. **b 
 
 
 • ^ 
 
 bV 
 
 
 *. *u. < .' 
 
 ***°-* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * <»<••. *^ A y . 
 
 • o 
 
 
 
 
 <?> ♦ • • • ' K V 
 
 
 
 o * » 
 
 
 
 
 : > ^ - 
 
 .♦ „o 
 
 •u-6 1 
 
 
 
 
 * A.* 
 
 
* • • « * <A %* 
 
 
 
 
 V 'V %* 
 
CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 THE RIGHT REV. BISHOP DOANE 
 
 OF NEW JERSEY, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE REV. H. A. BOARDMAN 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ALLEGED POPISH CHARACTER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 "OXFORD DIVINITY." 
 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 HOOKER & AGNEW, 
 
 IS. W. CORNER OF CHESTNUT AND FIFTH STREETS, 
 
 1841. 
 
6<n 
 
 
 Wia. S. Young, Printer. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The " Banner of the Cross," (a Protestant 
 Episcopal paper, published in this city,) of 
 the 20th Feb., contained a letter addressed to 
 the undersigned, under the signature of the 
 Right Rev. Dr. Doane, Bishop of New Jer- 
 sey. This letter will be found below. My 
 first letter in reply was sent to the Editor 
 of the "Banner" on Tuesday morning, and, 
 to my great surprise, he returned it to me on 
 the afternoon of the same day, enclosed in 
 a note, a copy of which is herewith published, 
 marked (A.) The next morning, I trans- 
 mitted to the editor the note marked (B.,) 
 and soon after received his final reply, (C.) 
 
 This statement will explain the reason 
 why the following correspondence is pub- 
 lished in the present form. It is proper to 
 add, that my answer to the Bishop is consi- 
 derably longer than I should have felt at li- 
 berty to make it, had the editor of the " Ban- 
 ner " agreed to insert it in his paper. 
 
 H. A. BOARDMAN. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 3d, 1841. 
 
(A.) 
 
 (Note from the Editor op the Banner to Mr 
 boardman, re urning m b j s. first letter 
 to Bishop Doane.) 
 
 In returning the enclosed to Mr. Boardman, the Editor 
 of the Banner would merely remark in explanation, thai, 
 it does not appear altogether relevant to the subject of 
 controversy. Bishop Doane did not doubt, he pre- 
 sumes, that Mr. B. would be able to "sustain" his 
 charge against the Oxford writers, by quoting similar 
 accusations by others; but this would scarcely be deemed 
 exculpatory in a Court of Justice, and the Editor is un- 
 willing to fill his columns, to the exclusion of better 
 matter, with the notions of partisan writers, adopted 
 without investigation, and maintained with a rancour un- 
 worthy of the Christianity they profess. A bare allusion 
 to the support which Mr. B. derives from the admission 
 of Episcopal writers, would, the Editor conceives, be all 
 that was required on this point, and this would lead at 
 once to, what is now made the second division of his 
 reply, — the result of his own investigation. This, the 
 Editor will insert with pleasure, and will notify his read- 
 ers that Mr. B's.. answer may be expected in the number 
 next succeeding, if this course will be agreeable to Mr„ 
 Boardman. 
 
 The Editor would, further state, that a copy of the 
 Banner containing Bishop Doane's Letter was particu- 
 larly directed by the Bishop to be sent to Mr. Board- 
 man, and instructions were given to that effect. 
 
 1 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 (B.) 
 
 To the Editor of the "Banner of the Cross" 
 Sir: 
 
 I can hardly express my surprise at the tenor of the 
 note I received from you last evening. I must think that 
 your refusal to publish my letter, has been hasty and in- 
 considerate ; and I wish to give you an opportunity to 
 review the circumstances of the case. 
 
 You inserted in your paper of last week, a letter from 
 one of the Right Reverend Prelates of your Church, in 
 which (addressing me by name) he says : "/" 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 at the an- 
 cient 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 other parts of his letter he distinctly intimates that 
 if I fail to substantiate this statement, (and another found- 
 ed on it,) very grave imputations will rest upon my cha- 
 racter. 
 
 I undertake to sustain the proposition; and on sending 
 you the first part of my reply to the Bishop's peremp- 
 tory call, I find your columns closed against me ! Why? 
 Not because there is any thing exceptionable in the 
 language or tone of my communication. This is not 
 pretended. You brand as " rancorous " the spirit of some 
 of the respectable clergymen of your own communion, 
 whose opinions are quoted by me, but you do not even 
 hint that I have violated the decorum proper to such a 
 correspondence. "Why then is my letter rejected? Be- 
 
( ■> ) 
 
 cause, in the first place, " it does not appear (to you) 
 altogether relevant to the subject of controversy;" and in 
 the second place, you are " unwilling to fill your columns, 
 to the exclusion of better matter," with my quotations 
 from Protestant Episcopal and Roman Catholic authors. 
 As to the latter of these reasons, the public will be 
 able to pronounce on its validity when they see the 
 names of the men whom you characterize as manifesting 
 a spirit "unworthy of the Christianity they profess,' ' 
 and compare with this correspondence, the extracts I 
 have taken from their writings. In reference to the other 
 reason, it appears to me to be founded on a very extra- 
 ordinary view of the Editorial prerogative. I design no 
 offence, sir, when I respectfully remind you that the par- 
 ties to this correspondence are Bishop Doane and myself; 
 and I cannot recognise your right, or that of any other 
 individual, to prescribe to me in what manner my part 
 in it shall be conducted. Your plan may be a wiser and 
 better one than mine ; but I must be allowed to act for 
 myself. I do not join issue with you on the question 
 as to the "relevancy" of my answer. I do not admit 
 your right to raise this question (as a bar to the publica- 
 tion of my letter.) Had the Bishop and myself consti- 
 tuted you the umpire in this discussion, with plenary 
 powers, you would have been authorized to exclude all 
 such matter, on either side, as appeared to you irrelevant. 
 But surely when you spread his letter before the Church 
 and the world, you did not imagine that the questions 
 presented in it were to be adjudicated before the bar of 
 your private judgment: and I cannot consent to have 
 them issued at that bar now. I choose that the same tri- 
 bunal before which I have been cited, shall hear my de- 
 fence. If I injure my own cause by introducing irrele- 
 vant matter, the responsibility is mine, not yours. And 
 I am utterly unable to see with what justice or propriety 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 you can undertake to preclude me from using matter 
 which I may deem of great weight in the argument. You 
 have permitted me to be called to account in your co- 
 lumns, and when I present my vindication, you refuse to 
 publish a large portion of it, because you "do not deem 
 it relevant to the subject of controversy!" 
 
 As to the courtesy of this procedure towards a clergy- 
 man of a different denomination from your own, (and 
 whose reputation must unavoidably suffer from it among 
 the numerous readers of your paper to whom he is a 
 stranger,) I have not a word to say. But is it Chris- 
 tian? Is it equitable? Is it just? Would you be satis- 
 fied with it if you were placed in my circumstances? Do 
 you not perceive, will not all who read this correspon- 
 dence perceive, that it would be but one step further (and 
 that a small one) for you to claim the right to dictate the 
 precise terms in which my letter should be couched? 
 
 I think, sir, I have reason to complain of this treat" 
 ment. I do complain of it. I know how impartial men, 
 of all denominations, will regard it. I greatly mistake 
 the temper of the Protestant Episcopal portion of this 
 community, (among whom I am happy to number a large 
 circle of valued friends,) if they sanction it. Nay, I do 
 not believe that the Bishop of New Jersey will approve 
 of it. The tone of his letter to me, and his character as 
 a man, forbid the idea that he would justify any third 
 person in interfering with our correspondence, and sup- 
 pressing a portion of my reply to him which I regard as 
 vital to the merits of the case. 
 
 You will gather from these remarks my answer to 
 the inquiry contained in the latter part of your note. You 
 wish to know whether you shall announce my reply (that 
 is, the second part of it, which, you insist, ought to be 
 the whole,) as forthcoming in the Banner of next week. 
 By no means, unless you publish the first part. I shall 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 probably have occasion to quote from other Protestant 
 Episcopal Prelates and Pastors in that portion of my re- 
 ply, and what guarantee have I that you would not 
 deem my future quotations as irrelevant as those you 
 have rejected, and shut them out of your columns also? 
 My whole reply to Bishop Doane must be inserted in the 
 Banner, or none at all. 
 
 If you still decline publishing the letter, you will- do 
 me the justice, I hope, to insert the enclosed Card in 
 your paper of this week. I will wait for your final an- 
 swer (both as regards the letter and the card,) until nine 
 o'clock to-morrow morning. If I get no answer by that 
 time, I shall consider it as importing that neither the let- 
 ter nor the card will appear. 
 
 I am sir, very respectfully, 
 
 Yours, <fec, 
 H. A. BOARDMAN. 
 
 Philadelphia, Feb. 24th, 1841. 
 
 (The " Card" referred to above, was as follows.) 
 
 A CARD. 
 
 The undersigned presents his compliments to the 
 Right Reverend Bishop Doane, and begs leave to inform 
 him, that the first part of his reply to the Bishop's letter 
 in the Banner of the Cross of last week, on the subject 
 of the Oxford Tracts, was sent to the office of the Banner 
 on Tuesday morning, the 23d inst.; and that the Editor 
 refused to insert it on these grounds, (as stated in his 
 note,) to wit : — First, that " it did not appear to him (the 
 Editor) altogether relevant to the subject of controversy;" 
 and secondly, that he was "unwilling to fill his columns, 
 to the exclusion of better matter," with certain quota- 
 tions imbodied in the letter, from Protestant Episcopal 
 and Roman Catholic authors. The undersigned being 
 
( io ) 
 
 thus most unexpectedly, and, as he conceives, unjustly? 
 precluded from replying (except under very unreasonable 
 restrictions) through the columns of the paper in which 
 he was personally and peremptorily invited to the dis- 
 cussion, will do himself the honour to communicate his 
 answer to the Bishop through some other channel. 
 
 H. A. BOARDMAN, 
 
 Philadelphia, Feb. 24th, 1841. 
 
 (C.) 
 
 The Editor of the Banner presents his compliments to 
 the Rev. Mr. Boardman, and will publish, with pleasure, 
 the Card which he addresses to Bishop Doane. 
 
 The Editor has no desire to interpose any obstacle to 
 the fullest vindication of himself by Mr. Boardman, and 
 cannot think that he does so in adhering to the decision 
 announced in his note of yesterday. That note was 
 written in haste, and is perhaps susceptible of a misin- 
 terpretation which Mr. Boardman has put upon it. — The 
 word "rancour" was not intended to be applied to the 
 gentlemen named in Mr. B's. reply, so much as to the 
 opponents of the Oxford writers generally. 
 
 The Editor would be sorry if the course which he has 
 deemed it proper to pursue in this matter should be 
 construed into any want of respect for Mr. Boardman, 
 whose character he has ever held in high estimation. 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 BISHOP DOANE'S LETTER. 
 
 TO THE REV. H. A. BOARDMAN, "PASTOR OF THE WALNUT 
 STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH," PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 Though I cannot elaim the pleasure of your personal 
 acquaintance, I feel myself compelled, in justice to the 
 truth, and to the character of brethren and fellow-mem- 
 hers of a sister Church assailed by you, to intrude myself 
 on your attention. A little book, bearing your name, "a 
 Lecture," delivered by you on the 27th day of December 
 last, has just come into my hands, not by purchase, but 
 as the gift of one of the publishers. Opening it cursorily, 
 this morning, I am shocked to find, on pages 20 and 21, 
 such language as this: — " These facts are sufficiently 
 startling, but there is another feature in the present reli- 
 gious state of Great Britain, equally ominous, namely, 
 The Oxford Tract movement. Romanism could make 
 little headway in that country if the ministry of the 
 established Church were all such men as Bickersteth, 
 and Melville, and Henry Blunt, and the Noels. But, 
 unhappily, a large and learned body of the clergy, (em- 
 bracing the leading ecclesiastical teachers at 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 cur- 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 rency among the people. This state of things in England, 
 must operate powerfully upon this country. The increase 
 of Romanism there can hardly fail of giving a fresh im- 
 pulse to it here. The Oxford Tract leaven is already 
 beginning to work in our cities ; and Roman Priests are 
 publicly felicitating their people on the progress their 
 doctrines are making in the bosom of a Protestant 
 Church." 
 
 Your position in the community forbids the supposi- 
 tion that you can under-estimate the value of reputation, 
 and especially to "the clergy," and "ecclesiastical 
 teachers." The office which you hold, as " Pastor of 
 the Church" in which these words were uttered, is 
 accepted as a sufficient pledge that you would not will- 
 ingly depreciate, but from the clearest sense of duty, 
 what you must allow to be so valuable: valuable, in the 
 instances alluded to, not to the parties spoken of alone 
 or chiefly, but to the cause of which they are the accre- 
 dited advocates ; the cause of Him whose ministers they 
 are. I set aside* then, as impossible, the thought that 
 these grave charges were prompted by one particle of 
 malice; or that they are uttered, however much they 
 may betray the want of due consideration, in any feeling 
 of uncharitableness. I throw myself on the less offen- 
 sive, because less' culpable supposition, that the words 
 which I have quoted were words not duly weighed ; 
 spoken in the fervour of excited zeal, on grounds not 
 thoroughly investigated. And in entire frankness and 
 courtesy, I wish to afford you an opportunity to recon- 
 sider them ; and should you find them not sustained, as 
 most assuredly they cannot be, to do what your sense of 
 justice will, I trust, instinctively demand of you, and 
 your Christian charity, rejoicing not in iniquity, but re- 
 joicing in the truth, will hasten to perform — acknowledge 
 that you were in error, and make utmost and immediate 
 reparation. 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 That there may be no doubt as to my meaning, and 
 that the present communication may suffice to bring 
 about the only object which I have at heart, the accord- 
 ance of what is due to others — and not less, permit me 
 to add, of what is due to yourself — I call upon you dis- 
 tinctly and by name for your proofs, that "a large and 
 learned body of the clergy" of the Church of England, 
 f " embracing the leading ecclesiastical teachers at 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." 
 
 Your reference to " the state of things " in this coun- 
 try is more guarded. By " the Oxford Tract leaven," 
 however, I must suppose you to mean, from the con- 
 nexion in which you use it, the adoption of " some of the 
 worst errors of Popery :" more especially, as you state 
 that the " Roman Priests " are publicly felicitating their 
 people on the progress their doctrines are making in the 
 bosom of a Protestant Church;" by which you mean, 
 doubtless, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America. Adopting this interpretation of your 
 language, I call on you distinctly and by name for your 
 proofs of the adoption of u some of the worst errors of 
 Popery " into " the bosom " of that Church; and of the 
 progress in it of any " doctrines " which, in your judg- 
 ment, would justly authorize the " Roman Priests," as 
 such, in reality, as well as "publicly, felicitating their 
 people" I say really, for I am sure you are not igno- 
 rant of the devices of Popery ; how she adapts herself to 
 times and circumstances, taking cameleon-like the hue of 
 every hour, yet all the while in purpose and intent un- 
 changing and unchangeable ; how skilful and how prompt 
 she is in that old trick of tyrants, to divide and conquer ; 
 nay, how she has put on the very face and garb of Puri- 
 2 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 tanism,* that she might undermine, what she most dreads 
 and hates, the Church of England, and the truth as held 
 by her. 
 
 In thus addressing you, I undertake no championship 
 of what you are pleased to call " the Oxford Tract move- 
 ment," as such; claiming, however, for myself the pri- 
 vilege 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 : although the names of those whom 
 you have charged as striving to pervert their age to 
 Popery, while they profess to stand upon the ground 
 which Cranmer held at his life's cost, the ground of 
 primitive antiquity, are such, for talents, learning, piety, 
 integrity, holiness, heavenly-mindedness and charity, 
 as would adorn the purest age the Church has ever 
 known ; and are — the Papists know it, though you do 
 not — the boldest and the ablest living champions of the 
 truth, against the force and fraud of fallen, frenzied Rome. 
 I do no more than claim the application of that golden 
 rule of mutual duty, which the Saviour taught us, in de- 
 manding, as I would that others should for me, revisal of 
 
 * See a note to the very able article, " Romanism in Ireland,'' 
 written, without a doubt, at Oxford, in the Quarterly Review, No. 
 cxxxiii. The statement there made, that Romish priests did go 
 to England, in 1546, and thereabouts, disguised as Presbyterians, 
 Independents and Anabaptists, by order from Rome ; and did 
 teach the people, in these assumed characters, as Faithful Co- 
 menin, one of the most active of them confessed, to hate the 
 liturgy, to pray extempore, to despise ceremonies, to profess ten- 
 der consciences, and to call a set form of words the mass trans- 
 lated, is familiar to all well-informed Churchmen. A sufficient 
 reference for the present, is to Strype's Life of Archbishop Parker, 
 vol. i. pp. 141,459,484. 
 
1 
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 the sentence, which, without a proper hearing, has been 
 passed upon the innocent and absent. Nay, less, far less 
 than this. I do but act on the indignant prompting of a 
 heathen's sense of justice : 
 
 " absentem qui rodit amicum; 
 
 Qui non defendit, alio culpante ; 
 
 hie niger est, hunc tu Romane, caveto." 
 
 Believe me, truly and respectfully, your friend and 
 servant, G. W. Doane. 
 
 Riverside, February 13, 1841. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 REPLY, 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 To the Right Rev. George W. Doane, D. D., 
 Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 in the dlocess op new jersey. 
 
 Right Reverend Sir: 
 
 In the "Banner of the Cross" of the 20th 
 instant, (for a copy of which I am indebted to the 
 courtesy of a friend,) I find a letter addressed to me 
 under your signature. It appears from this letter, that 
 your feelings have been greatly wounded, and even 
 " shocked," by a passage in relation to the Oxford 
 Tracts, which occurs in my recently published " Lec- 
 ture on Romanism/' And you call upon me either 
 to retract or substantiate the sentiments there ex- 
 pressed — sentiments which, you feel assured, must 
 have been uttered " in the fervour of excited zeal, on 
 grounds not thoroughly investigated." You do me 
 the justice to disclaim any apprehension that these 
 " charges " (as you characterize them) were prompt- 
 ed by the least feeling of " malice " or " uncharitable - 
 ness." I trust I am incapable of calumniating any 
 one — much less could I " assail, " with malicious in- 
 tent, the reputation of men holding (like the gentle- 
 men at Oxford) a high and responsible situation in a 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 sister-branch (sit venia verbo) of the church of Christ. 
 And it is a source of unaffected regret to me, that the 
 remarks alluded to should have given pain to my re- 
 spected correspondent, or any other human being. 
 
