body of the Clergy already trained up in these views, and carrying them out in relation to all the subjects to which they will apply. Even if they should, in the exercise of great caution and vigilance, confine themselves within the limits prescribed, their people would not and could not do so. The masters may be Anglo-Catholics, and nothing more; the disciples will assuredly become Romanists. Already, as an attentive observer cannot fail to have remarked, there is a change in the tone of feeling and style of expression, which obtains among them. The younger adherents of the party have advanced upon its founders, as the Lyra Apostolica did upon the "Christian Year; and Mr. Dodsworth, Mr. Oakeley, and Mr. F. W. Faber, will soon be outstripped in their turn by Mr. Knollis, Mr. Wackerbath, and a score of others not yet fledged. Nor is it to be expected that the popular mind can long resist the unceasing efforts which are brought to bear upon it at every point, with the avowed purpose of detaching from its grasp that which the Trac tarians call its "ultra Protestantism." When the public has been accustomed to hear the Reformation regretted, and the Reformers abused; and the Revolution of 1688 described as a sin,t nay, a very great sin; when our youth, in learning English history, have

The separation of the English from the Romish Church" was providential indeed and blessed, in so far as it has been the means of relieving us from false doctrine; but of course painful, in as far as it indicates disunion, however unavoidable, between two members of the same Christian body." (Oakeley's Sermon, Col. ii. 10, p. 8.) Mr. Froude's abuse of the Reformers is too well known to require a reference to it; and it is with the deepest pain that we

have observed the Editors of his "Remains" sending forth a second part of that work, and in the preface to it avowing their acquiescence in his general views; and especially their belief, that the Reformers, as a party, are not to be trusted on ecclesiastical or theological questions. They even attempt to vindicate at length his treatment of Bishop Jewell. Altogether this preface is a most striking and melancholy proof of the gradual advance of opinion spoken of in the text.

+ Pusey's Sermon on 5th Nov., p. 41. Oakeley, ubi supra.

been led to regard with reverence the founders of monasteries, to palliate the conduct of Thomas à Becket, and to think of him as a Christian Bishop, whom it was right to honour for his Master's sake; § while they look on John Foxe as a coarse and scurrilous writer, who has unfortunately obtained more credit than he deserves; when they have been duly instructed to venerate the character of Queen Mary, and comparatively to condemn that of Elizabeth, to turn to the Non-jurors for patterns of especial sanctity, and to look on

Dissent as a more fatal tyranny, and a more unauthorized usurpation than Popery; **- who shall affirm that they are not well protected against the Church of Rome? Who can doubt that the doctrines of the "Tracts for the Times" form the only sure defence against her aggressions? Who can fail to see that it is quite possible "to oppose ultra Protestantism without favouring Popery?"

So much, then, for the first and most direct tendency of Dr. Pusey's system. But it has other tendencies equally dangerous and distressing. We will name but two. First, an intelligent man cannot help seeing that, if religion is not necessary for a Minister, it cannot be necessary for the people. He will argue, that if its blessings may be effectually transmitted through a corrupt channel, religion cannot be that holy, purifying element which it is declared to be. Now, the "Tracts for the Times" will teach him that, unless we acknowledge a real transmission of apostolical powers through wicked men, we must admit that the church of Christ is no longer to be found on earth.tt From such premises he may easily (and, as we think, legitimately) deduce conclusions which will set aside the claims of religion altogether. And thus it has ever been.

§ Churton's Early English Church, p. 349; and Froude's Remains, part ii., vol. ii. Churton, preface, p. ix.; p. 317. Sewell's Christian Morals, p. 379. ** Ibid, pp. 52, 185.

tt Tract, No. 5., p. 11.

