the philosophical and poetic literature of Europe, that Catholic principle, alone, with Protestantism, will be indebted for its assertion and its triumph. To this, Mr. Carlyle's indifferentism (so much it would seem in favour with Tractarians and Pro-Tractarians) has in no way contributed. What he has done has been destructive, not constructive. The affirmative position, indeed, can only be maintained by poets and philosophers; not by critics and historians, however able.

Let, then, the generation of the Catholic sentiment, which now fills and prompts the highest order of literators and religionists, be no longer falsely ascribed either to the Tractarians or to Mr. Carlyle, but be rightfully restored to Cousin and Coleridge, to Southey and Wordsworth, to Goethe and Schiller, to Schelling and Fichte, and to such other Protestant writers of philosophic elevation and poetic power, as have really contributed to it, in its purity, from no motive of personal ambition, but from perception of its omnipotent truth. It is by minds like these that the Pretensions of Rome, let them be put forth by whom they may, will be perseveringly and successfully resisted; and the Catholicity and Affirmativeness of the term Protestant vindicated against all the anonymous criticism, British or other, in the world.

But Mr. Gladstone, it seems, "looks hopefully forward to the future developement even of that theological school amongst us which most leans to Rome." Does he? We wish him joy of his happy temper. We have not so learned Christ, nor the manner in which his truth is to be supported-the truth which "makes us free indeed." Rome is slavery, falsehood, superstition, infidelity, pretending to be " the stewardess of the covenant of grace," a title which belongs to no earthly institution, and can only be claimed by usurpation; and, therefore, in the name of freedom, truth, religion, and faith, we declare war-internecine war-against her corruptions, and her example.

We believe with Mr. Gladstone, that "the Catholic faith, over and above what we have recited, teaches that there have been embodied in the Gospel revelation, a visible and permanent organisation, chartered and endowed with spiritual gifts for the salvation of man ;" but then we deny that this organisation is limited to a particular corporation, whether in Rome or England, and fearlessly assert that it includes all the Churches wherein the Gospel has been preached. "This," (to adopt his own phraseology,) Mr. Gladstone may "deem heresy. It is his misfortune; would to God it were in our power to rid him of it! In doing it, he would be invited to part, not with his belief, but with his unbelief." To him, we must say this, as he to others; and add moreover, that we allow to him, even as he professes to do to others, "all that is positive and substantive in his claims;" but must be equally permitted to remind him, that, considered in the large and affirmative view in which we now contemplate the subject, "the real negations are on his side," and not on ours, who, holding Catholic principles in their purity, recognise the providence of God in the history of all the Churches, and equally esteem all systems of government to be divinely sanctioned which have been divinely permitted, which have existed for an age that

is past, exist still for an age that is present, and, to all appearance, will continue to exist for more than one that is future. Not unity only, but variety also, is an element of beauty. Why should the petals of the Sacred Rose be scattered, because they are many, at the dictum of Mr. Gladstone, because he has fettered himself with a prejudice in favour of One Church, and against all others? If Mr. Gladstone could show that all who are redeemed from the world into any one particular Church are also necessarily saved, and that none are either redeemed or saved by being baptised into any other Church, then, indeed, his prejudice would have some basis: but since this, by the general consent of theologians, and, as a matter of fact and human experience, cannot be shown, this same prejudice must be set down for one of the numerous formulæ of Unreason which beset minds, otherwise sane, on points where the passions are permitted undue dominion. We wonder not, as he confesses, at his "brain almost reeling at the magnitude of the interests" involved in his subject; for, in asserting the right of controlling them in behalf of any existing order of men, he has presumed to hand over to it the prerogatives of the Divine Sovereignty, and to build up a wall of partition between brotherhoods of the same name, which God, calling in thunder from the clouds of his providence, has again and again declared shall not exist, and which on every attempt to rear he has been careful to interrupt; for is it not the old sin of Babel-building? and say not men, when they contemplate it, "Go to, let us build a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the whole earth?"