 The passage in the Lecture which bears upon this 
 subject is as follows : — 
 
 "These facts [namely, certain statistical facts quoted 
 from Mr. Bickersteth, on the alarming increase of 
 Popery in Great Britain,] are sufficiently startling; 
 but there is another feature in the present religious 
 state of Great Britain, equally ominous, namely, the 
 Oxford Tract movement. Romanism could make 
 little headway in that country, if the ministry of the 
 established church were all such men as Bickersteth, 
 and Melville, and Henry Blunt, and the Noels. But, 
 unhappily, a large and learned body of the clergy 
 (embracing the leading ecclesiastical teachers at 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 effi- 
 ciency, to give them currency among the people. 
 
 "This state of things in England [the state of 
 things disclosed in the above paragraph, and in the 
 quotation from Mr. Bickersteth,] must operate pow- 
 erfully upon this country. The increase of Roman- 
 ism there, can hardly fail of giving a fresh impulse 
 to it here. The Oxford Tract leaven is already be- 
 ginning to work in our cities^ and Roman Priests 
 are publicly felicitating their people on the progress 
 their doctrines are making in the bosom of a Protes- 
 tant church." 
 
 To these paragraphs is appended the following, 
 
 3* 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 foot-note, which I regret you did not copy into your 
 letter, as it modifies somewhat the impression which 
 the text is adapted to produce. 
 
 "True Protestants of all denominations must re- 
 joice at the emphatic condemnation which has been 
 passed upon these publications by the eloquent Bishop 
 of Ohio, and other distinguished clergymen of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. This 
 opposition (the lecturer has been happy to learn since 
 the lecture was delivered,) is likely to keep the cir- 
 culation of these pernicious writings within very nar- 
 row limits." 
 
 You avow it as one of the objects of your letter to 
 " afford me an opportunity to reconsider " these stric- 
 tures, that I may thereupon acknowledge that they 
 are unfounded, and " make utmost and immediate re- 
 paration." 
 
 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 writ- 
 ten (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 "reconsider" the whole subject, and reinvestigate 
 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 judg- 
 ment, that those publications imbody " some of the 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 worst errors of Popery/ ' and that the whole system 
 is more Popish than it is Protestant. And I believe, 
 (claiming for myself the same liberty of opinion that 
 I concede to others,) that Oxfordism, instead of pre- 
 paring true Christianity for its approaching conflict 
 with "the man of sin," is destined greatly to accele- 
 rate the progress of Romanism in England. 
 
 Alluding to the writers in question, you observe, 
 near the close of your letter ; " they are — the Papists 
 know it, though you do not — the boldest and the ablest 
 living champions of the truth, against the force and 
 fraud of fallen, frenzied Rome." The remarks just 
 made will confirm you (if confirmation were wanting) 
 in the propriety of ascribing to me the ignorance as- 
 sociated with my name in this sentence. I certainly 
 66 do not know " what you affirm. I do not believe 
 that any set of men can withstand Rome successfully, 
 who have thrown away the weapons with which the 
 Reformers vanquished her — who have spiked their 
 cannon, and abandoned their citadel, and gone forth 
 to meet her with small swords and pistols. Nor do 
 I think that the Papists themselves are as well in- 
 formed on this point as you suppose them to be. I 
 have serious doubts whether the name of Oxford 
 spreads more terror through the halls of the Vatican, 
 than any other name in Christendom. But of this 
 more presently. 
 
 The main question between us respects the alleged 
 Popish character (in some particulars) of the Oxford 
 publications. It is obvious both from the opening 
 and the close of your letter, that you consider the va- 
 rious points adverted to by you, as subordinate to this. 
 And every candid reader of the passage quoted from 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 my lecture, will perceive at once that the whole ques- 
 tion hinges here. To this point, therefore, I shall di- 
 rect my chief attention. After making two prelimi- 
 nary remarks, I will proceed to spread before you 
 some of the grounds on which the statements in the 
 lecture rest. 
 
 In the first place, it is important we should define 
 what is to be understood by the phrase, " some of the 
 worst errors of Popery." There may be a differ- 
 ence of opinion on this point. Some may hold that 
 the Papal supremacy, the schismatic position of the 
 church of Rome within the diocesses of the church 
 of England, the denial of the cup to the laity, &c. 
 &c, are the worst features of Romanism. But the 
 author of the lecture had his eye upon what he 
 deemed to be errors of a much deeper dye. He be- 
 lieves with the judicious Hooker, that "the grand 
 question that hangeth in controversy between us and 
 Rome, is about the matter of Justifying Righteous- 
 ness." With this may be associated the nature 
 and means of regeneration, and the nature and 
 true desert of sin. The doctrines of Rome on 
 these and their affiliated points, together with her re- 
 jection of the Bible as the only infallible Rule of 
 Faith, are, in the judgment of the writer, her "worst 
 errors" — the prolific source of nearly all her abomina- 
 tions. 
 
 My second remark is this: — If you were "shocked" 
 at the sentiments expressed in my lecture, I was sur- 
 prised beyond measure that you should treat the im- 
 putation they involve against the character of the Ox- 
 ford Divinity, as though it were a novelty. I cannot 
 think it was so designed; but the legitimate impres- 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 sion conveyed by the whole tone of your letter, is, 
 that I am the first individual who has presumed to 
 ascribe to these Tracts a strong Popish tendency ! In 
 a matter of this sort, I neither court responsibility nor 
 shrink from it. But it is right that the readers of this 
 correspondence should know (if they do not know 
 it) that these Tracts have been, and still are, the sub- 
 ject of a wide-spread and vigorous controversy, both in 
 the established church of England and in the Protest- 
 ant Episcopal church in this country; and that they 
 have been denounced for their Popery in terms of 
 solemn and indignant rebuke, by many of the ablest 
 pastors and Prelates in each of these churches. 
 
 I propose to show now, that I have the authority 
 both of Protestant Episcopalians and Roman Catholics, 
 for all that I have said respecting the character of the 
 Oxford publications; and having done this, I will then 
 appeal to the Tracts themselves. 
 
 I begin by quoting a single sentence from the no- 
 ble work of Bishop M'llvaine of Ohio, on " Oxford 
 Divinity." " He (the author) is constrained to say, 
 that every further step of insight into what is indeed 
 a thoroughly wrought, highly complex, and deep-laid 
 scheme or system of doctrine, (much as the name of 
 system is rejected by its advocates,) has produced but 
 a deeper and deeper conviction on his mind, that 
 whatever the intention or supposition of those who 
 maintain it, it is a systematic abandonment of the 
 vital and distinguishing principles of the Protestant 
 faith, and a systematic adoption of that very root and 
 heart of Romanism, whence has issued the life of all 
 its ramified corruptions and deformities." (P. 14.) 
 
 The esteemed Rector of St. Andrew's church, in 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 this city, writing from Oxford, in 1838, says, "From 
 all that I have learned since I have been here, after 
 very free conversations with some holding the new 
 divinity, and others who reject it, I am constrained to 
 think that Messrs. Pusey, Newman, and Keble have 
 started a system which, when brought out in full de- 
 velopment, will be found to contain all the elements 
 of Popery:' (Clark's " Glimpses of the Old World." 
 Vol. II., p. 207.) 
 
 The author just named quotes (Vol. II., p. 58,) the 
 Rev. Josiah Pratt, the biographer of Cecil, as remark- 
 ing to him, that he " had attentively read the ' Tracts 
 for the Times,' and could come to no other conclu- 
 sion than that this new theology was nothing more 
 nor less, than the exploded errors of Popery re- 
 vived" 
 
 Mr. Bickersteth, in his introduction to the " Tes- 
 timony of the Reformers," makes this observation 
 respecting the Oxford writers: — "With much learn- 
 ing and study of the Fathers, with great apparent, and, 
 doubtless, in some cases real devotion, and a devoted- 
 ness ascetic and peculiar, they seem to the author, as 
 far as he has seen and known their course, to open 
 another door to that land of darkness and shadow of 
 death, where the " man of sin reigns." 
 
 You remark in your letter, that the Oxford writers 
 " profess to stand upon the ground which Cranmer 
 held at his life's cost, the ground of primitive anti- 
 quity," &c. Mr. Clark, in his account of them, says, 
 " The Reformation, some of them speak of as a pro- 
 digious evil; and they scout Cranmer and Ridley, 
 and those other English Reformers who shed their 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 blood for the truth, as innovators who are not to be 
 listened to." (Vol. II, p. 49.) 
 
 On the 48th page of the same work, there is an ex- 
 tract from a sermon by the Hon. and Rev. Baptist 
 W. Noel, which the author heard. Alluding to the 
 Oxfordists, Mr. Noel said " there were a spirit and a 
 class of men springing up within the bounds of their 
 own communion, that if allowed to prevail, would 
 bring back some of the worst errors of Popery — 
 men who were the avowed apologists of the Romish 
 church, and who spake of that corrupt body, as e our 
 venerable sister/ — as * Christ's most holy fold' 
 What ! (said he) is that e our venerable sister ' and 
 < Christ's most holy fold,' which God has denomi- 
 nated ' Babylon, the habitation of devils — the hold 
 of every foul spirit — a cage of every unclean and hate- 
 ful bird ;' and in reference to whom God says, 6 Come 
 out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of 
 her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues?' 
 Is that i our most venerable sister,' and ' Christ's most 
 holy fold,' which God denominates i Anti-Christ' — 
 ' the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth?' " 
 
 I might quote numerous passages to the same effect, 
 from the (London) Christian Observer — a periodical 
 which, as every intelligent Episcopalian knows, has 
 sustained itseli with singular consistency, ability? 
 and devotion to the cause of truth and holiness, for 
 forty years, and which has spoken fearlessly and so- 
 lemnly on the subject of this new divinity. 
 
 But I waive this, and close my first class of testi- 
 monies, with the following extract from an article in 
 the Episcopal Recorder of April 25th, 1840, under 
 the signature of " Warburton," (generally understood 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 to be the Rev. Dr. Beasley ) :— " They (the Tracts) 
 decidedly maintain the doctrine of the real presence 
 and a real sacrifice in the eucharist, which, if not so 
 monstrous an absurdity, is scarcely less objectionable 
 than transubstantiation; recommend the offering of 
 prayers for the faithful dead, as efficacious in producing 
 an amelioration of their condition; and establish prin- 
 ciples which lead to the necessity of a more refined 
 purgatory than that of Rome. In imitation of Po- 
 pery, they attribute a magical and miraculous influ- 
 ence to external ordinances, especially that of Bap- 
 tism; transcend all Protestant opinions concerning the 
 authority and prerogatives of the clergy; strike from 
 the code of our church that fundamental tenet of jus- 
 tification by faith, and obscure the hopes and sap the 
 confidence of Christians, by attributing an undue in- 
 fluence to the efficacy of works and external rites and 
 ceremonies, thereby limiting the extent and blurring 
 the truth of that great cardinal doctrine of our religion, 
 that our salvation is the free gift of God through 
 Christ, and the sole purchase of the Saviour's suffer- 
 ings and death They would, like the Pharisees 
 
 of old and the Romanists in the present day, intro- 
 duce among us a wearisome and barren routine of ex- 
 ternal observances, loading men's shoulders with a 
 
 burden too heavy to be borne Finally, so 
 
 strongly are the sentiments tinctured with Popery, 
 and so close is the approximation to which they would 
 bring us to that corrupt and abominable system, that 
 they would have us, like Romanists, imitating apes 
 and monkeys in our public services, bowing perpetu- 
 ally at the name of Jesus, and upon our approaches to 
 the altar, turning to the east when we kneel in prayer, 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 tracing the sign of the cross upon public or private 
 occasions, and soiling our beautiful, various, and sub- 
 lime liturgy with more copious extracts from those 
 " precious relics of antiquity/' Roman breviaries and 
 missals; and, to complete our filial assimilation to the 
 Romish church, instituting associations of nuns and 
 sisters of charity like the Romanists, an ascetical or- 
 der of the ministry, an order devoted to celibacy, and 
 given to the austerities of monastic and cenobitic life." 
 
 " Warburton " then goes on to show, that if " the 
 plan projected by these writers was completely car- 
 ried into execution," the Protestant Episcopal Church 
 would be very little removed from " the decayed and 
 putrid system of Popery." 
 
 Such, Sir, are some of the Protestant Episcopal au- 
 thorities I rely upon for sustaining the account given 
 in my lecture, of the Oxford Tracts. 
 
 I will now show that, however the Oxford gentle- 
 men may consider themselves as the most successful 
 opposers of Popery, they are viewed in a very diffe- 
 rent light by Romanists. 
 
 In a Roman Catholic paper now before me, dated 
 January 2d, 1841, 1 find part of a speech delivered at 
 a recent repeal meeting in Ireland, by the Rev. Mr. 
 Hughes, a Romish priest. I quote from it a single 
 sentence: "I hold (he says) in my possession the 
 works of Dr. Pusey ; and were I to be concerned in a 
 discussion on religion, I would not desire to be fur- 
 nished with better works, replete with Catholic au- 
 thorities and Catholic arguments, than the writings of 
 Dr. Pusey." 
 
 In another part of the same paper, there is this item 
 of intelligence. " On the 3d instant, at Bruges, Bel- 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 gium, a young (English) gentleman named Biden, so- 
 lemnly abjured the Protestant religion, and embraced 
 the Catholic faith. Jin attentive perusal of the 
 writings of Dr. Pusey, was the immediate cause 
 of his conversion." (I learn from another paper that 
 two months after his conversion, " he entered a novi- 
 tiate of the society of Jesus/') 
 
 The following passage from a periodical, published 
 at Rome (two years ago,) will show with what feel- 
 ings the ' Oxford Tract movement ' is regarded at the 
 head-quarters of the Hierarchy : — 
 
 "The attention of all good Catholics, and espe- 
 cially of the congregation for the propagation of the 
 faith, cannot be enough excited by the present state 
 of religion in England, in consequence of the new 
 doctrine propagated with so much ability and success, 
 by Messrs. Newman, Pusey, and Keble, with argu- 
 ments drawn from the holy fathers, of which they 
 have just undertaken a new edition (translation) in 
 English. These gentlemen labour to restore the an- 
 cient Catholic liturgy — the breviary, (which many of 
 them, to the knowledge of the writer, recite daily,) 
 fastings, the monastic life, and many other religious 
 practices. Moreover, they teach the insufficiency of 
 the Bible, as a rule of faith — the necessitv of tradition, 
 and of ecclesiastical authority — the real presence — 
 prayers for the dead — the use of images — the priests' 
 power of absolution — the sacrifice of the mass — the 
 devotion to the virgin, and many other Catholic doc- 
 trines, in such sort as to leave but little difference be- 
 tween their opinions and the true faith, and which 
 difference becomes less and less every day. Faith- 
 ful ! redouble your prayers, that these happy disposi- 
 tions may be increased !" 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 Such are some of the Roman Catholic testimonies, 
 to which I feel authorized to appeal in vindicating the 
 obnoxious passage in my lecture from the strictures 
 passed upon it. 
 
 Whether I am right or wrong, then, in my estimate 
 of the Oxford publications, I am sustained both by Ro- 
 manists and Protestant Episcopalians of high repute, 
 in affirming that their authors have "returned to some 
 of the worst errors of Popery." The question still 
 remains, whether I am also sustained in this allega- 
 tion by the Tracts themselves. This question I pro- 
 pose, if Providence permit, to consider in another let- 
 ter. I sincerely regret that I am obliged to trouble 
 you with so prolix an answer ; but the terms of your 
 call upon me were such, that I could not deem it 
 either respectful to you or just to the grave subject 
 which has occasioned our correspondence, to respond 
 to your requisition, without entering into some details. 
 
 I remain, Right Reverend Sir, 
 With much respect, 
 
 Your friend and servant, 
 
 H. A. BOARDMAN. 
 
 Philad., Feb. 22d, 1841. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 LETTER II 
 
 To the Right Rev. Geo. W. Doane, D. D., Bishof 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 
 Diocess of New Jersey. 
 
 Right Rev. Sir: 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the Oxford publi- 
 cations, I beg leave to make two or three introduc- 
 tory observations on topics noticed in your letter, or 
 suggested by it. 
 
 I find in your letter an eloquent passage on the char- 
 acters of the Oxford writers, as men of distinguished 
 "talents, learning, piety, integrity, holiness, heavenly 
 mindedness, and charity." This is a point I do 
 not care to discuss. If it were proper, I could easily 
 cite other opinions, from Protestant Episcopal sources, 
 in which few of these qualities (in any eminent de- 
 gree,) are conceded to them, besides the first two 
 named in your panegyric. And I believe some chari- 
 tably disposed persons have found no small dif- 
 ficulty in conceiving how men of such exalted " in- 
 tegrity " and C6 holiness/' could suffer their subscrip- 
 tion to the Thirty-nine Articles to stand uncancelled, 
 while they are publishing such sentiments as those 
 advocated in the tracts. But this is an unpleasant 
 subject, and I pass it. 
 
 You remark, again, that there is in these writings 
 "a vast amount (of matter) that is most timely and. 
 most excellent." On this point we shall have no 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 controversy. No men could delve as long and as la- 
 boriously as these gentlemen have among the ancient 
 fathers and the early divines of the English Church, 
 without bringing up some fine samples of gold and 
 gems. But this only renders their writings the more 
 dangerous. For (if you will allow an illustration from 
 a writer* who, I perceive, is in high repute at Oxford, 
 just now, and whose folio happened to be lying on 
 my table when your letter reached me,) " to eat figs, 
 or other more cordial food, with the infusion of subtle 
 and deadly poison, exempts not men's bodies from 
 danger." If arsenic is to be mingled with the repast, 
 the less inviting it is made to the palate the better. 
 Had these tracts contained fewer good things, the bad 
 would have been less widely circulated and more 
 cautiously received. Let the wheat be winnow- 
 ed from the chaff — the truth separated from the 
 error, and published in separate volumes, and how 
 many among those who now purchase the whole, 
 would buy the volume of heresy? 
 
 And this suggests another topic. The advocates 
 of the tracts have often complained that they were 
 condemned by individuals who had merely examined 
 isolated extracts. I admit that this is not the fairest 
 way to form an opinion of any work : I am fully con- 
 vinced that it is not, of these publications. Whatever 
 may have been the experience of others, I can say 
 for myself, that I had no conception of the mischief 
 they were calculated to do, until I examined them in 
 detail. The quotations from them I had read, had 
 left a deep impression upon my mind of their dan- 
 
 * Dr. Thomas Jackson. 
 3* 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 gerous tendency; but this impression became tenfold 
 stronger, when I came to explore the system as a 
 whole. The good and the evil must be seen in their 
 juxta-position and mutual dependence, before the evil 
 can be adequately appreciated. 
 
