should her writers, then, not say so? Is their saying so to be taken as a proof of Popery; and this, although, in the same breath, they claim to be "Reformed?"

What the next two extracts have to do with the charge of Popery against the Oxford writers, it is hard to see. Not so hard to see, however, how one bent on heaping up ill will against a cause-which Mr. Boardman ought not to be thought, much less to be-might drop them, with a sanctimonious look, just in the reader's way. The second of them, from the 47th Tract, is in these words: "So far from its

doubt, deny, ridicule, or resist, rather than what they believe,-if the religion it generates, mainly consists in a mere attack upon Rome, and tends to be a mere instrument of state purposes,—if it tends to swallow up devotion in worldliness, and the Church in the executive,-if it damps, discourages, stifles the ancient Catholic system, which, if true in thebeginning, is true at all times; and if, on the other hand, there be nothing in our formularies obliging us to profess it, and if external circumstances have so changed, that what it was inexpedient or impossible to do formerly, is both possible and expedient now,-these considerations, I conceive may form a reason for abandoning the word." Both Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman refer to a most interesting historical statement, in Birch's Life of Tillotson, of the steady repudiation of the term, “lest they should thereby seem in any way to identify themselves with the foreign churches," by the Lower House of Convocation, in 1689. It may be found also in Tract for the Times, 71.-And now lest any reader should think that too much space is occupied with this point, he is requested to consider, that, with the mass, "abandoning a word" is very much the same as abandoning the thing; and that those who attempt to lead the mass, have carefully sought to make it seem so in this instance, Mr. Boardman, evidently means that repudiating the names "Protestant" and "Protestant Episcopalian," shall have voice potential," with his readers. At any rate, it will be seen, it does not necessarily prove Popery. Especially it should be borne in mind, that it is a question which does not at all concern American Churchmen, on their own account. Our branch of the Church Catholic expressly takes the style, "the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the United States of America."

a

being a strange thing, that Protestant sects are not ‘in Christ,' in the same fulness that we are, it is more accordant to the scheme of the world, that they should lie between us and heathenism." An ugly look has this, no doubt, in all sectarian eyes. Yet, read the article together, and more than half the teeth are drawn. Take an example, from the former portion of the Tract. It is entitled, "The visible Church." "You say that my doctrine of the one Catholic Church, in effect excludes Dissenters, nay, Presbyterians, from salvation. Far from it. ******* I have known those among Presbyterians, whose piety, resignation, cheerfulness, and affection, under trying circumstances, have been such as to make me say to myself, on the thought of my own higher privileges, 'Woe unto thee, Chorazin, woe unto thee, Bethsaida!' Where there is little given, little will be required; and that return, though little, has its own peculiar loveliness, as an acceptable sacrifice to Him, who singled out for praise the widow's two mites!" Now this may be very weak, and very erroneous, and very absurd, if any one shall choose to say so. But it is not Popish. It surely is not uncharitable. And yet the writer of it, read in Mr. Boardman's extract, seems scarcely less ferocious than

"The Anthropophagi, and men whose heads

Do grow beneath their shoulders."

The extract, from the British Critic, appears to be used just as a hook, to hang a Letter on, taken from the Banner of the Cross, commendatory of that Journal; that so the writer of the Letter may be made to endorse all Oxford. In one view, there is ground

for gratitude; since it may add to the large, and daily increasing, patronage, extended to the enterprising importers of this most admirable Periodical. Of course, it will not be pretended, that to recommend a Magazine, or a Review, to general circulation, is to divide responsibility with its Editor. From any just accountableness for that most able Journal, the writer of the Letter has no reason, and as little inclination, to withdraw himself.

SPECIFICATION II. "The Oxford School" deplore "the glorious Reformation as a calamity." "They are not quite as explicit on this point, (and many others,) now, as they probably will be hereafter." (p. 33.) Suppose we wait, and see! It would be hard to hang a man for a murder, which he will "probably" commit "hereafter." But Mr. Boardman deals largely in this probable, paulo-post-future Popery. "One of them, however, the late Rev. Richard H. Froude, a favourite pupil of Mr. Newman's, and who is highly praised by the British Critic, did not hesitate to characterize that work as 'the detestable Reformation!" It is very probable that he has done so, though that precise expression, after several hours' search, is not found; and Mr. Boardman is very sparing of his references. But let it be granted, that he did. He certainly has used similar expressions; and the more's the pity. But what then? Did not the Editors of "Froude's Remains," know that he had used such language? Did they not know that it would be caught at, dwelt on, and made the most of? Must they not have seen that it would be relied on, as it has, far more than all their publications, to prove

them Papists? And is this the conduct of "Jesuits in disguise?" Do men, who wish to steal a march, put bells upon their horses' feet, instead of shoeing them "with felt?" Are they who seek their own, disposed to put the worst side outward? The present writer never thought well of that particular publication. Many of those, who think most favourably of the Oxford writings, have regretted it. The Quarterly Reviewer, to whom reference has been made, "reluctant" "to say any thing harsh of men who are evidently fighting the battles of the Church, with no less purity of intention, than energy and talent," thinks it "strange, and lamentable, that such a work should have been published with the sanction of their name." What Mr. Perceval has thought of it, the reader is requested to ascertain from the conclusion of his most interesting Letter, in the Appendix to this Brief Examination. But, we repeat, what then? Had they not a right to publish the Remains of their departed friend? Is not the press as free to them, as to those who call them, Papists in disguise? (Verily, a thin disguise!) Are they, alone, of all who live in this our age, which clamours so for the free exercise of private judgment, to be debarred from using it? Grant that their judgment is unsound! Grant that they have acted indiscreetly! Grant that they convict themselves of utmost rashness and absurdity! If they are enemies of the truth, is it not so much the better? May it not be God's way to make the wrath of man to praise him? Should not all "unsophisticated Protestants" rejoice, that, now, at least, the mask is thrown aside? But, no! This

On

would not do. There must be "double corners.' one side of the same page, they must be charged with the most subtle sophistry; while, on the other, "odious Protestantism" must be arrayed, from Froude's Remains, in double capitals. To-day, they are condemned for "little qualifying words." To-morrow, for the most unmeasured and intemperate anti-reformationism. Can both be true? If either charge were clear, would both be brought? Until the prosecution has determined what the crime is, shall the accused be hung? To an honest mind, the very extravagance of Mr. Froude's expressions will be the best protection of his Editors from any charge, involving their integrity. Whatever they may prove, they disprove dissimulation. They repudiate the shadow of a suspicion of a secret influence for Popery.

Let it not be supposed that we admit, even for a single moment, that Mr. Froude's Remains do authorize the slightest shadow of a suspicion of Popery against him. "I am sorry," says Mr. Newman, writing to Dr. Faussett, "considering that you have used such strong terms concerning Mr. Froude's volumes, you have not judged it right to state, that they contain as strong expressions against Popery, as your pamphlet contains against them." Several instances are given. "The Romanists [are not, as one had suggested, schismatics in England, and Catholics abroad, but they] are wretched Tridentines every where." Remains, i, p. 34.-"I never could be a Romanist." Ibid. -Speaking of the Council of Trent, he calls it "the atrocious Council;" and says, "it has altogether changed my notions of the Roman Catholics, and