Over his humble admirers, then, and the admirers of the Romish Church, M. Montalembert is triumphant. By their own admissions and their own reasonings, they have placed themselves entirely at his mercy. They follow Rome with desiring eyes; they long, as Mr. Palmer of Magdalen College declared two years since, "to see the Archbishop of Canterbury go to Rome, to fling himself " at the pope's feet, and entreat him to be reasonable." Assuming this attitude, they necessarily admit the Reformation to be indefensible; and of course they are liable to be asked, "How is it that your first step is not, to retract an offence which you admit to have committed? What parley, think you, can be held with rebels with arms in their hands?” Only Protestants can find a reply to the Count: but to them the question presents not the slightest difficulty. The main and central doctrine of his system, they utterly deny; and of course before his demands can in the slightest degree alter them, it will be needful for him to offer some slight amount of proof. But this is not M. Montalembert's plan. He will prefer to triumph over the weak, rather than to grapple with the strong. The whole of his letter rests upon one assumption, which, the moment it is questioned, shrinks utterly away. Obedience, entire and implicit obedience, is due to the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore? Because he is the successor of St. Peter. But who proves that Peter was in any way the predecessor of the Romish bishops? Hence We never met with a more remarkable instance of triumphant arrogance, lording it over a weak and silly opponent who has surrendered the main point, than this letter exhibits. The Count quite appreciates his opponent. He knows whom he may insult with impunity. He knows that the Tractarians, whether of Cambridge or Oxford, dare not appeal to really primitive antiquity; seeing that their whole system dates itself from the Nicene age. he glories over them, knowing that they are wholly in his power. But with a Protestant the case would be entirely altered; or rather reversed. In such a contest, M. Montalembert would be worsted in the very first encounter. His one principle, is, submission to the Roman see. It is of this he says, quoting from Manzoni, "The greatest deviations are nothing, if the main point be recognized; the smallest are damnable heresies, if it be denied." Now this main point is found, the moment we open either the Scriptures or the Apostolic Fathers, to have no foundation whatever. Not one word do the Scriptures tell us, of any supremacy, or even superiority, of the Roman see. A dispute, indeed, may be carried on, as to Peter's primacy; but even were the Romish interpretation of Christ's charge conceded in its fullest extent, it proves nothing for the Roman see, for that see is not so much as named in any of the passages in question. Hence, to history we must go, in order to find out, how Peter's primacy, were that conceded, could establish the primacy of the pope. And history, the moment it is impartially read, terminates the whole question, by proving the claim to be an invention of the fifth and sixth centuries! When" that which let or hindered was taken out of the way," then was the Man of Sin revealed. When the Imperial authority was removed from Rome, then full speedily upsprung the authority of the pope. And accordingly, from the beginning of the fifth century onwards, we find an abundance of assumptions and fictions, concerning the gift of the keys of heaven to Peter, and Peter's transference of them to the bishops of Rome. But we have only to look a little higher up the stream, and we soon find that all this is a novelty. None of the earlier writers know anything of these vastly important facts. On the contrary, the two earliest and most important witnesses give a totally different account of the matter. Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself taught by the Apostles, tells us, that "the church of Rome was founded and constituted by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, who," he adds, "delivered to Linus the bishopric." And Eusebius, writing a century later, says, that "Linus was the first bishop of Rome." (b. iii. c. 2). And, in another place, (c. xix.) he says, At that time Clement ruled the church of Rome, being the third bishop after Paul and Peter:-the first was Linus; the second, Anacletus." We have therefore the highest authority, to which no contradiction can be given, for asserting, that St. Peter never filled the episcopal chair of Rome. Of course, therefore, no one could succeed him in that chair. He and St. Paul, we are told, concurred in organizing that church, as they organized many others. But, as we do not call St. Paul bishop of Ephesus or of Crete, because he placed bishops in those cities,-so neither can we view St. Peter as bishop of Rome, merely because he, with St. Paul, placed Linus in that chair. With Tractarians, then, and believers in the Nicene dogmas and inventions, M. Montalembert may gloriously prevail. But the moment he comes to deal with those who require scriptural proof and historical evidence, his assumptions and his boastings become simply ridiculous. THE CLAIMS OF LABOUR. London: Pickering. 1844. 1814 THIS Controversy with those whom we desire to regard as in every sense brethren, is so painful and grievous to us, that we shall on every account be anxious to bring it to a close. And we trust that our readers will remember, that our part in it has been strictly a defensive one. Had the Record merely enunciated certain opinions concerning the New Poor Law, or what is so deplorably miscalled "moral restraint," or had it torn to atoms the extravagances of the Times, it would certainly never have occurred to us to interfere in the matter. But our general sympathy and concurrence in the views espoused in "the Perils of the Nation," and its sister volume, are so well known, and had been so fully declared, that had we stood by in perfect silence to hear them denominated "unsound, exaggerated, and dangerous," it might have been fairly alleged that "the principles asserted in those works were now abandoned, and admitted to be erroneous, even by the warmest of their former admirers." Placed in these circumstances, we really seemed to have no alternative, and took up the cause, without the least hesitation, as one which we had no liberty to decline. And now, the Record having explained, enlarged, and in general maintained and defended, the position it had taken,-let us, as rapidly as possible, review the whole question. 