out to the church, that if the spirit which is thus evinced is not encouraged; if the Church of England is not "unprotestantised; if the Reformation is not forsaken and condemned; it may become the duty of those who are not already doubtful in their allegiance to the Anglo-Catholic communion, to declare themselves openly on the side of its enemies."

Yes, Mr. Palmer! these things are so; and so the counter-Reformers would have them, if they might safely, be. But there is a peril in this advanced position; it is too far ahead of the main army, which besides is not sufficiently numerous to maintain it, when reached. A retreat, therefore, is judiciously contrived; and Mr. Palmer is the trumpeter appointed to sound it.

Such being the facts of the case, "The British Critic" must be content to receive castigation, as proxy for the whole party-nay, the existence of the party itself-notwithstanding all evidence, and despite the proof of an operative association, to the contrary, shall, if necessary, be denied. Men may believe that the Tracts were self-written, and chance-arranged in a series, by a mere instinct of affinity between the atoms. Touching "The British Critic," however, the lash is to be gently laid on-he must not be wounded, lest he should cry out. Mr. Palmer would not, for the world, "involve all the writers who have contributed to that periodical in the charge of a Romanistic tendency." Oh, no!

Many articles have appeared, which are perhaps wholly unexceptionable. Many others are only slightly tinged with objectionable principles. Even in the most Romanizing parts, there is frequently much which we cannot wholly disapprove. Still, there is a decided leaning, on the whole, to Romanism, and there is nothing in opposition to this tendency. Even the best articles present no antidote to the errors which are to be found elsewhere. They do not sufficiently restore the balance. They contain no refutation of Romish errors; no vindication of the opposite truths; no attempt to revive affection to the Church of England; or to defend her principles or her position. All is unhappily consistent in fact, and tends to one system only; though positive evil is not found in all the articles. Indeed, the excellence of many of them only renders the danger greater."

Of course it does, and perhaps was meant to do so. But what, if Mr. Palmer, and "those of his inclining," repudiate for themselves the intention of promoting the tendency to Romanism? Such repudiation, also, whether designed or not, still serves the same purpose of increasing the danger. But, in fact, the case is one in which we have nothing to do with intentions, whether original or secondary. Hell, says the Italian poet, is paved with good intentions; and bad ones compose the pile of fire and much wood which the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle in ancient Tophet. Good intentions, accordingly, are of little value, save to be trodden under diabolic feet; and we would not willingly ascribe bad ones to any man, or set of men.

authority of primitive tradition and of the early Fathers, which was so much inculcated in the Tracts, and in other writings of their authors. The carly Fathers and the primitive church, according to this theory, represent Christianity only in germ, undeveloped; we must look to the latest form of Christianity, i.e., to modern Romanism, as the most perfect model!

We are glad, therefore, that, in this instance, we have nothing to do with the motives of individuals, but only with the tendency of their acts. The tendency is acknowledged, and the consequences are awful to contemplate.

The general character and tendency of the system, as set forth by Mr. Palmer, is enough to satisfy any reasonable mind. It maintains, That "the English reformers are not trustworthy witnesses to Catholic doctrine "That "the unity of a national church is not the legitimate object of ultimate endeavour"-That "the English Establishment is not the church"-That, "on the principle of an armistice being on both sides, we should cease to censure Rome as the condition of their not praising her"-That "the Reformation was a desperate remedy, a fearful judgement," Bishop Jewell being both "a very unexceptionable specimen of an English reformer, and a condemnable heretic"That "to call the earlier reformers martyrs, is to beg the question; viz., whether that for which they suffered was the truth"-That "the Protestant tone of thought and doctrine is essentially anti-Christian"That "the national church must be unprotestantised"-That "the Church of England is chargeable "with a sort of antinomianism, i.e., an establishment or creed, the means of grace necessary to salvation, and some formularies for the most important occasions, without a system of religious customs, and practices, and acts of faith, sufficiently numerous, distinct, and specific, to satisfy the wants and engage the attention of the Christian soul"-That "the last remnants of the ancient Catholic system, with all its native good, as well as its engrafted evil, had been withdrawn; and the glorious privilege of teaching and training the elect to Christian perfection was taken away from the English church”—That, "in declining an active and visible union with the see of Rome, we forego a great privilege; and, to talk of the blessings of emancipation from the papal yoke, is to use a phrase of a bold and undutiful tenor"-That "the monastic life is the one most nearly of all things resembling the Divine"-That "monasteries are places where miracles may be naturally expected," being inhabited by "persons who take the kingdom of heaven by violence, and begin on earth the life of angels, neither marrying nor giving in marriage"-That, "to a Christian, believing all the astounding mysteries which are contained in the doctrine of the incarnation, the fuller belief in the real presence, even to the extent of the Tridentine definition, is no serious additional tax on his credulity"-That "purgatory may be supported by a surprising number of texts"-That "devotions paid, in particular places, have a special efficacy; and therefore pilgrimages and anniversary feasts patron saints are highly profitable"-That "the Pope is the primate of Christendom, the earthly representative of the church's divine head" That "the Holy See is the proper medium of communication with the Catholic Church"-That "the church suffered in the person of her head, Pius VI."-That "Napoleon would have his church Catholic; the notion of a Catholic church, out of communion with Rome, not seeming to have struck him"-That "from Rome alone could the despot

obtain possession of the heavenly powers of which he wished to make use”—And that, as to the papal excommunication of Napoleon, "this little act of the Pope is almost imperceptible; but who knows what unseen powers fought with England against him whom the church had condemned?"

But enough of citation. Mr. Palmer has completely proved his case against "The British Critic," and readily allows that its opinions are fairly attributable to the Tractarian tendency. But he iterates and reiterates that such tendency was not in the intention of the ecclesiastical agitators, Messrs. Newman, Pusey, and Keble. We repeat, that we are too happy to be relieved from the necessity of imputing motives; but Mr. Palmer nevertheless assumes the responsibility of confessing them. He states what were actually the motives of himself and his friends— a dangerous undertaking; since, if the motives ascribed should be found to be inadequate to the result, and particularly if they are of an historical character, as in this case they are, we must resort to some inner and personal predisposition to account for the fact of such insufficient circumstances being translated into motives at all. If they are not, and were not, calculated to become motives to us, why became they so to them? This is the question that will be asked; nor will the answer be left to mere inference.

What, then, were these circumstances or motives? They all have reference to the developement of certain political relations by which the temporalities of the church were modified, and on which, of course, differences of opinion exist. The Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828-the Roman Catholic Emancipation measure of 1829— the Revolution at Paris in 1830-the Reform Bill in 1831-the Assassination of Clergy in Ireland, and the sacrifice of Ten Bishoprics there -these are some of the great motives which, we think, should rather have moved the alarmists into any other direction than that of Rome. But it seems that they dreaded measures in England similar to those in Ireland. The English church, they feared, might be dismembered, in the hope of conciliating its antagonists. Her prelates, also, had made concession after concession, on points which, in the opinion of the agitators, should have been defended at all hazards. It follows, therefore, that because these three or four gentlemen differed in opinion from the authorities in Church and State, they considered themselves justified in commencing a course of agitation in opposition to the powers that God had set over them. Facts such as these compel the conclusion, that, unless for some Non-juring predisposition in their minds, these external political circumstances would have operated upon them in the same way that they affected the rest of the clergy, and the whole of the bishops-that is, inclined them to acquiesce in the course of Providence, and to obey the ministers of its dispensations.

But there were also other motives; which, however gravely stated, cannot fail to excite a smile :-"Writers had been at work for some time, disseminating superficial and fanciful novelties on religious questions; disdaining all appeal to authority; and encouraging a taste for

rationalizing theology." Undoubtedly they had: but what then? What did these ecclesiastical agitators mean to do with these writers? To silence them by corporate power. If by less objectionable means, the press was equally free to both parties. But who, among these formidable writers, is the more formidable Coryphæus? The Natural Historian of Enthusiasm, forsooth! Then there were some Oxford theorists and some pamphleteers, such as Lord Henley (brother-in-law of Sir Robert Peel), and Dr. Burton, Regius Professor at Oxford, on Church Reform. The late inestimable Dr. Arnold, of Rugby,* also ventured to propose that all sects should be united, by Act of Parliament, with the Church of England, on the principle of retaining all their distinctive errors and absurdities-a stretch of syncretic benevolence, on the part of the amiable doctor, not likely to do any harm for at least two or three centuries to come. There was also a report that the Bishop of London was favourable to alterations in the Liturgy; but, as this was immediately contradicted by the bishop himself, neither could any harm arise from that. As to the pamphlets "in circulation, recommending the abolition of creeds (at least in public worship), and especially urging the expulsion of the Athanasian Creed, the removal of all mention of the blessed Trinity, of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and of the practice of absolution"-such things were, and have been, and are; still, the church has not trembled. These paper quillets may not shake her, who is founded on a rock. Lacking evidence of power, in these circumstances, to move violently the minds of faithful Protestant churchmen-we can, we repeat, only refer the fact of their having been translated into motives to ecclesiastical agitation, to some Non-juring predisposition in the minds of the agitators.

But we are not left in doubt as to this point. Mr. Palmer, finding that, soon after their first publication, the "Tracts for the Times" were prejudicing the cause he had adopted, took pains to urge their future revision by a committee previous to publication; but it did not answer the purpose of the directors, for obvious reasons, to adopt the suggestion. It was considered clearly expedient that they should be misapprehended for the productions of individuals, and not appreciated for, what they were, those of a body; so that, when convenient, their fallibility might be quietly assumed, and recantation permitted; nay, even, if necessary, a recantation of the recantation. Thus, much abuse of Rome, introduced in some of the earlier issues, was subsequently withdrawn, on the ground that it had been only meant as a prudential concession to Protestant prejudices during the season of preparation, and is again resorted to, now that it has become apparent that the time is not yet so ripe as was expected. We must, however, let Mr. Palmer speak for himself:

"But, though thus reduced to silence and inaction, I was a deeply interested spectator of the progress of events. I could distinctly see (and with regret) that the

* Like the Archdeacon Julius Charles Hare, we cannot concur in all the opinions of Dr. Arnold, but must join in that eloquent writer's estimate of this great man's character, which the reader will find quoted in a subsequent article.

theology of the Non-jurors was exercising a very powerful influence over the writers of the Tracts. Collections of Non-juring works had been made; and Hickes, Brett, Johnson, Leslic, Dodwell, &c., were in the highest esteem. To this source it was easy to trace much of that jealousy of State interference, much of that assertion of unlimited independence of the church, and, above all, much of that unfavourable judgement of the English and foreign Reformation, which so largely characterised the Tracts and other connected works. The Non-jurors, from whom these views were, perhaps unconsciously, borrowed, had been pressed by their opponents with precedents of civil interference in church matters at the period of the Reformation; and their remedy, too frequently, was to assail and vilify the Reformation itself.* Their separation from the Established Church, also, led gradually to their discovery of various supposed defects in our Liturgy and Institutions. Certain ceremonies, which had been prescribed in the first Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI., and which had been subsequently omitted, were represented by several Non-juring writers as essentials; and their views on this subject had been partially adopted by various authors of merit, even in the Church of England, as by Wheatley (in his book on the Common Prayer). Having devoted great attention to the study of the ancient Liturgies, I was perfectly satisfied that the Non-juring writers (such as Johnson, &c.) were by no means qualified, by the amount of their information, to form a sound judgement on such points. It was, therefore, a matter of great concern, to observe that their views were developing themselves in the writings of friends.

"Deeply uneasy as some of us felt on witnessing such questionable doctrine gradually mingling itself with the salutary truths which we had associated to vindicate, and often as we were driven almost to the verge of despair, in observing what appeared to be a total indifference to consequences; yet, finding that more experienced members of the church, in London and throughout the country, were not equally apprehensive; and seeing, also, the sort of miraculous success which TRUTH was ob taining, notwithstanding these mistakes; we hoped that all would still be well, and consoled ourselves with the reflection, that no great religious movement had ever taken place without a certain amount of accompanying evil. There seemed, also, to be little probability that extreme and questionable views would prevail; for they had already become the subject of hot controversy; and the disapprobation which was so generally expressed, would, it might be hoped, have rendered their reception impossible; so that, in fine, they would probably have but little influence, and the only result would be to establish great ecclesiastical principles, and a firmer attachment to the English Church, in the public mind.

"Had we not been restrained by these considerations and hopes, there can be no doubt that many of those who have been identified with the Tract theology, would have publicly avowed that dissent on some points, which they took no pains to conceal in conversation with friends. I am satisfied, indeed, that such considerations alone would not have sufficed to keep us silent,† had we not been reluctant to join in the ungenerous and furious outcry, which had been raised by certain periodicals; and which confounded and mingled in common denunciation truth and error, the most sacred principles of the church, and the questionable theories of some of its adherents. We shrank from being made the instruments of party-hate, and from seeing our language perverted and distorted to ends the most remote from our intention; perhaps to the assault of truths which we held most dear and sacred, or to the destruction of brethren whose principal fault seemed to be indiscretion, and whose faults were more than balanced by their merits and their services."

Having dispelled all doubts on these important points, we have now leisure to attend to a topic of which the allusion to periodical literature

*Heylin had adopted too much of the same tone in his History of the Reformation, and from causes somewhat similar.

† It should be added, indeed, that several leading friends of church principles, such as Dr. Hook and Mr. Perceval, felt themselves obliged at last publicly to announce their dissent on various points.