championship, to that for which he has as little taste as time. His only motive is the sense of simple justice. Though not indifferent to the attempt to cast suspicion on the Church in which he ministers, the strongest impulses of his nature have been roused, by the unwarranted assault upon the Clergy of the sister Church. It was to that portion of his Charge, that the accuser's attention was chiefly called. The honest hope was entertained, that ground, which is untenable, would candidly be yielded to the just convictions of a new investigation.1 It is not so. The hot haste of an inconsiderate accusation has been kept alive, through a "sober and deliberate" re-examination of less than two working days; and an attempt to prove what, not being true, can never be proved, has been preferred to the fair opportunity for generous acknowledgment of error. It remains only to show, by brief examination, what kind of proof the Call for Proof has brought-how much the Charge has gained

How little ground there really was for such a "hope" may be learned from a comparison of dates. The Call for Proof appeared in the "Banner of the Cross," published on Saturday, February 20; and yet the first letter of the "Reply," dated, Monday, February 22, contains these expressions-"I beg leave to assure you, Reverend Sir, that you are mistaken, in supposing that the above passage was penned without due consideration.' It was written (and written not in anger, but in sorrow,) after mature reflection. Nevertheless, the possibility that I might have wronged the authors of those publications, (a wrong I should be as prompt to atone for, when discovered, as any friend of theirs could be to demand 'reparation,') has induced me, on your suggestion, to re-consider the whole subject, and re-investigate the grounds on which the statements were made. I have examined the Oxford publications anew, (as many of them, that is, as are within my reach,) and I am only strengthened in the opinions on which you have animadverted. It is my sober, deliberate judgment, &c."-How much value is to be attached to the "sober, deliberate judgment" of a re-consideration and re-investigation, accomplished in less

in strength by the re-consideration of the whole subject, and re-investigation of the grounds on which it was advanced.

1

And, first, before the proofs themselves are taken up, a manifest design to change the issue must be noticed. The "Lecture" charges that "a large and learned body of the Clergy" of the Church of England, ("embracing the leading ecclesiastical teachers at the ancient University of Oxford,) have returned to some of the worst errors of Popery." The "Correspondence," substituting for the allowed axiom,

than three days, one of which was the Lord's day, will be better understood, when it is stated, that while the "Tracts for the Times" themselves make five octavo volumes, amounting, in a small type, closely printed, to more than three thousand pages; there are not less than twelve octavo volumes more, (to enumerate merely Dr. Pusey's, Mr. Newman's, and Mr. Keble's writings,) which go to make "the Oxford Publications," in the strictest sense-the whole number printed or reprinted, within the last ten years, under the same auspices, and liable, in a greater or less degree, to the same condemnation, falling scarcely short of fifty 8vo. volumes. A steam power, truly, of "mature reflection," and of "sober and deliberate judgment"! There is, it is true, the saving clause, "as many of them, that is, as are within my reach." But when the reputation of "a large and learned body of the Clergy" of the Church of England, not to speak of the poor souls on this side of the Atlantic, was at stake, the "reach" should surely have been stretched to the very utmost, before the Charge, so solemnly called in question, was re-asserted. The simple truth is, as will hereafter be made apparent-I here assert it, and challenge the denial -the Rev. Mr. Boardman, when he put the "Correspondence" to the press, HAD NOT READ THE OXFORD PUBLICATIONS which he charged as Popish. Had such a state of things been dreamed of as a possibility, the expectation which the Call for Proof expressed would not have been entertained. But the "charity" which "hopeth all things" must lay its account in frequent disappointment.

This is apparent, whoever may be answerable for that, even in the advertisement; which, in some of the papers, at least was headed, "Doane vs. Boardman." The true record of the case would be, The Commonwealth vs. Boardman, in an action for a libel, on "a large and learned body of the Clergy" &c.