 The foregoing observations imply that there is 
 something peculiar in the ivay in which Romanism 
 is taught in these writings. Whoever expects to find 
 it openly and systematically inculcated in them, will 
 be disappointed. Nothing can be more ingenious or 
 subtle than the principle on which the controversy 
 with Popery is managed. Some points of it, as, for 
 example, the supremacy of the Pontiff, the schismati- 
 cal position of the Romish church in its relation to 
 the " Anglo-Catholic church," transubstantiation, &c, 
 they attack manfully: one broadside follows another, 
 until the reader really begins to fancy they are the 
 boldest of all the " champions " who have entered 
 the lists against that antichristian hierarchy. But on 
 other points, you will frequently find the case be- 
 tween Rome and Protestant Christendom, stated in a 
 way much more favourable to the Papist than the 
 Protestant: it is not so much asserted as insinuated, 
 that Rome has the best of it. Precisely as you will 
 sometimes hear a judge, in summing up a case, though 
 professing to present both sides to the jury, give the 
 whole weight of his opinion in favour of one of the 
 parties, yet in so covert a way that the adverse party 
 cannot charge him with having decided it. In other 
 passages, you feel sure you are approaching, step by 
 step, an explicit avowal of some rank Popish tenet. 
 But just as you fancy you have reached the point, and 
 hasten to the next sentence to seize on the develop- 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 ment, the writer turns off to indulge in some vague 
 generalities or to caution you against premature 
 judging in a case where so venerable a father as this 
 one or that one has spoken doubtingly. Again, you 
 are confident, after reading a sentence, that there is 
 Popery in it ; but when you return to lay hold of it, 
 it eludes your grasp. "They are (to use the lan- 
 guage of the London ( Christian Observer,') so seho- 
 lastically constructed, that when the obvious bearing 
 of a passage or tract is shown to be open to objection, 
 there is some little qualifying word in a corner, which 
 an ordinary reader would never discover, to ward off 
 the full weight of an honest reply to the passage in 
 its true spirit." It may be that these "traps for cri- 
 tics," have not been noticed by my Right Rev. cor- 
 respondent: but many persons have an idea that the 
 tracts abound with them. 
 
 One of the first characteristics of the Oxford 
 writings which will strike an unsophisticated Pro- 
 testant as indicating a strong Popish tendency, is the 
 extraordinary language in which the Romish and 
 Protestant Churches are respectively spoken of, — 
 the former being usually mentioned with marked de- 
 ference and kindness, the latter with arrogance and 
 severity. Indeed, these gentlemen repudiate the 
 names, " Protestant," and " Protestant Episcopalian,' 9 
 as descriptive of the Church of England; and unchurch 
 all other Protestant denominations with as little cere- 
 mony as was ever used by " Holy Mother " herself. 
 Let me cite a few passages: — 
 
 " The English Church, as such, is not Protestant, 
 only politically, that is, externally, or so far as it has 
 been made an establishment, and subjected to national 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 and foreign influences. It claims to be merely Re- 
 formed, not Protestant, and it repudiates any fellow- 
 ship (!) with the mixed multitude Which crowd to- 
 gether, whether at home or abroad, under a mere po- 
 litical banner." (Tract 71, p. 21, N. Y. Ed.) 
 
 " Of all combinations, that of Protestant Episcopal 
 
 is the least pleasant It may seem harsh 
 
 thus to speak of ' Episcopacy ' and ' Episcopalian/ 
 yet we hope it will not shock any one, if we say that 
 we wish the words, as denoting an opinion and its 
 maintenance, never had been invented. They have 
 done great mischief to their own cause. We are 6 of 
 the church/ not * of the Episcopal church / our bish- 
 ops are not merely an order in her organization, but 
 the principle of her continuance, and to call ourselves 
 Episcopalians, is to imply that we differ from the 
 mass of dissenters mainly in church government and 
 form, in a matter of doctrine merely, not of fact, 
 whereas the difference is, that we are here and they 
 there: we in the church, and they out of it."* 
 
 * British Critic, Vol. 26, pp. 340, 341: Article on " the Ame- 
 rican Church." I make no apology for quoting from this peri- 
 odical in this connexion, as it is now an acknowledged organ of 
 the Oxford Divines, and is, therefore, equally legitimate proof 
 with the Tracts themselves, in illustrating what is denominated 
 in the obnoxious paragraph in my Lecture, "the Oxford Tract 
 movement." I find also in the " Banner of the Cross," of the 
 6th Feb. (one week before the publication of your letter,) a glow- 
 ing tribute to the character of the "Critic," which, with your 
 permission, I will append to this note as a further warrant for the 
 free use I may make of the work in this correspondence. It is 
 as follows: — 
 
 For the Banner of the Cross. 
 
 Dear Mr. Editor, 
 It has been among my warmest wishes, that a publisher might 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 " So far from its being a strange thing that Pro 
 testant sects are not l 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." 
 (Tract 47, p. 335.) 
 
 The Oxford School are, it is believed, the first set 
 of men, not avowedly Papists, who have deplored the 
 glorious Reformation as a calamity. They are not 
 quite as explicit on this point (and many others) 
 now, as as they probably will be hereafter. 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 cha- 
 racterize that work, as " the detestable Reformation!" 
 And the British Critic of Jan. 1840, speaks of " the 
 impieties of the 16th century" in obvious allusion to 
 the same event. 
 
 be found who would give to the clergy and laity of our churches, 
 and to all lovers of high intellect, embued with primitive piety 
 and consecrated at the altar of the Holy One, an American edi- 
 tion of this ablest of all the British periodicals, at a price acces- 
 sible to all. I rejoice to say that better even than that is to be 
 done. Wiley and Putnam, of New York, will import the British 
 Critic, (two annual volumes of 500 pages each, in quarterly num- 
 bers,) if one hundred persons order it. It is an opportunity most 
 auspicious to the best interests of theology and literature, and I 
 venture, in my zealous desire for its success, to call the attention 
 of my brethren to it under my own name. I speak advisedly, 
 for I have been a subscriber to it from the commencement of the 
 present series, and the whole set, now twenty-eight volumes, 
 are on the shelves of my library, and among its choicest contents. 
 It should be in the hands of every clergyman, and should circu- 
 late in every parish. 
 
 Faithfully, your friend, 
 
 G. W. Doane. 
 Riverside, 30th Jan. 1841. 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 As these writers have usurped for their own com- 
 munion a title to which they have no paramount 
 right, and which they are willing to share only with 
 Rome, so their favourite appellatives for Protestant 
 Christianity are, " Ultra-Protestantism," and " the 
 New Religion/' 
 
 It is superfluous for me to remind you, after these 
 testimonies, that the Oxfordists scout the idea that the 
 Papal power is the great "apostacy" and "Anti- 
 christ" of Prophecy. The Protestant world has, up to 
 the rise of these writers, been, in the main, united on 
 this point. The corner-stone of the Reformation was 
 laid on the doctrine, that the Papal Church is Anti- 
 christ. This was maintained by all the Reformers, 
 Continental and British; it was incorporated in the 
 creeds and symbols of the reformed churches; it is 
 asserted by your church in her Homilies, by the Irish 
 church in her Articles, (Vide Art. lxxx.,) .by the 
 Presbyterian church in her Confession; and it has 
 been held by the great body of able critics and com- 
 mentators down to the present time, including the 
 very learned Mede, Brightman, Cressener, Sir Isaac 
 Newton, Bishops Newton and Hurd, Wm. Lowth, 
 Dr. H. More, Vitringa, Pyle, Dr. S. Clark, and many 
 others. It is now discovered at Oxford that all Pro- 
 testant Christendom has been at fault on this point 
 for three hundred years. 
 
 Dr. Pusey, in his letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 
 says, (speaking ironically,) " It is Popery and disaf- 
 fection to our church to doubt whether the Pope is 
 the Antichrist, though Antichrist himself be not yet 
 revealed, nor may we yet know when or among whom 
 he will appear." And the British Critic, in the No. 
 
1 
 
 ( 35 ) 
 
 for last October, lays it down as " a most true and 
 most important position," that " the prophecies con- 
 cerning Antichrist are yet unfulfilled and that the 
 predicted enemy of the church is yet to come." This 
 is precisely the Romish doctrine. Whether the re- 
 viewers would go another step, and with Leo X. for- 
 bid any clergyman to " explain futurity or the times 
 of Antichrist, under pain of excommunication," does 
 not appear. One of the chief reasons which predis- 
 pose these gentlemen to adopt the theory of Anti- 
 christ just stated, must be regarded as very curious 
 by Protestant Episcopalians. They urge that their 
 own church is so closely associated with the church 
 of Rome, that the charge of Antichrist against the lat- 
 ter necessarily involves the former also. If this be 
 true, the English Reformers were strangely reckless 
 of the reputation and safety of the church they died 
 for; for Latimer in prison, and Ridley in his farewell 
 letter, and Cranmer (whom you so justly commend,) 
 at the stake, declared "the Pope to be Antichrist;" 
 and with them agreed Bradford, and Hooper, Frith, 
 and Tyndale, and others of that noble company of 
 martyrs — men of whom the world was not worthy, 
 and whose names are not so much the property of 
 your church as the common heritage of Christendom. 
 Should the martyrs happen to be right and the Ox- 
 ford theologians wrong, do they run no hazard who 
 would link the destinies of the church of England 
 with those of Papal Rome? 
 
 But these gentlemen go still further. They not 
 only deny that the Romish church is Antichrist, but 
 maintain that the fact of a church being called Anti- 
 christ, is a presumptive proof rather that it is a branch 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 &f the true church ! The logic by which this conclu- 
 sion is reached, is worthy of the cause. But not to 
 spend time in analyzing it — who does not see the 
 bearing of this apparent determination to uphold 
 Rome at all hazards? If that church be not Anti- 
 christ, the Reformation was wrong; for on this ground 
 it was undertaken and carried through. And if the 
 Reformation was wrong, Protestants are all schisma- 
 tics and are bound to return to the true fold. Thus 
 Rome argues. And thus Oxford argues — the differ- 
 ence being here. Rome includes the church of 
 England among her schismatical children, while Ox- 
 ford contends that she, and she alone — " the Anglo- 
 Catholic church," — enjoys "the apostolical succes- 
 sion" equally with her " venerable sister,"* and that 
 Rome, not England, is responsible for perpetuating 
 the schism. So that at Rome, all are guilty of schism: 
 and at Oxford all are guilty of schism ; but it is only 
 the Protestant sects who are dissevered from the true 
 church. — Did the "Catholic Herald" of this city, 
 speak at random when it said, not long ago, that " if 
 the principles of the Oxford school had prevailed in 
 
 * A writer in the No. of the " Banner " which contains your 
 letter to me, speaks of the Protestant Episcopal Church, or the 
 " American Branch of the Anglo-Catholic Church," as the " el- 
 der sister " of the church of Rome. It would be presumptuous 
 for a Presbyterian to hazard an opinion on this delicate question 
 of seniority; " Non nostrum . . . tantas componere lites !" But 
 if I may be allowed a remark on this subject, I would suggest 
 that there is a simple and scriptural method of eluding this ques- 
 tion altogether; namely, by declaring with the Homilies that the 
 church of Rome is no sister at all of the church of England, but 
 "Antichrist,'' and " Babylon." (See the Homi lfes on Obedience, 
 and Peril of Idolatry, and Sermon against Wilful Rebellion.) 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 the 16th century, there would have been no schism" 
 — that is, no Reformation ? 
 
 But these writers have not merely withdrawn the 
 charge of Antichrist against Rome : they speak of her 
 in terms which make one rejoice that they have re- 
 nounced the name of " Protestants." Thus, in Tract 
 71, pp. 25, 26, they call the Papal church their " La- 
 tin sister," and say, 
 
 " Speak gently of our sister's fall: 
 Who knows but gentle love 
 May win her at our patient call, 
 The surer way to prove."* — {Christian Year.) 
 
 Again : " This warning is especially seasonable to 
 Us of this day who are beset both with the clamour 
 that e the Bible and the Bible only is the religion of 
 Protestants,' and with a thousand discordant views, 
 all professedly scriptural, in illustration of its unrea- 
 sonableness Whatever be our private differ- 
 ences with the Roman Catholics, we may join with 
 them in condemning Socinians, Baptists, Indepen- 
 dents, Quakers, and the like. But God forbid that 
 we should ally ourselves with the offspring of heresy 
 and schism in our contest with any branches of the 
 
 * It is curious to a by-stander, to notice how these gentle assi- 
 duities are received by the " erring sister." As yet, although 
 a good many bland words have been spoken, she manifests no 
 disposition to recognise the tie of consanguinity so ambitiously 
 pressed upon her attention by the theologians of Oxford. Dr. 
 Wiseman, the ablest of her living defenders, in a late article on 
 the subject, waiving the question as to the validity of the ordina- 
 tions of the English church, denies that her Bishops have any 
 just claim to apostolic jurisdiction, and contends that the obliga- 
 tion still lies on the laity to be in connexion with the Roman 
 Hierarchy : but she may yet concede to policy, on this point, 
 what her pride has hitherto withheld. 
 4 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 Holy Church which maintain the foundation, what- 
 ever may be their incidental corruptions." (Tracts 
 Vol. I., p. 603.) 
 
 Are the men who utter this language to be regard- 
 ed as the " boldest champions " of the day, " against 
 the force and fraud of Rome?" Men who spurn all 
 alliance with any and every (for this is the idea) Pro- 
 testant denomination as " the offspring of heresy and 
 schism " — whose contest with "the Holy church " of 
 Rome involves only some "private differences " — 
 and who characterize the arrogance and ambition, the 
 falsehood and cruelty, the usurpations and heresies, 
 the awful idolatries and blasphemies of that church, 
 (a church which your Homilies brand as "the spoiler 
 
 AND DESTROYER OF THE CHURCH," and " THE BABY- 
 LONIAN Beast of Rome,") as mere " incidental cor* 
 ruptions?" Alas for Protestantism, and Christianity 
 too, if their championship has fallen into such hands! 
 Sure I am, that every true Protestant will exclaim, 
 "Non tali auxilio!" 
 
 I cannot forbear adding another sentence or two 
 from the British Critic. " It was most touching news 
 (says a late No.) to be told, as we were lately, that 
 Christians on the Continent were praying together 
 for the spiritual well-being of England. We are their 
 debtors thereby. May the prayer return abundantly 
 into their own bosom," &c. What does this allude to? 
 Unquestionably to the fact announced in the papers, 
 but not by the reviewers, that the "Christians" 
 at Rome, encouraged by the signs of the times, have 
 set apart a stated season to pray for the conversion 
 of England to Popery! This was "most touching 
 news " to the divines of Oxford. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 Again, in the article on " the American Church " 
 already referred to, the reviewers congratulate them- 
 selves that " the church of Rome is daily acquiring 
 a more powerful hold upon the public mind, [in 
 the United States,] since it is better to belong to any 
 portion of the one true church, than to sectaries, who, 
 not to dwell on their doctrines, do not even profess 
 to belong to it." The plain English of this is, that 
 they would rather see Popery increase in this coun- 
 try, than Protestantism— except as the latter is con- 
 nected with a single one of our numerous denomina- 
 tions. Does this indicate their noble championship 
 against Rome? 
 
 I beg you not to fancy that these passages excite 
 any personal feeling in my breast, because I have 
 the infelicity to be attached to one of these no-church 
 organizations. I assure you that Protestants, (a name 
 we cling to as cordially as our assailants spurn it,) 
 are as little alarmed by these solemn excommuni- 
 cations, as Queen Elizabeth was by the " Damnatory 
 Bull " of Pius V. Men who have heard the thun- 
 ders of the Vatican unmoved, for three centuries, 
 are not likely to be frightened by the poor imitation 
 (the stage-thunder) they are getting up at Oxford. 
 We mourn, indeed, to see so much arrogance asso- 
 ciated with such lofty pretensions to "heavenly- 
 mindedness and charity." We cannot avoid contrast- 
 ing with the spirit these writers are fomenting, the 
 harmony which prevailed between their predecessors 
 and the Presbyterian Reformers of the Continent, 
 when your favourite Cranmer " had Bucer called to 
 Cambridge and Martyr to Oxford, to teach theo- 
 logy:" and when (at a later period) "Laud [the idol 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 of the Tractists] was formally reproved by the TJni- 
 versity of Oxford, for maintaining that there could 
 be no true church without Bishops." The spirit of 
 those days, we are happy to believe, still pervades a 
 large part of the English Church and its daughter 
 in this country. There are multitudes in both 
 branches of the church, among her clergy and laity, 
 who will acquiesce in the indignant rebuke pro- 
 nounced by the Christian Observer upon the senti- 
 ments of the Tracts on this point: "We thank God 
 that such is not the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land. Our most eminent divines, in her true spirit, 
 have blessed God for our own exalted privileges, 
 without unchurching other communions." 
 
 I think the statements which have now been pre- 
 sented, must satisfy every candid mind, that the Ox- 
 ford school, with whatever ability or zeal they may 
 controvert some of the Popish dogmas, have a very 
 hearty antipathy to Protestant Christianity and an 
 equally hearty sympathy for the Church of Rome. 
 
 Reserving what I have to say further, for another 
 letter, (for the subject grows upon my hands,) \ 
 renew, Right Rev. Sir, the assurances of my respect 
 and consideration, and remain, 
 
 Your friend and servant, 
 
 H. A. BOARDMAN. 
 Philadelphia, March 1st, 1841. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 To the Right Rev. Geo. W. Doane, D. D., Bishop 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 Diocess of New Jersey. 
 
 Right Rev. Sir: 
 
 An able writer belonging to your own church, 
 has very happily described the Oxford system as " a 
 Religion of Sacraments" This designation de- 
 notes at once its affiliation to Popery, and furnishes 
 a clue by which the uninitiated may thread its mys- 
 teries. 
 
 " The church (we are told by the Tractists,) is the 
 store-house and direct channel of grace — an ordi- 
 nance which conveys secret strength and life to 
 every one who shares in it, unless there be some 
 actual moral impediment in his own mind." (Intro- 
 duction to Pusey on Baptism, p. 4. ) On the next 
 page the following passage occurs : — 
 
 " Rationalistic, or (as they may more properly be 
 called) carnal notions concerning the sacraments, 
 and on the other hand, a superstitious apprehension 
 of resting in them, and a slowness to believe the pos- 
 sibility of God's having literally blessed ordinances 
 with invisible power, have, alas! infected a large 
 mass of men in our communion. Hence, we have 
 almost embraced the doctrine, that God conveys 
 
 grace only through the instrumentality of the mental 
 
 4* 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active spirit- 
 ual contemplations or [what is called!] communion 
 with God, in contradiction to the primitive view, 
 according to which, the church and her sacraments 
 are the ordained and direct visible means of convey- 
 ing to the soul what is in itself supernatural and un- 
 seen. For example, would not most men maintain, 
 on the first view of the subject, that to administer 
 the Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dying and 
 apparently insensible, however consistently pious 
 and believing in their past lives, must be, under all 
 circumstances, and in every conceivable case, a su- 
 perstition ? Jind yet neither practice is without 
 the sanction of primitive usage. And does not this 
 account for the prevailing indisposition to admit that 
 Baptism conveys regeneration? Indeed, this may 
 be set down as the essence of sectarian doctrine 
 (however its mischief may be restrained or compen- 
 sated, in the case of individuals,) to consider faith 
 and not the sacraments as the proper instrument of 
 justification and other gospel gifts; instead of holding 
 that the grace of Christ comes to us altogether from 
 without, (as from him, so through externals of his 
 ordaining,) faith being but the sine qua non, the ne- 
 cessary condition, for duly receiving it." 
 
