with regard to others. We do not intend to consider Mr. Keble as personally concerned in the opinions which we may quote from the 40th number of the British Critic, though we do not suppose that we shall make a single extract from it that he would disavow. But this being the organ of the Church party to which he conspicuously belongs, we think it will be in our power to illustrate the doctrines, and correct the statements, which his interesting discourse contains, through the fuller developments to be found in the article referred to.

The article in the Review, which we have specially in our eye, is the sixth, headed, "Dr. Wiseman's Lectures on the Catholic Church." These Lectures have been examined with more or less severity in various publications; and, should it be the author's intention to reply systematically to them all, we may appear to step in between him and his just quarrel, by prematurely singling this criticism for our present observations. Such, however, is not our intention. We mean not to attack its contents, as Dr. Wiseman's champions, but only to discuss it as a manifesto of the principles, and a vindication of the claims, maintained by the party that consider themselves the true upholders and representatives of the English Church. And as the method by them pursued involves necessarily a manifold charge of misrepresen

statements of this article regarding one or two versions, he draws from them conclusions intended to be ruinous to Dr. Wiseman's character as a scholar. "The specimens which I have given are quite sufficient to fix your character for ever as a nian of patient and faithful research." (p. 179.) "In the account which you have given of Brucioli's bible, there is not one particle of truth, with the exception of the date of the editio princeps. I am convinced you never saw the book, &c. This is not a scholar-like mode of proceeding; and, for myself, I can only say, that after this specimen of your biblical researches, I would not trust to your accuracy in any one particular, without references to the original authorities." (p. 175.) “You will, however, permit me to remark, that, after having detected your very remarkable (not to say singular and somewhat extraordinary) dealing with Brucioli's version, I do not exactly see what right you have to speak disrespectfully of Mr. H. Horne." (Here follows a quotation from Dr. Wiseman's acknowledged Lectures.) "Truly, Sir, I think you may apply your own petulant censure of Mr. Horne to yourself with abundant propriety." (p. 180.) All these solemn and uncourteous charges want only one ingredient to make them really serious-they are totally destitute of their necessary foundation. Dr. Whittaker did not think it necessary to ascertain whether Dr. Wiseman was the author of the paper so unmercifully censured. As the Rev. Gentleman is more than 1000 miles from the scene of accusation, and may not think it worth while to confute Dr. Whittaker's voluminous letters in a separate form, we beg to declare that he was not the author of that paper, nor of any part thereof, and that he is noways answerable for its contents. Not that we mean by this removal of responsibility to admit the accuracy of the Rev. Vicar's conclusions, or of his charges against the author of the paper, whoever he may be; but we feel it a duty to oppose this disingenuous and "unscholarlike" conduct of attempting to ruin a clergyman's character for accuracy by falsely assuming what first required proof-his being the author of what is impugned. This specimen may be perhaps "sufficient to fix Dr. Whittaker's character for ever as a man of candid and faithful research."

tation against the author whom they review, we flatter ourselves that we may justly step somewhat aside, to vindicate his character, whenever that of our religion shall seem assailed through his side.

The fearless and uncompromising revival of High Church principles by a small body of youthful, learned, and as far as we have opportunity of knowing, amiable clergymen, in the face of much unpopular feeling, of great alienation from their brethren, and of little encouragement from their superiors, does credit to their sincerity and to their zeal. They have placed themselves in a prominent position, and in the post of honourable danger. They have endeavoured to throw outworks beyond the acknowledged precincts of their Church's walls, to protest against the encroaching lines of dissent; and they have manned them, we think, in forlorn hope, determined to keep the pressure of the attack at a greater distance. We, indeed, on our side, complain, and their more immediate adversaries—their rebels as they consider them-agree, that they have seized, for this purpose, a territory, not their own, but of our legitimate possession. They disclaim the charge, and affirm that they stand in a middle position-between "Romanism," as they choose to call it, and dissent. But, when they speak thus, it is not as a school, or a party; they boldly profess to declare the real sentiments of their church, "the Anglican," as they style it, considering it a part of the Catholic or universal Church of Christ dispersed over the world. Of this Church, "the Roman" is acknowledged to be a part, though they think it has not preserved purity of doctrine. But we must specify more in detail the principles of this school, and we trust we shall be found to do it with perfect impartiality.

