truth: for we can form a poor idea of Tractarianism from writings, when compared with the living commentary of men's acts and opinions.* If a clergyman in our Church can hesitate, when asked in what our Church differs from Rome, and finally confess that he knows not any, it will be a practical test of such principles. This is the act of an individual, we grant; but we regret to say that he represents a class, and, in our opinion, a large class. If from such men as these we can in any way tear the garb of Anglicanism, and leave bare the heart of the Romanist, it will be a service done our Church. It may widen the ground of our discussion; but we had better hear Bellarmine's arguments from a Romanist, than from an apparent friend.

But the grand effect of the Tractarian movement, during the last few years, has been to unsettle and disturb. Nor should it surprise us, when we discover that this disaster has equally affected every doctrine of Catholic verity. We do not mean that truth is in any way changed, for that is always the same-always at one with itself; but we mean that that party has left nothing untouched. It has intermeddled with every thread of the seamless robe of Christ's Gospel. It has knotted and entangled one with another, until it has in the end desired to conceal the havoc which itself was causing, and therefore has cast over its confusion a long cloak of mystery. It wanted to prove that our Articles were imperfect, and therefore invented omissions with a lynxlike vision; and, as if they must begin with the very rule of Faith, they have asserted that the only difference between Canonical and Apocryphal Scripture was the seal which the Church had set upon one, and omitted for the other. They are desirous that every one who reads their writings should believe the Apocrypha inspired. They have a different view of the Atonement from Anglican divines, and therefore recall the old doctrine of Reserve; and bring forward a new plan for economising the freely given Word of God, and are eager to dilute it by an infusion of man's theories. If they have done all this, we need not feel surprised that the doctrine of the Eucharist has fallen under their keen gaze. They have had some vague view that the want of a certain depth was the one deficiency which, in their opinion, rendered our times less healthful than those which Anglicans call "dark ages." They have, therefore, in their search gone deeper than the pure fountain-stream, and have reached the earthly pollution which was but the channel through which the truth was ceaselessly rolling. No wonder that, under these circumstances, they have tainted all with the mud which they have dug up: no wonder that it is more difficult to purify than to corrupt; and, in like manner, that it is more

* Mr. Palmer gives an indication of this, p. 64.

The pertinacity with which they aim to erect the Church higher than the Bible, may be inferred from the fact, that they repeatedly assert that our Articles do neither mention the inspiration of Scripture, nor deny the inspiration of the Apocrypha. See Tract No. 90, sec. 1; Tract 41, p. 5; Tract 38; Newman's Lectures on Romanism, p. 352.

:

difficult for the defenders of Catholic truth, as handed down by our Reformers, and cherished by our departed saints in every age of our Church, than it was for those divines to create the confusion. The stream, however, is not corrupted, except to themselves. The Word of God remains. The Articles of our Church remain. The service of our Church remains free from that false doctrine which Rome had sedulously interpolated. Thanks to our Reformers, we have our titledeed unmarred our policy is still safe; and our rulers, in the midst of the alarm of a raging fire, are busily and prayerfully engaged in staying its devouring flames. At first, for one moment they may have been silent in very astonishment; but the danger impending has expelled this stillness, and all are painfully alive to the danger of our birthright, and of that inheritance which our fathers have bequeathed us. The confusion did not, however, reach its height in a moment. It cost men some trouble to rend asunder the bonds of allegiance which they owed to the Church in which they were. It began by one difficulty, and ended in another. The Reformers were first found to be at variance with their increasing knowledge of what they call Catholic truth. Then the Articles were prominently brought forward as the "offspring of an un-Catholic age."* Another leader also spoke of the Thirteenth Article "as the most difficult to reconcile with Gospel truth."+ Catholics were said to work in chains and bondage. There was, however, a pretence of reverence for Liturgical authority; and this was put forward as a specimen of what Catholic teaching was.§ Again, the author of No. 90, in the same Lectures, says, "There is no mistaking, then, in this day, in England, where the Church Catholic is, and what her teaching. To follow her is to follow the Prayer-book, instead of following preachers, who are but individuals." In these Lectures the Articles were omitted, except to mention some fancied defect; and the Liturgy was put forward. Hear, however, the same author a year or two later: "Let her (i.e., the English Church) go on teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies."¶

The necessity for making a distinction between the private opinions of our Reformers and the formularies of our Church, will also be learned by a reference to a recent pamphlet. "The solution of this difficulty proposed is the view lately advanced by a party which may be considered as represented in the Preface to the Second Part of Mr. Froude's Remains, that the doctrines of the English Reformers may be separated from those of our formularies. It seems that this solution does not afford satisfaction."** Such are the words of one of the original writers in the "Tracts for the Times." We will not rest content with this, but will refer again to some earlier Tracts. For instance,

*No. 90, Preface.

