his speech, two of the bishops declared "that it was manifest to all, that the Churches in Britain were much in need of the Pontiff's assistance." The council acquitted Wilfrid, and decided that he should be restored to his bishopric. Soon after this he returned to England, and presented the decree of the council and a letter from the Pope, signed and sealed, but a papal bull did not then possess the formidable character which such instruments acquired in later times; the King caused it to be perused by the bishops of his own party, and was so far from paying respect to the Roman mandate, that he caused Wilfrid to be stript of his possessions, and cast into prison, in which he was confined nine months. It is somewhat remarkable that in all these proceedings, as well as those in which he was afterwards engaged, Wilfrid never claimed the right of a Metropolitan."

Gregory the Great (Bede, i. 29) had decreed that after the death of Augustine, the two archbishops should possess equal rights, and take precedence by sniority of consecration; but Paulinus appears to have been the only bishop of York to whom a pall was sent (Bede ii. 17), before Egbert, who was the fourth in succession after Wilfrid. Archbishop Parker indeed affirms that Berthwald, Theodore's successor in the see of Canterbury, received from Pope Sergius the primacy of all England, but I cannot discover on what authority he makes the assertion, the place in Bede to which he refers, by no means bears him out. A. L.

(To be continued.)

SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATIONS.-No. VI.

CHRIST PAYING CHURCH RATES.

"And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He said Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."- Matthew xvii, 24, 25, 26, 27.

As the dissenters are loudly clamouring against Church-rates, and denouncing the demanding and paying them as contrary to the Word of God, we have chosen this part of the Gospel of St. Matthew for present illustration, in preference to the twentieth verse of the eighteenth chapter of the same Gospel, which we promised to consider in this number, but which must now stand over to our next opportunity.

It is well known, that on every occasion when the dissenters write or speak against the Church, or anything connected with her, they glibly assert over

Spelman, Concilia, tom. i. p. 158. Wilkins, tom. i. p. 45. It would appear from this speech that the English had not hitherto received much of the Pope's assistance.

Ille (rex) cum ca episcopis contubernalibus suæ factionis legi fecisset, tantum a reverentia Romanæ sedis abfuit, ut spoliatum suis omnibus, comitibusque in diversa deductis, beatum pontificem cuidam præfecto notabilis sævitiæ viro in ergastulum trudendum committeret."-Malmsb. p. 264. Eddius also, Wilfrid's chaplain, is quite horrified at the treatment which the Pope's Bull received "Jamjamque rex, scriptis apostolica sedis apertis et recitatis (quod dictu horribile erat) Petri apostoli et apostolorum principis, qui habet a Deo solvendi ligandique potestatem, cum adulatoribus suis iratus judicia contemnens, etc. Cap. xxxiii, p. 69.

3 Heylin says that York was erected into a metropolitan see in the time of King Lucius. -Help to Eng. Hist. p. 183.

4

"Birtualdo Sergius pontifex, ejus nominis primus, omnis Anglicanæ ecclesiæ primatum per literas concessit."-De Antiquitate Britt. Eccl. ed. 1729, p. 83.

and over again, that "the Bible-the Bible is their only rule of faith and practice;" in other words, that they neither believe nor practise anything but what they can clearly prove to be right from the Word of God. Now on the same principle, that men may assert a falsehood so often that they at length themselves believe it to be true, there is no doubt that the dissenters have asserted that the Bible is their only rule of faith and practice so often, that they have imposed upon themselves and other people to such an extent, that many believe their statements without examination or thought, concluding that they cannot surely be false, or men would never so frequently and so boldly repeat them. It is, however, after all that the dissenters can say, a matter of undeniable fact, that all the principles and practices of the various sects of dissenters, wherein they differ from the Church, are not only without foundation or encouragement in the Word of God, but directly contrary to the plainest precepts of that Holy Book. This is not like what they say, mere assertion; for we have already produced a great mass of argument in proof of our statements; and shall be continually corroborating them by passages from the Word of Truth. And it is because they cannot answer our plain, self-evident arguments, that they fall to their usual weapons of "keen hatred and round abuse" of us. But this is all of no avail with sensible Christian people, especially as their own conduct proves the truth of what we say; for although they continually assert that their opinions and performances are scriptural, yet they take very good care not to produce us proofs from Scripture, or if they do produce a text from the Bible, it is sure to be misinterpreted or misapplied, or in some way wrested and twisted to suit their own purposes. The Church-rate question affords ample proof of this; for while they constantly assert that Church rates are utterly unscriptural, and opposed to the Word of God, they take care not to produce one single text in proof of what they say, and we boldly defy them to give us book, and chapter, and verse, wherein Church rates are forbidden, or whereby they can be shewn to be at all wrong. But we will go much further, and prove distinctly from the passage of Scripture at the head of this article that the payment of Church rates is virtually commanded in the Bible, for our blessed Lord himself paid them, and wrought a miracle to obtain the money. And this shall now be our business; for we do not intend to blame others for making assertions without proof, and then do the same thing ourselves.