 It is intimated in the first part of this passage, that 
 the common doctrine is, that grace is conveyed u only 
 through the instrumentality of faith, prayer," &c. 
 This is an error. Protestants have never excluded 
 the sacraments from the "means of grace." They 
 admit that spiritual regeneration may accompany 
 baptism ; but they deny that it is inseparably linked 
 with it. They admit that the Lord's Supper may 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 impart spiritual edification, strength, and comfort, 
 to the communicant: but they deny that it does this 
 except (as your church teaches) he feeds in his 
 heart by faith with thanksgiving. 
 
 The sentences I have italicised in the above quo- 
 tation, disclose, I presume, the real sentiments of 
 these writers, on the nature of the sacraments. I 
 have met with no grosser representation of the opus 
 operatum efficacy of the sacraments, in Romish au- 
 thors, than is presented here. Indeed, the Catechism 
 of the Council of Trent (see p. 227, Baltimore ed.) 
 refers to the practice of some in the early church 
 who gave the eucharist to infants; and, instead of 
 sanctioning the usage, as these writers seem to do, 
 expresses its marked disapprobation of it; so that in 
 this matter, Oxford has even exceeded Rome. 
 
 The assertion near the close of the foregoing ex- 
 tract, that " faith is not the instrument of justifica- 
 tion," will surprise those who have been accustomed 
 to the theology of the scriptures or of the XXXIX. 
 Articles. 
 
 Let me cite a few more passages to show that the 
 Oxford religion is, like Popery, a sacramental reli- 
 gion : — 
 
 "Almighty God has said his Son's merits shall 
 wash away all sin, and that they shall be conveyed 
 to believers through the two sacraments." (Tract 4.) 
 
 In Tract 76, after affirming that in baptism the 
 soul receives a " new nature, adoption, the inheri- 
 tance of heaven," &c, the writers say that there are 
 certain points respecting which the Divines cited by 
 them, differ, among which are these, to wit: "whe- 
 ther grace be given in and through the water, or 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 tonly contemporaneously with it:" and "whether or 
 not baptism, besides washing away past sin, ad- 
 mits into a state in which, for sins henceforth com- 
 mitted, repentance stands in place of a sacrament, so 
 as to ensure forgiveness without specific ordinance; 
 or whether the holy eucharist is that ordinance; or 
 whether the full and explicit absolution of sin after 
 baptism is altogether put off till the day of judgment." 
 I shall have occasion before closing this letter to call 
 your attention to the unscriptural and gloomy doc- 
 trine of Dr. Pusey in relation to one of these topics, 
 namely, the possibility of forgiveness to those who 
 " sin after baptism." As to the other topic, the Ox- 
 ford writers are characteristically fond of "reserve" 
 and mystery, adhering with great scrupulosity to the 
 discreet maxim of Bishop Jebb, who observes in one 
 of his letters ; " prematurity of effort is in all matters 
 to be deprecated, but most of all in enunciating any 
 part of our system :" — so that it is no easy thing to as- 
 certain precisely whether they believe or not that the 
 water in baptism becomes " impregnated with a spi- 
 ritual property" so as to be the physical vehicle of 
 conveying grace to the soul. The oracle, it may be 
 anticipated, will utter its vaticinations on this and 
 some other mysterious questions, with less ambiguity 
 hereafter. But no response can surprise us, however 
 gross, on this point, when we remember that Alex- 
 ander Knox, the venerated father of Oxfordism, and 
 who is so much lauded in the British Critic,* (lauded, 
 
 * The Critic says of Mr. Knox, " He is an instance in rudi- 
 ment of those great restorations which he foresaw in development. 
 He shares with the eminent writers of the day, in the work of 
 advancing what he anticipated," 
 
( 45. ) 
 
 notwithstanding, as the Reviewers tell us, (vol. 23, p. 
 3,) " the cross was not the central object of his di- 
 vinity, but held a somewhat remote and subordinate 
 position in his theological panorama/ 7 ) has laid down 
 the doctrine of a transfusion of gracious qualities into 
 the bread and wine of the eucharist, in the plainest 
 terms. In one of his letters to Dr. Jebb, he says; 
 " I do not know whether I have ever called your at- 
 tention, to the two-fold evidence afforded by St. 
 Paul's expressions, respecting the eucharist, that the 
 consecrated symbols are not (as Dr. Waterland main- 
 tains) the signs or pledges of a concomitant blessing, 
 but (as the old church taught, and as Dr. Butt urges 
 against Waterland) the actual vehicles through which 
 that blessing is conveyed." Further on, comment- 
 ing on the expression, " eateth and drinketh unwor- 
 thily," he says, " the sacred things which he dese- 
 crates, are mysteriously their own avengers. The 
 divine virtue combined, by omnipotence, with the 
 blessed and broken elements, for the purpose of 
 transfusing life and health to the soul of the quali- 
 fied receiver, in the case of profane reception, still 
 no less manifests itself to be divine, but in a con- 
 trary way, secundum modum recipientis." And 
 again: "The ark [alluding to the death of Uzzah] 
 could not, even by a figure of speech, be made the 
 inflictor of punishment; but nothing was more na- 
 tural than to make aliments which had received a 
 divine property through the supernatural blessing 
 of heaven, to become of themselves, as it were, the 
 vehicle of curse to him, who so ate or drank as to 
 blend sanctity with pollution." (Correspondence 
 of Jebb and Knox, Letter 146.) 
 
( .46 ) 
 
 This is not Popery precisely, I grant: but is tran- 
 substantiation more revolting ? 
 
 Writers who approximate so nearly to Rome in 
 their views of the sacraments, (a subject to which I 
 shall recur,) rival her, of course, in their notions of 
 church-power and the authority of the clergy. They 
 teach that a church episcopally organized " is the 
 only way to eternal life;" that the church is "the 
 channel of grace," its sacraments " the means by 
 which justification and other gospel gifts are im- 
 parted," and these sacraments (of course) only in the 
 hands of the clergy who are in the line of apostolical 
 succession, (to wit, the clergy of the English, Roman, 
 and Greek churches.) The bishops have received 
 (we are taught) in regular transmission from the 
 apostles, not merely official rank and dignity, but in- 
 ward grace, (" Episcopal grace," as Dr. Pusey calls 
 it,) which they alone can impart to others. In vir- 
 tue of this miraculous (shall I call it?) endowment, 
 they have "power over the gifts of the Holy Ghost" 
 and even (to some extent) " over the things of the 
 unseen world." " They are armed with the power 
 of the apostles, to confer spiritual gifts in the church, 
 and, in cases of necessity, to wield their awful wea- 
 pon of rejection from the fold of Christ." (Tract 5.) 
 " This is faith, to look at things not as seen, but as 
 unseen; to be as sure that the Bishop is Christ's re- 
 presentative, as if we saw him work miracles, as St. 
 Peter and St. Paul did. — I repeat, the bishops are 
 apostles to us. — The meetingers [how very cour- 
 teous !] have no head, they are all mixed together in 
 a confused way. . . . He (the bishop) rules the whole 
 church here below, as Christ, the true and eternal 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 sovereign, rules it above. . . . He visibly chooses 
 those whom Christ vouchsafes to choose invisibly, 
 to serve in the word and sacraments of the church.' 7 
 (Tract 10.) 
 
 The "Christian Observer" may well ask, after 
 quoting passages like these, " How long would the 
 bishops be tolerated, . . . in a Protestant country, if 
 any half* dozen of them should rise in their places^ 
 and say of themselves what these Tracts say of them?" 
 The only design with which I have introduced the 
 above extracts, is, to show how Papistical these wri- 
 ters are in their notions of the power of the priesthood. 
 I think impartial men will agree that there is rank 
 Popery in the doctrine here exhibited, however the 
 Tractists may refuse to acknowledge the Pope's su- 
 premacy. Where has Popery uttered any thing on 
 this subject, more Popish than the sentiment of the 
 Tracts, that " Episcopal authority is the very bond 
 which unites Christians to each other and to Christ;" 
 or of the British Critic, that " the effect of a sepa- 
 rating from the bishop is a separating from Christ?" 
 Why, after such language, do they tell us, that they 
 do not mean to " exclude Presbyterians and others 
 from salvation?" Why not meet the consequences 
 of their doctrine like men, and tell the Protestant 
 world, as the Jesuit Wilson told Dr. Potter, in the 
 controversy which brought out Chillingworth's im- 
 mortal work, (that work which the Oxfordists are 
 trying so hard to " make of none effect, by their tra- 
 ditions") that " Protestancy unrepented destroys sal- 
 vation?" Why not carry out their principles, and 
 affirm that the millions who have died in the com- 
 munion of those reformed churches in Europe and 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 America, which are not under prelatical organization, 
 not having been " united to the Episcopal authority, 
 Were not united to Christ," and so have gone down 
 to perdition? 
 
 The time has come when consistency demands 
 that these gentlemen should " define their position " 
 with a little more accuracy, on this and many other 
 points. Protestants will then know where to find 
 them, and Roman Catholics will cease to reproach 
 them with "endeavouring to silence the voice of 
 conscience by half measures." 
 
 I had written thus far, when I received (very op- 
 portunely) from a gentleman of this city, a London- 
 derry paper of Jan. 6th, which contains an abridged 
 report of a sermon preached on the 25th Dec. last, by 
 Dr. Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin, 
 at the consecration of the new Bishop of Meath, in 
 Christ Church, Dublin. It is pleasant to hear the 
 Oxford coterie rebuked by a Prelate whose reputa- 
 tion as a scholar and logician is co-extensive with the 
 diffusion of English literature, and whose known 
 principles place him above the imputation of belong- 
 ing to that class in the Episcopal Church, sneeringly 
 denominated by their opponents, "Evangelicals " I 
 quote the following passage from the sermon : — 
 
 " There is another class," observes the Archbishop, 
 " who assert that the regulations and forms of the 
 Christian church, which they have adopted, are to be 
 found in the writings of the apostles, and the tradi- 
 tions of the early church: and affirm that all who do 
 not adopt these regulations, and entertain their views 
 of church order, are not included in the Christian 
 church. Such views seemed to him extremely danger- 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 ous. The persons who held these sentiments 
 
 REMOVED THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM 
 THE ROCK ON WHICH THEY RESTED, AND PLACED 
 
 them on the sand. Such were not the views held 
 by those who framed the articles of our church; for 
 they say that ' the visible church of Christ is a con- 
 gregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of 
 God is preached, and the sacraments be duly admi- 
 nistered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those 
 things that of necessity are requisite to the same." ? 
 They clearly recognised the claim of every Christian 
 community, who hold the great fundamental doc- 
 trines of the gospel, and administer the ordinances 
 instituted by Christ, to be called a church of Christ. 
 While they claimed the right to ordain officers, and 
 appoint rites tending to decency and good order, they 
 put forward no exclusive claims. They claimed no 
 sacramental virtue for the ordinances which they adminis- 
 tered, on account of possessing the apostolical chain of 
 succession, which, if one link he broken, the whole is de- 
 stroyed. They merely claimed for themselves the 
 title of being regularly ordained ministers of a serip- 
 turally constituted church of Christ. Those who put 
 forward any other claim were attempting to remove 
 the foundation of the church, from the rock on which 
 it has been built, to place it on the sand. If their ex- 
 clusive principles were to be received, what would 
 become of the other Christian churches, who did not 
 adopt their views of church government and order? 
 The persons who held such sentiments, and made 
 these minor matters fundamental principles, were 
 not only condemning themselves, but attempting to 
 5 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 write the sentence of condemnation against their own 
 church. Such sentiments might be called Church of 
 England principles, and the persons who held them 
 might claim for themselves the title of high church- 
 men: and they might consider that in pressing these 
 opinions upon public attention, they were obtaining 
 a greater reverence for the institutions and ministers 
 of the church, but he conceived them fraught 
 with danger to the church. They were merely 
 successors to the apostles, in being ministers of a regu- 
 larly constituted church, and in observing the ordinances 
 of the gospel. Successors in any other sense the apos- 
 tles had none. The Reformers put forward no exclusive 
 claims. They did not regard those ivho did not belong 
 to their church as excluded from the church of Christ. 
 They kept the mean, and avoided all extremes. They 
 pronounced no censure or condemnation upon those 
 who differed from them." 
 
 I have quoted in my first letter the sentiment of the 
 judicious Hooker, that " the grand question that hang- 
 eth in controversy between us and Rome, is about 
 the matter of justifying righteousness," and have 
 specified the Romish doctrine on this point, as " one 
 of the worst errors of Popery." It would be super- 
 fluous for me to remind my Right Reverend corres- 
 pondent, that it has always been a vital question be- 
 tween Protestants and Romanists, whether men are 
 justified by the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 received and rested upon by faith, or by being made 
 inwardly and subjectively righteous. The Protest- 
 ant doctrine is, that justification and regeneration 
 are inseparably associated, that is, that all who are 
 
{ 51 ) 
 
 justified, are at the same time renewed and sanctified; 
 but they deny that this personal holiness, which is 
 eommunieated by the Holy Spirit in regeneration, con- 
 stitutes any part of that righteousness on the ground 
 of which, the sinner is pardoned and accepted of 
 God. As our Saviour was " made sin " by having 
 the sins of men legally imputed or reckoned to him 
 (not transfused into him,) as their surety, so they 
 are " made the righteousness of God," by having the 
 Redeemer's righteousness (his perfect 'obedience unto 
 death,') legally imputed to them — they receiving it by 
 faith as the only ground of their hope. But I need 
 iaot dwell on the distinction so explicitly recognised 
 i-n the creeds and articles of all the reformed churches, 
 between justification and sanetification. 
 
 The Church of Rome confounds these gifts, and 
 makes our sanctification or personal righteousness, the 
 ground of our justification: — # The instrumental cause 
 of our justification (says the Council of Trent,) is the 
 sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, 
 without which no one can ever obtain justification: — 
 the sole formal cause is the righteousness of God; 
 not that by which he himself is righteous, but that 
 by which he makes us righteous ; with which being- 
 endued by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our 
 mind, and are not only accounted righteous, but are 
 properly called righteous, and are so, receiving right- 
 eousness in ourselves," &c. This inward righteous- 
 ness of course admits of increase, that is, justification 
 is progressive, — as we read in the same decree : those 
 who are the subjects of it, " by the observance of the 
 commandments of God, &c, " gain an increase of that 
 righteousness which was received by the grace of 
 Christ, and are the more justified," 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 On this doctrine Hooker remarks, " The church of 
 Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, 
 doth pervert the truth of Christ ; and by the hands 
 of the apostles we have received otherwise than she 
 teacheth." 
 
 If I am asked to prove that the doctrine of the 
 Tracts on this vital point is substantially that of 
 Rome, I should be disposed to refer my interroga- 
 tor to the truly apostolic work of Bishop M'llvaine 
 on " Oxford Divinity " — that work which the Editor 
 of the Churchman, in his paper of last week, charac- 
 terizes (in the same breath in which he confesses he 
 has never read it,) with so much classic grace and 
 with such profound deference towards an eminent pre- 
 late of his own church, as " the Romance of Gambier." 
 
 In this book the proofs are spread out in detail. But 
 as you may not have it in your library, I will quote 
 a few of the passages cited in it from the Oxford wri- 
 tings. 
 
 Speaking of the distinction just adverted to, be- 
 tween justification and renewal, Mr. Newman says, 
 " This distinction is not scriptural." " In truth, scrip- 
 ture speaks of but one gift, which it sometimes calls 
 renewal, sometimes justification, according as it views 
 it, passing to and fro, from one to the other, so rapid- 
 ly, so abruptly, as to force upon us irresistibly the 
 inference that they are really one?'' 
 
 Again; he says, "Justification and salification are 
 substantially the same thing; — parts of one gift; 
 properties, qualities, or aspects of one." In another 
 place he maintains "their identity in matter of fact, 
 however we may vary our terms, or classify our 
 ideas." 
 
1 
 
 ( 53 ) 
 
 Again; " Cleanness of heart and spirit, obedience 
 by word and deed, this alone can constitute our justi- 
 fication/' " The gift of righteousness (for justifica- 
 tion,) is not an imputation, but an inward work." " If 
 He (God) counts righteous, it is by making righ- 
 teous; if he justifies, it is by renewing." 
 
 This indwelling righteousness, it seems, has even a 
 satisfying and justifying quality in it, since he calls 
 it, "The propitiation for our sins in God's sight." 
 
 Again ; " Justification consists in God's inward 
 presence" " It is the act of God imparting His di- 
 vine presence to the soul, through baptism, and so 
 making us the temples of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 What will plain readers of the Bible say to the 
 following passage ] " Christ's cross does not justify 
 by being gazed at in faith, but by being actually set 
 up within us, and that not by our act, but by God's 
 invisible grace. Men sit and gaze and speak of the 
 great atonement, and think this is appropriating it. 
 Men say that faith is an apprehending and applying: 
 faith cannot really apply it; man cannot make 
 the Saviour of the world his own; the cross must be 
 brought home to us not in word, but in power, and 
 this is the work of the Spirit." 
 
 The above extracts are from Mr. Newman's work 
 on Justification. That they involve the idea of a 
 progressive justification, must be apparent to every 
 one ; but we are not left to gather this inferentially. 
 Dr. Pusey, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 
 says, "We are by baptism brought into a state of sal- 
 vation or justification (for the words are thus far 
 equivalent,) .... a state admitting of degrees ac-< 
 cording to the degree of sanctificationP 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 I could easily multiply these quotations, but can 
 it be necessary ? Do not the above passages prove 
 that these writers confound justification and sancti- 
 fication, and, like the Romanists, advocate the doc- 
 trine of " justification by inherent grace" and there* 
 by (as Hooker says) "pervert the truth of Christ? " 
 I am aware that in the face of numerous statements, 
 like those that have been cited, they profess to u ex- 
 clude sanctification from having any place in our 
 justification;" and they may fancy that they really 
 do this. I must refer you to their works for the 
 subtle and (I must add) sophistical distinctions by 
 which they seek to elude the imputation of teaching 
 the Popish doctrine on " this grand article of our re- 
 ligion," (the "articulus stantis vel cadentisecclesiae,") 
 and to Bishop M'llvaine's work for a thorough sift- 
 ing of these distinctions, in which they are scattered 
 to the winds. But the readers of this correspondence 
 may decide the question for themselves, by com- 
 paring the quotations with the Romish doctrine as 
 exhibited above from the decrees of the Council of 
 Trent. It will, I am sure, be no easy matter to 
 convince people of plain common sense, who have 
 not been trained to the dialectics of the schools, that 
 men who familiarly use language on this subject like 
 that which has been quoted, are materially at variance 
 with the Romish standards. Their affinity will be 
 more apparent as we proceed. Meanwhile, I avail 
 myself of the testimony of a witness whose compe- 
 tency will be admitted on all hands, — Mr. Perceval, 
 one of the Oxford Divines. This gentleman says, in 
 a letter published in the London Record, Oct. 2d, 
 1837, "Allowing certain explanations, there is no- 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 thing in the Tridentine statements (about justifica- 
 tion) which cannot fairly be reconciled with Gos- 
 pel doctrine." Can the charge of Popery against 
 this system be regarded as very uncharitable, when 
 we hear one of its authors affirming that the Romish 
 doctrine of justification is substantially sustained by 
 Scripture ? But let us probe a little deeper. It will 
 be found, if I mistake not, that there is a palpable 
 coincidence between the Oxford and Roman systems 
 in relation to the office of faith in justification. 
 
