cordant witnesses to certain definite truths; and while their testimony is one and the same from the very first moment they publicly utter it, so, on the other hand, if there be bodies which speak otherwise, we can show historically that they rose later than the Apostles. This majestic evidence, however, does not extend to any but to the articles of the Creed, especially those relating to the Trinity and Incarnation'," p. 28. For the future, then, do not accuse us of what we do not hold, that one Father is of authority in a point in which others are against him. This instance will be sufficient to show your readers, that at least you cannot guide them into our views concerning tradition. They had better have recourse to Mr. Hook and Mr. Keble, if not to be converted, at least to ascertain how things stand. (4.) Here let me observe, you attribute most gratuitously, and (I must even say) officiously, this same Tract, No. 71, to Dr. Pusey; and, as assuming it to be his, you accuse him of saying that it is "safest not," p. 149, to pray to the saints; and that "what the Fathers held" would be an "irrefragable argument" against transubstantiation. Again you say, “Professor Pusey considers the Eleventh Article as having been the cause of infinite mischief, by leading to the wildest Antinomian doctrine;' yet that, upon the whole-bountiful concession for an Oxford Professor to the glorious Eleventh Article of the Anglican Church-it was innocently intended!!"" p. 135; see also p. 189. I do really think this is a very great liberty to take with Dr. Pusey's name. It is the second instance of the kind into which you have been betrayed. This is very heedless. This Tract is not Dr. Pusey's writing. Dr. Pusey has written nothing to which he has not put either his name or his initials. One should have thought even the internal evidence of style would have saved you from such an awkwardness. This writer of it is as unwilling to surrender his claim to it, as to let others bear the imputation; nor is he in danger of losing, or Dr. Pusey of being laden with, a property which all careful readers will see to want the ex 1 A misconception in unexpected quarters makes it just necessary to observe, that in the language of the Primitive Church, here used, "the Incarnation" was taken to include under it the doctrine of the Atonement. uberance of thought and language which is Dr. Pusey's characteristic. As to the principal charge brought against this Tract, that it attacks the Eleventh Article, it will be best answered by quoting the passage referred to. It is as follows. "For specimens of the perverse reception by the nation, as above alluded to, of what was innocently intended, I would refer to the popular sense put upon the Eleventh Article, which, though clearly and soundly explained in the Homily on Justification or Salvation, has been taken to countenance the wildest Antinomian doctrine; and is now so associated in the minds of many, with this wrong interpretation, as to render almost hopeless the recovery of the true meaning." (5.) You quote Dr. Comber against us as an "argumentum ad hominem." But a single divine is no authority with us; it is as one of a catena, it is as coinciding with the consensus Patrum, in matters of doctrine, that he is valuable. There are things in Jeremy Taylor, Hooker, Ussher, Laud, and Field, which one may well scruple to admit. (6.) You say, "As Dr. Pusey considers this anointing" in baptism "as Apostolical (and if so, it is a Divinely appointed, and therefore an essential portion of baptism), we do not see how he can use the Church of England office, which omits it; thus violating a sacred precept of transmissive religion," &c. &c.-By "ordinance of our Lord" Dr. Pusey meant baptism. But, again, he holds with the Thirty-fourth Article: that "traditions and ceremonies may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word." He only questions the advisableness of the alteration in the particular instance, not the legality of the act. (7.) You say that "Mr. Palmer must surely have learned" certain "language" in his learned work on the Prayer-book, "at Trent," p. 163. Mr. Palmer does not need defence from me. I notice him merely as an additional instance how certain a writer of our Church is to be called Popish by you, if he has any learning. Depend upon it, Mr. Editor, your only chance of maintaining your ultraism, is by keeping men in ignorance of theology. If even your staunchest advocate were to study theology, he would become either a professed Rationalist, or what you would call a Papist. (8.) You say, speaking of Sacraments, "the Church of England, you believe, has gone as far as Scripture, and not beyond it, in the three-fold expression of a sign, a seal, and a pledge," p. 167. vid. also pp. 169. 180. Now it has gone further; it considers them "means of grace." Since, then, our Church would, according to you, have gone as far as Scripture in making them "signs, seals, and pledges," it follows that, in making them means, it has gone beyond Scripture. This again is heedless. (9.) You find fault with Ussher's argument against Purgatory (viz. that it is distinct from the objects contemplated in the primitive prayers for the dead in Christ), as "injudicious." It is as I said, Mr. Editor, you cannot endure a learned man. Ussher even, in spite of his alleged Calvinism, is not enough of a Protestant for you. However, I shall now close for the present. One subject, and a most important one, remains; that of Justification. Before I commence it, I invite you to do, what you cannot decline. You have accused me frequently of "evasions," though not intentional ones, of course. I on the other hand accuse you, instead of coming to the point, of vague and illogical declamation, though not intentional either. Now, then, state definitely what Dr. Pusey's opinions are, for which he ought to give up his Professorship; and state also why, that is, what statements of our Church his own oppose. Till you do this, I shall persist in saying you wish to add to the Articles of subscription. I challenge you to do this, and call your readers to attend to your answer; and then, in my next, I will do my best to meet it. The letter was not continued further, partly on account of the mode in which the above was printed in the pages of the Magazine, and partly because the challenge, repeated in its closing words, had not been met. [THIRD EDITION.] CONTENTS. Jewell.-A Sermon preached at Paul's Cross..... Bilson.-On Subjection and Rebellion.-Perpetual Government of Cosin.-Preface to his Notes on the Common Prayer.-Judg- PAGE Potter.-Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Oxford Collier. Vindication of the reasons and defence.. Leslie.-Letter to a Gentleman converted from Deism.-Disserta- tion concerning Ecclesiastical History |