Rev. Henry Hughes, M.A., Perpetual Curate of All-Saints, Gordon Square." This book contains a syllabus of the points at issue, with illustrative proofs from Tractarian writers; and the opinions delivered upon them by the Archbishops of Canterbury, Armagh, Dublin, and Cashel; and the Bishops of Winchester, Durham, London, Exeter, Gloucester and Bristol, Chester, Hereford, Ripon, Worcester, Salisbury, Oxford, Llandaff, Down and Connor, and Calcutta. A considerable portion of these have appeared in our pages; but Mr. Hughes's digest will be found convenient for reference; but we must add, as a matter of ecclesiastical principle, that even had our whole fifty-six prelates (27 English; 14 Irish, and 15 Colonial), instead of only eighteen of them, severally expressed their opinions; nay, had they met in solemn conclave, and had all their opinions been consentient, which is very far from being the case; this would not have been officially "The voice of the Anglican Church." That voice can be collected only by the decision of the Church in its two houses of Convocation; and this decision we already have in our Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy. Still we are not the less thankful to those prelates who have warned their clergy and the people against the pernicious doctrines set forth in the Ninety Tracts and congenial publications; and the moral weight of their monitions ought to be, and has been, very great; though unhappily it has failed with the Tractators, who considered "the lightest word of a Bishop" heavy till it pressed upon themselves; and who, though they write "The Bishop rules the whole Church here below, as Christ rules it above;" "Christ is the true Mediator above, the Bishop his earthly likeness;" "Support the Bishop, and strive to move altogether with him as our

bond of union and head;" yet in practice seems mentally to reserve "That is, when he approves of the Oxford Tracts, not otherwise."

We now turn to the Charge of the Bishop of Llandaff; whose protest must carry considerable weight in the University of Oxford, of which he was during a long series of years, till his elevation to the episcopate, a very active and influential resident officer. He had a prominent share in introducing the improved modern system of examination; he defended its studies against the attacks of his present facetious neighbour at St. Paul's, Sidney Smith, and other writers in the Edinburgh Review; he filled its chair of Poetry with good reputation; and he brought into a state of high efficiency and renown the College over which he presided; and those of his old friends and fellow-collegians who may regret that he decides against them, cannot affect to say that he is perverted by what some persons are pleased to call Calvinistic or Puritanical predilections. If however the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith be a Calvinistic or Puritanical figment, Bishop Copleston stands convicted of it; for we happened not very long since to hear him deliver a discourse, in which he spoke convincingly and Scripturally on that "Article of a standing or falling Church." But Luther is now as much disparaged as Calvin and the Puritans were wont to be; for whereas it was formerly considered the climax of reprobation to say of any doctrine or practice, "I call that Calvinism or Puritanism," it is now regarded as a good pungent Tractarian argument to say, "I call that downright Lutheranism." Thus the "British Critic sneeringly prates of "the Lutheran doctrine of Justification," as if the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, the Hebrews, and the whole

say

tenour of Sacred writ, went for nothing; and it is declared in that publication-we declared, though the declaration is prefaced by Whether," so as to carry the conclusion, yet not to bind the writer-that no "heresy has ever infected the Church so hateful and unchristian as this doctrine;" Protestantism being "a false religion," and most of all false in this, that it repudiates "the great doctrine of justification by works."

We will now, without further preface, give a series of extracts from Bishop Copleston's Charge.

"Again, another writer, who has not glossed over the Papal corruptions, and who, moreover, justly observes that Rome is worse now than formerly, inasmuch as she has imposed those very corruptions as terms of communion, which before the Council of Trent were only taught, or tolerated, under her sanction; and who declares that the Pope has no just supremacy over the whole Church, yet calls his usurpation the Ordinance of God.' Why all this tenderness for the very centre and core of corruption? Why all this hankering after her ritual and her formularies, even if they can be proved not altogether antiscriptural and idolatrous? for it cannot be denied that they border close upon the worst errors, and tend to mislead the ignorant into gross idolatry.

"It is true, that in these Tracts the falsehoods of Popery are occasionally held up undisguised for rejection, and even abhorrence. But this, so far from being a justification of the tone in which at other times her faults are palliated and her pretensions Tespected, rather strikes me as carrying with it a self-condemning evidence. If she be guilty to the extent described, it is inexcusable to hold communion with her, or to court her favour. Whatever may be our opinion of the Apocalyptic prophecies, as specially directed against the Church of Rome, yet if those corruptions be inherent in her, which they themselves admit, surely the spirit of that warning voice, 'Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins,' applies as forcibly to them as to any enormities of vice and cruelty that have ever prevailed in any seat of empire. Can any man believe that the curse and the warning relate only to the profligacy of a Babylon, or of any other great licentious city? and that they are not applicable, even in a superior degree, to a power

practising all this fraud and iniquity in the name of our Holy Redeemer ?