 The Homilies of your Church say that "Faith is 
 a sure trust of the mercy of God through Christ;" 
 that it (< sends us to Christ, " "joins us to Christ/' 
 "makes him our own, and applies his merits"* 
 Hooker says, "This is the anly hand which putteth 
 on Christ for justification." The Church of Rome 
 teaches that baptism is "the only instrument of jus- 
 tification." She distinguishes between the faith which 
 is before, and that which is after baptism; denying 
 that the former can be any other than a dead faith. 
 Men are spiritually renewed by baptism, and until 
 they are baptized, they cannot exercise " a justifying 
 faith." She anathematizes those who affirm that 
 "the ungodly is justified by faith only; " and those 
 who maintain that "justifying faith is nothing else 
 than confidence in the divine mercy by which sins 
 are forgiven for Christ's sake; or that it is that con- 
 fidence only by which we are justified." (See De- 
 crees of the Council of Trent, on Justification, Can- 
 ons 9 and 12.) In explaining how men are "justified 
 
 * In a passage quoted above from Mr. Newman, lie says, speak- 
 ing of the atonement, (! Faith cannot really apply it." 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 by faith/' she says, (chapter VIII.) "we are said to 
 be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of 
 human salvation, the foundation and root of all justi- 
 fication : " — which it is " not because it apprehends 
 the remission of sins through Christ, but because it 
 excites the will to such motions or acts as are neces- 
 sary to the obtaining of justification." Consequent- 
 ly, (as Bishop M'llvaine remarks,) " it is in no sense 
 a direct instrument of obtaining justification ; but 
 only a sine qua non, a preparation, as the Trent 
 Council says, 'without which it is impossible to 
 please God.' " " Until baptism gives it some ad- 
 ditional quality, it is a mere naked assent, a mere 
 preparative for hope and charity, and all good works ; 
 not a living faith, but still « divine ' as Gandolphy 
 says, < because founded on the testimony of God.' " 
 
 Let us now briefly compare with this doctrine the 
 views of the Oxfordists. They have much to say 
 about "justification by faith;" and those who are go- 
 verned more by sound than sense, might at first sup- 
 pose that they really believe with your articles on 
 this point; but this is far from being the case. Keep- 
 ing in view the Tridentine doctrine, let me invite 
 your attention to the following statements: — 
 
 "Faith, as gaining its virtue from baptism, is one thing 
 before that sacred ordinance; another after." "Jus- 
 tifying faith before baptism is not necessarily even a 
 moral virtue, but when illuminated by love and enno- 
 bled by the Spirit," (in baptism) " it is a name for 
 all graces together." Before baptism, " it is without 
 availing power, without life in the sight of God, as 
 regards our justification," — that is, "as regards the 
 indwelling of the Spirit," which is justification ac- 
 
1 
 
 ( 57 ) 
 
 cording to this system. Until it is baptized, it is 
 " full of terror and disquiet, vague, and dull-minded, 
 feeble, sickly, wayward, fitful, inoperative," " nothing 
 till Christ regenerate it" in baptism. "When it 
 
 (faith) comes for baptism, it comes to the 
 
 fount of life to be made alive, as the dry bones, in 
 the Prophet's vision, were brought together in pre- 
 paration for the breath of God to quicken them." 
 
 "We are saved," says Dr. Pusey, "by faith bring- 
 ing us to baptism, and by baptism God saves us" — 
 "faith being but the sine qua non, the necessary 
 condition on our parts for duly receiving the grace 
 of Christ" — and " the sacraments, not faith, being the 
 proper instrument of our justification." 
 
 Again; "Faith," says Mr. Newman, "does not pre- 
 cede justification; but justification precedes it, and 
 makes it justifying. Baptism is the primary instru* 
 ment, and creates faith to be what it is, and other- 
 wise, is not, giving it power and rank, and constitur 
 ting it as its own successor. Each has its own office; 
 baptism at the time, faith ever after — the sacraments, 
 the instrumental, faith the sustaining, cause." 
 
 I might ask, in the view of these statements, what 
 does your catechism (as quoted by the Bishop of 
 Ohio) mean, when it requires of those who come to be 
 baptized, "repentance whereby the) 7 " forsake sin, and 
 faith whereby they steadfastly believe the promises 
 of God made to them in that sacrament?" Is the 
 faith here intended a " vague," "inoperative," "un- 
 regenerate," "dead," faith? For these Oxford men 
 tell us, that such is the faith which goes "before bap- 
 tism." Was this the faith of Saul of Tarsus — of 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 Lydia — of the jailor — of the three thousand — before 
 they were " baptized ?" Was this the faith of the 
 dying thief, who, as is evident, was never baptized? 
 Is this the faith of all the godly of this and former 
 ages, in the Church of Scotland, and most of the 
 churches of the Continent and of the United States, 
 who, according to the notion of these writers, 
 have not received true baptism? But I waive these 
 questions, and leave it for candid Episcopalians to 
 decide, whether the passages that have been adduced, 
 do not quadrate much better with the Romish stand- 
 ards than with those of the Church of England. As 
 to the standards of your church, however, I cannot 
 forbear adding, that Dr. Pusey in his letter to the 
 Bishop of Oxford, makes the very remarkable asser- 
 tion, that your eleventh article, which is entitled, 
 " The justification of man," " says nothing as to where- 
 in our justification consists." That article I shall be 
 excused for quoting:— 
 
 " XL Of the Justification of Man. 
 
 « We are accounted righteous before God, only for 
 the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by 
 faith, and not for our own works or deservings. 
 Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a 
 most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort; 
 as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justi- 
 fication." 
 
 Is there nothing here " as to wherein our justifica- 
 tion consists?" Does not this article (and still more 
 the Homily, which it recognises as a faithful exposi- 
 tion of itself,) set forth in express terms, the ground 
 of our justification? And is it not as irreconcilable 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 with the views quoted from Dr. Pusey and his asso- 
 ciates, as it is with the dogmas of Popery ?* 
 
 Justification and renewal are so confounded by 
 these authors, that it is not easy to treat their views 
 of either topic separately. But a few additional ob- 
 servations may not be amiss here on their views of 
 baptism. 
 
 It is evident, from the passages already brought 
 forward, that in their system there can be neither 
 justification nor regeneration, nor saving faith, prior 
 to baptism. Baptism is as much the sun and centre 
 of their divinity, as "Christ and him crucified " was 
 of the divinity of the apostles. It is the grand instru- 
 ment by which men who are dead in trespasses and 
 sins, are to be made alive, rebels restored to the favour 
 of God, and this apostate world reclaimed from the 
 countless evils of the fall. One would think, to 
 hear them talk, that the New Testament must be a 
 1 treatise on baptism — that baptism was the main topic 
 of our Saviour's discourses, and the grand theme of 
 the apostolic preaching — and that the great business 
 of the ministry is, not to preach the Gospel, but to 
 administer the ordinances. If this were the place it 
 would be no difficult thing to show, that these gen- 
 tlemen have no scripture warrant for thus exalting 
 the sacraments at the expense of that ordinance 
 
 * But it is worthy of observation (and has been noted by Bishop 
 M'llvaine,) that this article does not contain a syllable about 
 bajjtism, which these gentlemen and the Romanists hold, is the 
 exclusive instrument of justification. .Nay, even the Homily to 
 which it refers, contains but two short paragraphs in which bap- 
 tism is named; " and in those passages, not one word about the 
 penitent and believing but unbaptized adult, but only about chil- 
 dren incapable of believing, and persons repenting after baptism. 
 This is strange, indeed, if there be no justification without bap- 
 tism." 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 Which has been appointed as " the wisdom and power 
 of God unto salvation," both to the Jew and the 
 Greek — that when they assign so conspicuous a place 
 to baptism and the Eucharist, and recommend that 
 we should " keep back from some who are baptized 
 the explicit and full declaration of the doctrine of the 
 atonement ," (a thing which has drawn down upon 
 them the just rebuke of their friend, the Bishop of 
 Exeter, in his celebrated charge,) they inculcate 
 " another Gospel " from that of the great apostle who 
 said, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
 Gospel." 
 
 But let us appeal to the Romish doctrine, that, 
 we may see whether we wrong these writers, in 
 alleging that they ascribe (in coincidence with it) an 
 opus operatum efficacy to baptism — an efficacy which 
 is independent of the state of the recipient, provided 
 only (to use Dr. Pusey's language) he "close not his 
 own soul against God's gift." 
 
 The Council of Trent anathematizes all who affirm 
 that "grace is not always conferred by the sacra- 
 ments, and upon all persons, so far as God is con- 
 cerned, if they be rightly received, but that it is only 
 bestowed sometimes and on some persons" — and all 
 who affirm, that " grace is not conferred by the sa- 
 craments by their own power, (ex opere operato.") 
 Is not this doctrine laid down in the passages that 
 have been cited from the Oxford writings ? Again, 
 your twenty-seventh Article says, baptism "is a sign 
 of regeneration or new birth — whereby the promises 
 &c, are visibly signed and sealed." But Dr. Pusey 
 says, " Baptism is not a sign, but the putting on of 
 Christ — wherefore baptism is a thing most powerful 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 and efficacious" "Powerful and efficacious," it is 
 indeed, if (as these writers teach) no individual can 
 exercise saving faith in the Redeemer, until he is bap- 
 tized — ^if (as Mr. Newman maintains) (i baptism cre- 
 ates faith to be what it is, and otherwise is not, giving 
 it power and rank." 
 
 I add a few more samples from the Tracts. " Bless- 
 ed is the sacrament of water, in which, when cleansed, 
 we are released from the sins of our original blind- 
 ness, unto eternal life." "Is it not wonderful that 
 even a bath should wash away death? Surely; but let 
 us ever be the more ready to believe, if its marvel- 
 lousness, forsooth, is made a reason for unbelief." 
 " Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit in the water ; 
 but, by being cleansed in the water from sin and guilt, 
 we are prepared by the angel for the Holy Spirit." 
 " Blessed is the water which cleanses once for all, 
 which sinners cannot make light of, which receives 
 no stain from the recurrence of defilement, so as to 
 pollute those whom it washes." (Tertullian, quoted 
 Tracts V., T. pp. 583-6.) Dr. Pusey earnestly main- 
 tains that by baptism an individual receives " the 
 forgiveness of sin and a new nature" and is " made a 
 real child of God and a real member of Christ, not 
 simply an outward member of an outward body of 
 people called Christians." — This sounds very Popish 
 to Protestant ears. Certain it is, that the doctrine 
 presented in each of the foregoing extracts, is repudi- 
 ated by the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of this Dio- 
 cess, in his Essay on Regeneration. " We trust it 
 will be perceived (says Bishop Onderdonk,) that in 
 the statement of our doctrine, a perfect distinction has 
 been made between baptism and the change of heart. 
 6 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 The spiritual operation in each of them is, indeed, 
 called regeneration; but it should be remembered that 
 there are t diversities of operations of the same Spi- 
 rit,' and that some of his most conspicuous operations 
 did not include a moral effect as inherent in them." — 
 Further on, the Bishop speaks of " the theory that the 
 seed of sanctification, the first principle or 'begin- 
 ning of the spiritual life,' to grow or die subsequent- 
 ly as the event may prove, is deposited by the Spirit 
 in baptism, which deposite is regeneration." To this 
 opinion, he says, "ive do not accede" And, subse- 
 quently, " The result is that there is no evidence that 
 moral influence, or the seed of it, is the grace of baptis- 
 mal regeneration." 
 
 But it is time to notice a kindred topic, which will 
 in turn illustrate the one we have been considering, 
 viz : the views of the Tractists respecting sin commit- 
 ted after baptism. It must "shock" ordinary readers 
 of the Bible to hear that it is a matter of great doubt, 
 in the judgment of these writers, whether any provi- 
 sion has been made in the glorious plan of redemption, 
 for the remission of post-baptismal sins, and if any, 
 where and what it is ! According to their scheme, sin 
 after baptism ("mortal sin") destroys the virtue of the 
 sacrament, and removes or cancels justification. Faith 
 having now become dead again by sin, must be re- 
 generated anew before it can become a second time 
 the condition of justification. How then can the 
 erring individual, in the case supposed, recover his 
 justification ? His faith cannot act, being " unregene- 
 rate." His baptism (by which his faith was origi- 
 nally "created") cannot be repeated. The Church 
 of Rome has provided for this exigency by the sa- 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 crament of Penance, whereby a sins committed after 
 baptism, are forgiven." But Oxford has not even this 
 poor, unscriptural expedient, to relieve the con- 
 science of a trembling, heavy-laden sinner: much 
 less does she say to him, as an apostle said to such 
 an one, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
 shalt be saved." Far from this is her frigid and 
 eheerless doctrine. " The Church (says Dr. Pusey) 
 has no second baptism to give, and so she cannot 
 pronounce him (the post-baptismal sinner) altogether 
 free from his past sins. There are but two periods of 
 absolute cleansing, baptism and the day of judg- 
 ment." — Look, too, at the following: is it not humili- 
 ating to think that such a passage could have been 
 penned by a clergyman of the Church of England, — 
 an expounder to dying, guilty men, of that blessed 
 volume in which Ood has said, " Though your sins 
 be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow ; though 
 they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool ? " 
 Dr. P., commenting on one of the articles, says, " But 
 who truly repent ? When a man who has been guilty 
 of sin after baptism may be satisfied that he is truly 
 repentant for it ; whether and to what degree he should 
 all his life continue his repentance for it; wherein 
 his penitence should consist; whether continued re- 
 pentance would efface the traces of sin in himself; whe- 
 ther he might ever in this life look upon himself 
 as restored to the state in which he had been, had 
 he not committed it ; whether it affect the de- 
 gree of his future bliss, or its effects be effaced by 
 repentance, but their extinction depend upon the 
 continued greatness of his repentance ; whether ces- 
 sation of his active repentance may not bring back 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 degrees of the sin upon him ; whether it shall appear 
 again in the day of judgment ; these and the like are 
 questions upon which the article does not speak." — 
 This is indeed " Protestantism rejected and Popery- 
 spoiled ! " Let him come back to Protestantism, or 
 rather, I should say, to the Gospel with its "unsearch- 
 able riches" of grace; or else let him go forward to 
 Popery, and extricate himself from the meshes of the 
 net in which he has entangled himself, by laying hold 
 of her dogmas of penance and purgatory. Either 
 course would grant him relief — either would be more 
 consistent than to remain where he is— either would 
 save him from the stern rebuke of your Homily of 
 Repentance (as aptly quoted by Bishop M'llvaine,) 
 which says ; " We do not without a just cause detest 
 and abhor the damnable opinion of them which do 
 most wickedly go about to persuade the simple and 
 ignorant people, that if we chance, after we be once 
 come to God and grafted into his Son, to fall into 
 some horrible sin, repentance shall be unprofitable 
 to us; there is no more hope of reconciliation, or to 
 be received again into the favour and mercy of God." 
 The Christian Observer quotes another passage, 
 which exceeds in presumption any thing I remem- 
 ber to have met with in the writings of even nomi- 
 nal Protestants: — "The fountain (of the Redeemer's 
 blood) has indeed been < opened for sin and unclean- 
 ness,' but it were to abuse the power of the keys intrusted 
 to us, (!) again (that is, after a first offence,) to pre- 
 tend to admit them thus; — now there remains only the 
 baptism of tears" "May God forgive men," adds 
 the Observer, " who thus awfully presume to limit 
 the virtue of the Redeemer's atonement; who sub- 
 stitute the penance of tears for the blood of Christ. 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 and who interpose between man and his God, to ad- 
 mit, or shut out from the kingdom of heaven, as they 
 see fit, just as the Popish priests did, to their own 
 pontifical dignity and great gain, (though of this we 
 accuse not the Oxford brethren,) till Luther spoiled 
 TetzePs trade." 
 
 On this point again they have been reproved by 
 their friend the Bishop of Exeter, who is well known 
 in England as an admirer of the Oxford writings. 
 He quotes these statements from Dr. Pusey's work 
 on baptism, to wit: " If after having been then washed, 
 once for all, in Christ's blood, we again sin, there is 
 no more such complete absolution in this life " — no 
 restoration " to the same state of undisturbed security 
 in which God had by baptism placed us:" and then 
 adds, " These, and passages like these, however they 
 may be explained, tend to rob the gospel of the blessed 
 Jesus of much of that assurance of the riches of the 
 goodness and mercy of God in Christ, which is its pe- 
 culiar message — its glad tidings of great joy, "Come 
 unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and 
 I will give you rest." Our church teaches us to ap- 
 ply this blessed promise to those who are "heavy 
 
 laden" with sins committed after baptism 
 
 Nor may we forget the tendency of such language, 
 to encourage the pernicious and perilous habit of dis- 
 tinguishing between such sins as may destroy our 
 state of graee, and such as we may think still leave 
 that state secure. Let it never be absent from our 
 minds that every wilful sin is deadly — and let us be- 
 ware of hardening our own hearts, and corrupting the 
 hearts of our brethren — by whispering to ourselves 
 or them, which sin is more or less deadly than others, 
 
 6* 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 That which we may deem the least, will be deadly- 
 enough, if unrepented, to work our perdition,— those 
 which we deem the most deadly, will, if repented, 
 have been thoroughly washed away in the blood of 
 our Redeemer." (Bishop of Exeter's Charge, deli- 
 vered last spring.) 
 
