APPENDIX.

No. 1.

INDEPENDENTLY of the disparaging terms in which the members of the new School of Oxford Divines have frequently spoken of the Reformers, and of those who, in past or in present times, have been strenuously opposed to the corruptions of the Church of Rome,-independently also of the extraordinary terms which they have often employed with reference to that apostate Church-no one, who is conversant with their writings, can refrain from thinking that many of the opinions which they have promulgated with regard to the fundamental doctrine of justification,-the rule of faith, and the Sacrament of the Lord's supper, are more in accordance with Popery, than with the Protestantism of the Church of England. It can, therefore, occasion no surprise that they should endeavour to excite a prejudice against their adversaries by stigmatising them with the designation of "ultra-Protestants." As they themselves fall so much below the legitimate standard of Protestantism, it is natural that they should represent their antagonists (in the number of whom I shall always consider it a privilege to enrol myself) as holding extreme opinions. But it was not to have been anticipated that two of the most eminent mystagogues of this school (the Editors of Froude's Remains) should have so far identified themselves with the Papal Apostasy as to have taken up a position diametrically opposed, according to their own confession, to that of the Reformers. It was not to have

been expected that they should avowedly have espoused some of the most unsound and objectionable opinions of the Ancient Fathers opinions which by being perverted and pushed further than their original authors intended, have constituted the basis of that enormous superstructure of fraud, imposture, superstition, and impiety, which is destined at some future, and probably no distant, period, to experience a signal overthrow.

In a subsequent part of the preface, from which I have made that extract in my Charge to which allusion is here made, the Editors of" the Remains" ask-whether, because Bishop Jewel, in his defence of the "Apology of the Church of England" against the Jesuit Harding, has not spoken of the apostolical succession in terms which harmonize with their ideas,-whether, if this treatise be regarded as an official exponent of the views of the Reformers, this would not be "a strong fact to justify any dislike or suspicion which might be felt of that party generally ?" -And they further enquire whether "it would not be rightly done for a Churchman to decline their authority as a theological school, and be careful how he symbolized with them in the use of theological words ?"-Preface to the second part of the Remains of R. H. Froude, p. xxix. Now, such language as this would be in perfect keeping from the pen of a Romanist, who may naturally be supposed to view the Reformation, and its authors and promoters, with "dislike and suspicion." But how Ministers of the Church of England can feel themselves justified in declining the authority of "a Theological School," by which the Homilies were set forth, and the Articles and Liturgy were compiled, it is somewhat difficult to conceive.

As the following article of the Appendix will be devoted to Mr. Froude's Remains, I shall not lay before the reader any extracts from them in this number, or make any observations at present upon the sentiments which he entertained relative to Popery on the one hand, or the Reformation on the other. Whatever they were, it will be seen from the extracts which will be given from

the preface to the first part of "the Remains," compared with that I have quoted from the preface to the second, that the Editors have identified themselves with his opinions.

Since, however, the British Critic is generally supposed to be the organ of the writers of the Oxford Tracts, I will in this article present the reader with some passages taken from that periodical, which, when connected with what has been brought forward, both in my last Charge and in the present, will enable him to judge whether the Romanists have not some reason for hailing these Divines as befriending their cause.

In No. xl. p. 393, of the British Critic, the Reviewer, speaking of Dr. Wiseman, says that " he argues from the structure of the Bible, and the circumstances under which it comes to us, that it was not intended to be the instrument of teaching individuals the Christian doctrine. It is common for ultra-Protestants to argue on the other hand, that a written record must be the sole instrument of revealed teaching, because oral tradition is in it's nature vague and uncertain."-The obvious inference to be deduced from this passage is, that the Reviewer fully coincides in opinion with Dr. Wiseman, and that, according to his judgment, it is one of the errors of ultra-Protestantism, to imagine that "revealed teaching" is limited to the Bible, and does not include "oral tradition."-What can Dr. Wiseman, or any other Romanist wish for more?

In the same number, at p. 400, the Reviewer observes, with reference to the same individual,-" Such are some of the exceptions, which Dr. Wiseman takes to the Protestant Missions. When he turns to the Roman Catholic, he is perhaps less to be trusted, it being easier to be candid to an opponent whom we do not fear, than impartial in our own case. If we are to take his account as it stands, Romanism has a success among the heathen, inferior indeed, but similar to that which attended the preaching of the first propagators of the gospel. Nor are we unwilling to allow, that it has so much of the blessing of the true

Church with it, as to have a measure of success, which ultraProtestant efforts, however zealous and praiseworthy in themselves, will not experience."

Here it is plainly implied that Dr. Wiseman is warranted in feeling such a confidence in the goodness of his cause, as may enable him to divest himself of any fear of his opponents. With regard to the boasted success of Popish Missions, the question is, what criterion the Reviewer would adopt, whereby to estimate the extent of that success. From his readiness to allow a larger measure to the Romanists, than to those whom he opprobriously terms ultra-Protestants, either relative numbers must constitute his standard, or he must think that the former make their converts better Christians than the latter. If they, indeed, obtain a numerical superiority, it will admit of an easy solution. To induce men to exchange one debasing system of superstition for another, or the idolatry of Heathenism for the idolatry of Popery, is probably no very arduous task. But to turn men wholly from idols to serve the living and true God,-to teach them to worship him in spirit and in truth,—to lead them to embrace the gospel of Christ in its purity and spirituality,-and to induce them to live in a manner conformably to it's holy precepts,-“hic labor, hoc opus est!"

Viewing the Church of Rome in the light in which the Reviewer does, as "the true Church," there is no wonder that he should not be unwilling to concede that a blessing rests upon its missionary exertions. Whether its converts be more or fewer in number than those of ultra-Protestants, in consistency with his own views, it is natural that he should regard the former as superior to the latter in all the ingredients of the Christian character. But that the Reformers contemplated the Church of Rome in a widely different light, is apparent not only from their writings in general, but especially from the following passage which occurs in the Homily for Whitsunday. "But now herein standeth the controversy, whether all men do justly arrogate to themselves the

Holy Ghost, or no? The Bishops of Rome have for a long time made a sore challenge thereunto, reasoning with themselves after this sort,The Holy Ghost,' say they, 'was promised to the Church, and never forsaketh the Church. But we are the chief heads and the principal part of the Church, therefore we have the Holy Ghost for ever; and whatsoever we decree are undoubted verities, and oracles of the Holy Ghost.' That ye may perceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to teach you, first, what the true Church of Christ is, and then to confer the Church of Rome therewith to discern how well they agree together. The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner-stone. And it hath always three notes or marks, whereby it is known: pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments administered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith. Now, if you will compare this with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is at present, and hath been for the space of nine hundred years and odd; you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true Church, as nothing can be more. For neither are they built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, retaining the sound and pure doctrine of Christ Jesus; neither yet do they order the sacraments, or else the ecclesiastical keys, in such sort as he did first institute and ordain them: but have so intermingled their own traditions and inventions, by chopping and changing, by adding and plucking away, that now they may seem to be converted into a new guise.

Christ commended to his Church a sacrament of his body and blood: they have changed it into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead. Christ did minister to his Apostles, and the Apostles to other men indifferently under both kinds: they have robbed the