heresy, or in any way condemned the opinion in question? Yeswe shall be told-in its Sixth Article. That Article says, 'Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' Do the writers, whose opinion of tradition is so fiercely assailed, contradict this ? So far from it, they expressly state, that Scripture is the sole and paramount rule of faith,'—that every fundamental point of doctrine is contained in Canonical Scriptures-and that nothing is to be insisted on as an Article of Faith, necessary to salvation, which is not contained therein.

But, while such is their language, while they may truly thus assert, that they are innocent of violating the Sixth Article, can their accusers say the same of themselves? Are they equally free from the offence which they thus unscrupulously charge upon others? Let

us see.

By calling the opinion which they oppose, heresy, they affirm, by implication, that it is contrary to an article of the faith; in other words, they say that we are bound to believe as a fundamental article of faith, and therefore of necessity to salvation, that the Holy Spirit did not give tradition as a permanent mode of imparting Divine truth subsidiary to Scripture. But if they affirm this, they are required by the Sixth Article to adduce proof of their assertion from Scripture, a task which, I am sure, would be most difficult, which I believe is impracticable, and which has not, so far as I know, been seriously attempted by any one worthy of notice. When it shall have been accomplished, we will join in calling on the traditionists to renounce their wicked error, or to submit to be branded as 'here. tics.' But, meanwhile, their accusers should beware how they vio late, not only the Sixth Article of the Church, but also the Ninth Commandment of God."

Will Mr. Boardman tell us who, besides "the air," is beaten in the last sentence? The Bishop of Exeter does certainly dissent from many of the Oxford views. But his language is throughout respectful,

mild and kind. "After all," he says, "let me not be supposed to set myself forward as the advocate of these writers. They need not the aid of such an advocate, and I will not encumber them with it. I am not even their partisan; for I am far from subscribing to all they say, and still farther from always approving the mode in which they say it." This is a manly and a Christian course. The Oxford writers ask, and have a right to ask, no more. "Again," he says, "while I regret the charge of Popery, applied to them, as being as absurd as it is uncharitable; I yet cannot but lament that they sometimes deal with some of the worst corruptions of Rome, in terms not indicating so deep a sense of their pernicious tendency as yet, I doubt not, they feel." These passages are not adduced, as if the point at issue were to be settled by the opinions of any, even of eminent prelates; and there is none more so than he of whom we speak: but, because, if Dr. Philpotts' testimony is good against, it is at least as good in favor of, the accused; because justice is due to him as well as them; and because it is but right to say, that those who catch at a sentence separated from the context, and applaud it, when it suits them, "to the echo," are the same persons who habitually treat the Bishop of Exeter with the rudest disrespect. It is considered but a questionable morality to hold, "All's fair in politics." Who will defend it in a theological discussion?

SPECIFICATION IX. "Closely allied to the dogma of mortal and venial sins; is that of Purgatory."Doubtless, it is. But, do the Oxford writers teach it?

To say, Yes, "sticks in the throat." To say, No, would be to lose the benefit of a most pregnant prejudice. Hence, such sentences "about it and about it," as the following. "On this subject again the Tractists are reserved and enigmatical. Sometimes they condemn the Romish doctrine stoutly. But this seems to be aimed rather at its details than the principle of it. And the prevailing tone of their observations leaves the impression on the reader's mind, that their antipathy to the doctrine is not so very bitter, but that they might be persuaded out of it." (p. 80.) And again, "This theory lacks but one feature of purgatory, namely, suffering or discipline," (p. 69)—as the old lady's gun wanted nothing, to make it dangerous, but a lock, a stock and a barrel! And again "There seems no good reason why the Oxfordists should not avail themselves of it in their purgatory, as well as the Romanists and the Pagans," (poor Pagans, how they haunt him!) "in theirs." And again, "It will be no marvel if some future Tract for the Times should tell 'the Anglo Catholic Church,'" &c. &c. But, though, to answer words like these, would be something worse than beating the air; it is well to give some little sample of the Oxford teaching on this subject, for their benefit, who are acquainted with it only through Mr. Boardman.

"Purgatory may be mentioned as another grievous doctrine of Romanism." (It had found a place, the reader will remember, both in the " practical grievances" and in the "irreconcileable differences.") ****“I have already stated that Scripture, as interpreted by tradition, does not teach that doctrine." Tract No. 71, pp. 12, 13. "One great unfairness practised by Roman controversialists, has been to adduce, in behalf of their own peculiarities, doctrines or

customs of the Primitive Church, which resembling them in ap pearance, are really of a different character."

*

"But in no instance is this fallacious procedure more strikingly seen than as regards their doctrine of Purgatory, which they defend by notions and usages in the early Church, quite foreign to the distressing tenet which we challenge them to prove." No. 52, p. 1.

"As regards the doctrine of Purgatorial suffering, there have been for many ages in the Roman Church gross corruptions of its own doctrine, untenable as that doctrine is even by itself. The decree of the Council of Trent, which will presently be introduced, acknowledges the fact. Now we believe that those corruptions still continue; that Rome has never really set herself in earnest to eradicate them. The pictures of Purgatory so commonly seen in countries in communion with Rome, the existence of Purgatorian societies, the means of subsistence accruing to the clergy from the belief in it, afford a strange contrast to the simple wording and apparent innocence of the decree by which it is made an article of faith. It is the contrast between poison in its lifeless seed, and the same developed, thriving and rankly luxuriant, in the actual plant.

"And lastly, since we are in no danger of becoming Romanists, and may bear to be dispassionate, and (I may say) philosophical, in our treatment of their errors, some passages in the following account of Purgatory are more calmly written than would satisfy those who were engaged with a victorious enemy at their doors. Yet, whoever be our opponent, Papist or Latitudinarian, it does not seem to be wrong to be as candid and conceding as justice and charity allow us. Nor is it unprofitable to weigh accurately how much the Romanists have committed themselves in their formal determinations of doctrines, and how far by God's merciful providence they have been restrained and overruled; and again how far they must retract, in order to make amends to Catholic truth and unity." Tract 79, p. 3.

Calm words are these, and Christian-like; and make us think of that beautiful text of Isaiah, which Keble takes as the motto for his "Christian Year "-" In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength. "There are many men," says a late writer, "who

are content to allege with a noisy and eternal iteration, that the Pope is Antichrist, and that the Roman Church is the harlot of Babylon. Mr. Newman stands at the Antipodes from these declaimers, and treats the system of Popery in another way. In declaring against the corruptions of Romanism, he is as staunch a Protestant as themselves; but the dif ference is, that he does more than protest: he searches and discriminates, he argues and demonstrates, while they can only cry, Wolf!" This is not quoted, as knowing, or even conjecturing that Mr. Newman is the author of the Tract just cited. Those who would know his views upon this subject, will find them in his "Lectures on the Prophetical office of the Church, viewed relatively to Romanism and popular Protestantism;" Lecture iii. "Doctrine of Infallibility morally considered."

SPECIFICATION x. "If the Oxford writers are shy of confessing a purgatory, no such difference can be imputed to them in reference to the practice of offering prayers for the dead."-And the proof of this is just one page—a mutilated quotation from a Tract, and a mutilated quotation from the Bishop of Exeter's Charge; carefully inserting all his words of disagreement, (for it amounts to nothing more,) and as carefully omitting what he says, in this connection, and takes delight in saying again and again, of his "unfeigned respect for the integrity and simplicity of these writers, as well as for their eminent learning and ability." The history of their connection with the subject will be interesting; and illustrate, at the same time, the sort of dealing to which their oppo