A system of externalisin must lead the ignorant into superstition, and the reflecting into infidelity. Secondly, the system destroys catholic love. Separation is, according to its dictum, a sin of the deepest die,"* a work of darkness with which we are to have no fellowship; and the assemblies of non-conformists are 66 'beyond the king. dom of Christ." The Episcopal Clergy and their flocks are the Church of these realms, and " every individual within their district is bound to unite himself to them as being exclusively and solely the way of salvation established by divine authority amongst us." It follows, of course, that " Dissenting communities, whether collectively or individually considered, form no part of the church of Christ;" and that even "Missionary Societies, not of the Church, are an evil, if they act where the Church is." Having stated these views in the very words of the writers, we forbear to add any comments of our own. While we believe the Bible, we cannot but reject them with abhorrence; and, if we will fulfil our ordination-vows, must do our utmost 66 diligence to drive them away as erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word." Mr. Sewell may tell us, that it is a good reason why we should believe a certain doctrine, that it is propounded to us; and that if a

Palmer, vol. i., p. 70. † Ibid, p. 214.

Ibid, p. 399. Dr. Pusey speaks of this work in terms of commendation. Ile quotes from it (Letter, p. 175) as the production of a "learned and tranquil writer." The praise of learning will be cheerfully accorded to Mr. Palmer by all his readers; but what must we think of his tranquillity, who, by one stroke of his pen, cuts off tens of thousands of his countrymen from the hope of salvation, except through what he calls the uncovenanted mercies of God? He would surely make an admirable member of the Congregation of the Holy Office. Dr. Pusey, however, shrinks from expressing himself as strongly as Mr. Palmer has done; and very prudently, for he is writing a controversial, and Mr. Palmer a dogmatical, treatise. Dr. Pusey's Letter, therefore, may serve to rebut objections with, while Mr. Palmer indoctrinates the rising race of students.

§ Pusey's Sermons at Melcombe Regis, p. 125. Christian Morals, p. 239.

66

Clergyman shows his commission, it is by way of indulgence to those whom he instructs; but an inspired Apostle has cautioned us against believing every spirit," and commanded that we should "try the spirits whether they be of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." And our one Master, even CHRIST, has left on record his approbation of the church over which that very Apostle presided, because they had "tried those who said they were Apostles and were not, and found them liars." The Tract-writers may boast of authority and commission derived from their Chief Priests, and boldly pronounce that the " question of worth" in relation to the ministerial office, is absurd ; " ** "** but we hear the sure word of prophecy, "Unto the ungodly saith GOD, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?" And notwithstanding the bold denunciations of Mr. Palmer and Dr. Pusey, we shall continue to recognise as brethren in Christ those who cast out devils in his name, though they may not follow with us; and to bring forward on their journeys those who "for his name's sake" go forth among the Gentiles, "that we may be fellow-helpers to THE TRUTH." "For the kingdom of God is not meatand drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable unto God, and approved of men."

It has afforded us much satisfaction to observe, that, among the laity of the established Church, these opinions have found but few abettors. We can only call to mind at present two names of any note which have been publicly given in as adhering to the Anglo-Catholic system. The first is that of Mr. Gladstone, a highly respectable Member of Parliament, but who (if we may judge from the manner in which some allusions to the

Ibid, p. 24.

** Tract, No. 5, p. 10.

Oxford Tracts were received in the last session) has not made many proselytes among his brother Commoners. The second is that of Mr. T. Pell Platt, a gentleman well known in the religious world, from his long connexion with the British and Foreign Bible Society, of which he has for some years been an honorary life Governor, having rendered essential services to the institution; and who is the author of the second publication on our list. Mr. Platt, it would appear, had embraced the system of Mr. Simeon and Mr. Scott in early life; or, in other words, was an evangelical Churchman, and a Calvinist. He became greatly perplexed with the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, as taught in the modern evangelical school, and for satisfaction betook himself to the treatise of Dr. Owen on Justifica

tion by Faith. Not finding what he sought there, he went on until he met with an extract from Mr. Knox's Remains, which" commended itself" strongly to him; and he afterwards found in Mr. Newman's Lectures, not indeed a "brief and clear exposition of the theory of the subject," which was what he sought for, "but a most excellent substitute for it, and what will, I trust," says he, "prevent me from looking for such an exposition any more." And what, our readers may ask, has terminated the painful suspense and protracted researches of this learned gentleman? If the subject were not too serious, they could not, we are sure, forbear to smile, when they are informed, that this "most consolatory substitute for any further research among conflicting theories,"

" Is contained in two quotations: the one from Barrow, the other from Jeremy Taylor, (Newman on Justification, pp. 439-441,) giving it as their full and concordant opinion, that the controversy is, after all, one almost entirely of words; and about the real points of doctrine,' Barrow says, 'there hardly doth appear any material difference.' Most satisfactory is it to find that two such men have so judged; and, surely, in examining the matter, without reference to former

prepossessions, any man will find it to be indeed as they say."