In the first place, then, we find that the facts related in the passage now for illustration took place at Capernaum, in accordance with a Jewish canon, which ordered that collectors of this tribute should sit in every city in Judea to receive it on the fifteenth day of the month Adar in every year; but not to press any then to pay it; but on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, they sat in the sanctuary, and then urged every one to pay it; and if they did not then give it," they took pawns of them." And as our blessed Lord and St. Peter were both inhabitants of Capernaum (as will be seen from St. Matthew ix. 1, where it is called our Lord's "own city," and from chap. iv. 13, where it is said that he "dwelt in Capernaum," and from chap. viii. 5 and 14, where we are told that St. Peter had a house at Capernaum), they were now solicited to pay the "tribute money," or the "didrachms," or in Jewish language, the "shekels," for, as Dr. Gill, the most learned of all the dissenting commentators, observes, "they that received tribute money" were "not the publicans, or Roman tax-gatherers; nor is this to be understood of any such tribute; there was a tribute that was paid to Cæsar by the Jews (see Matt. xxii. 17), but that is expressed by another word, and was paid in other money, in Roman money, which bore Caesar's image and superscription, and was exacted of them whether they would or no, but this designs the collection of the half-shekel,

paid yearly, for the service of the Temple." This dissenter then gives an account of the origin of this Church rate, or Temple rate, saying, "In the time of Nehemiah, there was a yearly charge of the third part of a shekel for the service of the Temple, but this was not done by virtue of a divine order or any law of Moses with which it did not agree, but by an ordinance the Jews then made for themselves as their necessity required. Aben Ezra, indeed, says that this was an addition to the half-shekel. Now in process of time, from these instances and examples it became a fixed thing, that every year a halfshekel should be paid by every Israelite, excepting women, children, and servants, towards defraying the necessary charges of the Temple service, and this obtained in Christ's time."

Further on, this same learned dissenter says again of this "tribute money," -"this was not the Roman tax or tribute on any civil account, BUT THE HALF-SHEKEL FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICE." This is very clear and distinct; and as it comes from a dissenter, must be decisive and settle the question for ever; except with those who are determined to agitate and clamour at all hazards, and in the face of Scripture and reason, and every thing else that is sacred and good. It is to be observed also that when Dr. Gill wrote this language, the consciences or conveniences of the dissenters allowed them to pay Church rates without a murmur. And we may ask bere, how it comes to pass that the consciences of modern dissenters will not suffer them to pay Church rates, while the consciences of the old dissenters allowed them to pay them without scruple, and even to argue in favour of paying them as we see Dr. Gill has done, and as we know the dissenting Matthew Henry has also done. Either the consciences of the old dissenters, or the consciences-we beg pardon, the conveniences-of the new, must be wrong; right they cannot both be. The truth is, as every sensible man sees, and most of the present dissenters themselves feel, all the pretences about conscience on this subject are the grossest and most disgusting hypocrisy ever practised on the face of the earth.

But to proceed with our Illustration; which will assist in exposing this hypocrisy stark naked to the world. We notice that "they that received tribute money came to Peter and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith Yes;" apparently without any hesitation, probably knowing that it had always been our Lord's practice, and that as he had done so previously, he had no doubt that he would pay it on the present occasion. “And when he [Peter] was come into the house "very likely into his own house, as he had one there; or at least into the house where Christ then was, in order to talk with Him about what the collectors of the tribute money had said,-" Jesus prevented him," that is, was beforehand with him, and spoke to Peter on the subject before Peter had time to begin to speak to him; for our Lord being God, and knowing all things, knew well what had taken place, though he was not bodily present at the time; he therefore prevented Peter-got the first word with him—“ saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?" By "strangers" the dissenting Dr. Gill justly remarks is meant the subjects of the king, in contradistinction to their own children and families. "Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free"-free from the payment of all custom, tribute, and taxes of all sorts. This, we believe, is the case at present with respect to the Royal Family of England, and with regard to those of other countries, that none of them pay any taxes whatever. And our blessed Lord's argument seems here to be, that as he was "the root and offspring of David "-" a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots," and the fulfilment of the prophecy

"the son of

"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch "-that as He was David," King of Israel, of his royal house and family, and heir apparent to his throne and kingdom-he was legally and properly free from the payment of the "tribute money "-the Temple or Church rates. Yet our Lord says"Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a piece of money; that take and give unto them for me and thee." Here our Lord, after having shewn that he had no right to pay this Church rate, actually performed a miracle to obtain the money to pay it with, rather than give offence. The piece of money was a 'stater,' and was the same as the shekel of the province, and just equal to five shillings of our present money, and just enough to pay the two half-shekels for himself and Peter.

Upon this last verse the aforesaid dissenter, Dr. Gill, thus very properly remarks, and condemns his agitating and rebellious brethren of the present day: "Though Christ could have maintained his right of exemption from payment [of this Church rate] by such strong and clear reasons and arguments, yet he chose to forego it, lest any should be offended with him and look upon him as a transgressor of the law; one that had no regard to the Temple, and slighted the worship and service of it, and so be prejudiced against him and his doctrine; which, by the way, may teach us [dissenters] to be careful to give no offence to Jew or Gentile, or the Church of God, though it may be to our own disadvantage, when the honour and interest of religion lie at stake. This is following the example of Christ."