1

the greater includes the less, the assumption that the whole is comprehended in the part, undertakes the discussion of "the Oxford Divinity;" and leaves its readers to find, where they may, "the large and learned body of the Clergy," compared with whom, at the first going off, "the leading ecclesiastical teachers, at the ancient University of Oxford," were but a parenthesis. Let us allow, however, for good neighborhood, that the previous allusion to that "ominous" "feature in the present religious state of Great Britain," "the Oxford Tract movement," might possibly excuse the narrowing, on second thoughts, of ground so wide at first-though, in an action for a libel, such a plea could scarcely hold—and still, there is an attempted change of issue. The "Lecture" charges, that "a large and learned body of the Clergy, embracing" as before, "have returned to some of the worst errors of Popery." The "Correspondence" contents itself with undertaking to set forth "the alleged Popish character of the Oxford Divinity:'" and the strong expression of the "Lecture," "have returned to," scarcely appearing in the "Correspondence," is carefully diluted into terms like these "embody 'some of the worst errors of Popery;'" some of the worst errors of Popery' incorporated with that system;" "the main question between us respects the alleged Popish character (in some particulars) of the Oxford publications."

666

6

IT IS NOT So. "The main question" is not "the alleged Popish character of the Oxford publications;" much less is it their "Popish character, in some particulars." What says the Call for Proof? "I

call upon, you distinctly and by name, for your proofs, that 'a large and learned body of the Clergy of the Church' of England (embracing the leading ecclesiastical teachers of the ancient University of Oxford) have returned to some of the worst errors of Popery, and are employing both the pulpit and the press with prodigious efficiency to give them currency among the people." " "In thus addressing you I undertake no championship of what you are pleased to call 'the Oxford Tract movement,' as such; claiming, however, for myself the privilege to use and to approve, without permission and without reproach, (responsible for that alone which I adopt,) the vast amount that is most timely and most excellent in those calumniated writings. As little do I identify myself with any school or set of men, on either side of the Atlantic." Is it an answer to this Call for Proof, to undertake a mere discussion of "the Oxford publications," however full and fair? Is it defence sufficient, from the charge of unjust judgment of “a large and learned body of the Clergy," as having "returned to some of the worst errors of Popery," to show, even if it could be done, the "Popish character" of publications," by a part of them? Much less, their "Popish character, in some particulars?" This is a serious matter. There is no temporal good to be compared in worth with reputation. The reputation of the Clergy is the treasure of the Church. The charge upon "a large and learned body" of themthe epithet of "learned" precludes the explanation of their being mistaken-that they are diligently seeking, by the pulpit and the press, to give curren

cy to errors, which they are bound by the most solemn vows that man can utter and that God can hear, “with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away," involves, if it be true, the utmost reach of treachery and blasphemy. Nay, it is uttered now-uttered in public as a part of pastoral teaching, and then deliberately published through the press-when the whole air is teeming with suspicion; and to be named in the same breath with "Popery," is to bear a brand upon the brow for life! Is it to be permitted,' that at such a time, and upon such a subject, grave men, who write themselves as pastors, shall play at fast and loose, with words, that "eat, as doth a canker?" Shall it be tolerated, that "a large and learned body of the Clergy" of a Church protesting against Roman error, shall be accused of having "returned to" Popery; and, when the proof is called for, find that three, or four, or five, are meant? Are the most sweeping censures to be passed, and in the strongest terms; and then, shall the "accuser of the brethren" be permitted to circumscribe the range, and mitigate the

There are no symptoms of such allowance to be detected in the "Correspondence." For instance, pains are taken to state, at the beginning of the first Letter, that the writer is "indebted to the courtesy of a friend," for a copy of the "Banner of the Cross," which contained the Call for Proof; when he well knew, from the Editor of "the Banner," that particular directions were given, when the Call for Proof was sent, that the paper containing it should be sent to him, as soon as it was printed. He might have known, moreover, that, at the same time, directions were given-lest reply should seem to be expected upon ground which might not be thought perfectly impartial—that insertion should be solicited for the Call for Proof in some of the daily papers, of the city; which insertion was respectfully declined, at several offices, on the ground of avoiding a theological controversy.