terms of the indictment, at his pleasure? Shall men be charged with outright crimes, and then be tried for "character?" Accused of murder, and then hanged for tendencies ?2 There is a confession of weakness, not to dwell upon its rank injustice, in the very start of this defence, which must strike every one that reads with both eyes open; and which throws distrust-unhappily, in the present instance, but too well founded-on all which follows after.

3

Scarcely less surprising than the design to narrow down the ground first taken with so bold an air, and so to change the issue, is the attempt-disclaimed, indeed, on the last page, but never properly employed-to find protection in the plea, that the "imputation," which the "Lecture" involves, "against the character of the Oxford Divinity," is not "a novelty," but claims the shelter of distinguished names.

It will

be, as it is sincerely meant to be, no disrespect to any of these, to ask, how many several assertions go to make one proof? Upon an action for a libel, in a civil court, would it be received at all, even in mitigation of damages, that the same, or like calumnious words, had been alleged by others? Suppose the "Pastor' of some "Presbyterian Church"-the case has been, and it may be again-should come, under suspicion of erroneous teaching, with his brethren, and be

1 So the title of the "Correspondence "-" the alleged Popish character of the Oxford Divinity."

2" A strong Popish tendency," p 21. "Another indication of the Popish tendency of this system," p 71.

3"I fully recognize your right to make the requisition with which I have been honoured." p. 100.

brought up for trial. Who would think of resting the prosecution on the ground, that the same charge had been brought against him, from a dozen, or a hundred, sources? What would be taken, as the proof of error, but the words which he himself had uttered; and they, not tried by the opinion of this Pastor, or that Editor, but by the only rule of faith? And is it less an evil, to be publicly arraigned, before the world, for "Popery," and that with treachery and blasphemy involved, than to be summoned before any possible tribunal, that admits the forms of law, and owns the duty to do justice? Is public defamation to be warranted by grounds, which would sustain no prosecutor, before any tribunal, short of the Papal Inquisition? Is it upon what this one is "constrained to say," and that one is "constrained to think;" because "they seem" to one author, and another can "come to no other conclusion;" that "a large and learned body of the Clergy" of the Church of England, and an undefined proportion of the Clergy of the sister Church, on this side of the Atlantic, are to be branded as foul recreants, and cast beyond the pale of charity, and divested of the very hope of influence with their brethren, or even of access to them, as if the leper spot were on their skin? And, suppose a case conceivable, in which such things might be, is this asserted to be such? Can it be possible, that they who "are employing both the pulpit and the press, with" such "prodigious efficiency, to give "some of the worst errors of Popery' currency among the people," cannot be proved what they are charged with being, from their own words

2

must be condemned by hearsay and opinion,' by the judgment of anonymous newspaper writers, or even of a periodical of "singular consistency?" It cannot be that any such proceeding will be sanctioned for a moment. The plea of shelter or authority, from others who have made the charge before, will be rejected promptly, both by common justice, and by common sense. The author of the Lecture was under no necessity to bring the charge. In doing so, he makes himself responsible. By the merits, he must stand or fall; not by the weight, if weight there be, of names. "No matter by whom," says the Editor of the National Gazette, "or when, a wrong may be done, the repetition of it, by other persons, and at other times, is not the less a wrong. This proposition needs no elucidation."

But we are not yet ready for the "proof." The Romanists, forsooth, approve the doctrine, and commend the teachers. With what good reason, shall be seen hereafter. Meanwhile, let leave be had, to ask, if Richard Hooker should be given over as a Papist, because Dr. Wiseman calls him "that best of Protestant divines?" If Faithful Commin 3 ceased to be a Pa

3

1 Let the reader take notice how very little Mr. Boardman relies on passages from the Oxford writings themselves, as noted by himself. How very much on the opinions or quotations of those who have condemned them.

