they may not agree with them, will freely sympathize. "Men are called Papists, who are writing against Popery with infinitely more of learning and of zeal, than perhaps any of their contemporaries; traitors to the Church of England, when their time, talents, and money are devoted to support it; violators of the Rubric, when they are enforcing its authority; theorists and inventors of novelties, in the same page which stigmatizes them as bigots to antiquity and authority; upholders of human tradition, while they are blessing God, that the Church rests on no human names, but on the inspiration of the Apostles; and founders of a party, when their avowed object is to merge all parties in the Catholic Church. And after all, there is no party in existence; since, with the exception of three or four friends,1 other writers in the same cause, are evidently independent asserters of their own personal views -No. 126, "Oxford Theology."

And, as it is not the present purpose, to defend the writers of the Oxford Tracts, in general; so it is not

The account, which Mr. Perceval has very lately furnished, of "The Oxford Movement," in a Letter to the Editor of "The Irish Ecclesiastical Journal," is one of the most interesting pieces of literary history ever given to the world. It is not often that we get so near to the first springs of any great controlling operation; and still less that they are found so perfectly transparent, and like chrystal, in their purity. If there has lived a man in our day, whose name and character could be accepted as the pledge, that whatever he engaged in, was

66

honest," "just," "pure," "lovely," and " of good report," it was-alas, that it must be written, the late!-HUGH JAMES ROSE. And yet, it was at his Parsonage, as Mr. Perceval tells us, that the first consultation was held. One would think that this little secret history alone, vouched as it is, by one of the most unquestionable names in England, must quite suffice to do away forever the suspicion of Popery. The Letter will be found in the Appendix.

designed to touch a single one of all the countless charges, not contained in the original indictment: to show, for instance, that the body of these writings is not a "volume of heresy;" (p. 29,) or that they do not "go still farther" than the Papists; (p. 35,) or that they do not teach with the ancient pagans;' (p. 66.) The question is not about tendencies towards Popery, nor yet of doctrines worse than Popery, but about "some of the worst errors of Popery" itself. Nay, THE QUESTION is not, whether the Oxford writers do, or do not, teach "some of the worst errors of Popery"-though, upon this point, every doubt, we trust, will be effectually removed-but, HAS MR. BOARDMAN FROVED THAT THEY DO TEACH THEM? Does he sustain his charge by proof, drawn from the books themselves? He cannot raise the shadow of an objection to this course. Not contented with assuring us, in his first Letter, of the mature "deliberation" of his less than two days' reading; he tells us in his second Letter, in Italics, that he has "examined them in detail." "The quotations from them I had read, had left a deep impression on my mind of their dangerous tendency; but this impression became tenfold stronger, when I came to explore the system as

The Oxford teaching seems to assume to Mr. Boardman's eye, as many shapes as Hamlet's cloud, and he expects his readers to be as yielding as Polonius.

"Hamlet. Do you see yonder cloud, that's almost in shape of a camel? Polonius. By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.

Hamlet. Methinks it is like a weazel.

Polonius. It is back'd like a weazel.

Hamlet. Or like a whale,

Polonius. Very like a whale."

66

a whole." (p. 33.) And yet, for one who had explored the system as a whole, not only, but examined the details, there seem to be some strange misgivings as to its true nature. "The way in which Romanism is taught in these writings, (p. 30,)" perplexes him. "Whoever expects to find it openly and systematically inculcated in them, will be disappointed." Doubtless, he will! Nothing can be more ingenious or subtle than the principle, on which the controversy with Popery is managed." Coquettish controversialists, they seem to be! "Some points of it, as for example," (a large sample!) "the supremacy of the Pontiff, the schismatical position of the Romish Church, in its relation to the 'Anglo Catholic Church,' transubstantiation, &c., they attack manfully one broadside follows another, until the reader really begins to fancy they are the boldest of all the champions' who have entered the lists against that antichristian hierarchy. But on other points," ("&c." should have included all that was not named,) "you will frequently find the case between Rome and Protestant Christendom stated in a way much more favourable to the Papist, than the Protestant: it is not so much asserted as insinuated, that Rome has the best of it." And, let her have the best of it, if she consents to think so, after Oxford broadsides have demolished the supremacy of the Pope, and transubstantiation, (as she holds it, with an anathema on all that do not see it just as she does,) and made her out to be in schism, in her relation to the Anglo Catholic Church! A pretty Popery, indeed, without supremacy and transubstantiation! A very

harmless monster, truly! A Popery without a Pope! But, as well by what they do not say, as what they do, our Lecturer is puzzled. "In other passages you feel sure you are approaching, step by step, an explicit avowal of some rank Popish tenet. But just as you fancy[!] you have reached the point, and hasten to the next sentence, to seize on the development, the writer turns off, to indulge in some vague generalities; or to caution you against premature judging in a case, where so venerable a father, as this one or that one, has spoken doubtingly. Again, you are confident, after reading a sentence, that there is Popery in it; but when you return to lay hold of it, it eludes your grasp.' 'They are' (to use the language of the London Christian Observer) so 'scholastically constructed, that when the obvious bearing of a passage or tract is shown[?] to be open to objection, there is some little qualifying word in a corner, which an ordinary reader would never discover, to ward off the full weight of an honest [?] reply to the passage in its true spirit.' It may be that these 'traps for critics' have not been noticed by my Right Rev. Correspondent; but many persons have an idea that the Tracts abound with them." (p. 31.) No doubt they do; and with "traps" for some who are not "critics." And hence the feeble headway that is made against these "little qualifying words;" and hence these rare confessions of "unsophisticated" Protestants, who find, too late, that they have tried their teeth upon a file.

Most truly graphic this and to the life! Like the complaint of the poor Irishman, "He put his finger on him, but he was not there!"

But to the question just now stated, as the true and proper issue-not as presented in the "Lecture," but as taken in the "Reply"-HAS MR. BOARDMAN SUSTAINED, FROM THEIR OWN WRITINGS, HIS CHARGE "" REAGAINST THE OXFORD DIVINES, THAT THEY HAVE TURNED TO SOME OF THE WORST ERRORS OF POPERY?" "In the first place, it is important," says Mr. Boardman, "we should define what is to be understood by the phrase, 'some of the worst errors' (his own Italics) 'of Popery." And such a definition! "There

may be a difference of opinion on this point. Some may hold that the Papal Supremacy, the schismatic position of the Church of Rome within the dioceses of the Church of England, the denial of the cup to the laity, &c., &c.', are the worst features of Romanism. But the author of the Lecture had his eye upon what he deemed to be errors of a much deeper dye. He believes, with the judicious Hooker, that 'the' grand question that hangeth in controversy between us and Rome, is about the matter of JUSTIFYING RIGHTEOUSNESS.' With this, may be associated the NATURE AND MEANS OF REGENERATION, and the NATURE AND TRUE DESERT OF SIN. The doctrines of Rome, on these, and their affiliated points, together with her rejection of the Bible, as the only infallible

2

1 A favourite figure of speech, this seems to be; and used, as here, in some most awkward junctures.

2 These are not Hooker's exact words, nor do they convey Hooker's sense. What he says is this: "This openeth a way to the understanding of that grand question, which hangeth yet in controversy between us and the Church of Rome, about the matter of justifying righteousness." No one can doubt the importance of this error, in Hooker's view of the controversy; yet he does not here select it, as "the grand question."