been put forward as a mere theoretic doctrine, but it has practically formed the basis and ground of their whole system; as, indeed, we allow was but fair and consistent that it should do. And what we would especially wish to call attention to at present is this: that almost all the doctrines put forward by themselves and their followers since, have been but deductions from this first principle-nay, were virtually contained in it, and only wanted time and occasion to be developed. Mr. Palmer, indeed, in his late pamphlet, has endeavoured to separate the teaching of the leaders from that of the followers of the earlier Tracts for the Times," from that of "The British Critic;" but we must say, it seems to us, without success. We cannot but think that, for most of the consequences, whether good or evil, that have arisen, the original promoters of this system are more or less answerable. The opinions held in No. 90-the statements of "The British Critic," which have lately given so much offence-seem to be really but the natural conclusion of a beginning, such as that we have seen was the basis of the Tracts; seem to us to have become absolutely necessary, as parts of a whole. If, indeed, it be true that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, including all that these writers have told us they mean by it, is destitute of proof from Holy Scripture, what is more plain than that the teaching of our Church-that whatever is not read in Holy Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be believed as necessary to salvation, cannot stand with the very foundation of their teaching? What more plain, than that when this, in course of time, became evident, it was necessary that some method should be discovered of so interpreting the words of our Articles as to prevent men, who had built their faith on this foundation, from straying to a Church where they would find no such difficulties, but would see that all was consistent, Tradition being openly recognised there as a rule coordinate with Scripture? No. 90, indeed, cannot be disjoined from the rest of the Tracts, of which it was the natural conclusion, being written by one of the original contributors to those Tracts, and having received the express sanction of another: so that of this it cannot be said, that it was an extravagance of the followers only. But let us pass from No. 90 to "The British Critic;" we think that here, also, there will be no difficulty in showing that all the Anti-Protestant statements which have given so much offence, so much pain to the sincere lovers of the Reformation, which have done so much to unsettle men's minds and render all anxious and solicitous for the future, are but the natural consequences of the first principle of the authors of the whole movement. Let us take, as an instance, the way "The British Critic" has spoken of the Reformation, both abroad and at home. And first, as to the foreign Reformation. Is it not plain that the condemnation of this became necessary, so soon as it was once laid down that all saving grace must descend to us through an unbroken succession of the ministry, when this was stated as a general rule, without exception; for it was on the very opposite principle to

this that the Reformation abroad proceeded? On the Protestant principle, we mean that the true succession, after all, is a succession of doctrines, and not of ministers-that there are cases, extreme cases, indeed, and deeply to be lamented, where separation from the Church we have been baptised in becomes no longer a sin, but a duty-when we must preach the Gospel, though Bishops and Councils forbid our doing so; and if the Church will teach unscriptural doctrines, we must prefer the Bible to the Church. If the foreign Reformation be defensible, it is only on such broad grounds as this-grounds, as it must clearly appear, totally inconsistent with those laid down in the very beginning of the Tracts. If an unbroken succession of ministry be absolutely necessary in all cases to the essence of a Church, so that, to do anything to interrupt it be to separate ourselves from all union with Christ, and to place ourselves out of all covenanted grace, then, indeed, do Luther, and Calvin, and Melancthon, and the rest of those who used to be spoken of as great men and illustrious Reformers, become instead the evil leaders, who have seduced so many from their lawful pastors-even as Kora, and Dathan, and Jeroboam did, in the old dispensation. And if this be so with the foreign Reformation, the case is not the same, indeed, but yet similar with respect to our own: for, though it may be said, and truly too, that the English Reformation differed from the foreign in this respect, that in our Church the succession was unbroken, that while the doctrines were changed the ministry was unchanged (and a great blessing we gladly and thankfully acknowledge this to have been), yet who cannot see that the great principles of the Reformation, both here and abroad, were the same?-who does not feel, when he reads the works of our Reformers, that they recognised Calvin, and Zuingle, and Melancthon, as their brethren in the great work they were undertaking-looked upon the foreign Protestant churches, not Rome, as their sisterscommunicated with them, took refuge with them in the day of trouble, rejoiced with them in the day of deliverance, though they lamented that they laboured under defects, which at home, by God's blessing, they were free themselves from? And who can honestly believe that, if the bishops and rulers of the Church had been as obstinate in their resistance in England as they were in Germany, our Reformers would have counselled that the work of Reformation should stop, and that we should give up apostolical doctrines for the sake of apostolical order? No; their counsel was the same as that of their fellow-labourers (for such they felt them to be), to come forth from Rome and her communion not, indeed, needlessly to forget the apostolical order of Church government, yet, if it were necessary, to contend, even with the loss of this, for the faith once delivered to the saints. And so we have found that the same writers, who first attacked the foreign Reformation, have now spoken disparagingly of our own; and that those who have condemned Luther and Calvin, have not hesitated to pass sentence upon Jewell. It was, indeed, impossible but that it