Evermore, on such occasions, God has interposed and will interpose. Then it is that he will rend the heavens, and will come down, and the mountains will dissolve in his presence, as metals in a flame of fire, and as the water when the fire causeth it to boil. "But now, O Lord, Thou art our FATHER; we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and we are all the work of Thy hand."*

As nothing can happen without Divine permission, so can nothing happen without Divine ordination. If God permitted man to fall, it was that his freedom should be thereby manifested, and his redemption be the more glorious, when the law should be fulfilled by him, not through blind obedience, but through intelligent love. If he permitted man to attempt the erection of an exclusive religion, which should keep out the floods of error or vengeance, it was that occasion should be given for a diversity of creeds, so that each man, by the maintenance of certain partial truths, might contribute his portion to the whole, which, in its marvellous integrity, exceeds the grasp of individual mind. Therefore it is that we war with Mr. Gladstone's scepticism which declines to believe in all Churches but one, whether Roman or Anglican. So long as his historical predilections recognise that one Church only, so long are Mr. Gladstone's

Isaiah lxiv. 1, 2, 8.

principles less Catholic than the Divine scheme of government for the regulation of religious faith, as manifested in the law of God's providence, both in relation to Churches and States; nay, they are, indeed, fanatical, and serve to illustrate how the sceptic and fanatic frequently are identified in one and the same person, as in essence they are always. Thus it is that Mr. Gladstone accepts one half of history, and rejects the other; recognises the dispensations of heaven here, and denies them there; and in all fails to perceive the principles which, admitting of no exception, are equally applicable to each, and bind together the widest variety into the strictest unity. He reads history, not to find Catholic truth, but to confirm the prejudice which has accepted a part for the whole, and thence sought to give universality to error. Hence he desires to change the right of private judgement, in favour of the authorities which he himself has chosen to admit. He wishes to disjoin intelligence from faith, and to invalidate the voice of conscience, in favour of doubtful traditions, which, to serve his purpose, he will even affect to praise above the tried and tested records of revelation itself. He would substitute a clerical order for the one Mediator, and put the Visible Church in place not only of the Church Invisible, but of God and His Messiah. Rites and Ceremonies are of more value in his eyes, than Personal Piety-the outward sign more acceptable than the inward and spiritual grace-while heresy is more odious than idolatry. His sympathies are all with the latter: the only awe that he expresses, is of the sin that we may possibly incur in ascribing idolatry to a Church manifestly superstitious, lest her speculative dogmas on the point should be found to weigh more in the balance than her practical habits. But with us, it is not so. The only true worship that we acknowledge, is the worship of God as a Spirit, who, as such, will only be worshipped in spirit and in truth; of Him only we stand in awe; the only true witness that we love God is, with us, the fact that we love our brother; and therefore we will not join in the anathemas of Rome against him. For the rest, "We know whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one touches him not. And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and Eternal Life. Little children, KEEP YOURSELVES FROM IDOLS. Amen."

* 1 John v. 18-21.

423

IDENTITY OF TRACTARIANISM AND POPERY.*

THE identity of Popery and Tractarianism has been so completely demonstrated by various writers, as to leave nothing more to be desired, in the way of proof, by any candid enquirer. So obvious was

the tendency of Tractarianism to Popery, that the titular Bishop of Melipotamus, Dr. Wiseman, declared, about three years since, in a "Letter on Catholic Unity, addressed to the Earl of Shrewsbury" (p. 13), that "it seems to him impossible to read the works of the Oxford divines, and especially to follow them chronologically, without discovering a daily approach to our holy church, both in doctrine and feeling." The "holy church" intended by Dr. Wiseman is the idolatrous Romish Church; and the "daily approach" to which he refers has been the subject of much congratulation at Rome. Mr. Young (in his "Protestantism or Popery," p. 64,) has translated the following passage from No. XXIX. of a weekly magazine he met with at Rome, which sufficiently shows the estimation in which the labours of the Tractarians are there held :- -"We cannot sufficiently excite the attention of all good Catholics, and chiefly of the holy congregation of the Propaganda Fide, to the state of Anglicanism in its pursuit of the new doctrines, propagated with such force and such success by Messrs. Newman, Pusey, and Keble. With arguments drawn from the most holy fathers, of which they have undertaken a new edition in English, they labour for the restoration of the ancient Catholic Liturgy-of the Breviary (which many of them, as it is known to our correspondent, recite every day)-of fasts-of the monastic life-and of many other religious practices. Besides, they teach the insufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith, the necessity of tradition and of ecclesiastical authority, the real presence, prayers for the dead, the use of images, the