 The bishop was not "as one that beateth the air," 
 when he penned the latter part of this fine passage. 
 For another of "the worst errors of Popery" which 
 pervades this system, is, the distinction of mortal 
 and venial sins. God has taught us that "the 
 wages of sin is death," and that all sin is deadly. 
 The Roman Catholics deny this, and so do the Ox- 
 fordists. Both teach, with the ancient Pagans, that 
 there are two kinds of sins, mortal and venial. This 
 is distinctly intimated by Dr. Pusey in the paragraph 
 just quoted, but the following is more explicit — "A 
 question, (says Dr. P.,) will probably occur to many ; 
 what is that grievous sin after baptism, which in- 
 volves the falling from grace ? what the distinction 
 between lesser and greater — venial and mortal 
 sins ? or if mortal sins be sins against the decalogue, 
 as St. Augustine says, are they only the highest de- 
 grees of those sins, or are they the lower also ? 
 This question, as it is a very distressing one, I would 
 gladly answer if I could or dared. But, as with re- 
 gard to the sin against the Holy Ghost, so here also, 
 Scripture is silent. I certainly, much as I have la- 
 boured, have not yet been able to decide any thing. 
 Perhaps it is, therefore, concealed, lest men's anxiety 
 to hold onward to the avoiding of all sin, should wax 
 cold. But now since the degree of venial iniqui- 
 ty (!) if persevered in, is unknown, the eagerness to 
 
 M 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 make progress by more instant continuance in prayer 
 is quickened, and the carefulness to make holy friends 
 of the mammon of unrighteousness is not despised." — 
 I know not what sort of a Protestant he must be who 
 will assert that there is no Popery here. 
 
 Indeed, sir, I can look upon the whole representa- 
 tion of these writers, concerning "sins committed 
 after baptism," only as a libel upon the Gospel. I 
 find it difficult to trust my own senses when I see 
 them challenging to themselves " a power over the 
 gifts of the Holy Ghost/' as arrogant as that assumed 
 by Rome herself, and then, with the Gospel in their 
 hands, presuming to say to a fellow worm like them- 
 selves, "You have sinned since you were baptized, and 
 6 scripture is silent ' as to the means or even the possi- 
 bility of your forgiveness. Henceforth there remains 
 for you only the baptism of tears !" Is this Chris- 
 tianity ? Is this the doctrine of that precious book 
 which says, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth 
 from all sin?" Away with such divinity! It is 
 stamped, not with Popery merely, (for Popery is on 
 this point far less revolting,) but with cruelty and 
 impiety. It dishonours God, and brings chains and 
 bondage instead of freedom and salvation to apostate, 
 guilty man. Let its authors set up the cross where 
 God has placed it, (and where they have supplanted it 
 with the baptismal font,) in the centre of the glorious 
 system of redemption ; and see then, whether there 
 is " no balm in Gilead and no Physician there," for a 
 sin-sick soul — whether the blood of Christ will prove 
 as inadequate to " take away sin," as they confess 
 their baptismal waters are. 
 
 Closely allied to the dogma of mortal and venial 
 
( 6S ) 
 
 sins, is that of purgatory; for it is easy to associate 
 with the doctrine that there are no means provided 
 in this world for cleansing those who have " sinned 
 after baptism," the notion that some arrangement for 
 this purpose may be provided hereafter. On this 
 subject, again, the Tractists are reserved and enigma- 
 tical. Sometimes they condemn the Romish doc- 
 trine stoutly. But this seems to be aimed rather at 
 its details than the principle of it. And the prevail- 
 ing tone of their observations leaves the impression 
 on the reader's mind, that their antipathy to the doc- 
 trine is not so very bitter but that they might be per- 
 suaded out of it. I will cite a passage or two. " The 
 Creed of Pope Pius only says, ' I firmly hold that 
 there is a purgatory, and that souls therein detained, 
 are aided by the prayers of the faithful;' nothing 
 being said of its being a place of punishment, no- 
 thing or all but nothing, which does not admit of being 
 explained of merely an intermediate state. Now, sup- 
 posing we found ourselves (no very violent supposi- 
 tion, by the way, for this writer,) in the Roman com- 
 munion, of course it would be a great relief to find that 
 we were not bound to believe more than this vague 
 statement, nor should we, (I conceive,) on account of 
 the received interpretation about purgatory superadd- 
 ed to it, be obliged to leave our church;" (Tract 71, 
 13.) Again, (Tract 79, p. 516,) we are told that, 
 tl taken in the mere letter, there is little in it (the Ro- 
 man doctrine of purgatory,) against which we shall 
 be able to sustain formal objections." So also, (same 
 Tract, p. 538,) commenting on the expression in 1 
 Cor. iii. 15: "He shall be saved, yet so as by fire," 
 they utter these ominous sayings : " Doubtless there is 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 a mystery in the woidi fire as there is a mystery in the 
 words day of judgment. Yet it any how has refer- 
 ence to the instrument or process of judgment. And 
 in this way the fathers seem to have understood the 
 passage ; referring it to the last judgment, as Scrip- 
 ture does, but at the same time religiously retain- 
 ing the use of the word fire, as not affecting to inter- 
 pret and dispense with what seems some mysterious econo- 
 my, lest they should be wiser than what is written." 
 To these I subjoin (from Bishop M'llvaine) the some- 
 what bolder avowal of Mr. Newman. "Who can tell 
 (says Mr. N., in his Parochial Sermons,) but in God's 
 mercy, the time of waiting between death and Christ's 
 coming may be profitable to those who have been his 
 true servants here, as a time of maturing that fruit of 
 grace, but partly found in them in this life, a school- 
 time of contemplation, as this world is of discipline, 
 of active service. Such, surely, is the force of the 
 apostle's words, that 'He that hath begun a good 
 work in you, will perform it until the day of Christ ' 
 — not stopping at death, but carrying it into the resur- 
 rection, — as if the interval between death and his 
 coming was by no means to be omitted in the pro~ 
 cess of our preparation for heaven." 
 
 This theory lacks but one feature of purgatory, 
 namely, suffering or discipline ; and as this is of great 
 efficacy in this life, in " maturing the fruit of grace" in 
 the hearts of Christians and "preparing them for hea- 
 ven," there seems no good reason why the Oxfordists 
 should not avail themselves of it in their purgatory, as 
 well as the Romanists and the pagans in theirs. It will 
 be no marvel if some future " Tract for the Times," 
 should tell the members of the "Anglo-Catholic 
 
( ™ ) 
 
 Church/' in no apocryphal terms, that their pious re- 
 latives who have departed this life under the stain 
 of "post-baptismal sin," are now undergoing that pro- 
 cess by which, according to old Anchises, departed 
 souls are purged from their remaining defilement and 
 fitted for the Elysian fields : 
 
 "Ergo exercentur poems, veterumque malorum 
 Supplicia expendunt." 
 
 If the Oxford writers are shy of confessing a purga- 
 tory, no such diffidence can be imputed to them in 
 reference to the practice of offering prayers for 
 the dead. They cite various testimonies from the 
 earfy fathers in support of this practice, and the Bri- 
 tish Critic, I perceive, commends it as " truly aposto- 
 lical" (I wish the Reviewers had pointed out the 
 passage in the writings or lives of the apostles, which 
 authorizes it.) I quote a single passage from several 
 I had marked in Tract 77. 
 
 "I would venture to ask .... whether (as Luther 
 did) you have not prayed for the perfecting and in- 
 creased blessedness of a departed friend or relation, 
 even though you have subsequently checked your- 
 self? whether you did not find a comfort from that 
 prayer? and whether this dictate of human nature, 
 warranted as it is by the early Church, and distinct 
 from the Romish error, may not, after all, be im- 
 planted by the God of nature — may not be the voice 
 of God within us ? " (p. 412.) 
 
 The Bishop of Exeter's comments on this subject 
 will answer better than any I could make. " To state 
 (he observes) that this practice is a matter of sacred 
 consolation to those who feel themselves justified in 
 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 entertaining it," — (and all, they seem to suggest, may 
 1 feel themselves justified,' for <it is warranted by the 
 early Church ') — to say, further, that "it is a solemn 
 privilege to the mourner " — " a dictate of human na- 
 ture" — nay, that "it may be implanted by the God 
 of nature, may be the voice of God within us :" — to 
 say all this, is surely "an encouragement" of the 
 practice so characterized, which is very feebly coun- 
 ter-balanced by their admitting that "our Church does 
 not encourage it " — by their abstaining from in " any 
 way inculcating it" — or even by their thinking 'it 
 expedient to bring forward such a topic in public 
 discussion.' "—The Bishop then goes on to show 
 that the Church does discourage the practice; and he 
 says he " cannot reconcile it with Christian discre- 
 tion," or "understand what justification can be of- 
 fered" by these gentlemen for expressing themselves 
 as they have done about a practice which " has been 
 deliberately, and for such grave reasons, repudiated 
 by the Church herself." 
 
 Another indication of the Popish tendency of this 
 system, is to be seen in the experiment its authors 
 are trying, of instituting New Saints' Days. My 
 Right Rev. correspondent does not require to be in- 
 formed that they have (in imitation of the Papists) 
 set apart a day to the religious commemoration of 
 Bishop Ken, and even constructed and published a 
 Matin Service for Bishop Ken's Day, " formed 
 apparently (says the Bishop of Exeter) on the model 
 of an office in the Breviary to a Romish saint. Would 
 it be safe for the Church itself (the Bishop pro- 
 ceeds) — and is it becoming in private individuals — 
 to pronounce thus confidently on the characters of 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 deceased Christians — in other words, to assume the 
 gift of ' discerning spirits ?' To what must such a 
 practice be expected to lead ? The history of the 
 Church of Rome has told us, and the fathers of our 
 Reformation, in compiling the Liturgy, have marked 
 their sense of the danger, by rejecting every portion 
 of the Breviary which bears on such a practice, even 
 while they adopted all that was really sound and edi- 
 fying in it. Yet these writers scruple not to recom- 
 mend this very practice thus deliberately rejected by 
 those wise and holy men, and, strange to say, re- 
 commend it as ( only completing what our Reformers 
 have begun. 5 " 
 
 This move is certainly a bold one for these cau- 
 tious leaders. No wonder some of their friends are 
 startled by it. But perhaps they know best what 
 the public mind will bear, and how rapidly it will 
 answer to unfold the system. You or I may live to 
 see the "English Calendar," not filled up, indeed, 
 like the "Roman/' with a Saint for every day in 
 the year, but studded with a score or two of goodly 
 names — each with its "Matin" or "Vesper" Ser- 
 vice. How curious it would be, should Archbishop 
 Laud's name happen to be elevated to the niche ad- 
 joining Bishop Ken's. No candidate for canoniza- 
 tion would probably poll as many votes at the Uni- 
 versity just now. And yet it may be doubted whether 
 the laity of the Church of England, are quite pre- 
 pared for such an addition to their tutelary deities. 
 
 The Bishop of Exeter further censures the Tractists 
 for the gentle terms in which they treat of "some of 
 the worst corruptions of Popery:" — "for instance, 
 the Invocation of Saints and the Worship of 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 images." I do not charge them with advocating these 
 practices, but they are far from dealing with them in 
 the ordinary style of Protestants. And one of them, 
 the late Mr. Froude, already mentioned, whose ' Re- 
 mains ' were edited at Oxford, says, "I think people 
 are injudicious to talk against Roman Catholics for 
 worshipping of saints, and honouring the Virgin and 
 Images, &c. These things may perhaps be idola- 
 trous, I cannot make up my mind about it." 
 
 In Tract 71, p. 7, the writers recommend that 
 "we should put into the back ground the controversy 
 about the Holy Eucharist, which is almost certain to 
 lead to profane and rationalistic thoughts in the minds 
 of many, and cannot well be discussed in words at all, 
 without the sacrifice of "godly fear;" — "as if (sub- 
 joins the Bishop already quoted so freely) that tenet. 
 (transubstantiation) were not the abundant source of 
 enormous practical evils, which the faithful advocate 
 of truth is bound to expose." — One is ready to sus- 
 pect that there must be some other motive than the 
 one here assigned, for wishing to arrest the contro- 
 versy about transubstantiation. I offer no conjecture 
 as to what it is ; but there is a sentence or two in 
 Knox and Jebb's Correspondence (a work which 
 contains not merely the « germs' of this system, but, 
 in some particulars, a fuller development of it than 
 we have yet been favoured with in the Tracts,) which 
 I beg leave to quote on this point. " Deep measures 
 (says Mr. Knox,) have been taken for making our 
 re-union (the Church of England with the Roman 
 Catholic Church,) practicable, in the fulness of time ; 
 but little less deep measures have also been taken, 
 for keeping it off until that time should be ; fully 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 come.' Such a measure I take to be the decree of 
 the Council of Late ran in the year (I think) 1215, 
 under Innocent III. Until then the actual tenet of 
 transubstantiation had not been enjoined, and the 
 believer in the real presence was equally catholic, 
 whether he did, or did not, suppose a change in the 
 substance of the elements .... I am ready to think 
 this will prove our last remaining barrier to coalescence"* 
 (Letter 94.) 
 
 This brings me to the doctrine of the Real 
 Presence. The Tractists deny transubstantiation, 
 but they hold that the real body and blood of Christ 
 are present in the eucharist. This is implied when 
 they tell us that the ministry in the line of " apos- 
 tolical succession," have been intrusted with "the aw- 
 ful and mysterious gift of making the bread and w\ne 3 
 Christ's body and blood;" and affirm that their Church 
 is " the only Church in this (the British) realm, 
 
 WHICH HAS A RIGHT TO BE QUITE SURE THAT SHE HAS 
 
 the Lord's body to give to his people." (Tract 
 4, p. 26.) But in Tract 27, (from Bishop Cosin) 
 the language is explicit, as the following extracts will 
 show. " We hold by a firm belief that it is the body 
 of Christ; of the manner how it becomes so, there is 
 not a word in the Gospel We believe a real pre- 
 sence no less than you (the Romanists) do." " If it 
 
 * I hope the Editor of the Churchman had no reference to this 
 passage, when he contended, in his late controversy with the 
 Catholic Herald, that the dogma of transubstantiation in its true 
 and primitive import, had been abandoned by nearly all the Ro- 
 man Catholics of the present day ? The Romanist officiously 
 called for his " proofs " — a call that has been found, it is appre- 
 hended, a little embarrassing. 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 seems impossible that the flesh of Christ should de- 
 scend, and become our food, through so great a distance, 
 we must remember how much the power of the Holy- 
 Spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions .... 
 and so make our faith to receive and believe, what 
 
 our reason cannot comprehend In this mystical 
 
 eating, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, 
 we do invisibly receive the substance of Christ's body 
 and blood, as much as if we should eat and drink both 
 visibly." He admits that " there is a conversion of the 
 bread into the body of Christ" and says, that " the true 
 body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured, but 
 also given indeed and by worthy communicants duly 
 received." 
 
 But I will not multiply quotations. I am well 
 aware that unguarded language was used on this sub- 
 ject by some even of the Continental Reformers. 
 But, I think, all unbiassed Protestants must see in the 
 doctrine of the Tracts on this point, (especially when 
 viewed in connexion with the rest of the system,) a 
 strong Popish tendency. Nothing, certainly, could 
 be more at variance than the sentiments just quoted, 
 with the language of your 28th Article, which says, 
 " The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in 
 the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual man- 
 ner." And plain readers will wonder that men who 
 can put forth sentiments like these, should feel any 
 great horror of transubstantiation. 
 
 The only remaining feature of these Tracts I pro- 
 pose to notice, is, their doctrine concerning the 
 Rule of Faith. On this fundamental question, 
 they side with the Church of Rome in maintaining 
 the insufficiency of the Bible as a rule of faith, and 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 the binding obligations of "Catholic traditions." 
 That they differ from Rome as to what these tradi- 
 tions are, is a matter of very subordinate moment. 
 With her they hold, that the Bible cannot be under- 
 stood without the aid of the church — nay, that "the 
 church has ever been the primary source of faith." 
 An inquirer "must go first to the Church" then, if he 
 chooses, to the Bible. The Bible is, in the judgment 
 of these writers, a very obscure book. Who would 
 suppose that any one, except a Roman Catholic, could 
 speak of the Holy Scriptures in terms like these? 
 " If Scripture contains any religious system at all, it 
 must contain it covertly, and teach it obscurely, be- 
 cause it is altogether most immethodical and irregu- 
 lar in its structure." (Tract 85.*) Again; "I own 
 it seems to me, judging antecedently, very improba- 
 ble, indeed, that it (the Bible) should contain the 
 whole of the revealed word of God. . . We do not 
 look into Scripture for a complete history of the se- 
 cular matters which it mentions; why should we 
 look for a complete account of religious truth ? . . . 
 Both the history of its composition and its internal 
 structure, are against its being a complete depository 
 of the Divine will, unless the early church says it is. 
 Now, the early church does not tell us this. It does 
 not seem to have considered that a complete code of 
 morals (/) or of Church government, or of rites, or 
 of discipline, is in Scripture." (This is, indeed, 
 "'rancid Popery," as Dr. Beasley calls it.) Again, 
 of the doctrines of the faith, this writer says, (in the 
 same Tract,) " the wonder is that they are all there, 
 
 * I have not this Tract at hand, and quote through another 
 writer. 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 or can be gained indirectly from Scripture : humanly 
 judging, they would not be there but for God's inter- 
 position ; and, therefore, since they are there by a 
 sort of accident, it is not strange they should be la- 
 tent there, and only indirectly producible thence. 
 God effects his greatest ends by apparent accidents." 
 Is not this intolerable from a professed believer in 
 the Scriptures? from a minister of the Gospel? from 
 a signer of those articles which say, not that the Bi- 
 ble is to be received and believed because it may be 
 proved by the creeds, but that the creeds are to be 
 " received and believed/' because " they may be 
 proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture?" 
 (See your 8th Art.) 
 
 The Book which God mercifully gave us, to be 
 " a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path," having 
 proved so inadequate, another guide must be sub- 
 stituted in its slead. Accordingly, we are informed, 
 (see British Critic, vol. 24, p. 254,) that " the church 
 is, in matter of fact, our great divinely appointed guide 
 into saving truth, under divine grace, whatever may 
 be the abstract power or sufficiency of the Bible." 
 Mr. Keble, also, (according to the Christian Ob- 
 server,) maintained, in his visitation sermon, that 
 "church tradition is parallel to Scripture, not de- 
 rived from it ;" that " it fixes the interpretation of 
 disputed texts by authority of the Holy Spirit;" and 
 that " we are as much bound to defer to tradition as 
 to the written word of God, which he has been 
 pleased to give us over and above." Is this Protes- 
 tant (or, if you will, Reformed) Christianity? Or is 
 it Popery? 
 
