lo "tke "ReV, W. ^-^islmer

MHgSE T54

TO THE REV. W. PALMER, M.A.
OF WOKCESTER COLLEGE.

REV. SIR,
Mv pui"pose In thus publicly addressing you on the subject of your late
Pamphlet is not to defend certain Articles in the British Critic against objections
which you have made to them, but simply to draw attention to some considerable
and rather obvious instances of incompleteness In the statement upon which the
conclusions of your Pamphlet are based. This has already been done, in a
measure, by another hand", but through a medium so unpopular with all good
Churchmen, as naturally to diminish the effectiveness of the appeal. Allow me.
Rev. Sir, to add, that your credit. as a controversialist, no less than the success of the
cause which you have so much at heart, seem alike to require from you some plain
and honest dealing with the facts partially noticed in the communication to which I
refer, and which 1 am now desirous of pressing upon you In a more explicit shape,
and with some additions. That you will be able to dispose of these facts with your
usual skill, I make no doubt whatever ; — but I hold it not less due to yourself than
to the public, to call your attention to them; to you, that you may have the
opportunity of accounting for them ; and to the public, that it may be cautioned
against resigning its judgment to your paitlcular view of the question at Issue, so
long as these facts remain either unnoticed, or somewhat too cursorily dismissed.
I say nothing of the parties who have been lately concerned with the British Critic,
whose interests I am not at the moment bound to consult. I will but add, that, as
I am about to speak of matters which are already before the world, and not to make
assertions, to which the addition of my name could give weight, I shall make no
apology for concealing it.
The object of your able and ingenious pamphlet, as far as I understaUd It, Is to
shew historically, that the line of theological discussion lately taken by the British
Critic is essentially what may be called a " new start," for which the authors of
the Tracts are in no way responsible, and which has no legitimate connexion with
the views propounded by them, whether in the Tracts or elsewhere. You also
appear very desirous of shewing, not only that the Tract-writers have no connexion
with these later views, but that they repudiate them, and this not merely In some of
' Vide a Letter in the Record of Nov. 2.

their details, but in their general spirit and tendency. Now, I am not going to dis
pute any one of these positions ; nor to draw out the " Case" of the British Critic
(which yet It would not be Impossible to do) by the help of the same mode of argu
ment as you have adopted on the other side. I have but to remark, as I have
already said, upon certain points, material to a correct estimate of the question
which you have undertaken to discuss ; points, which you. Rev. Sir, for whatever
reason, have too much disregarded. And these, though their number might easily be
multiplied, shall be confined, for the present, to two or three.
In the first place, then, I must take leave to observe, that the Preface to the
Second Part of Mr. Froude's Remains requires a far distlncter consideration
than that given to It at page 46 of your Pamphlet. Your general object, it
appears. Is to disconnect the doctrine of the Tract-writers from that of the British
Critic, aud especially upon the all-important question of the English Reformation
and Reformers. Yet you dismiss, in a single line, a publication, in which two of
the most eminent Tract-writers explicitly identify themselves with Mr. Froude's
views of that movement and of those movers ; and direct the whole force of your
attack against an Article in the British Critic, which certainly used no language
against Bp. Jewel more severe than the phrase of " irreverent Dissenter,"
(previously vindicated by Mr. Froude's Editors,) nor any against the English Re
formation itself, more disparaging, than that it was " mainly originated and controlled
by Henry VIII. and the Protector Somerset, and by Ecclesiastics evincing a most
unworthy subservance to the capricious sensuality of the one, and the unblushing
sacrilegiousness of the other." (Preface, p. xxii.) I repeat, that I am not defending
the Article on Bp. Jewel, nor denying that it may fairly be called an advance, in
some respects, upon the doctrine of this Preface. I am but shewing, that its general
view which you Impugn, receives some considerable countenance at least, from the
avowed language of the Tract-writers ; and that this circumstance has not been
adequately recognised. Rev. Sir, by yon. It may be replied, that the merits of the
English Reformation constitute but one among the many subjects which have
given rise to obnoxious statements in the British Critic. I think, however, that
you will be among the last to deny the paramount Importance and peculiarly
comprehensive nature of this particular topic.
I observe, in the next place, that you endeavom- to convey throughout your work
an Impression of some decided repugnance, on the part of the principal Tract-
writers, to the views more recently set forth In the British Critic. I do not mean
that you directly assert this ; but still you imply it. Moreover I must add, that
the repeated use of the plural, " we," has a tendency (I am far from saying