1. The Christian Influence Society, guided by a sense of duty, had caused to be written, the two works, entitled, The Perils of the Nation, and Remedies for some of the evils which constitute the Perils of the Nation. Here, then, we find a body of Christian men, whose services to the Church on former occasions the Record amply recognizes,-assuming it to be a certain fact, that "Perils" do exist, and that it is urgently requisite that "Remedies" should be pointed out. On the other hand the Record, except we greatly misunderstand it, contests even this first step, and denies that there is anything peculiarly perilous in the times, or that any prescription of remedies was at all needed. Our first enquiry, then, must be, whether there really was any just cause for alarm? Whether there was anything in the state of the nation to call for such an interference as the Christian Influence Society ventured upon;-in short, whether the alarm of danger was not altogether a groundless invention and a dream? Now, first, it surely might be justification enough for the projectors of such volumes, to refer to the united declarations of such men as Mr. Gladstone, Lord John Russell, Lord Ashley, Sir Walter James, Mr. Buller, and Sir John Hanmer,-men of all shades of politics and of religion, yet all agreeing in the conviction, "that the increasing distress and privations of the labouring "classes was one of the most melancholy features in the social "state of the country; "-that "the condition of the people of England must soon force itself on the attention of parliament:" that "the country presented the unnatural contrast of the greatest "luxury and the greatest suffering, side by side; "-that "the "rich grew daily more powerful and the poor more dependent and helpless; "that" if the condition of the people were not soon "made better, it would be impossible to stop the demand for or"ganic change ;" and that, finally, "if it was meant to keep govern"ment or society together in this country, something must be done "to render the condition of the people less uneasy and precarious "than it now is;"-we say, it might have been enough merely to quote these public declarations, of six or eight of the leading men of the day, and who could have had no common motive to induce them to unite in propagating a delusion,-it might have been sufficient to quote these positive avowals of the state of the country, to have justified the Christian Influence Society in dealing with the country as in a state of peril. But, if the Committee preferred to judge for themselves, and to weigh the facts which came within their own knowledge, how could they avoid coming to the same conclusion? Turn which way they would, increasing opulence and increasing poverty constantly appeared side by side. Not a week passes but the London newspapers detail some harrowing case, of wretches perishing of actual starvation;-and not a week passes without the appearance of some new adventure, demanding millions for its execution, and finding these millions almost as soon as asked. In one column you find a poor woman charged with illegally pawning, in the pangs of hunger, a shawl given her to embroider, and on which she was expected to work, with needle and thread, eighty flowers for the payment of sixpence! In the next column you read a description of a new city, springing up opposite Liverpool, with streets two miles in length, and docks exceeding those of Liverpool itself, and all this the creation of a few months! What is all this but the clearest proof of Mr. Buller's description, "the greatest luxury and the greatest suffering, side by side," that could possibly be afforded? But even a third class of proofs might be adduced, namely, the evidence arising from the concurrent feelings and avowals of multitudes of intelligent and well-informed men, in all the country. parts of The newspapers have given us, within the last month, reports of thirty or forty meetings, of various sorts, and held in all parts of the kingdom. And at all these, with scarcely an exception, the difficulties and perils of the nation have been alluded to, as a topic of the deepest interest. To cite a single instance :-On the very day on which the Record published the last of its four replies to us -(Oct. 24)-there appeared in the London daily papers, a report of an agricultural meeting at Godalming, at which about 200 of the magistrates, gentry, and leading farmers of the county of Surrey attended. And the tone of that meeting may be gathered from two or three extracts from the speeches. G. T. Nicholson, Esq. (of Waverley Abbey), said, "He must "admit that the present condition of the agricultural population "was calculated to give great pain and uneasiness. Every day it "happened to him, that men of good character, men of strong "sinews, willing and anxious to work, came and implored him to "give them employment, and he was unable to find it for them. He "felt deeply for them, and he considered it to be his duty, and "that of every man, to endeavour to do away with such a dis"tressing state of things." Mr. Leach said, "Every one who had the means which they "had of knowing the condition of the poor of England, must feel "that they were in a most distressed and miserable state, from "which it was the duty of every man to endeavour to relieve "them. He admitted that it was difficult to say what should be "done, but still they should endeavour to do something. He "could not himself be certain to live beyond a single day, but he "did trust that some of those around him would live to see the peasantry of this country restored to that condition which en"titled them to be considered the pride and boast of England." Mr. Mangles, M.P., said, "He did feel that they owed a deep "debt of gratitude to the agricultural labourer-a debt of which "only a very small portion had been discharged, and of which "much remained unpaid. When he visited this class in their cottages, and saw their miserable condition, and the privations they endured, while surrounded by persons enjoying every com"fort and luxury, he must say that he could not help praising "their honesty, their integrity, and their forbearance. He thought the time was come when they ought not to be satisfied with mere professions on their behalf, and giving them rewards, and expressing sympathy for their condition; and that some practical "exertions should be made to benefit their condition. At present "the labourer was not sufficiently fed, and they all knew that if a man was underfed he could not work. He knew of one case |