 It is not surprising that the advocates of these 
 
 7* 
 
( 78 ) 
 
 principles, should be engaged in a systematic effort, 
 both in England and this country, to discredit Chil- 
 lingworth. These gentlemen see that his great work, 
 " The Religion of Protestants, a safe way to salva- 
 tion," is, in some of its leading principles, as much 
 in the way of their success, as it has been in that of 
 Rome. And they have joined Rome in her effort to 
 overthrow it. It has withstood her assaults for two 
 hundred years : the sequel will show whether her 
 new allies will be able (even by the mining process 
 they are resorting to,) to prostrate this noble bul- 
 wark of Protestantism. That they come to the en- 
 terprise with a zest, is evident, as well from their 
 ungenerous attacks upon the reputation of Chilling- 
 worth, as from the thrusts they make on all occa- 
 sions at his favourite maxim, " The Bible, the Bible 
 only is the religion of Protestants." See examples 
 in Mr. Keble's sermon, and in the British Critic pas- 
 sim. This latter work, indeed, gives us a morceau 
 from one of Mr. Froude's letters, (a man whose 
 frankness every one must respect, however we may 
 revolt at his errors,) in which he repudiates the 
 Scriptures as a guide even in fundamentals. " Your 
 trumpery principle (he observes) about ' Scripture 
 being the sole rule of faith in fundamentals,' (I nau- 
 seate the word,) is but a mutilated edition of the 
 Protestant principle of 'the Bible, and the Bible 
 only is the religion of Protestants/ without the 
 breadth and axiomatic character of the original.' " 
 "Bible religion," is an offence to these gentlemen. 
 They " cannot away with it." It is too simple in 
 its doctrines, its order, its worship. Hence we hear 
 one who was as much the god-father as Knox was 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 the father of the system, exclaiming, "// is my wish 
 and prayer that I may be saved from the simplicity of 
 Bible religion!"* What a prayer for a Christian 
 Bishop ! 
 
 These writers, it is true, do not adopt the Romish 
 doctrine of the rule of faith in all particulars : but 
 the points on which they are at issue, are quite se- 
 condary, in importance, to those in which they 
 agree. The following principles, for example, are 
 (as I understand them) common to the two systems: 
 
 1. The Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith and 
 practice. 
 
 2. Catholic tradition is of equal authority with 
 the written word. 
 
 3. The Church is "the primary source of faith." 
 
 4. The Church is the only authorized expounder 
 of the Scriptures. 
 
 5. Controversies of faith are to be ultimately de- 
 termined by an appeal, not to the Scriptures, but to 
 Catholic tradition. 
 
 I submit whether these principles do not imbody 
 the essence of the Popish dogma on this great ques- 
 tion? 
 
 It is not my object to argue the points involved 
 in this question, but I cannot refrain from adding two 
 or three sentences from an admirable address on the 
 rule of faith, delivered in 1827, by one of the high 
 dignitaries of the established church, the Archbishop 
 of Dublin. 
 
 " If Scripture be the word of God, intended for 
 our direction; and if, as such, it contains all things 
 necessary to our salvation ; and contains them like- 
 
 * Bishop Jebb in his 126th Letter to Knox. 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 wise with sufficient plainness, [positions he had esta- 
 blished in the context,] — it is manifestly a full and 
 sufficient rule for the faith and practice of Christians; 
 and there can be none other, by which we should be 
 governed, but this alone." After stating the Romish 
 doctrine of tradition, he resumes : " Thus, an un- 
 written tradition is made necessary to supply the de^ 
 fects and to illustrate the obscurities of the written 
 word of God. And, consequently, that church, 
 which professes to be the keeper and dispenser of 
 this tradition, becomes the only interpreter of the 
 Christian revelation — it holds in its hands all the se^ 
 crets of the Divine counsels — rits rules constitute the 
 true measure of our faith and practice, and its au- 
 thority forms the immediate and true ground of 
 
 Christian obligation What is this but 
 
 putting the decrees of men in place of the oracles of 
 God, dispossessing our Lord and Saviour of the su- 
 premacy over his church, displacing that church from 
 the foundation which has been laid, and attempting 
 to erect it upon one removed to the greatest con- 
 ceivable distance from the foundation of Jesus 
 Christ?" 
 
 These remarks, I am aware, apply in their full 
 extent only to the Papal doctrine; but they apply 
 substantially to the Oxford school, as having adopted 
 the main principle of that doctrine. With this prin- 
 ciple Rome set out, but she could not maintain her- 
 self without adding other corruptions to it. Is there 
 any reason to believe it will fare better with Ox- 
 ford? 
 
 I have thus endeavoured, Right Reverend Sir, to es- 
 tablish the main position of the obnoxious passage in 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 my Lecture, to wit : that the Oxford Divinity im- 
 bodies " some of the worst errors of Popery." If 
 my time and your patience would permit, I would 
 furnish additional proofs, and bring out more promi- 
 nently some features of the system, which have been 
 only glanced at. But I am satisfied to rest the case 
 here, and to leave it to the readers of our correspon- 
 dence to decide whether the charge which I, in com- 
 mon with so many others, have brought against these 
 tracts, is without any foundation. 
 
 The other points submitted by you are of second- 
 ary importance, and can be more summarily disposed 
 of. One of them relates to the efforts which, it is 
 alleged in my Lecture, the Oxfordists are making 
 in England to disseminate their doctrines, and to 
 the measure of success with which these efforts have 
 been attended. On this subject I have only to say, 
 that it is a matter of general notoriety that the Wri- 
 ters in question "are employing both the pulpit and 
 the press, to give their publications currency among 
 the people." No one who sees the British Critic, or 
 reads the quarterly list of new works from the Ox- 
 ford press, can be in doubt on this point. And the 
 Tractists themselves inform us in their second vol- 
 ume, that "there has been much hearty and intelli- 
 gent adoption " of the " primitive views " advocated 
 by them. Another writer, also, (Mr. Baden Powell) 
 is quoted by the Critic as having stated in a recent 
 pamphlet, that these sentiments " have been exten- 
 sively adopted and strenuously upheld, and are daily 
 gaining ground among a considerable and influential 
 portion of the members, as well as ministers, of the 
 established Church." — But this is one of the points 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 on which we shall doubtless agree, and I will not 
 dwell on it. 
 
 The other part of my statement, which you call 
 upon me to substantiate, is in the following words: — 
 " The Oxford Tract leaven is already beginning to 
 work in our cities ; and Roman priests are publicly 
 felicitating their people, on the progress their doc- 
 trines are making in the bosom of a Protestant 
 Church/' You have made up an issue on the latter 
 part of this sentence, to which I might fairly except. 
 You call upon me to prove that the Popish doctrines 
 of the Oxford system have made such progress in 
 your church, as to " authorize " the Roman priests 
 to congratulate their people on the event. This is 
 not what I asserted. I stated a simple fact. As to 
 2Jroving that fact, I presume my word is a sufficient 
 voucher for it. But if you see the Roman Catholic 
 papers (as I take it for granted you do,) you have all 
 the " proof " of my statement, which could reasonably 
 be desired — though (allow me to add) you have not 
 all on which the statement was actually founded. 
 
 But (to eome to the merits of the case) the whole 
 question presented by the language of the Lecture, as 
 quoted above and modified by the note (which is 
 copied into my first lecture,) resolves itself into this, 
 viz : whether the Oxford system, as a system, has 
 made any progress in our cities ? If it has, then, on 
 the supposition that it is strongly imbued with Po- 
 pery, (a point already examined,) the Popery that is 
 in it, has made progress also. 
 
 In the note just alluded to, I have expressed the 
 opinion — an opinion founded on the testimony of 
 intelligent Protestant Episcopalians — that " the cir- 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 dilation of these pernicious writings " (the Oxford 
 publications) was likely to be kept " within very nar- 
 row limits." I cordially hope this may be the case. 
 Still, there is not wanting evidence to show that the 
 "leaven" has been introduced. In proof of this, I 
 need but refer to the support which specific errors 
 of the system have received from leading periodicals, 
 and the exertions that have been made to circulate 
 the tracts. 
 
 Whatever may be the character of these publica- 
 tions, whether Protestant or Popish, or neither, it will 
 not be denied that active measures have been taken to 
 disseminate them. I am aware that it is customary to 
 commend these " calumniated writings," with some 
 reservation. The right of any individual to do this, 
 is indisputable. But it is not easy to see how one 
 can recommend a series of works to the public, if he 
 believes they contain any serious error. There may 
 be many sound and excellent sentiments in the Koran, 
 in the " Fratres Poloni," in the works of Belsham or 
 Channing, — but what pious and judicious man would 
 advise the indiscriminate purchase and study of these 
 books? Nay, what conscientious religious teacher 
 would promote the circulation of a work which he 
 believed to be pervaded with any one important er- 
 ror? It involves a serious imputation upon the cha- 
 racters of the clergymen who lend their influence to 
 scatter the Oxford writings through the church, to 
 admit the supposition for a moment, that they can 
 regard the errors they may contain, in any other light 
 than as very trivial blemishes. — But let me cite a 
 few testimonies, to illustrate the estimate in which 
 the Oxford Divinity is held in this country. This 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 is, I am sure, quite a work of supererogation; and in- 
 stead of going into it in detail, I shall quote a few 
 statements and facts from the " Churchman" (to 
 come no nearer home,) and then respectfully refer 
 my correspondent for further information, to the 
 columns of that paper, passim, for the last eighteen 
 months. 
 
 A correspondent of the Churchman thus repudi- 
 ates, like his brethren at Oxford, the name " Protes- 
 tant Episcopalian:" — " In the argument which I of- 
 fered in your last, I must confess my chagrin at the 
 use of the word Episcopalians. How can we blame 
 those who are ignorant of Catholic principles for 
 confounding us with the numerous sects of the age, 
 while we sanction and encourage the delusion by 
 taking to ourselves the inadequate designation of 
 Protestant Episcopalians?" 
 
 " For one, I am willing to serve under the banner 
 of the church, but not under the flag of a sect; I claim 
 my right to be known as a Catholic, and I complain 
 of the wrong which is done me by a name which 
 does not represent my character, feelings or prin- 
 ciples, and which obliges me to belie my profession, 
 and appear to the world in a false character." 
 
 What a mortal antipathy this school have to the 
 word " Protestant." It seems, with them, to taint 
 every thing it touches. 
 
 A late No. of the same paper has the following 
 effusion from the pen of Dodwell, a writer quoted 
 with much favour in the Oxford Tracts. Whether 
 the editor joins with this arrogant writer, in the sum- 
 mary disposition he makes of all non-Episcopalians, 
 I do not know. Happily for us, our eternal destiny 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 is not suspended upon the dictum of a poor fellow- 
 mortal so much a stranger to the true spirit of Christi- 
 anity, as to give utterance to sentiments like these : — 
 
 " None but the bishops can unite us to the Father 
 and the Son. Whence it will follow that whosoever 
 is disunited from the visible communion of the church 
 on earth, and particularly from that visible commu- 
 nion of the bishops, must consequently be disunited 
 from the whole visible Catholic Church on earth; and 
 not only so, but from the invisible communion of the 
 holy angels and saints in heaven, and, what is yet 
 more, from Christ and God himself. It is one of 
 the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of 
 the damned, that they are banished from the pre- 
 sence of the Lord and the glory of his power. The 
 same is their condition also, who are disunited from 
 Christ by being disunited from his visible represen- 
 tative." 
 
 A correspondent, in the same No., gives us Dod- 
 welFs doctrine over again: — 
 
 " None but the bishops can unite us to the Fa- 
 ther, in the way of Christ's appointment, and these 
 bishops must be such as receive their mission from 
 the first commissioned apostles: wherever such bish- 
 ops are found dispensing the faith and sacraments of 
 Christ, there is a true church : unsound it may be, 
 like the Church of Rome, but still a true or real 
 church, as a sick or diseased man, though unsound, 
 is still a real or true man." 
 
 The Churchman, it is manifest, then, is quite up to 
 the Oxford standard, on the subject of church power 
 and the apostolical succession. — It is equally explicit 
 respecting the real presence; and even subscribes to 
 
( S6 ) 
 
 the doctrine that " the elements are converted into 
 the very body and very blood of the Redeemer." 
 In Nov. 1839, several queries were propounded to 
 the editor, by " Warburton," in relation to the senti- 
 ments taught in the Oxford Tracts. In answer to 
 the first question, he says, " We reply without hesi- 
 tation that the Tracts teach not only the virtual, but 
 the real and substantial presence of Christ in the sa- 
 crament. In saying this, however, we wish to say 
 as distinctly, that they totally discard the dogma of 
 transubstantiation, as propounded by the Council of 
 Trent: nor, so far as we have seen, do they give the 
 least countenance to any refined modification of that 
 doctrine. And whereas "Warburton" supposes that 
 if they deny transubstantiation, as commonly under- 
 stood, they yet teach the change of the elements into 
 what he calls a tertium quid, we desire to add our 
 belief that he does them great injustice in imputing to 
 them any such folly or irreverence. On the contrary, 
 they, in some places, teach distinctly the conver- 
 sion of the elements into the very body and very 
 blood of the Redeemer." He subsequently adds, 
 u To the doctrine of the real presence as stated in 
 our answer to Warburton's first query, we cordially 
 accede." 
 
 One of his papers, for the same month, contains a 
 long article from the "British Magazine," (one of 
 the Oxford organs,) advocating Prayers for the 
 dead. The editor thus expresses what he supposes 
 to be the opinion of the Tractists (and what is doubt- 
 less his own) on this subject: — "We doubt whether 
 we should be justified in saying that they recom- 
 mend the offering of prayer for the faithful depart- 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 ed; although they would probably adopt with appro- 
 bation the language of a bishop of the American 
 Church, and 'lament that the Church of Rome, by 
 grafting the absurd errors of purgatory , and prayers 
 to departed saints, instead of for them, on this old, 
 and pious, and Catholic Christian doctrine, hath al- 
 most banished it out of the minds of Protestant 
 Christians.' " 
 
 How far the editor coincides with the Oxfordists 
 on the fundamental doctrines of justification, rege- 
 neration, the nature and desert of sin, and their affili- 
 ated points, together with the opus operatum effi- 
 cacy of Baptism, may be gathered from his laudatory 
 notice of Dr. Pusey's Treatise on Baptism, (form- 
 ing Vol. II. of the Tracts,) in which these subjects 
 are discussed. We have, in his notice, an example 
 of the " reserve " so frequently exhibited on this 
 side the Atlantic, in endorsing the new Divinity ; 
 but the feeble note of dissent that meets us in the 
 third sentence, seems (and v/ith reason,) ashamed to 
 utter its tiny voice in the midst of the swelling ac- 
 clamations which go up on either side of it. 
 
 "Baptismal Privileges. — It is refreshing to 
 turn from the cheerless and shrivelling theology of 
 the day, to the expanded and ennobling views of our 
 holy calling which Dr. Pusey has opened to us, in 
 his admirable treatise on Baptism. We have read 
 enough of this treatise to be satisfied that it is re- 
 plete with pure, primitive, and truly scriptural doc- 
 trine. The points on which its correctness may, on 
 solid grounds, be reasonably questioned, are as no- 
 thing compared with the broad, Catholic and scrip- 
 tural principles which it develops with surprising 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 fulness, and advocates with a chastened zeal. We 
 consider it the most extraordinary theological work 
 of the age; and as it is divested of technicalities, and 
 adapted to laymen as well as professional readers, we 
 trust that it will find its way into every family in the 
 Church. If the author seem to his readers to attach 
 too great importance to what they perhaps are ac- 
 customed to regard as merely a significant ceremony? 
 let them see whether he have not scriptural authority 
 for his views ; and if they still falter, let them think 
 whether any too great things can be said of blessings 
 conveyed to us by the sacrament, which the Re- 
 deemer has appointed as the seal and symbol of the 
 redemption of mankind." — (Churchman of May 9th, 
 1840.) 
 
 I subjoin a single sentence, from the same source, 
 on the rule of faith: — "It will be well for the 
 reader of Chillingworth to bear in mind the unques- 
 tioned fact, that the Church, and not the Scrip- 
 tures, is the primary source of the faith; and that 
 the writings of the New Testament were produced 
 as emergencies required, and serve the purpose ra- 
 ther of a safeguard against error than of a first ini- 
 tiation into the faith of Christ." He elsewhere in- 
 sists on the authority of tradition, in harmony with 
 the Tract writers. 
 
 But I need not dwell on particulars. We have 
 testimony, which covers the whole ground, in a very 
 few words. The great question about the Oxford 
 publications, is, whether they are imbued with Po- 
 pery. We are assured by this paper, that they are 
 not only free from Popery, but even from any " ten- 
 dency " to it. The Editor (in commenting on Dr. 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 Pusey's letter to the Bishop of Oxford) puts his im- 
 primatur upon them thus : — " The members of our 
 own Church who have been inclined to accede ge- 
 nerally to the views set forth in the Tracts, but 
 have feared that there might be some foundation for 
 the violent and sweeping charges which have been 
 brought against their authors, may now consider 
 their fears as effectually at rest. Every suspicion ■ 
 even of a tendency to Romanism, in the Oxford 
 Divines, is removed." 
 
 The explicitness of this language leaves nothing 
 further to be desired in the way of proof. In the judg- 
 ment of one of your leading journals, the passages 
 cited in this letter (I refer to these as a sample mere- 
 ly,) from the Oxford writings, on the power of the 
 priesthood,* the efficacy of the sacraments, baptismal 
 
 * One of the powers claimed for the priesthood at Oxford, in 
 as extravagant a degree as at Rome, has not been adverted to in 
 this letter — I mean the power of absolution. A single illustration 
 of it is all I can introduce here: and this imports (if I understand 
 it) that in the opinion of these writers, it is at least doubtful 
 whether a penitent sinner can obtain forgiveness through the 
 blood of Christ, without absolution from a priest. — On p. 128 of 
 his treatise on Baptism, Dr. Pusey quotes a brief narrative from 
 the late excellent Mr. Williams, of the South Sea Islands Mis- 
 sion, the purport of which is this. Mr. W. was called to see a 
 sick woman, (a member of the church, as I interpret his language,) 
 who was in great distress of mind, on account of infanticides of 
 which she had been guilty when a heathen. " I directed her (he 
 observes) to the " faithful saying, that Christ Jesus came into the 
 world to save sinners." This imparted a little comfort, and after 
 visiting her frequently, and directing her thoughts to that blood 
 which cleanseth from all sin, I succeeded, by the blessing of God, 
 in tranquillizing her troubled spirit: and she died about eight days 
 after my first interview, animated with the hope, that her sins, 
 though many, would all be forgiven her. And what but the Gos- 
 
 8* 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 justification and renewal, the office of saving faith, the 
 distinction of mortal and venial sins, the possibility 
 of forgiveness for post-baptismal sins, the subordinate 
 position of the doctrine of the atonement and the 
 preaching of the Gospel, in the means of grace, the 
 real presence, prayers for the dead, the institution of 
 new saints' days, the insufficiency of the Bible as a 
 rule of faith, the authority of tradition, together with 
 the marked antipathy of the Tractists to the various 
 Protestant denominations, their sneers at the Refor- 
 mation, and their habitual tone of deference and affec- 
 tion towards the church of Rome — the language of 
 the Tracts on all these points, contains nothing to 
 justify the bare "suspicion of even a tendency to 
 Romanism !" 
 