Preface to No. 90. 1841.

Ward's Few More Words, p. 67. 1841.

§ Newman's Lectures on Romanism and Ultra-Protestantism, p. 29. Ed. 1838. || P. 321. 1838.

**Palmer's Narrative of Events. Critic."

Preface to No. 90.

1841.

He is writing in reference to lix, "British

in the No. 9, we read-"Conscious of the incongruity of primitive forms and modern feelings, our Reformers undertook to construct a service more in accordance with the spirit of their age. They adopted the English language; they curtailed the already compressed ritual of the early Christians."* Again, in a later period we read-"But is there not certainly a distinction of doctrine and matter between the Liturgy and the Articles?"+ That these are inconsistencies of no trivial character, is very manifest. They indicate clearly that men began to build a new structure of doctrine, and yet hardly knew on what foundation to rest. It was, no doubt, very hard for men, once moulded by Anglican formularies and Anglican Articles, in a moment to discover in what "chains they were working." Time must have its wonted sway, and men, having raised a tumult, were recalled for a moment when they found documents against them. The struggle was, alas, but too short, and their filial duty was forgotten in the impetus which controversy gave them. The fancied claims of the ancient Church were needlessly brought into collision with our own, and their first love surrendered. It surely must astonish the thoughtful when they find that theologians who avowedly come forward to alter the present teaching of their Church, have no fixed notions of what ought to be the very basis of their theories. If any of their opponents have been induced to write and speak harshly of them, we may suggest many an excuse, for it is a very difficult position to remain quiet in, when it is manifest that the very party of theologians who are daily gaining support, because they are imagined to be zealously reforming the practice of our Church-when these very men are overthrowing the authority of the articles, and denouncing the vagueness of our formularies. It may, however, be easily accounted for, when we rightly consider that the very tendency of controversy is to push men into extremes. This will still furnish no excuse for the Tractarians, for they entered the field as aggressors, and, having had the choice of weapons, they yet choose any rather than Anglican teaching. Their standard was manifestly the opinions of centuries past, and thus were they content to allow our formularies, whenever they hoped to draw aid from them; nor did it cost them much trouble to desert them, whenever a theory of their own was likely to militate against them. This may easily receive proof from the history of the Tractarian developement. Dr. Pusey could once‡ conscientiously rest satisfied with our service. Time passed on, and less and less influence had previous views, until the sermon before us showed itself as the climax of inconsistency in this respect. We will, therefore, reduce Dr. Pusey to a test of his own proposing. We read in one of his previous publications these words: "It is ever the tendency of novelty and schismatical teaching to develope itself further, and detach itself more, from the doctrines of the Church."§

* Tract, No. 9.

See Christian Magazine, p. 48.

+ Tract, No. 38.

§ Dr. Pusey's Preface to the 4th Ed. of his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford,