should be so. We may venture, we think, to assert, that these two parts of one Reformation cannot be separated; they must stand or fall together. And, connected with this, is another part of the teaching of "The British Critic," of which Mr. Palmer speaks in severe terms― the praise that has been lavished by it on the Church of Rome. Yet, we would ask, can it be wondered, that, when by such a doctrine as that which is laid down as the foundation of their system by the writers of the Tracts, all communion is cut off to us from the Protestant communities abroad-when they are represented as essentially different from us-when the Kirk of Scotland is cut off from the Church of Christ, allowed in no sense to belong to it-when such men as Baxter, and Doddridge, and Watts, are excluded from all right to the covenanted mercies of God (and all this, sad though it seems, is but the legitimate consequence of such a principle)—is it, then, to be wondered, that the followers of these teachers should turn elsewhere to find a sister Church, separated from all union on one side, should seek it on another; and this the rather, when we have been told that we differ from Roman Catholics as to facts only, from Protestants as to principles-when the ecclesiastical order, and liturgies, and style of churches, are dwelt upon as they were the principal points, and sight is lost of the doctrines of Christianity? Nay, when the rule of faith-the Bible, and Bible only-once considered common to all Protestants, is now deemed to be the rule of the Church of England, who must take in Tradition as her other rule-resembling Rome in the principle, though differing with her as to the sources from whence that tradition is to be derived; and when Mr. Palmer says that the principle of developement, as adopted by "The British Critic," is wholly subversive of that respect for the authority of Primitive Tradition, so much inculcated in the Tracts; the early fathers, according to this theory, representing Christianity only in germ, undeveloped; does it not appear as if it were only the carrying out the principle of the Tracts, which represented the early fathers as the sole authorised interpreters of Scripture Scripture, representing Christianity only in germ, undeveloped, being unintelligible without them? Again: the doctrine that all saving grace must descend in the same line as the ordaining power, invests the priest with the dignity of mediator, and, in fact, puts him between the sinner and Christ: those who teach this doctrine, as a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, have surely no right to complain if their followers look back with regret to those ages which most valued and esteemed this doctrine, which set most price by ecclesiastical order, and the honour of the priesthood; cannot much wonder if other doctrines, held in common with this feeling, such as purgatory, and invocation of saints, and the Virgin Mary, begin to be looked on with a more favourable eye. Well, indeed, has Dr. Hampden written, in his late sermon, preached on the third Sunday after Epiphany (p. 27), "We have now seen that we cannot take up an extravagant, unscriptural theory of the Church, without taking along with it its