(Platt's Letter, p. 13.)

After this account of himself and his views, we feel that it is quite unnecessary to add more respecting

Mr. Platt.

How he went on to receive the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and apostolical succession, to renounce his former connexions, and to condemn almost all the existing religious societies, as based upon wrong principles, those who list to know may find duly recorded in his pages. We have long known, that very learned men are often very poor theologians; but we confess that we were scarcely prepared for such a pitiable exhibition of incompetency as this. The whole controversy between Protestants on the question of justification, a strife of words, and nothing more! Mr. Knox contending, that the forensic sense of the term is unscriptural and misleading, and Mr. Faber defending that sense; Bishop Bull affirming, that a man is justified by works which spring from faith; Bishop Hopkins, that he is justified by his union with Christ through faith, and the consequent imputation of a perfect righteousness; and Hooker, and a host of others, declaring that our justification is the non-imputation or pardon of sin, and "that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification: "-all say in effect the same thing; and it is quite of these views as Mr. Platt has optional with us to adopt any one done, or to take another different from them all, if we see good; only we must sincerely admit what the Scripture testifies on the subject. Had we not learned from an advertisement, prefixed to Mr. Platt's Letter, that Dr. Pusey has seen and approved of it, we should have expected to hear that he was strenu

*We carnestly recommend to all our readers, and to our Wesleyan readers especially, Mr. Wesley's Letter to the Rev. Dr. Horne, (Works, ed. 3, vol. ix., pp. 110-117,) as containing a clear statement of his teaching on this subject, and a triumphant defence of it, together with a brief but most satisfactory testimony to the importance of the doctrine.

ously exerting himself to procure its suppression.

Among the Clergy the opinions of the "Tracts for the Times"

have spread far more rapidly and extensively than among the laity; and this, as we before intimated, constitutes the chief ground of our alarm. The next generation is, to a great extent, in their hands; and, "Like Priest like people," is a maxim resting on authority which will hardly be called in question. But there is much to encourage us in the recollection of the last few years, as it regards the Clergy. The late Archbishop of Cashel, and the Bishops of Chester, Calcutta, and Exeter, have spoken out their disapprobation of various parts of the Tracts and their kindred publications, with great distinctness. And it is with sincere pleasure and gratitude that we add to their names that of the newly-consecrated Bishop of Chichester, the reputed author of the third, and the avowed author of the fourth, publication on our list; both of which display a truly Christian spirit of candour and courtesy, and a firm adherence to the principles of the Reformation as developed in the standards of the Church of England. The first of these two publications, (No. 3 on our list,) by whomsoever written, satisfactorily shows that Dr. Pusey's claim to be considered as speaking the sentiments of the Church of England, "both as expressed in her formularies, and in the writings of her standard Divines," is altogether unfounded; and with equal strength and clearness exhibits the futility of his assertion," that no extravagance has hitherto connected itself" with the movement which he and his friends have originated. Dr. Shuttleworth, in the advertisement prefixed to his Three Sermons, expresses himself thus :

strong and extensively-organized effort has been made, if not openly to controvert them, at least to weaken their evidence, and practically to supersede them." And, in conclusion, he says,—

"These sermons will serve, at all events, to record my formal dissent from that opposite system of doctrines which have been of late set forth under so many advantages of confederated members, of extensive erudition, and (why should I not add?) of unblemished excellence in all the details of Christian practice." (Preface, pp. vi., x.)

