stand excused for interfering in a matter with which they are so immediately concerned." The statement, in the latter part of the last sentence, applies quite as well to attacks, from other hands than those of Rome, so far as purpose and intent can go.

We have thus disposed of the first Letter of the three, which make up the "Reply;" and, with it, of the perfectly extraneous matter by which the attempt to prove the Charge has been encumbered. It is a fitting place to state, what is, and what is not, proposed in this Examination-the more so, from the rambling and discursive way in which the Proofs are brought And first, it is not meant to undertake the exposition, and much less the defence, of what it is the fashion of the times to call, though most improperly, "The Tract System," and "the Oxford divinity." And this, not so much because, as Mr. Palmer says "the learned and religious authors of the 'Tracts for the Times' need no advocacy but their own;" as because there is in truth, no system, or attempt at any system, much less the setting up of any standard in divinity: but, as Dr. Pusey well expresses it, "tracts, written for a temporary purpose, by persons unknown, or those who were known, but little known beyond their own University," and yet, "within a few years," "made, against the will of their writers, into a sort of touchstone of opinion, almost throughout the land." The present writer's

When one spoke, in what was meant, doubtless, for contempt, of "the New Divinity," it was impossible not to be reminded of the complaint of some of the friars, at the revival of learning, which preceded the Reformation, that some had invented a new language, which they called Greek!

views cannot be better stated, than in the following extract from Professor Sewell's Letter, to the Editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal.

"You have invited me to an amicable discussion of the doctrines contained in Dr. Pusey's letter, and in the Tracts for the Times. My language, I fear, must have been indistinct, if it failed to explain that such an undertaking would be a direct compromise of the very principle for which I was contending. Clergymen in England, who advocate what are called Church principles, on the authority of the formularies and standard divines of their Church, and who approve generally of the Tracts for the Times, on account of their general accordance with the same standards, could scarcely permit themselves to be drawn into a defence of the Tracts, in place of simply maintaining their own principles, without much mischief following. It would necessarily lead others to suppose that there were disciples or followers of the Tracts, who wished others to recognize them as authoritative. And when a theological controversy has once been allowed to slide from general truths, into the merits of peculiar writers, especially of a collective body, however small, it must sink into par. ty spirit, and forgetfulness of the true authority appointed for the decision of theological questions; perhaps into personality and acrimony. The history of past controversies in the Church may surely warn us against mixing up the names of individuals with the discussion of doctrines.

"As Churchmen, we are comparatively little concerned with the opinions of Dr. Pusey or Mr. Newman. Those who think them erroneous are bound to point out their errors in the spirit of Christian love; and the authors must undertake their own defence. But a bystander, no way connected with their teaching, is not called on to come forward in its behalf; he may not accurately understand the opinions themselves, nor the precise grounds for them in the minds of the authors; and he does as much as is either necessary or safe, when he delivers his own humble testimony to the general character of the writers attacked. This I have never hesitated to do. And, loaded as the authors in question have been, with the most unmerited obloquy, I should be ashamed not to express my conviction, that if they

have erred in minor points, they have revived, under God's blessing, most important and essential truths; that the tenor of their teaching is, like their lives, humble, holy, and consistent with the Word of God, and the spirit of Christians;1 and that no men have lived, since the seventeenth century, who have contributed more than they have to the Church of England, and to the diffusion of the truths of the Gospel. This may be perfectly compatible with the occurrence of indistinct or inaccurate statements; even with a tendency to one extreme of opinion, while they are retreating from another. But it is the part of Christians to judge men by their general efforts and intentions, not by incidental aberrations. Those who dislike the whole tendency of their writings, who object to the recognition of any authority in the Church, to any divine title for the appointment of its ministers, to any deep and awful views of the sacraments, any recall of men's minds from a luxurious, self-indulgent, licentious spirit,

It is a pity and a shame that Mr. Boardman should have forgotten himself so far as to impugn the private characters of the Oxford writers. He should not have been the man to write down Aristides for the ostracism, because he tired of hearing him called the just. So far as I have observed, there has been no one before him, who has attacked their character, as Christians. The common course has been, to admit their excellence, and say, "So much the worse: it is always so with heretics!" Which does not happen to be true. And then, to cast suspicion on them, on a mere petitio principii! To assume them Papists in disguise, and then conclude against their honesty or heavenly-mindedness!" And I believe some charitably disposed persons," says Mr. Boardman, "have found no small difficulty in conceiving how men of such exalted integrity' and holiness" could suffer their subscription to the Thirty Nine Articles to stand uncancelled, while they are publishing such sentiments as those advocated in the Tracts." A truly Rhadamanthine judgment-" castigat, auditque!"