 It certainly will not now be an open question 
 among American Protestants, whether the " leaven " 
 of this divinity " is beginning to work in our cities." 
 How widely it will diffuse itself, is known only to 
 Him who knoweth all things. Its fruits, however, 
 will doubtless develope themselves with the system. 
 Indeed, some have appeared already. May I respect- 
 fully commend a single fact to your attention? I 
 
 pel could have brought such consolation?" — On this statement. 
 Dr. Pusey remarks, " Consolation is not the main object of the 
 Gospel, yet the Gospel would have brought much more conso- 
 lation, had this teacher known it all, and could have told her 
 of the " one Baptism for the remission of sins," that she " had 
 been washed, had been cleansed;" and so could he have declared 
 authoritatively, without altering our Lord's own words, " Thy 
 sins are forgiven." — Here not only is baptism made a ground of 
 confidence that our sins are forgiven, but the clergy are assumed 
 to have the prerogative of authoritatively (for the word "are" 
 is made emphatic by Dr. Pusey,) pronouncing the remission of 
 sins. Does Rome go beyond this? 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 know of an instance in which a family of the highest 
 respectability, have been converted to Popery ', chief- 
 ly by the reading of the Oxford j)ublications. Can 
 a system which leads to such results, be free from 
 "any tendency to Romanism?" Can a good tree 
 bring forth such corrupt fruit? It does really appear 
 to me, Sir, (if I may be allowed to express a private 
 opinion,) that facts like this ought to make serious 
 Episcopalians, who may have inadvertently counte- 
 nanced this system, pause and consider whether they 
 are not promoting a scheme which will be likely, in 
 the end, to seduce many nominal Protestants into the 
 church of Rome. Can a series of writings be adapt- 
 ed to advance the interests of true religion, which are 
 already " overthrowing the faith of some," and the re- 
 publication of which, in this country, was warmly en- 
 couraged by the Roman Catholics, on the ground 
 (to use their own language) that many Protestants 
 " would find in their pages doctrines so un-protestant 
 as would lead them to examine the grounds on which 
 they were asserted, and so consonant with the faith 
 and practice of the Catholic church," as would even- 
 tually bring them back into her fold? 
 
 Such, Right Reverend Sir, are some of the grounds 
 on which the statements in my Lecture, respecting 
 the Oxford Divinity, must rest for their vindication. 
 I flatter myself that I shall be exonerated, in the 
 view of impartial men of all denominations, from the 
 imputation of having spoken either unadvisedly or 
 uncharitably, in alleging that there are " some of the 
 worst errors of Popery " incorporated with that sys- 
 tem. Or, if I have erred, it will not, I am persuaded, 
 
( 92 ) 
 
 be accounted as a " mortal " sin, when it is consid- 
 ered not only that the Roman Catholics themselves 
 have fallen into the same misconception as to the 
 character of the system, but that all that I have 
 charged upon it has been charged before, by distin- 
 guished clergymen of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, both in England and America. This is 
 shown in my first letter, and might be confirmed by 
 the testimony of the excellent Bishop of Chester, 
 (one of the ablest prelates of the establishment,) 
 who says, "this subject [Oxfordism] is daily as- 
 suming a more serious and alarming aspect, and 
 threatens a revival of the worst evils of the Romish 
 system. Under the specious pretence (he adds) of 
 deference to antiquity, and respect for primitive mo- 
 dels, the foundations of our Protestant Church are 
 undermined by men who dwell within her walls, and 
 those who sit in the Reformers' seat are traducing 
 the Reformation."* 
 
 I am not ignorant of the plea which is set up by 
 these write is, when the charge of Popery is advanced 
 against their publications. They tell us, with all 
 conceivable gravity, that the dogmas and usages which 
 have excited so much alarm within your communion, 
 on both sides the water, are not Popery, but "Ancient 
 Christianity." They were in the church before the 
 rise of the Papal power, and, therefore, they are no part 
 of that system, but among those "Catholic verities " 
 and truly apostolic customs, which are to be received 
 by the universal church. 1 confess, I think the logic of 
 this argument is bad, and the doctrine worse. As to the 
 
 * Charge of the Bishop of Chester, p. 2. 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 logic, it is surely a non-sequitur to say, that because 
 an error existed in the church before the Bishop 
 of Rome usurped the title and dignities of Supreme 
 Pontiff, it cannot be a part of Popery. And as to 
 the doctrine, see what it must lead to. Instead of 
 taking the Saviour and his apostles for our guides, 
 we are to be governed by the teaching and example of 
 the Fathers — by men who made no claim to inspi- 
 ration, and who were as liable to err as good men in 
 any other period of the world. That the history of the 
 early church is full of instruction — that great defer- 
 ence is due to the opinions of the illustrious men 
 whose names adorn the annals of the first four cen- 
 turies — that their testimony to the essential truths 
 of Christianity is a precious legacy to the pious of 
 all generations — and that much information may be 
 drawn from their writings, of high value in the inter- 
 pretation of the sacred volume — all this will be grant- 
 ed by every enlightened Christian. But still they 
 were fallible men ; and to concede to them, however 
 distinguished for learning or sanctity, the authority 
 which is claimed for them by the Oxford Divines, is 
 (it is conceived) to rob the Bible of its just pre-emi- 
 nence, and to open the flood-gates of error into the 
 church. The Oxford writers encourage clerical celi- 
 bacy — monastic seclusion — prayers for the dead — the 
 giving of the eucharist to infants and to dying per- 
 sons even when insensible. And when we ask for 
 their warrant, they point us, not " to the law and the 
 testimony " — to prophets and apostles — but to " An- 
 cient Christianity." So, they teach baptismal 
 justification and regeneration — the real presence — the 
 power of absolution as vested in the priesthood — the 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 co-ordinate authority of tradition with the Bible, as the 
 rule of faith. And here, again, they refer us for their 
 warrant to "Ancient Christianity." In this way, 
 they are bringing into the church " some of the worst 
 errors of Popery." Yes, of Popery: — for the Apostle, 
 in his most formal prediction of the great apostacy, ex- 
 pressly assures us that its elements were in the 
 church even in his time. "The mystery of iniquity 
 (he says) doth already work." (2 Thess. ii. 7.) Its 
 seeds were already sown; nay, they were beginning 
 to germinate. The evil could not be fully developed 
 until the great obstacle alluded to by him in the same 
 verse (and which is commonly supposed to have 
 been the Roman Empire) was " taken out of the 
 way." But it might continue to increase, and doubt- 
 less it did increase, day by day, until that time ar- 
 rived. Who that has traced the rise and progress of 
 the apostacy can doubt, that the apostle in the above 
 cited passage, had his eye (inter alia) upon those very 
 heresies and corruptions enumerated a moment ago — - 
 the elements of Popery that were then " working," and 
 which were, on the fall of the Roman Empire, or- 
 ganized into that grand system of iniquity that the 
 world has been cursed with ever since? And yet, 
 forsooth, because these excrescences were found (or 
 rather, are alleged to have been found, for, as to some 
 of them, we may well stand in doubt,) upon the an- 
 cient church, we are bound to gather them up, and 
 put them among our jew r els, and enshrine them in 
 our hearts, and guard them as we guard the precious 
 doctrines of God's holy word ! 
 
 Nor is this the whole of the process by which 
 these gentlemen are, unwittingly, perhaps, but real- 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 ly, assimilating the church to Popery. They are 
 tearing down with one hand, as well as building up 
 with the other. It is. not enough for them to bring 
 out of the Papal Church some of her worst cor- 
 ruptions, and stamp them with the magic words, 
 " Ancient Christianity," and send them forth 
 into the world as standard coinage, (vainly ima- 
 gining that this specious label will give them cur- 
 rency, though the King's < image and superscription' 
 be wanting ;) but they are laying hold of glorious doc- 
 trines which bear his impress, and striving to efface it. 
 They come into the Reformed Church, and sacrile- 
 giously strike down, one after another, its grand, dis^ 
 tinctive principles-^-those principles which make it 
 what it is, and by which it has, under God, achieved 
 its triumphs. Their watch-word, or rather, I should 
 say, their catch-word, here, is "Ultra Protestant- 
 ism." Wherever they can set their burning brand, 
 they leave the odious capitals; whether with the same 
 intent, I say not, but in the same way as in Eastern 
 countries a sign is hung out upon infected houses to 
 mark the presence of the Plague. The sufficiency 
 of the Scriptures as a rule faith — -justification by the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ — the preaching of 
 the Gospel as the great means of salvation — the effi- 
 cacy of the Redeemer's blood to " cleanse from all 
 sin," — the nature of the sacraments, and the just au- 
 thority of the ministry, as defined in the symbols of 
 Reformed Christendom ; — on all these and other mo- 
 mentous doctrines, they have put the base, insidious 
 stigma, "Ultra Protestantism." Luther and Me- 
 lancthon, Bucer and Zuingle, Calvin and Knox, the 
 heroes of the " detestable reformation," are all ta- 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 booed as "Ultra Protestants." Yea, if they 
 could collect the ashes of England's sainted martyrs — 
 of Cranmer and Ridley, Latimer and Hooper, and 
 their illustrious compeers, they might, in full consis- 
 tency with what they are daily asserting of the prin- 
 ciples for which they died, engrave upon the hallow- 
 ed urn, as a tribute of gratitude to their memories, 
 the inscription "Ultra Protestants." 
 
 Such (to the eye of a spectator, at least,) is the 
 grand scheme by which the Oxford theologians are 
 carrying forward their " second Reformation" — such 
 the process by which they are casting up that famous 
 "Via Media," of which they are so fond of dis- 
 coursing. And yet, (what would be ludicrous but 
 for the solemnity of the subject,) they profess to 
 wonder that they should be suspected of Popery ! Do 
 they think there is as little Protestantism left in the 
 rest of Christendom, as there is at Oxford ? Or do 
 they fancy that the Protestants of this age are so ig- 
 norant of the features of Popery, that they do not 
 know it when they see it — and even have it thrust 
 upon them? True it is, the Protestantism of our day 
 has sadly degenerated from the Protestantism of the 
 Reformation. But it has vitality enough left to re- 
 cognise the portrait that is here presented, notwith- 
 standing the pains that have been taken to disguise it, 
 and the venerable name it has usurped. And (if a 
 stranger may hazard an opinion on a question which 
 concerns mainly another communion,) the authors of 
 this "movement" and their successors, will have 
 many a hard-fought battle to go through, before they 
 succeed in making the Protestant Episcopal church, 
 as a body, fall down and worship the image of gold 
 
1 
 
 ( 97 ) 
 
 and iron and clay, they are for setting up in their 
 temples. 
 
 The Protestant world will await with solicitude 
 the " maturer developments " of the Oxford sy stem- 
 That it is now in an inchoate state, is admitted on all 
 hands. That it cannot remain stationary, must be 
 manifest to every one who examines it : the u Via 
 Media" has nothing but quicksands for its basis, 
 and permanency is out of the question. Movement is 
 indispensable: the only alternative is, " forward or 
 backward?" Unhappily, there is little room to doubt 
 which branch of the alternative will be chosen. It is 
 painfully instructive to look through the "thirty years' 
 correspondence " of Knox and Jebb, and note, as you 
 go along, the onward progress of those gentlemen in 
 error: and there is the same difference in the tone of the 
 earlier and later productions of the men on whom their 
 mantle has fallen. The fraternity are evidenty making 
 progress : 
 
 " Eunt obscuri sola sub nocte per umbras." 
 
 Ever and anon we meet with some mysterious inti- 
 mation in their writings, which stirs our expectations 
 of great disclosures hereafter. For example, the Re- 
 viewer of Carlyle's works, in a late No. of the Lon- 
 don Quarterly, (an article " written, without a doubt, 
 at Oxford," as you say of the article on " Roman- 
 ism in Ireland," in the last No.*) in "hinting" at 
 
 * You refer to this article as an evidence of the " bold cham- 
 pionship " of Oxford against Rome. It certainly breathes a spirit 
 of determined opposition to the Hierarchy, and abounds with start- 
 ling facts. But all this may be, and yet the main position laid 
 down in these letters be correct. The Roman Catholics have their 
 9 
 
( 98 ) 
 
 the " real cause why in this day it is so hard to ^kin- 
 dle soul by soul/ and re-inspire mankind with the 
 spirit of faith/' observes; "It would be well for those 
 who are concerned in the government of man, whe- 
 ther infant or adult — and it would cut at once the 
 Gordian knot of ' national education ' — to think deep- 
 ly on the problem, and to ask themselves steadi- 
 ly and calmly, what is the meaning of a system 
 of education carried on without a thought of the sa- 
 craments of the church?" What does this mean? 
 The writer makes no explanation, and leaves the un- 
 initiated to divine the esoteric sense of the words, as 
 they best can. — The numerous ' hints' of this kind 
 scattered through the Oxford miscellanies, are doubt- 
 less (to borrow Lord Bacon's descriptive phrase) the 
 " seeds of things," which will in due time bring forth 
 their appropriate fruit. And such seed, it is to be 
 eared, will produce some bitter fruit for the friends 
 of pure and undefiled religion. 
 
 I am aware that the friends of the Oxford system 
 repel observations of this sort, as a breach of charity ; 
 and it is painful to feel obliged to make them. But 
 
 own way of accounting for the hard names they get at Oxford 
 sometimes. I will let one of them speak for himself. The editor of 
 the London Tablet, (a R. C. Journal,) in his paper of January 
 30th, says, " But there is another class of men who are em- 
 barrassed by the narrowness of the strip of land which sepa- 
 rates their territory from ours; who are drawn towards us by 
 the irresistible evidence of truth, but hate us the more for being 
 drawn against their will; who feel bound by interests or ne- 
 cessity to protest against what they call our errors; but can hardly 
 find language fine and delicate enough to distinguish our errors 
 from their truths; and who feel that all the sleight of the most 
 skilful posture-master can hardly enable them to maintain, with- 
 out a fall, the attitude of contortion which they have chosen to 
 assume, instead of the natural and unforced position of truth." 
 
( 99 ) 
 
 who can forget the history of former errors which 
 have desolated the church? Has not heresy always 
 come in quietly and stealthily, in the very garb, some- 
 times, of an angel of light? Look at the rise of 
 Arianism — of Pelagianism — of Socinianism. Were 
 they not all as specious — as professedly orthodox — 
 as impatient of the imputation of heterodoxy — as is 
 the system of Dr. Pusey and his coadjutors? And 
 can it be wondered at that Protestants, with these 
 facts before them, should predict that Oxfordism, un- 
 less arrested soon, will become more and more assimi- 
 lated to Popery? that they should fear its ultimate 
 coalescence with that church which the adherents of 
 the new divinity (or to speak more accurately, of the 
 old divinity exhumed,) tell us, is "not only in the 
 main orthodox" now, but " was ever distinguished as 
 a pillar of the truth?"* It is my earnest prayer that 
 these apprehensions may prove groundless — that the 
 Oxford divines and their friends and successors in both 
 countries, may be found " bold and able champions of 
 the truth against the force and fraud" of Antichrist, 
 in the day of conflict. That such a day is rapidly ap- 
 proaching, is manifest alike from "the sure word of 
 prophecy" and from the signs of the times. Pro- 
 testant Christianity will need all her resources, in 
 that encounter: she can ill afford to spare the church 
 of England, or to have her come into the field rent with 
 intestine feuds^ — still less can she afford to have a pow- 
 erful division of her trained and gifted chivalry, throw 
 themselves into the ranks of her adversary, or, like 
 
 * " It (the church of Rome) must be in the main orthodox, as 
 it is." " The Roman Catholic communion, whatever else it was 
 or did, must be allowed this praise that it was ever distinguished 
 as a pillar of the truth." (British Critic, Vol. 26, pp. 338, 64.) 
 
( ioo ) 
 
 Meroz, stand aloof and refuse to go out with her 
 consecrated hosts to battle. 
 
 May it please God to ward off so heavy a calami- 
 ty, and to preserve his Church, in all its branches, 
 from the insidious devices and machinations of " that 
 man of sin," "whose coming is after the working of 
 Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." 
 
 Thus, sir, I have endeavoured to lay before you, 
 the information called for in your letter. Had it 
 been decorous, I could have referred you for an an- 
 swer to your inquiries, to many clergymen of high 
 standing in your own communion, whose statements 
 respecting the character of the Oxford Divinity, in 
 perfect coincidence with the brief paragraph in my 
 lecture, which occasioned your letter, and much 
 more amplified, have long been before the public. 
 But I fully recognise your right to make the requi- 
 sition with which I have been honoured; and I felt 
 that it was not only due to you and to myself, but to 
 the cause of sound Christianity, to respond to it. My 
 reply has been prepared in the midst of numerous 
 engagements, incident to the pastoral charge of a 
 large congregation; but, relying upon your candour 
 to excuse its deficiencies, I submit it to your conside- 
 ration, 
 
 And remain, Right Reverend Sir, 
 With much respect, 
 
 Your friend and servant, 
 H. A. BOARDMAN. 
 
 Philadelphia, March 4th, 1841. 
 

 ibs 
 
 GSL Hi 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 RIGHT REV. BISHOP DOANE 
 
 OP NEW JERSEY, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 REV. H. A. BOARDMAN 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ALLEGED POPISH CHARACTER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 OXFORD TRACTS, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 HOOKER & AGNEW, 
 
 N. W. CORNER OF CHESTNUT AND FIFTH STREETS. 
 
 1841. 
 
 egg 
 
 


 mi 
 
 Hi 
 
 Jl 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 Books Published by Hooker $ Agnew. 
 
 Ancient Christianity and the Doctrines of the 
 Oxford Tracts, by Isaac Taylor, 
 
 BOARDMAN ON ROMANISM. 
 
 Rev. Henry Blunt's Complete Works, in 7 vols. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the Life of Christ, 
 in 1 vol. 12mo. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the Life of St. Paul. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the Life of Abra- 
 ham AND JACOB. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the Life of St. Pe- 
 ter and the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the Life of Elisha. 
 
 Blunt's Lectures on the History of the 
 Seven Churches of Asia. 
 
 Blunt's Sermons. 
 
 BOOKS IN PRESS. 
 
 Life of Simeon. Edited by the Right Reverend 
 
 Charles P. M'llvaine. 
 Bickersteth on Baptism. 
 Pictures of Religion. 
 Butler's Analogy of Religion, with Notes and 
 
 Questions by Professor Sparrow. 
 
 8 2.4(1 
 
 

n»v* 
 
 
 
 > .' 
 
 
 v v > v*ai$ri 
 
 J> o » • • ♦ <$> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o V 
 
 *^> \j* * » • ' 
 
 . v *_jg*d$ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 
 *%<^ ^V Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 
 \ V" V pCl!: Treatment Date: March 2006 
 
 S * rC\\ J58. //7) v» V^ ^^ffl Neutralizing agent: Magnesium uxiae 
 
 * ^^g^ ^l a V"V ^z? Treatment Date: March 2006 
 
 ^ vlllK* ^ ^ ° a ^^ PreservationTechnologies 
 
 *7*"U W !|« /V ^J *0 • ' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION L 
 
 t **$ ^ k i # *^^ 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 
 •^ At r Q % * ft/l - * „ O Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
 

 
 * v .*fer. ^/ ,J^ ^ v 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS