in the above extract reminds us. Mr. Palmer continually complains of the manner in which the Tractarians have been treated in periodical literature, and concludes his narrative with an assertion intended to serve as the moral of his argument-that the charge of a Romanist tendency against them and him, "is really, and substantially, unjust." Now, touching periodical literature, as we have before remarked, the Tractarians had pretty well provided thesmelves with defences on that side of the affair. "The British Critic" was, we think, rather full in the mouth when occasion served; and other publications, not noticed by Mr. Palmer, called "The Christian Remembrancer," and the "English Churchman," never, to our knowledge, stopped at any scurrility that might tend to the support of Tractarianism, whether the object of their animadversion were man or woman. They would as soon give the lie direct to a lady as a gentleman, nothwithstanding the clearest evidence on the face of the matter, that, at worst, the statement complained of was a mistake; nay, was rather an unwelcome truth, that had been made to look like an error, only on account of the privilege, claimed by the Tractarians, of repudiating and recanting whoever and whatever it might become inconvenient longer to acknowledge.

So strong, however, are Mr. Palmer's feelings on this system and mode of criticism, that, in the case of all periodical journalism which is not on the Tractarian side, he ventures to suggest the necessity of abstaining from its persusal.

"I am persuaded that no one who permits himself the habitual study of such publications, can fail of imbibing their tone, and of thus being gradually filled with irritated and angry feeling. I am sure that many excellent men would have recoiled with horror from the perusal of such writings, had they been aware of the frame of mind to which they were about to be unconsciously led. It almost seems to argue distrust in the soundness of a cause, when we are for ever seeking for arguments to sustain it. If "Tractarianism," as it is sometimes called, be dangerous and pernicious-if it has been marked by censures, why is it necessary to dwell longer on the subject? Is it wise or right to continue the controversy, to the exclusion of almost every other thought or interest; to mark all its turns and windings; to listen to every alleged error, and dwell on every alleged instance of folly or of guilt? Do not such studies tend to disturb the heart, and disqualify it for the higher pursuits of religion? Do they not engender a spirit of criticism? Are they wholly exempt from danger, in familiarising the mind with the notions of error and evil? I am convinced that there is no more clear duty of Christians in these days, than that of abstaining from the habitual study of controversial journals and periodicals, in which the power of writing anonymously what no man would venture openly to avow, and the pecuniary interests of publishers or proprietors, which are promoted by violence of tone and party spirit, combine to keep up an unwholesome and unnatural excitement. And I would most earnestly and humbly appeal to the consciences of writers in periodicals, whether it is right to put forward sentiments under the veil of anonymous communications, which they would feel in any degree reluctant to publish with their names? Individuals have it in their power largely to diminish these evils, and in that power is involved responsibility-a responsibility to God for the welfare of his church. With reference to publishers, I cannot but observe, that they are, and ought to be, held responsible, to a certain extent, for the works which they are instrumental in bringing before the public. They have not apparently been sufficiently alive to this responsibility. Much has been published of late, which should never have made its appearance. The church has, in a great degree, the remedy in her own hands. If publishers are, in future, so forgetful of their responsibility as to print indiscri

minately all that is offered to them-if they thus prove themselves careless of the interests of the church-let them know the opinions of her members; let authors and purchasers withdraw their patronage and support."

It is true that this recommendation is put generally; and, in fact, in terms, "the suggestion" is stated to be "offered alike to all parties;" but as we read on we find that all the sympathy is in favour of the Tractarians; that all the silence is imposed on their opponents, and all the responsibility palmed on the publishers of the latter. We are quietly to assume, that none of the Tractarians "have written anonymously what no man would venture openly to avow," notwithstanding the Romanism of "The British Critic," and the vulgarity and misrepresentation of "The Christian Remembrancer" and "The English Churchman."

In addition to the means already provided for facilitating a declaration in favour of the Church of Rome, whenever the pear should be sufficiently ripe, the Tractarians have lately furnished themselves with another, in the adoption of Möhler and De Maistre's Theory of Developement; by which we are required to believe, that "Divine institutions exist only in germ in the Holy Scriptures, and are left to be developed and expanded by the progress of events and necessities." It is easy enough to perceive, that if this doctrine be conceded it becomes a two-edged instrument, cutting both ways. The Reformation, which is so offensive to Puseyite zeal, is as capable as any other form of faith of being justified as a developement and expansion of the Christian germ so long buried and corrupted in the Catholic church, which in the sixteenth century became manifested as the body that was fore-appointed in the Divine Councils. Not for the justification of the Reformation, however, but for that of the modern Church of Rome is the doctrine adopted by the Tractarians. At first the policy of the party was to laud the Church of the first three centuries, and to condemn whatever was subsequently introduced. But, as we have already stated, this condemnation was only a simulation for a time, and meant to be recanted when expedient. That this recantation might not want some show of reason, the doctrine of developement was held in reserve, to be produced when required.

But, however ingenious the theory of developement, it is, as the Bishop of Lincoln points out in his last admirable Charge, burdened with some inconvenient consequences which require explanation. The theory assumes, that we are not to expect to find undeniable proofs of the Papal Primacy, of Transubstantiation, of Virgin Worship, in the first ages of the Church; these not being "possible, according to the laws of a true developement." Now, says the Bishop of Lincoln,

"It can scarcely be necessary to observe, that if this Theory is once admitted new developements of essential doctrines will be continually taking place in the Church; and the Rule of Faith, instead of being, as the early Fathers described it, una,*

* Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum Omnipotentem, &c. (Tertullian, de Virginibus velandis, c. 1.)

immobilis, irreformabilis, will be continually receiving new accessions of Articles, to be believed as necessary unto salvation. But have not, I would ask, the ingenious propounders of this Theory, in their attempt to escape from one difficulty, involved themselves in another? How do they reconcile it with the Decree of the Council of Trent, entitled De Canonicis Scripturis? According to that Decree,* the doctrine of the Gospel is contained in the Scriptures, and in the unwritten Traditions which, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and having been delivered as it were from hand to hand, have come down to us. The Decree assumes, that the truths which are the subject of unwritten Tradition were communicated to the apostles, and have been handed down from them,† being preserved in continual succession in the Catholic Church. Their delivery by the apostles, and their existence in every succeeding age in the custody of the church, constitute their title to be received as Articles of Faith. But, according to the Theory of Developement, the best proof of the divine origin of a doctrine, consists in its non-existence, excepting in germ, in the apostolic and in many succeeding ages: for, with respect to some doctrines, that of Transubstantiation, for instance, the process of developement appears to have been very slow. On the one hand, then, we have the Decree demanding our assent to a Doctrine, on the ground that it is an Apostolic Tradition; that is, that it can be proved to have existed in every succeeding age from the Apostolic to the present: on the other, we have the authors of the Theory of Developement, contending that such continued proof of its existence would be an argument against its divine origin. Hitherto, the popular mode of stating the difference between the Churches, concerning the Rule of Faith, has been, that one makes Scripture the Rule; the other, Scripture and Tradition. For Scripture and Tradition, we must now substitute Scripture and Developement."‡

The necessarily Protestant attitude assumed by the Church of Rome at the Council of Trent, bound her as much down to formulæ, decrees, and written documents, as the churches of the Reformation were by their articles and symbols; nay, more so, because of the exclusive infallibility claimed by the former. Yes, the doctrine of developement was clearly, at that point, stopped in its application. Nevertheless, up to that point, it served the purpose of the ecclesiastical agitators. See you not how it would enable these cunning dialectitians to declare, at any rate, adhesion to the Tridentine decree; and thus, having once secured the authority of the Church of Rome in the Church of England,

"Perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in Libris Scriptis et sine Scripto Traditionibus, quæ ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptæ, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditæ, ad nos usque pervenerunt."

+Continuâ successione in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ conservatæ."

"The Theory of Developement is not new. The Valentinians put forth their monstrous fictions respecting successive orders of Eons emanating from the Divine Essence, as Developements of Christian Doctrine: contending either that all necessary truths had not been communicated to the Apostles, or had not been delivered by them to their successors. "Solent dicere, non omnia Apostolos scisse; eâdem agitati dementiâ quâ rursus convertunt, omnia quidem Apostolos scisse, sed non omnia omnibus tradidisse: in utroque Christum reprehensioni injicientes, qui aut minus instructos, aut parum simplices Apostolos miserit." (Tertullian de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 22. See also the Treatise against the Valentinians, c. 1, 2.) It is melancholy to reflect, that Tertullian himself fell into the error which he here condemns, and regarded Montanus as a Teacher sent more fully to develope the Doctrine of the Gospel, and perfect that which the Apostles had left imperfect."

how they might safely leave the Theory of Developement, and the Decree of the Council, to be reconciled as they might? All things are possible to the logic of Jesuitry; and our Anglican professors had no reason to despair, that when the emergency happened they would make good their position, in the estimation of that class of minds who are likely, at their bidding, to surrender the sacred right of private judgement; namely, at the bidding of certain individuals, whose only claim to authority is their implied membership with a sacerdotal class. Vain assumption! If this were so, the Jewish priesthood had never superseded the Egyptian, nor been superseded by the Christian ministry; nor the clergy of Rome ever made way for those same individuals themselves, to defend the cause of the exploded apostasy under the colours and in the very bosom of the Protestant Church.