Yes; it is following the example of Christ, which your dissenting brethren are not only now clamorously avoiding, but actually condemning. And if, as Dr. Gill says, our Lord's acting otherwise would have caused him to be considered, "as a transgressor of the law," then are the Church-rate martyrs and recusants "transgressors of the law." And if our Lord's refusal to pay the Church rate would have "prejudiced the people against him and his doctrine," will not the dissenters' refusal prejudice the people "against them and their doctrine?" It certainly will, and very justly and advantageously so, for their conduct fully proves that their doctrine is not Christ's doctrine, but directly opposite.

We might have brought to our aid, and much strengthened our arguments by, a host of passages from the Epistles and other parts of the Word of God; but we think it unnecessary; for if the dissenters will not follow the example of Christ in a matter so plain and clear, and corroborated by the most learned dissenter that ever lived, neither will they be convinced though one rose from the dead.

Now there are several points in this Illustration of the passage of Scripture which we have been considering, which ought to be constantly borne in mind. FIRST That the tribute-money which our Lord paid was for the express purpose of upholding the RELIGIOUS SERVICE of the Temple, and was just the same sort of payment as our Church rates. SECONDLY-That, quite different from the case of dissenters, our Lord had no right at all to pay it, and could have justly refused to pay it, as he proved, and the dissenting Dr. Gill states. THIRDLY-That the law by which the tribute-money, or Temple rate, or Jewish Church rate, was collected was, as Dr. Gill says, "not a divine law, but merely an ordinance of the Jews," and therefore merely human; and yet, FOURTHLY-That our Lord rendered willing obedience to it, human law as it was, rather than dispute about his right of exemption, or anything else, even though he had to work a miracle to get the money to pay it. FIFTHLY-That our Lord, when applied to for the Church rate, did not refuse and begin to

raise a commotion and disturbance in Capernaum by haranguing the people against the religion and laws of the country, as modern dissenters do. SIXTHLY-That our Lord did not cant or say a word about his conscience, and plead that as an excuse for not paying his Church rate. SEVENTHLY-That the dissenters who refuse to pay Church rates are awfully guilty of condemning our Lord's doctrine, as he has laid it down in the passage before us; and of condemning his practice, which illustrates and confirms his doctrine; and of thus rejecting the example of Christ, and virtually declaring, by their rebellious conduct towards the Lord of life and glory, "We will not have this man to reign over us."

PASTORAL AID SOCIETY, OR THE NEW "COMMITTEE OF TRIERS."

THE value of the ensuing correspondence, as documentary matter, convicting, as it does most clearly, the many-headed Pope of Fleet Street, called the Pastoral Aid Society, of something very like falsehood, deceit, and evasion, must be our excuse for occupying so much of our space with it. We have long been aware of the dishonest proceedings of this new Committee of Triers," in their Spiritual Excise Office, in Falcon Court, and have as long resolved on holding up those dishonest proceedings to the reprobation of every honest and pious Churchman, but one thing and another has hitherto turned up to prevent us. The case of the Rev. Mr. Clark and Mr. Browne is by no means the only one in which this "Committee of Triers" have had the Pharisaical presumption to set the authority of the Church and the Bishops at defiance. Nay more-they have actually slandered the character of the Clergyman, when they could not otherwise get rid of him, to make way for the favourite of some one of these "Triers." One Clergyman we recollect was nominated by the Incumbent, approved of by the Bishop of the diocese, and that Bishop, unhappily for himself, one of the vice-patrons of the society, and was induced to give up his cure, and take his furniture a long distance, at a heavy expense, when lo! his character, though satisfactory to the Rector and the Bishop, would not pass the Custom-house in Fleet Street; and the "Committee of Triers" audaciously set themselves above the Bishop, and virtually said to his lordship and the rector, "It is quite true that we do pretend to act with strict regard to the order and government of the Church, because if we let it be known that we do otherwise, we should not get near so much money, but, be it known to your lordship, and to you, Mr. Rector, that it is quite as true that such our pretences are arrantly false, as you see we have proved in our correspondence with Mr. Clark, about Mr. Browne." Thus do they speak by their conduct; and it is by their fruits, their conduct, that we know people, and not by their words.

We know also of a case, in which an agent of this hydra-headed pope actually wrote, published, and circulated in the district in which he was placed, a sarcastic, jeering, and profane tract, in which he abused some of the doctrines and principles of the Church. The matter was so offensive to some sound Churchmen, that the case was represented to the "Triers," who required their agent to withdraw the unchristian and abominable tract, but they by no means thought it right to withdraw him, and for aught we know he is still under their archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and they and their agent are worthy of each other. We have one of the tracts in our possession, and happen to know where they have all been deposited, since, in obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors, the "Triers," he took them from those Recordite publishers in Fleet Street, the Seeleys.

We are extremely grieved to see proceedings of this sort carried on within