invented Priesthood, borrowed from the Jewish? Will they again exalt the Sacraments in the place of Faith, and the Visible Church in the place of Christ? Will they deprive themselves of the protection of the Inspired Word by allowing any man to interpret it authoritatively? Will they ignore their own noble army of Martyrs, the Reformers; and betake themselves to John of Damascus, or Thomas Aquinas, as wiser and safer Theologians? Will they despise the divines who have adorned and instructed their Church for three hundred years-whom Dr. Chalmers, himself not of our Church, has extolled, as a body superior to those of any other Church on earth;—and will they exchange their Prayer Book for any of the ancient Liturgies, or Eucharistic Service Books, which pass under the names of Peter, or James, or Clement, or Ambrose?

These interrogations are not mere declamation. To this point the Archdeacon brings all who are willing to be guided by him. He scruples not, though a dignitary in our Church, to treat our Reformers with utter contempt in his Work on the Incarnation. He does nearly the same with all our Divines, in his Work on the Eucharist. He reveres the ancient Litur

gies, whilst our Communion Service he calls "Zuinglo-Calvinistic." He ascribes to the Visible Church-during the first ten centuries at least a power of interpretation of Scripture, equivalent in degree to the power of communication which was given to the Sacred Writers. ("Incarnation," p. 126, 1st. Ed.) He does not profess to draw his System from the source of Divine truth, but honestly confesses, that "the Eucharistic System receives in Holy Scripture comparatively little notice." ("Eucharist," p. 366.) As to the precise features of his system, and its essential identity with that of the Church of Rome, they who wish to be fully informed must consult his Works themselves, or must read the Strictures here presented to the public. They will there see, how light he makes of original sin and "the infection of nature;" how he injures the doctrine of the Atonement; and how he repudiates that of Justification by Faith. He does not of course acknowledge the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as defined by the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, because our Church in our 28th Article condemns it expressly and by name. But he looks on the Eucharist, as a Propitiatory Sacrifice; and he holds that the body of Christ is in the elements, taking their

shape and extending through their space, and being whole and undivided in every particle of the bread and drop of the wine. He holds, therefore, that it is necessarily taken by all who receive the elements, worthy or unworthy. He represents the difference between the Churches of England and Rome, as a verbal difference. He makes as near an approach, as it is possible for him under his present circumstances to make. Let him and his followers beware how they try to stand still on an inclined plane! The "British Critic" informed us some years ago, what is the Tractarian view of the near relationship between their Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Tridentine one of Transubstantiation. "The idea that to a Chris"tian, believing all the astonishing mysteries "which are contained in the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the further belief in the Real Presence, even to the extent of the Tridentine definition, is a serious tax on his credulity,' "is not tenable for a moment." ("Brit. Crit." Ixiii. p. 71.) The gentleman who penned these words, is now a Romanist. Let all who can read them with complacency, or even without a shudder, tremble for themselves. They are on the inclined plane.

It is often asked: Is not Tractarianism

almost defunct? No! Far from it. It is less obtrusive than before. It pursues a more cautious course. It even adopts the language and the dress of Evangelical religion. In acting thus, it has borrowed its policy from the Jesuits, whose Order Dr. Newman has joined, and whose Devotional Works Dr. Pusey has recommended for use in our Church. But

it is on this account more to be dreaded than ever. It is impossible for those who feel for the honour of Christ, to enter into any compromise with it. Now Archdeacon Wilberforce occupies the vacant chair, which was filled by Dr. Newman. He is the Coryphæus of the Tractarians at the present moment. If his Works on the Incarnation and the Eucharist were allowed to go unanswered, a great impulse would thereby be communicated to that Movement which commenced, as the Oxford Resolutions published by Mr. Perceval have revealed to us, in views of the Sacrament and the Priesthood identical with the Archdeacon's.

Enough, perhaps, has been said to call attention to the subject of the following pages. Works so influential, which contain error so fatal and so contagious, demand exposureespecially since their tendency is not obvious on their face. There is an attempt made by

the Archdeacon to preserve much of the truth which, in early years, he imbibed from his father, (as he himself pleasingly confesses,) in company with the views which were afterwards instilled into him by his College Tutor and Friend, Dr. Newman. He tries to reconcile the conflicting systems of opinion-but in vain. The effort, however, gives an ambiguous and cloudy character to his writing-particularly in the "Incarnation "--which must deceive many. This deceptiveness renders it the more necessary, that the real character of his Works should be pointed out-though it makes the task a more difficult one. He seldom condenses what it is his object to teach, into a definition. His drift is felt, when no single sentence can be found which clearly embodies it. So that it is hard to make Extracts, which prove the correctness of a Reviewer's description.

Deeply convinced, that all is at stake—that all the fruits of the Reformation are in danger of being swept away-the Author of these "Strictures" has done what he could-what the leisure he possessed, and the books to which he had access, permitted him—in both which respects he is limited, in the one by his being placed in charge of a large Parish, and