To conclude. Mr. Palmer's narrative amounts to a confession that the Tractarian party are defeated; and by both high and low, in the Church of England, are relegated to our erring sister of Rome. An attempt is how accordingly made to separate the party into two sections; one having a Romanist tendency, and the other only a Nonjuring one. The Church of England, as by law established, will have nothing to do with either section: neither will we. The Church of England will not permit these Anglican Jesuits to abandon their old positions, and to take new ones: neither will we. With the Church of England we will maintain the true Catholic position, and not the mere Syncretic one in relation to it, which is maintained by Tractarianism. The Church of England is not, as the Tractarians affirm, a mere via media between the papacy at one extreme, and ultra-protestantism on the other; but is a positive institution, maintaining its separate integrity, and having its own revolutions and distinct sphere of existence, involving, of course, the co-existence of corresponding opposites. Between the two extremes, however, which she charitably permits, there are many degrees that occupy the immense interspace, within which she recognises a via media proper to her own independent status; and it is this same middle path which is represented by the great body of her clergy. The larger portion of the clergy of the Church of England claim not peculiar and extravagant privileges; but are content with supporting, on the one hand, the character of their priesthood, by their official diligence and personal piety; and, on the other, willingly concede to the laity the fullest right of private judgement; warning them, at the same time, of the correspondent duty involved in its assertion. Least of all do the via media clergy seek to exclude the laity from the definition of the Church, esteeming them as dumb sheep to be shorn; not as fellowChristians, to be consulted. To this body we are told, by a recent writer in "The Church and State Gazette," * belong a very large proportion of all our higher clergy; at least two-thirds of our best theological writers and scholars; a goodly number of our heads of colleges; and a decided majority of the clergy who are from thirty to sixty years of age. To

* September 1, 1843. No. 81, vol. ii. The whole article is well worth reading.

it we are indebted for those noble institutions, the Gospel Propagation and the Christian Knowledge Societies. It established the system of parochial instruction in Charity and National Schools; laid the first stone of the Church Building Society; took the lead in all associations for relieving the wants of the poor, whether of a physical, moral, or spiritual nature; and was almost first and foremost in heading every plan by which human misery might be abated, human ignorance enlightened, and human depravity corrected and diminished.

"Taught," says a very old clergyman of the via media school," by the instructive but melancholy history of the Stewarts, which terminated with what used to be called our glorious Revolution, making allowance for the scholastic divinity of the age, for the perplexities of Calvinism, and for the other difficulties which, during the awful times of our blessed Reformation, were inseparable from the formation of our Articles of peace and union, and a corresponding Liturgy, where both should possess sufficient precision, and yet allow of a latitude to conciliate such as were doubtful of going too far-actuated, I say, by feelings such as these, a majority of the Clergy, as well as Laity, began, from the time of the Revolution, to adopt such moderate principles of sober religion as took the name of orthodoxy. From early youth I have always thought that the Spectator, amidst its many beauties and moralities, has given a fair and pleasing representation of this sort of orthodoxy. We are delighted with Sir Roger de Coverly, and we venerate his worthy Chaplain. The print of a scene supposed to take place in a church-yard is admirable. The work may now have become rather obsolete; but another Spectator, somewhat adapted to present times, would be highly useful in repressing the follies of modern date, and in advancing the cause of sober religion and good morals. Eventually, the stagnating effects of easy times began to be felt, increase of energy was called for in circulating the Scriptures, and providing the means of religious instruction. The reviving zeal of the Calvinistic or Evangelical party, both within and without the pale of the Church, took the lead indeed; but it was met by a noble spirit of emulation, by what I have called the orthodox within the Church itself, till at length excess of zeal proceeded so far, and created such a direct schism in the Church, that modern Romanism, hitherto only busied with insidious tracts, seems to have thought this a favourable opportunity of bursting forth in open collision with Calvinism, whilst both are in open collision with the Church to which they profess to belong. Such vagaries are incongruous with the researches of the present age. Still, it may be hoped that under a good Providence, with some discreet regulations of the pulpit, and a unity of sober discipline, the present fermentation may gradually subside, and only render more pure the living waters that circulate within our established channels."*

It is by this body that the Church of England must be characterised, and not by the few persons who compose its opposite extremes. It is our design, in THE CHRISTIAN'S MONTHLY MAGAZINE, to uphold this Church as Pure, Scriptural, and Reformed; and, so far as we may, to correct from time to time those prevailing errors relating to it, which we unfeignedly believe have acquired increased consequence, only because they have hitherto been unopposed by any established and continuous system or organ. We shall solicitously regard, in the subjects chosen for our pages, and in the method of treatment, the true interests of the Church as defined by the nineteenth Article of Religion; namely," a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached

* Short Letters, from 1834 to 1842, by the same hand, with various signatures.— Bone, Bond Street.