We should gladly enrich our pages with large quotations from this most seasonable and valuable volume; but we trust that the few extracts, for which alone we can find room, will lead our readers to procure it for themselves; and we are sure hundreds of them will be induced to join us in the fervent prayer, that the Right Reverend author may be long preserved to edify the Church in the station to which he has been so worthily promoted. Our first extract relates to that view of justification through the sacraments, which has of late been so prominently put forward by Mr. Newman, and defended by Dr. Pusey

:

"We have been told, in a recent publication, that justification comes through the sacraments; is received by faith,' &c. If the meaning of this expression is merely, that by our participation in the sacraments we manifest our faith in faith are justified,' then the only objecour Lord's atonement, and through that tion which I would make to it is, that it is less clearly worded than it need have been, had it approached more nearly to the usual phraseology of Scripture. If, however, the intention of the writer be to assert that the sacraments are ultimately and per se the instrument and cause of our justification, then I have no hesitation in saying, that such an assertion is directly contrary to the express declaration of St. Paul: Brethren,' says that inspired Apostle, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same

spiritual drink, (for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,) but with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ...... Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.' It cannot

be doubted that in this passage St. Paul considers the passage of the Red Sea, and the miraculous gift of manna, as typical of the two sacraments of the new covenant; and as the Israelites, notwithstanding their enjoyment of these blessings, ultimately perished through their want of faith, so he clearly implies that in the Christian church the same deficiency, however accompanied by a participation in the sacraments, would be followed by the same result. It can be

no derogation from the value of the sacramental institutions of our Saviour to say of them, that, while they rank foremost among the means of grace vouchsafed to us by our Maker, their efficacy still consists in their reference to a higher principle which they typically represent, and from which they derive their entire value. We cannot be too grateful that we are allowed to be partakers of them; but it is because they point directly to the expiation made for sin by the sacrifice of our Redeemer, and lead and fix our thoughts in that direction, that they are endued with that spiritual potency which every Christian must believe them to possess. As memorials or types of the atonement, they stand foremost in the catalogue of Christian ordinances; but their excellence is still merely derieative, and depends entirely upon that one great truth which constitutes the fundamental doctrine of our religion, and without which they would be without meaning, and consequently unproductive of benefit."

(Three Sermons, pp. 40—42.)

The following passage ably vindicates the evangelical doctrine against the imputation of having an immoral tendency:

"Men fear lest the simple doctrine of justification by faith, if taken in its broad acceptation, should lead to carelessness, and recklessness of life. Even those who cordially assent to its truth, have still their occasional scruples about bringing it forward as a primary and fundamental doctrine. It may be true, they argue; but still it is safer to take the more cau

tious and less sanguine view. Let us then, at all events, perform those additional expiatory acts, which even if they do us no good, can do us no harm. If justification through faith be the true scriptural doctrine, it will still stand us in stead, even though accompanied by supererogatory works on our part; whilst, if it be not the true doctrine, then those works are absolutely necessary.

"Now it appears to me to be at once a sufficient reply to this view of the question, that it was not thus that St. Paul reasoned. He had no such apprehension of the danger of proclaiming the full, simple, and entire truth. He uniformly brought forward, without disguise, reserve, or hesitation, the atonement of Christ, and faith in that atonement,' as the one great fundamental position of the Christian scheme. And, as it appears to me, there is a sound and sufficient reason for his having done so, as well as for all other Preachers of Christ's doctrine doing the same. Works, such as I have now supposed, however scrupulously and conscientiously performed, can scarcely be practised in the first instance, as a means of arriving at justification and for their own sake, without suggesting to the agent some self-complacent feelings of his own merit; some idea that he is purchasing his own salvation at his own cost. But now just reverse this view of the question. Consider holiness of life, not as the cause, but as the consequence, of our acceptance with God; in other words, bring forward, in the first place, the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ's expiatory merits as the great, palmary, and fundamental truth of Christianity. I repeat, that, if we accept this proposition in its full evangelical sense, not only will good works necessarily follow in as large a numerical proportion as under the other process, but more than this will ensue. Those works will be of a higher and holier class. They will issue at once from the fountain-head of a Christian heart

strongly impregnated with high Gospel principles. They will be the spontaneous and unstudied overflowing of a mind grateful for immense benefits received. They will be warm, energetic, and abundant, because they will be voluntary; they will be humble and unassuming, giving all the glory to God, and denying any share of it to themselves, because the very principle from which they proceed necessarily involves the acknowledgment of a gratuitous gift, and a direct denial of all personal merit."

(Ibid, pp. 33-35)