1. Questions and Answers illustrative of the Church Catechism. For the Use of Young Persons. Oxford: Graham. London: Toovey. 1843. 16mo. 2. Abridgement of the Christian Doctrine: with Proofs of Scripture for Points controverted. By way of Question and Answer. Permissu Superiorum. Dublin: Grace. 1840. 12mo.

3. Identity of Popery and Tractarianism; or, Pope Pius IV.th's Creed illustrated by Tractarian Comments. London: Nisbet; Hatchard; Seeley. 1843. 12mo. 4. Tractarianism compared with the Prayer-Book. London: Seeley. 1843. 12mo. 5. Dottrina Cristiana Breve. Composta per ordine di Papa Clemente VIII. Dal R. P. Roberto Bellarmino, della Compagnia di Gesu', poi Cardinale di Santa Chiesa. Riveduta, ed approvata dalla Congregazione della Riforma. In Roma. 1836.Short Christian Doctrine. Composed by the order of Pope Clement VIII. By the Rev. Father Robert Bellarmine, of the Company of Jesus, and Cardinal of the Holy Church. Revised and approved by the Congregation of Reform. Rome. 1836. London: Seeley and Burnside. 1839. 12mo.

power of absolution in the priesthood, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, devotion to the most holy Madonna, and many other Catholic doctrines; so that but very little (pochissimo) stands between them and the true faith, and that little becomes less and less every day."

"Very little" indeed: so "little," that, did we not know how ingenious is the heart of fallen man in finding out excuses for itself, we might justly wonder how any Tractarian can honestly continue to be either a clerical or a lay member of our Church. How "very little stands between" Tractarianism and Popery, will (we trust) satisfactorily appear to our readers, from the "Questions and Answers illustrative of the Church Catechism," to which we now invite their attention; a publication which not only manifests the doctrinal identity of Popery and Tractarianism, but also shows that the anonymous compiler of these "Questions and Answers" has had recourse to the common but disingenuous practice of Papists, of re-asserting, with unblushing effrontery, refuted or exposed false doctrines, as if they had never been noticed.

Last year, some time before the commencement of our Journal, there was published in 16mo., by the London bookseller of the "Questions and Answers illustrative of the Church Catechism,' A Short and Easy Catechism for the Use of Young Persons of the Church of England, compiled from authentic sources.' These "authentic sources" were various Popish catechisms; and the Papistical contents of this "catechism" were exposed, with much ability, by some of our contemporaries. The result of this exposure was the withdrawal of this catechism from circulation; and it is rumoured that it was suppressed in consequence of episcopal intervention. "The snake," however, "was" only "scotch'd, not killed;" and the "Questions and Answers illustrative of the Church Catechism" are a reproduction of the principal parts of the Popish "Short and Easy Catechism," of which some of the most offensive statements are retained. We shall prove the identity of these two publications by some extracts (having been favoured with the use of a copy of the suppressed catechism); and the further identity of BOTH with the authorised summaries of Popish doctrine, the titles of which are given in the preceding page ; and we shall occasionally contrast them with the authentic and authoritative standards of the Church of England.

The first chapter of the suppressed "Short Catechism" is entitled "What a Christian is-the Unity and Trinity of God, and the Incarnation and Death of our Saviour." The first chapter of the "Questions and Answers" is entitled, "Preliminary Questions on the Trinity, Incarnation, &c." The first seven questions of the suppressed catechism are omitted: the remaining questions are, for the most part, nearly verbatim in both; and the following questions and

answers are VERBALLY the same :

"Q. Who is God? A. God is the Creator and Sovereign Lord of all things, Who is infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, infinitely good, infinitely merciful, infinitely just, eternal and infinite in all perfection.