unscriptural doctrines; that if we become Romanists in principle, we must be Romanists throughout-believers in the doctrine of the mass, and of purgatory, and invocation of saints and angels, of justification by the sacraments, of the merit of good works, and other corruptions of the Church of Rome." We are aware that what we have said is but the feeble echo of his able remarks; which prove, we think, most convincingly, that it is vain to endeavour to separate the superstructure from the foundation, to think of believing in the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, the joint authority of Tradition with Scripture, without also believing, sooner or later, other doctrines connected with these. The "Tracts for the Times" and "The British Critic" are one and the same system, and cannot be divided: nay, in one sense, we confess that we have something in common with the writers of "The British Critic." They have, indeed, contended for what is worth contending for: they have openly said, If Anglo-Catholicism be Christian, Protestantism is Anti-Christian; they have not unsettled men's minds for nothing-they have sought for nothing short but the remodelling of the whole teaching of our Church :-we are far enough from agreeing with them, yet this we will say of them. But that all this controversy, all this disunion in the Church, which we have witnessed during the last years, should have been caused merely that we might acknowledge Apostolical Succession as absolutely necessary, and observe more strictly, and build our churches with more observance of primitive, or rather, mediaeval custom : this, indeed, seems to us most sad and lamentable. No; we have not only to be on our guard against the return of Romanism: we must beware no less of that stiff and unbending Anglicanism which prefers the ecclesiastical to the spiritual, delights in separating itself from Protestantism, and practically regards Apostolical Succession as the sole test of a Church. Romanism, we doubt not, is more corrupt, than Tractarianism proposes to be, and is farther removed from the simplicity of the Gospel; yet we doubt whether it has not something nobler about it, whether it is not, on the whole, less likely to bring in a dead formalism among us. Let us beware, lest, while we are careful about apostolic order, we lose sight of apostolical teaching―lest, while we are intent on the observance of outward forms and ceremonies, we forget to preach the great doctrines of the Reformation, common to all the churches of Protestantism— Justification by Faith, and the Sufficiency of Scripture.

ATTEMPTED REVIVAL OF CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.*

WE design, in the present paper, not an essay, but a simple statement of some facts. A circular letter, anonymous, but evidently emanating from the Tractarian camp, has been received by numbers of the clergy, entitled, "Revival of Monastic and Conventual Institutions, on a Plan adapted to the Exigencies of the Reformed Catholic Church in England.” One of these was received by the Rev. S. R. Maitland, and is commented on by him in the preface to his work, just published. That work Mr. Maitland contributed, as a series of essays, to "The British Magazine," eight years ago, with the purpose of vindicating the title of the so-called dark ages to the possession of more learning than they were generally acknowledged to have, and correcting many of the mistakes made by Robertson, in his History of "Charles V.," on the subject. The essays were written at the request of the late Rev. Hugh James Rose, who was then (as we have before intimated to our readers) the editor of that periodical. Mr. Maitland very little expected, at that time, that such a concession to the learning and morals of the dark ages as he then claimed would be perverted to such uses as he has since thought it his duty most unreservedly to condemn.

Not only, however, by means of private correspondence, but of public controversy, the Tractarians are making the attempt to revive the conventual system. "The Christian Remembrancer" has opened the campaign, by presenting its readers with a series of authorities in favour of its revival: and it is said that some members of what is called "The Young England Party" are even about to establish a monastery at Much Wenlock, in Shropshire, where there are the ruins of an abbey, capable of restoration. The Church Intelligencer," also, frequently inserts correspondence in favour of the project. One, for the mere sake of evidence, we here insert. It will be found in the Number for January 17:

"Reverend and dear Sir-In that orthodox periodical The Christian Rembrancer,' and in the number for November, appears an article headed as above-an article which must strike the reader, if a sound Churchman, as perfectly unanswerable, and deserving unqualified praise—an article which ought to be reprinted by Mr. Burns, and circulated as a pamphlet throughout the land. The writer remarks, that,' from the Reformation downwards, a chain of authorities can be deduced, comprising names

* "The Dark Ages; a Series of Essays, intended to illustrate the State of Religion and Literature in the Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Centuries." Reprinted from "The British Magazine." With Corrections, and some Additions, by the Rev. S. R. Maitland, F.R.S. and F.S.A., Librarian to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Keeper of the MSS. at Lambeth. London: Rivington. 1844.