The following testimony of the London Times, in March, comes to hand while this is in press. "No man, however widely differing from them, can open any of their publications, without perceiving that they write with learning, ability, calmness, seriousness, command of temper, a strong sense of responsibility, forbearance, and courtesy of language towards their adversaries. No man can know anything of their lives, without being aware that they act consistently with their professions: that they are more than usually strict, circumspect, self denying, and (as far as man can judge by outward demeanour) pious. The most respectable of their opponents in controversy, especialy the Master of the Temple, and the present Bishop of Chichester, have borne free and generous

to self-denial, obedience, and discipline, will, of course, condemn them as a mass of errors. But those who believe and value the fundamental principles of their teaching, will guard carefully against a general censure, even when lamenting or opposing particular faults. They will speak, as men engaged in the same good cause, kindly, respectfully-as admonishing rather than condemning-never finding fault without acknowledging excellencies; and guarding, as much as possible, against permitting their own exceptions to be confounded with a popular clamor. This is the spirit in which we ought to speak of the Tracts for the Times, and none is more likely to promote the real interests of truth."

There cannot be a better illustration of the true claims and character of the Tracts for the Times, than is furnished by the well known essays, called, collectively, "The Federalist." As these were written,

testimony to their merits, in these respects. Such antagonists never, even for a moment, expressed or felt the smallest doubt, that the men with whom they had to deal were sincerely attached to the Church of England, firmly persuaded that their doctrine was identical with hers, and utterly incapable of deliberately violating their oaths. No calumny, we are satisfied, was ever more unmerited than this, which casts upon men who are peculiarly zealous for ecclesiastical authority, (and who are maligned for being so,) the imputation of disregarding it in practice. They were not 'Puseyites,' who contended for the abolition of subscription to the 39 Articles in our Universities. They were not 'Puseyites,' who, in 1833, made the press teem with pamphlets in favour of changes in the Prayer-book. They are not Puseyites,' who, having sworn to obey the Rubric, depart from it as often as they think proper in the celebration of Divine service. They are not Puseyites,' who alter or leave out such expressions as do not suit their notions, in the offices of burial and baptism. But men who do these things, together with the organs of that political party which has abetted all the attacks of dissent upon the Church of England, accuse men who do them not, of unfaithfulness to the Church: and politicians, whose whole official life has been devoted to the advancement of Popery in the United Kingdom, cry out No Popery!' with the loudest, if an Oxford clergyman dares to suggest that the Church of Rome, though corrupt, may possibly not be Antichrist; or ventures to breathe a prayer for the restoration of Christian unity throughout the world."

་

by the patriots of the day, to aid in disseminating just views of the Federal Constitution, and to promote its cordial reception with the people of the United States; so those were undertaken, with a view to rouse the Church to a sense of its true position, and solemn responsibilities; and this, by reviving the contemplation, and the study of her foundation principles, as taught in the first ages, and revived by her Reformers. No one now would charge the authors of the Federalist, as partizans, as system-mongers, as enemies of the country in disguise. No one would hold that Mr. Madison, for instance, was responsible for all the views of General Hamilton, or General Hamilton for none but those of Mr. Jay. No one would take these papers to bind the Constitution, or be the sole expounder of its sense, any more than they themselves laid claim to such a character. No one would hold any person, who in general approved the views, which in those papers were so ably advocated, for every word, which every one of them contains; or claim that all who read them, and, in the main, defend them, are thereby formed into a party, and, as such, to be suspected of more than they profess, or reviled for what they never dreamed of. No greater liberty than this is claimed for Oxford writers, or for Oxford readers. But this is claimed: and is a part of that with which Christ has made us free. Against the denial of this simplest right of Christian freemen-its unjust and inconsistent denial, as practised in the present instance—the London Quarterly Review, records a generous protest, with every word of which, all honest readers of the Tracts, however