We do not at present purpose stating the legal points involved in the discussion between the Regius Professor and Mr. Macmullen. We would only state, that it is necessary for every M.A., before he asks convocation for his B.D., as a grace, to read two essays on some theological subjects before the Regius Professor. Mr. Macmullen contested the Professor's right to appoint them, after he had asked for and received the subjects; but, not gaining a favourable decision from the Delegates of Appeal, he submitted to the demand, and read his two essays. The subject of the first was the following: "The Church of England does not teach, nor can it be proved from Scripture, that any change takes place in the elements at consecration in the Lord's Supper." The essay was read on April 18, and Dr. Hampden's veto was put upon it. There is nothing remarkably new or striking in it: it has the usual subterfuges, the usual insinuations against all opponents, the usual assumptions that its author speaks with the embodied voice of Catholic antiquity. In a word, the author takes for granted all that it would be impossible for him to prove, and tries to terrify and silence by the ponderous epithet, "Catholic interpretation." One of the defenders of Dr. Pusey's sermon asserted that it was not written so carefully as it ought; but our readers will bear in mind that Mr. Macmullen has no such excuse. He says, that "he was not sanguine enough to hope for, in the Divinity School," "that candid and kind interpretation" which he hopes for from many who read it. We will not pass by the author's extraordinary declaration, that "his most earnest and single desire in writing on the perplexing and difficult subject imposed upon him, was to ascertain and follow the teaching of his own Church.' If the writer means by this Church, the Church of England, we emphatically assert that no man was ever so signally unfortunate both in his choice of means and in the result to which he has arrived. Indeed, our author has never deigned to test his doctrine by our Church's formularies. What are his own words?* After mentioning the names of writers who, in his opinion, prove his theory, he says, "Now, in these writings we have a clear current of interpretation, all running in one direction, which might be fairly regarded as the unfolding of those truths which it is confessed do not appear on the surface, nor are developed in the precise structure of our formularies." This certainly appears a plain confession that Mr. Macmullen cannot find his doctrine either in the words or the tone of our service. Let us review the essay in order. It commences with an assertion, that on no point is the early Church more at variance with the prevailing views of our days, than on the subject before us. If he had

* P. 32.

written, that it differed from his view of the early Church, we should have had no difference. But dogmatic earnestness is not peculiarly Mr. Macmullen's. There are many who identify themselves with the truth, and quietly reduce all things to harmony by a very simple process of conversion : "These are my sentiments-therefore, they are Catholic truth;" "This is Catholic truth-therefore, I embrace it." The ipse dixit of many an impersonation of infallibility, will amply prevent Mr. Macmullen from feeling any pain by solitude or singularity. Every young Tractarian bears it prominently upon his tongue; and you must either submit in silence, or content yourself with the gentle and meek insinuation, that you are harbouring heresy, and tainted with Geneva, and filled with Socinianism.

But our readers must never be astonished at all this: it is very natural, for it makes ignorant people yield; for they think there must be some truth when there is so much earnestness, and especially those who are ignorant that Montanus was earnest, and Arius diligent; Marcion unrelenting, and Apollinarius dogmatic. And we might, perhaps, find some more critical reason for this persevering dogmatism. Shall we not find it in our essay? Even in "Apostolical Tradition" is this help found: and that we may be at no loss as to what this is, we are further instructed by a conjecture (p. 23), that Apostles received a special help in framing liturgical rites, and that the forty days of our Lord's sojourn were thus occupied; or, in other words, that our Lord's words were not the epistles, as written, but the rites, as handed down. This conjecture appears rather contradictory to St. Paul's account, who saith expressly that he delivers unto us that which he also received, and that by his written epistle. Conjecture will not overturn criticism, nor will the author ever be able to identify tradition and truth. We must leave here " Apostolical Tradition." Our progress will not be far without being arrested; for the M.A., even upon his first page, misrepresents and calumniates his opponents. After commending the early ages in reference to his subject, he continues to insinuate an attack against men in these days. And here, also, he is not without precedent. There is a writer, upon the same holy mystery, who has set the example. Dr. Pusey, in his Preface, and Mr. Macmullen (not more skilfully), indict the same parties. The author knew that if he were to bestow his praise upon the early Church, and declare that they received "His divine promises with a simple faith and devout thankfulness, not daring to measure the revelations of the Infinite by the line of their own reason or judgement, nor imagining that it could be given to them to compass the length, and breadth, and depth, and height, of His unsearchable dispensations:" we repeat, our author knew that he could insinuate a charge against his opponents. And if any doubt this application, we remind them that the first assertion in the essay is, that Catholic antiquity and our times differ most upon this point. And now we retort upon Mr. Macmullen, by denying that any members of our Church attempt to measure God's dealings by their own reason. We deny that any Churchmen pretend to search

into God's unsearchable dispensations. And we are confident that this is as well known to Mr. Macmullen as to ourselves. It may serve to round a period, but it will not help the controversialist; it may serve as an insinuation, but they dare not attempt to prove it; it may render the youthful supporters of the author's school more bitter than before, and more dogmatic, at the expense of their fathers in Christ, but it will not subserve the cause of peace; it will not lessen suspicions, but will increase hate. It is wicked thus to write. It is untrue thus to paint men as learned as any of their opponents, as earnest and sincere, and by far more honest and faithful Churchmen. To this apology for argument, may be added a severe attack upon one long numbered with the dead-Dr. Whitby. Mr. Macmullen, after quoting from Whitby, says: "And so it is, that one while such expositors will adhere with a Judaical preciseness to the mere letter of the Bible, to the veiling of its living spirit, and another while will enervate the force of the letter by the pretence of trope and figure; in all their inconsistency, consistent only in this-in their aim to rob the faith of its mysteriousness and awe, and the believer of his deepest and truest consolations." Such is the language of one desiring a theological degree, and a capability, by old statutes, of reading on theological subjects before members of that University. Content, such an one might have been, to leave the dead unassailed, by such an awful charge as an aim to rob the faith, and spoil the believer. It might have been charitably assigned to some less wilful cause. Surely, even had Dr. Whitby erred upon this point, it might have been treated as an error of the head, rather than have been condemned as a base attempt to spoil and distress the heritage of God. What will our readers say after this, when they hear the words of the paper calling itself "The English Churchman?" "We congratulate," say they, "Mr. Macmullen, that he has not been betrayed by the vindictiveness of his adversary into the slightest expression unbecoming the dignity of the place and thesis. There is at once an openness and a moderation about the Exercises, which speak most favourably for the temper and character of the author." Really, the writers in "The English Churchman" must have a peculiar appreciation of moderation, or, it may be, that the incessant virulence in their own publication blinds them to the same fault in their friends. We could hardly expect that Mr. Macmullen would commence or conclude his Exercise by an attack on the judge of that essay, and therefore we need scarcely praise him for his abstinence. This is the part which "The English Churchman" takes; and if its readers can agree with it, they are more happy for their acquiescence than their discernment.

We will pass over the other introductory remarks, which but contain the usual quantum of deprecation, and comparison, and insinuation. There is nothing in them which can delay our readers. One discovery which Mr. Macmullen has made must not, however, be omitted, especially as "it may help to the clearing up of the subject before us." Mr. Macmullen wishes to infer, that our Article, because it so expli

citly denies any change of "material substance," points rather to some other change. This kind of special pleading, certainly, may make Articles "speak anything or nothing," but it is not quite popular in England. Nor can we see how it clears up the subject: but let it pass, simply as an indication of Mr. Macmullen's talent in developing our formularies and bringing out our Articles. We have a high opinion of our Reformers as men of talent, but we can hardly give them credit for having meant so cleverly and so covertly to insinuate all that a subtle Tractarianism can discover hidden within their writings. Ridley will next be shown to be a Papist, and Luther himself may yet be reckoned a dutiful son of the Papal Rome.

In the question proposed, Mr. Macmullen found an ambiguity. He thought that the words, "The Church of England does not teach," might mean either that it was not incumbent on any member to teach the doctrine of a change; or, 2dly, that it was a doctrine "not only beyond, but against and inconsistent with, her teaching." Now, here is a fresh proof of the secret hinge of Tractarianism. From what source have they discovered that any of our Church's doctrines are not incumbent upon her members; or, on the other hand, by what right can they teach anything beyond our Church's teaching? We will here quote the words which follow: "It will be my object to endeavour to establish, in the first place, that the Church of England does teach or imply that some change takes place in the elements at consecration; and, in the second, that even if this cannot be maintained, forasmuch as she does not necessarily disallow what she does not prominently teach, nor even what Holy Scripture does not prove, so that it be not contrary thereunto, nor be required of any man that it should be believed as an Article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation,' the Church of England does not prohibit us from believing that some change takes place in the elements," &c. This is, we presume, an attempt to enlist the Sixth Article in their favour by a gross misquotation, by which it is adapted to our author's sentence and sentiments, and has actually its inverted commas, indicating its character. We almost wonder that the writer did not also quote the Homily in which it is said, "In Holy Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do, and what to eschew." Perhaps St. Augustine might have been made also to fit in, when he writes, "In eis enim quæ aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quæ continent fidem moresque vivendi," &c.* If our Church allows us to maintain dogmas irrespective of Scripture, how is it possible that we differ from Rome? Why did we separate from her? Why was all that blood spilt? Why have we so long misunderstood one another? How excessively absurd have our forefathers been, and how ridiculous a figure do all our bishops exhibit, in that they do not even know upon what ground they stand! How fallible is the Infallible Potentate at Rome, in that for several hundred years he has been anathematising and preaching bulls against men

*De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 9.

who have one common ground! "Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation," say our Articles. Is the ideal change some superstructure of schoolmen's contrivance, and so not necessary to salvation? Even at best this is our author's argument. And even so in Hooker's words upon another point: "Not to be stood upon or contended for by them, because it is not a thing necessary, although because it is false, as long as they doe persist to maintaine and urge it, there is no man so grosse as to think in this case we may neglect it." We, however, deny any such quibbling as this. We hold our Articles to be a system of Divinity. We know that internal evidence and external prove this to be the case. They were for the avoiding diversities of opinion, and for the producing of consent in religion; and how can these ends be accomplished if any man and every man may build up some doctrine independent of them? These ages are extraordinary for invention; but we are convinced that no mode can be discovered more extraordinary than this. In the first place, therefore, this argument places any change among things nonessential; and, secondly, it opens a door for an overturning any commonly received rule of interpretation and nullifies our Articles.

Our readers will be desirous of being introduced to Mr. Macmullen's line of argument. We, therefore, present the first. He says that "the very order and rite of consecration itself in our Book of Common Prayer, is a presumption in favour of the view, that the Church of England does teach that the Sacramental Elements are themselves changed into the body and blood of Christ." How can this be so? Is the consecration of a church or burial-ground a presumption that the ground is changed? And if there is no presumption of a change in the one case, why should there be in the other? And yet Mr. Macmullen ventures to say, that, if "no change of any kind is wrought upon the Elements of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, consecration is little more than an impressive and scenical ceremony." (P. 9.) Surely, this can hardly have been seriously intended; and yet can men talk thus irreverently of things of which they delight to boast of awe and mystery, and in which they misrepresent their oppponents as divesting the ceremony of all that is mysterious and deep. Such language is unbecoming in a clergyman, and is lowering when spoken even as representing another's opinion; but we would venture to recommend Mr. Macmullen to be sure of his own sentiments, and to be more careful, lest he again misrepresent those of his brethren. Ridicule and misrepresentation are easy weapons, but they are two-edged; and when men speak of casting pearls before swine and profaning the ark, they should also guard against an error, though not one and the same, yet similar and one which presents the infidel with a jest, and the doubtful with an increased doubt, while it pains the children of the kingdom, and rends wider the seamless robe of Christ.

But what is the argument that the consecration "terminates upon the sacramental elements, and not on the recipients of the sacrament?" It is at least novel, as far as we remember. Because, when the priest consecrates, he is directed to lay his hand upon the paten of bread and upon every vessel in which is wine! We answer by a question in rela