"To say of such a tyranny, that it is 'ordained of God,' is a rash and irreverent speech. The mere possession of power resting on no earthly right, does not entitle it to the submission of men, as being the ordinance of God; much less when Divine authority is claimed without a shadow of right, and is vindicated by corrupting God's Word, and perverting his best gift to man; much less can it be allowed to a Christian to throw around it the protection of God's law. For the support of lawful government, we are taught that much evil must be quietly endured. The evil is the work of the devil, engrafted upon God's institution. But when the institution itself is evil, when it is originally and entirely a profane assumption of God's name, it is not merely the abuse of the power which we regard as the act of our spiritual adversary, but the very claim and exercise of it is not protected from rebellion, like the governments of this world, by respect for God's ordinance, but it becomes a sacred duty, as part of our allegiance to a higher power, to resist and to abjure it.

"There is undoubtedly in these Tracts an admission of various corruptions, sanctioned and enforced by the Romish Church; but they are commonly introduced as a kind of set-off and counterpoise to the defects alleged to exist among Protestant communions. When, however, we examine in detail the matters of complaint, even as regards continental churches less perfect in their constitution than our own, how weak in comparison of Romish corruptions are they found to be! The absence of Episcopal government, the interruption, lamented often by themselves, of Episcopal ordination, the disuse of ancient Liturgies, the disputes concerning the form of administering the Holy Communion, much more than any real difference as to its nature-these are the sum and substance of defects, which seem to create a greater aversion than all the enormities, which it is needless again to enumerate, of the Romish see-its gross superstitions and idolatries, its creature-worship, its withholding of the Scriptures, its exaltation of the power of the priest, and its load of ceremonies, all contrived to rivet that power, and to hold its votaries in blind subjection.

"Still more, when we examine their strictures on what they find wrong or defective in our own Church, so slight are the points which call for animadversion, so little are they involved in our own formularies, or even authorized by them, that were we to grant all they seem

to desire, we should come indeed in outward show a little nearer to the Romish Church; but not one particle of Divine truth should we recover that is now lost among us; not one Divine commandment should we place in a clearer light, or impart to it a more effective obligation, than the institutions of our Church, if duly observed, now provide.

66

Carefully remember the Apostolic rule, that in the Church all things are to be done unto edifying, that such is the design of these very services,-that the most exact observance of the rubric has no virtue in itself, and that it may be practised by those who will never impart a corresponding sense to their congregation, and may even be indiscreetly obtruded and magnified, as if, besides decency and solemnity, it possessed a saving merit of its own.

"And this, I fear, will be the effect on many minds if obsolete ceremonies are revived, especially such as approximate to those of Rome. For where can be the advantage of drawing us nearer than we now are in outward observances? When, too, it is universally admitted that Rome will never draw nearer to us? And when we consider how much mankind are influenced by superficial and merely conventional practices, which smooth the way towards a coalition in more important matters, do we not risk giving offence to weak minds, and put a snare in their way, if we appear to attach value to what is in its own nature indifferent, merely because a church, notoriously corrupt in essentials, retains it, and sets a value upon it? She has attractions enough already, calculated to entrap and to mislead simple and unstable minds. Why should we add to them?

"The wisdom and charity of our reformers, in gently weaning the public mind from their false religion, cannot be too highly commended. I know not whether a more interesting portion of that great historical lesson can be found than the changes made in the Liturgy between the first and the last years of King Edward's reign. They illustrate the principle of which I am speaking in a remarkable manner. But the chief inference I would now draw from the example is, that to invert that order has a tendency to undo their work, and to cast a slur upon their holy memory. Many ceremonies which they retained would probably be omitted if the work were begun anew in our own time; and certainly the spirit of their proceeding is opposed to the revival of those which are fallen into disuse, merely because they once prevailed, unless a positive

and edifying advantage can be shewn to arise from them.

"There is, moreover, in the Tracts of which I have been speaking, a tone (I can call it by no better name) of indulgence, and even of fondness, towards the Romish Church, as if something of affection or reverence were due from us, as from a child to a parent. The use of the title Holy Mother for the Church, which is an affected phrase, not authorized by Scripture or by primitive antiquity, had got such a hold upon the world during the middle ages, that any act of disobedience was regarded as impious and unnatural. I am concerned to see the phrase again employed, even by those who tender no allegiance to Rome; for it is one of those symptoms which inadvertently betray a vestige of false opinion, lurking under an apparently amiable sentiment. Let us pray for Rome, that she may renounce her corruptions-let us hold out the right hand of fellowship to all members of her communion who are willing to join us;—but let us carefully abstain from every appearance of a disposition to think lightly of her sins.