intentional) to convey the idea of your being, in the present Pamphlet, the organ of
your former associates; an Idea, as you are well aware, wholly unwarranted by the
facts of the case\
You say, " I believe it is no secret, (not, let me observe, a very conclusive sort of
testimony,) " that the authors of the Tracts, several of them at least," (a considerable
qualification,) " however they may think themselves obliged to tolerate such excesses,
are embarrassed by them, and deplore their occurrence." (p. 45.)
The authors of the Tracts are reputed to be very numerous. The names of
yourself, Mr. Perceval, Mr. Benjamin Harrison, and others, are " in ore hominum" as
Tract-writers, besides those of Mr. Newman, Dr. Pusey, and Mr. Keble. Now, it
certainly Is material to consider, to what members of this body you are
referring : (for you admit, that your remark is not applicable to all :) but upon
this matter you have left us in doubt. In the mean time, it strikes many persons as
remarkable, that Dr. Pusey should have published a Letter to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, the very object of which was the vindication of the Tracts and
Tract-writers from popular censure; and with a view to which object it would have
been most material for the writer to have drawn a line between the Tracts and the •
British Critic. However, as a matter of fact, no such line was drawn. This, of
course, does not shew that Dr. Pusey agrees In every statement of the British
Critic, (which, considering the extent of Its matter and the diversity of Its contributors,
would be a good deal to expect of any one ;) yet it appears to Indicate, that
Dr. Pusey's view of that periodical Is at all events very different. Sir, from yours.
Another fact, which has come before the public, and of which I can hardly
suppose you Ignorant, yet do not like to suppose you aware, is, that Mr. Newman,
in his late Volume of University Sermons, has appended the following note to one
of them. " Some admirable articles have appeared in the late numbers of the
British Critic on the divinely-appointed mode of seeking truth when persons are
in doubt and difficulty. As they apjpear to be but the first sketches of a deep and
important theory which has possession of the writer'' s mind, it is hoped that they will
one day appear in a more systematic form.^'' (Note, p. 242.)
It Is only necessary for me to add, that, among the articles here specified, are
those which contain the following passages cited in your pamphlet; viz. that at
page 53, beginning, " They seem almost to rejoice more," &c. at p. 54, beginning

" I allude especially to p. 48. and, again, p. 75, to 86. In these and in other instances, it is not
made clear, whether the first person plural be intended to express the writer's identification with the
body of those commonly called high-churchmen, or with the originators of the Oxford movement.

" The Idea that to a Christian," &c. one In the following page, beginning, " So natural
is this feeling," &c. and several more in the sequel of the quotations.
I have no wish to draw any inferences from the circumstance of this note, though
I certainly consider It, (as you, If you know of it, seem to have done,) an awkward fact
in the way of yours.
On the whole. Rev. Sir, I cannot but consider that you have hitherto dealt with
your case rather In the spirit of a practised advocate, than in that of a bold and candid
inquirer. You have selected with admirable skill the strong points of your defence,
and thrown the weaker Into the back-ground. You have made no misstatements,
that I know of, but many U7idersta.tements. You have eked out your materials by
significant hints, and comprehensive implications; you have fenced yourself round
with suitable reserves, and couched your attacks in most unassailable courtesy of
language. You have defended all the strong, and attacked all the vulnerable ;
praised all the popular, and sought to conciliate all but the hopeless. With the
single exception of the note In Mr. Newman's Sermons, you have not positively
shunned any of the points which tell against you, but an enemy might say that you
had slurred some of them over. How much of positive theological statement you have
left us after all your resers^es, exceptions, compliments, aud gentle censures, is
another question. Certain It is, that you have spoken leniently of the Protestant
view of Justification and of the Sacraments " ; exicepted against the theory of Reserve
and the doctrine of Postbaptismal sin'*, and dealt tenderly with writers, who have
characterized the " Tractarian movement" as an infatuation, and referred It to the
operation of Satanic influence ". All this deducts nothing from your character as an
able controversialist ; but it necessarily tends to weaken confidence in your trust
worthiness as a theological guide. I am, Sir,
Your humble servant.

"3
&c. &c. &c.

Nov. 3, 1843. •^ p. 87. " p. 43. ° p. 81.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 0193

!' ' jiM I, 1
^^ .'vli;.

If'"' '

., V'

«'-^'..