2 The fifteenth volume of the Christian Observer, the periodical here alluded to-would that its later volumes were consistent with its former !-contains an exposition and defence of Bishop Jebb's admirable "Appendix" on the rule of faith, as held and taught by the Church of England, which, as one has well observed, might readily be adopted at Oxford, as a "Tract for the Times." See pp. 358-365.

3 See Archbishop Parker's Life, by Strype, vol. i, pp. 141, 459, 484.

pist, because he looked the Presbyterian, and prayed extempore, and called the Liturgy, the Mass? If any trick, in short, can overpass their capacity for fraud, who hold, and teach, that simulation is a lawful thing?1 Let it be asked, still farther, if the praise of Papists 2 be conclusive proof of Popery, what the conclusion must be from their most merciless invective. As when, from the suggestion, in the Call for Proof, that Popery must not be always taken for its face, the "Catholic Herald" (so miscalled,) can find no word too strong to stigmatize the author; until, finally, the

Cited by Mr. Southey, in his Vindicia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, from the Decretals, p. 285, Paris edition of 1518-"Simulatio utilis est, et in tempore assumenda."

2 Not the Catholics; that is false. Not the Roman Catholics; that is selfcontradictory and absurd. Not the Romanists; that does not describe the case, St. Paul addressed an epistle to the Romans, or Romanists; that is, Churchmen at Rome. We might as well call our friends at Oxford and Cambridge, Anglicans; and they us, Americans: which would mean just next to nothing. But the Papists; because that expresses their distinctive character. Why should Papist be more offensive to them, than Protestant Episcopalian to us? It would not, if they did not see-what so many who, by birthright, are true Catholics, (which they are not) will not see-that it stands directly in the way of their false claim, to be the Church Catholic. We need not be discourteous. That, the truth never requires. But" things by their right names," is no discourtesy. With Martin Luther, we may call “a spade, a spade.” “I offer no apology whatever," says Mr. Palmer, "for the use of a term which I designedly employ, for the purpose of marking the sectarian and schismatical character of the community alluded to. Truth, should never be sacrificed to a hollow and contemptible courtesy." They seem to have forgotten that Cardinal Hosius taught that they should glory in the name. "Si quis nos hac de causa Papistas appellare vellet, non solum nihil nos ejus appellationis puderet; verumetiam cum primis id amplum nobis ad laudem et gloriam esse judicaremus." And again, “Tu vero, si quis te Papistam vocaverit, non modo moleste ne feras, verum te magno potius affectum honore interpretatus, age gratias," vol. i. pp. 669, 735-cited by Mr. Palmer. And this is sound and just. If the Pope be what they claim, there can be no name, after Christian, so honourable; as none so truly descriptive.

climax is attained-" compared with the conduct of Bishop Doane, we must confess, that the proceedings of such people as Boardman and Sparry appear to us excusable!" The sum and substance of all which may be well stated in the temperate words of Mr. Palmer, in his most triumphant vindication of "the Apostolical jurisdiction and succession of the Episcopacy in the British Churches," "against the objections of Dr. Wiseman, in the Dublin Review." "Dr. Wiseman has devoted his attention to the theologians of Oxford in general, and especially to the 'Tracts for the Times;' and has endeavoured to make their principles and conclusions available for his own pur-. poses. He felt that their general tendency was not (as some have imagined) to establish the dominion, and the superstitions, of Rome, but to purify and invigorate the Church of England, and to edify the whole Catholic Church; and he has attempted, in this series of papers, to excite prejudice against sound and salutary principles, by fixing on them a character alien from the intention of their advocates, in ancient or modern times. The learned and religious authors of the 'Tracts for the Times,' need no advocacy but their own: in the articles, however, which form the subject of the following pages, they are made the medium of so direct an attack upon the Church of England in general, that I trust I may

The rabid rage with which this paper has assailed the present writer, finds no fit resemblance short of a mad dog. The smoke of Smithfield may be smelled in every line. But it is all well. One cannot greatly be in wrong, when so between the fires of errors, that profess to be antagonist. The "Via Media," even Ovid knew, was safest-" Medio tutissimus ibis."