pale of the Church of England, should be made aware that the Oxford divines have no sympathy with them, and oppose the very doctrines which they generally hold to be of peculiar and fundamental importance. And I trust that none of them will suffer themselves to be beguiled into the belief, that they may adopt the new system of Church principles, and yet maintain their distinguishing tenets, for that system of Church principles is based on a foundation of doctrinal error. One writer, indeed, attempts to reconcile the friends of evangelical religion to the Oxford views; and, while he admits a doctrinal discrepancy, can see no reason why it should prevent their agreement. "I am

not attempting to controvert any one of those high evangelical points, on which, perhaps, we do not altogether agree with each other. Perhaps you attribute less efficacy to the sacrament of baptism than I do,-bring out into greater system and prominence the history of an individual's warfare with his spiritual enemies,-fix more precisely and abruptly the date of his actual conversion from darkness to light,-and consider that divine grace acts more arbitrarily against the corrupt human will than I think is revealed in Scripture. Still, in spite of this difference of opinion, I see no reason why you should not accept heartily the Scripture doctrine of the Church."* Let your reply be,-the Scripture doctrine. of the Church we hold, but not the Oxford system; we acknowledge no Church as mediator betwixt God and man; we deny that the Church is confined to the Episcopal communion; we deny that the efficacy of the Church's sacraments depends on any thing else than the grace of God; and we glory in the article which defines the Church as 66 a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance."

The doctrinal result of a departure from the Episcopal line of succession is declared to be very lamentable, and is ascribed, in part, to the inferior efficacy of the sacraments when these are administered by unauthorised

* No. 11, p. 2.

men. It might have been thought that the state of doctrinal belief in the Greek and Latin Churches, where the apostolic descent is supposed to be most entire, as compared with the Protestant Reformed communities generally, would have prevented any well-informed man from hazarding such a statement. But the defection of Geneva, and the rationalism of North Germany, the one occasioned by the system of self-will established by Calvin, and the other traceable to the want of Episcopal regimen, are held to afford conclusive evidence of the connection between doctrinal soundness and apostolic succession ! What is said of the latter is curious. It is adduced for the double purpose of showing the heterodox tendency of Presbyterianism, and the strong security of orthodoxy under Prelatic government, thus: -The RATIONALISM of Germany was "occasioned in good measure by the importation of DEISTICAL BOOKS and opinions from England,-books and opinions which England herself had rejected." Now, mark the force of the two-edged argument,-" Why so great a difference in the reception of the same error by two kindred races of people, lying very much under the same temptations? Is it unreasonable to suppose that the apostolic succession and safeguards arising out of it, which England enjoys, had something to do with her comparative exemption from that most alarming error?"* Nothing can be more reasonable certainly,—but it is a matter of history, and how stands the fact? The writer refers to his authority, Dr PUSEY on the Theology of Germany" (Part i. p. 124),-where, if your curiosity leads you to consult it, you will find these words,-"The constant appeal to the rationality of Christianity, which led Tindal to conceive of it as a mere republication of the religion of nature, was extensively encouraged in Germany by the translation of the works of THE EARLIER ENGLISH APOLOGISTS."-I am, my dear Sir, &c.

* No. 57, p. 8.

MY DEAR SIR,

LETTER V.

POPISH TENDENCIES.

66

In

an

You are aware that the Oxford system is almost universally regarded as a modified form of Popery. This is the popular objection against it. every part of the country you hear it spoken of as image" of that system, animated by the same spirit, and exhibiting, for the most part, the same features. That such an impression should prevail so generally amongst all classes of the community, is a fact which of itself demands the serious consideration of the Oxford writers, and of all such as may have attached themselves to their party; for although the popular opinion may often be erroneous or exaggerated, it is seldom found to want some ostensible ground; and at all events, their very misconception, if it be a misconception, of the spirit and tendency of the Oxford Tracts, is a sufficient proof that those who have undertaken, in this instance, the task of public instruction, have lamentably failed in that precision and definiteness of statement, which is essential to their usefulness as writers on a subject of such universal interest and unspeakable importance.

And yet I cannot wonder that when the charge of Popery is broadly preferred against them, they should feel as if grievous wrong were done them, and repel it with some measure of resentment. For they have attempted to draw a distinction, which although not suffi

ciently palpable for the popular mind, may appear to themselves to be clear and definite, betwixt the system of primitive Christianity which they advocate, and the corruptions subsequently superinduced on that system by the Romish Church: and while they admit, or rather avow their preference for some doctrines and practices which the Reformed Churches have generally discarded, they endeavour to show that these are not of Popish, but of primitive origin, and may be held or observed in perfect consistency with their profession, as ministers and members of the English Episcopal Church.

On the antiquity of these peculiarities of their system, it is not my intention to enlarge: the whole of that part of the subject has been discussed in the most masterly manner by ISAAC TAYLOR, the able, learned, and eloquent author of " Ancient Christianity," who has shown, by a copious adduction of apposite proofs and illustrations, such as his extensive erudition only could supply, that they have signally failed in their professed design "to erect safe and substantial bulwarks for the Anglican believer against the Church of Rome, to draw clear and intelligible lines, which may allow him securely to expatiate in the rich pastures of Catholicism," without the reasonable dread" that he, as an individual, may fall into the snare of Popery ;"-and that we cannot safely concur with them, either in their mournful plaint, or in their avowed purpose, when they say, "Now that Rome has added, and we have omitted, in the catalogue of sacred doctrines, what is left to us, but to turn our eyes sorrowfully and reverently to those ancient times, and with Bishop Ken, make it our profession to live and die in the faith of the Catholic Church, before the division of the east and west."

But without entering on a field already occupied by one so pre-eminently qualified to explore it, I may be permitted to undertake the easier task of arranging and placing before you some of those peculiarities which appear to me to indicate a Popish tendency in the Oxford Tracts, and to afford an explanation of the very general opinion, that they are pervaded by a Popish leaven,

The relative position of the Oxford party, as regards the Reformed Churches on the one hand, and the Romish Church on the other, is thus described by themselves" The glory of the English Church is, that it has taken the VIA MEDIA;" "it lies between the (socalled) REFORMERS and the ROMANISTS." Connect this with the following account of the other Reformed Churches:- "So far from its being a strange thing that Protestant sects are not in Christ' in the same fulness that we are, it is more accordant with the scheme of the world that they should lie between US and HEATHENISM. Here you have what may be called the Oxford ecclesiastical chart, in which the relative positions of all the great religious communities are accurately assigned;—the Oxford divines occupying a commanding position in the centre: on their right hand the Church of Rome; on their left the " Protestant sects;" and further off to the left the bleak and barren regions of heathenism. It is true the right hand is the place of honour, and they have not expressly said on which hand the Popish Church is placed; but there can be no doubt that I have given it the position which their own preference would prompt them to assign to it; for they speak of Rome as holding a place of pre-eminence above the Protestant sects, when, comparing these to Samaria, they ask, " Why should the corruptions of Rome lead us to deny her divine privileges, when even the idolatry of Judah did not forfeit her's, annul her temple service, or level her to Israel ?"* and exclaim, "God forbid that we should ally ourselves with the offspring of heresy and schism, in our contest with any branches of the holy Church, which maintain the foundations, whatever may be their incidental corruptions."+

Their preference is made still more evident by the way in which they speak both of Protestantism and Popery. They tell us that modern Protestantism," the religion of so-called freedom and independence, hating superstition, suspicious of forms, jealous of priestcraft, advocating heart-worship, is, as generally understood, * No. 47, p. 4. + Records, No. 25, p. 9.