"But it is not merely our defective ordinances that some of these writers censure. Even important points of faith are not sufficiently set forth, according to their judgment, in our Liturgy. For instance, it is said that although we recognize the Communion of Saints as an Article of our Creed, yet 'little of it is heard among us.' This sentiment seems to be a favourite and a growing one. But if we, as compared with the Church of Rome, say little about it, is there not a cause? Is it not because we know little about it, except the general truth? And is it not from a pretended knowledge, beyond what was ever revealed, intruding into those things which man has not been permitted to see,' that Rome has engendered that monstrous brood of superstitions relating to Angels and Saints, and their intercourse with man, and their tutelary influence, which, together with the doctrine of purgatory, and indulgences, and relics, and shrines, has converted the simplicity of the Gospel into a religion much more resembling heathen mythology than the doctrines of Scripture? When we thus see the source of the error, and its pernicious consequences; and when the flagrant impiety, borrowed from the Roman Senate, is to this day practised, called Canonization of deceased individuals, who are declared to be already in heaven, and capable of hearing our prayers, and of interceding for us; is it not our duty to be

cautious and reserved in our teaching on this point, lest we also fall into the like condemnation?

"They seem to think it enough, here and there to protest against certain Popish corruptions; but they love to lead their disciples to the very confines of that treacherous ground-they encourage a taste and a liking for the prospect they study to make its boundaries less distinct and perceptible, and they seem intent upon smoothing the way, and affording facilities for passing on from our own side to the other.

66

Again, they bid us cherish every rite and custom which has what they call a Catholic character. Under this abused word lurks a mischievous fallacy, if by it Rome be at all regarded as preserving with fidelity the universal practice of early times. Rome is no criterion of Catholicism, in the genuine sense of that term. As a criterion, we ought rather to suspect it than to consult it. Her frauds, and impieties, and superstitions, with which she has overloaded Christianity, far outnumber the pure ordinances and doctrines of the primitive Church, which she has been the means of transmitting to the Western branch of it. To Rome, therefore, as evidence of what is Catholic, when any doubt arises, no credit is due. It is to that noble army of pious, honest, learned, and intrepid men, who burst the bonds of Rome, that we turn; and when we find

that their opinions were held by the early Fathers of the Church, and were carefully compared with and deduced from their writings, we want no Papal confirmation; we only inquire whether the ordinances thus transmitted from Apostolic times are agreeable to the Scriptures, and we admit their claim to our devout acceptance, though still we venture not to pronounce their indispensable obligation as necessary to salvation.

"To speak of the language of the Articles as being capable of two or more senses, and to teach that the subscriber may therefore take them in his own sense, knowing at the same time that the authority which requires his assent understands them in another, is surely a dishonest course-tending to corrupt the conscience, and to destroy all confi

dence between man and man. If the

subscriber believes merely that the design of the subscription is different from his own opinion, and yet by his act wilfully defeats it, he not only deceives the party who seeks to ascertain his opinion, but what is still worse, he deceives his own heart; and he dares to engage,

by means of deceitful pretences, in the service of Him who is Truth itself.

"If, for instance, in subscribing to the Article which condemns the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, he mentally reserves the right of holding that doctrine, provided it differ in some respects from the Romish, he betrays, according to my judgment, a want of principle, which ought to exclude him not only from sacred functions, but from every office of important trust. This is the opinion which I have recently avowed to all the candidates at my Ordination, and I doubt not, my reverend brethren, that your own voice would join with mine in reprobating such disingenuous subtleties.

"The language of our Articles is not ambiguous. In treating of abstruse points, they wisely abstain from an attempt at precise definition or peremptory decision; condemning only what is contrary to Scripture, but careful not to narrow the doctrine so as to exclude any thing which Scripture warrants. Their language is indeed comprehensive and moderate where the dogmas of Trent, and those of many sectarian teachers, are unwarrantably bold and precise; but it is not equivocal."

The Dean of Salisbury, whose Charge is next on our list, is also an Oxonian, and a man who has laboured long and faithfully in the service of God and for the best interests of mankind. As long ago as 1808, he published his excellent essay on communicating the Gospel to India, which the University of Oxford honoured with Dr. Buchanan's munificent premium for the best composition on that highly important subject. Among his other public services at Oxford, he was a principal instrument in establishing the Oxford Auxiliary Bible Society. His memoirs of Buchanan and Swartz are invaluable pieces of Christian biography. He also issued a volume of judicious and edifying sermons, preached before George the Fourth; and his Charges evince that in these days of wavering and mysticism he has not shrunk from the Scriptural and Anglican standard held up in his former publications.