Is he or is he not condemned by his own rule? We believe that every one will now grant that their whole system is a developement of theories, unintentional, may be, on their part.* If this be the case, it would only appear natural for Mr. Newman to support, as he does, the theory of Möhler in his last volume of sermons. It is, however, no praise to the actors in this "ecclesiastical agitation," that their course of action should so far have fluctuated as to render it doubtful to what end they were tending. Like another set of agitators, we beg pardon for the comparison, but we have the name from themselves, they have said quite enough to justify them to Romanists, and also have so spoken against Rome that there is no lack of an apparent argument when a Protestant accuses them of a tendency to Popery. The daily prints of a particular party are filled with declarations that the leading Agitator always wished and spoke for peace. The same answer we would offer to each. The tenor of the whole, not the single sentence which contradicts the tenor, is our guide: by this we try them, and by this we condemn them. But Dr. Pusey not only misapplies the Scripture and the Fathers, but he also neglects our Church in her Services. We might have expected a contrary course in men claiming the character of Anglican Churchmen, unless we had read the writings above quoted, and carefully marked the true nature of this "bold and comprehensive sketch for a new position" for our Church. The sermon can only boast of one‡ quotation from the Service, and when the sermon is reprinted we would venture to recommend that this should be verified and accurately copied. Here is the sum of Anglican teaching with which we are favoured, and even the position of this quotation demands our notice. It precedes a passage from the Roman Liturgy, and follows passages from the so-called Liturgy of St. James and St. Mark. We will speak more of these Liturgies, but we learn by an apparently trivial circumstance the position in which Tractarians view our Church. Do they need instruction in rites and ceremonies? They seek it from abroad. Do they wish to inculcate doctrines? They "rhetoricate" by means of some eloquent father. The sober voice of our Church can find no place with them amidst the more pleasing chants and music of an earlier date. It may be said to have been the result of a variety of circumstances that this quotation so occurs in unhappy solitude. We rather prefer the authority of Mr. Newman upon this point, and the date of the document is 1838. It is allowable that the author of No. 90 should be in some small measure in advance

*See Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It is a subject of regret, that when Mr. Palmer noticed this theory of developement as held by the writers in "The British Critic," he omitted to mention that Mr. Newman had received the thanks of "The Dublin Review" for his assertion of the same doctrine.

P. 26. We cannot allow that the imitation of a quotation on p. 9 is a quotation at all, for it would puzzle any one to discover in it anything but a contradiction to our Catechism, unless by means of a note it, in turn, was contradicted or (if the phrase be preferred) explained away. Dr. Pusey, in his preface, also, by a note, refers to the Catechism, p. 5.

of his friends; but, we believe, they will seldom be very far in the rear. We remind our readers that Dr. Faussett had attacked, in a sermon preached before the University, several passages in Froude's Remains.* The passage which we quote is the answer of Mr. Newman. The explanation which it gives of Tactarian opinions must excuse its length. "And thirdly let me allude to two statements in Mr. Froude's volumes, on which you dwell, to the effect, that our present Communion Service is a judgement on the Church,' and that there would be advantage in replacing it by a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter.' The state of the case is this: the original Eucharistic form is with good reason assigned to the Apostles and Evangelists themselves. It exists to this day under four different rites, which seem to have come from four different Apostles and Evangelists. These rites differ in some points, agree in others: among the points in which they agree, are of course those in which the essence of the Sacrament consists. At the time of the Reformation, we, in common with all the West, possessed the rite of the Roman Church, or St. Peter's Liturgy. This formulary is called the Canon of the Mass, and, except a very few words, appears, even as now used in the Roman Church, to be free from the Ordinary of the Mass, which is the additional and corrupt service prefixed to it, and peculiar to Rome. This sacred and most precious monument, then, of the Apostles, our Reformers received whole and entire from their predecessors; and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years. Well was it for us, that they did not discard it, that they did not touch any vital part; for through God's good providence, though they broke it up, and cut away portions, they did not touch life; and thus we have it at this day, a violently treated, but a holy and dear possession, more dear perhaps and precious, than if it were in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness or infirmity endears to us our friends and relatives. Now, the first feeling which comes upon an ardent mind, on mastering these facts, is one of indignation and impatient sorrow: the second is the more becoming thought, that, as he deserves nothing at all at God's hand, and is blessed with Christian privileges only at his mere bounty, it is nothing strange that he does not enjoy every privilege which was given through the Apostles; and his third, that we are mysteriously bound up with our forefathers and bear their sin, or, in other words, that our present condition is a judgement on us for what they did. These I conceive to be the feelings which dictated the sentences in question; the earlier is more ardent, the latter is more subdued. The one says, 'For a long time he looked on me as a mere sophister, but conciliated his affections with Palmer's chapter on the Primitive Liturgies; and I verily believe he would now gladly consent to see our Communion Service replaced by a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter, a name which I advise you to

The preface to this work speaks of them as "a word in season for the Church of God." Mr. Newman was one of the writers of this preface. "The British Critic" called them "a bold and comprehensive sketch of a new position for our Church." See Faussett's Sermon, p. 15.