks) of the fourth century.

Yet, with this confessed dissimilitude of the two cases before him, does he invite us to receive the Extrascriptural Doctrines of the fourth century, as standing upon an equally firm foundation of evidence as the painfully examined and finally admitted claims of the Canon of Scripture.

(2.) But it is time, that I should give a sketch (a very brief one, it will be expected) of the mode in which and of the principle on which, the Canon of the New Testament, as we now have it, was finally settled and established.

In the persecuted and widely separated portions of the Early Church Catholic, it is small wonder, that, what we call The Canon of Scripture, was not finally settled, until after the lapse of many years for the very nature of the Books, included within that Canon, would, under such circumstances, inevitably produce such a result.