First, then, "in the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, Scripture is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith." It is, however, "its only standard, test, or depository."+ There is, consequently, "a guide, though not an infallible one, but subordinate to Scripture. English theology considers that Scripture is not an easy book, and, as so considering, believes that Almighty God has been pleased to provide a guide. The twentieth article declares that the Church hath authority in controversies of faith.'"+

Secondly, "the English doctrine does not encourage private judgment in matters of (necessary) faith, but maintains the Church's authority."§ In this respect the Anglican doctrine is

* British Critic, p. 388.

+ P. 385.

P. 377.

§ P. 378.

"as distinct from Catholicism,* as from common Protestantism. The Catholic gives to the existing Church the ultimate infallible decision in matters of saving faith; the Ultra-Protestant to the individual; and the Anglican to antiquity, giving authority to the Church as being the witness and voice, or rather the very presence of antiquity among us."+ The authority of the Church is, however, "subordinate to Scripture," inasmuch as she "may indeed pronounce doctrines as true, which are not in Scripture, so that they are not against it; but she may not declare points to be necessary to salvation, and act accordingly, unless she professes to derive them from Scripture. Her decision in such extra-scriptural matters is not secure from error; is entitled to veneration, but has not, strictly speaking, authority, and therefore may not rightly be enforced." All this, nevertheless, is not to be understood of any particular Church, but gives as its results, "that the whole Church, all over the world, will never agree in teaching and enforcing what is not true."

Furthermore, the Church of England being "an independent apostolic Church, a branch of the Catholic Church of Christ,"|| she "claims the spiritual allegiance of the people to the exclusion of all rival claims;" "the duty of communion with her is founded upon reasons derived from absolute religious obligation;" and hence we Catholics, "of these countries, are very justly charged with schism;"¶ while "Wesley was a heresiarch."**

Such we believe to be an accurate summary of the doctrines maintained by the party whose organ is the British Critic concerning the Rule of Faith. We have woven into our account the very expressions of that journal, because it seems so excessively jealous of any mistake about its principles, and reproaches Dr. Wiseman repeatedly for drawing his ideas on the subject from authorities which its friends reject. Before, however, analyzing, as we intend, this scheme of Church authority, we must be allowed to dwell at some length upon Mr. Keble's

sermon.

6

Where we write Catholic' or its derivatives, the Critic has Romanist' and 'Romanism.' It is evident that these terms are not used in scorn; but our ears are not accustomed to hear them employed in any other way, and we trust we shall be excused if we refuse to admit them, and decline every other appellation but our own, simply Catholics.' By this substitution we feel we are doing an act of justice to the "British Critic" and its party. For any of our readers who found in our extracts the term 'Romanists,' and had not read the entire article, would confound its writer with that common herd of Protestant controversialists, who think there is an argument in a nickname, We use the term 'Anglican,' because it is that adopted by the critic himself, when speaking of his own Church. † P. 384. ** P. 402.

+ P. 379. § P. 380.

|| P. 434.

¶P. 435.

Its text is 2 Tim. i. 14, "That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” Before he closes with the real subject of his discourse, the Professor endeavours to establish a parallel between the circumstances of Timothy, when addressed in these words, and the clergy of the Anglican Church in these its calamitous times. He then divides his discourse into three parts, proposing these enquiries: first, what is the deposit or charge committed to Timothy; secondly, are the English clergy at present partakers of it; thirdly, have they the Holy Ghost dwelling in them for a faithful discharge of duty?

66

After some interesting remarks upon the word used for deposit," in the text, and the probability of its being a conventional, ecclesiastical term, Mr. Keble concludes that the committed treasure consisted of doctrine. (p. 17.) This interpretation he further confirms by the testimonies of the ancient fathers. 66 Upon the whole," he concludes, we may assume with some confidence, that the good thing left in Timothy's charge, thus absolutely to be kept at all events, was the treasure of apostolical doctrines and Church rules; the rules and doctrines which made up the character of Christ's kingdom." (p. 20.)

2. Is a similar deposit yet in the hands of Christian ministers? "Some," says Mr. Keble, "will reply Mr. Keble," will reply to this question at once. We have the Holy Scriptures, and we know for certain that they contain all that is important in Timothy's charge." He then asks," Can this be proved? Must it not be owned, on fair consideration, that Timothy's deposit did comprise matter independent and distinct from the truths which are directly scriptural?" p. 21. In answer, we will give the preacher's own words, when he urges the reflection that the New Testament was not written at the date of this epistle.

"The holy writings themselves intimate that the persons to whom they were addressed were in possession of a body of truth and duty totally distinct from themselves, and independent of them. Timothy, for instance, a few verses after the text, is enjoined to take measures for the transmission, not of Holy Scripture, but of things which he had heard of St. Paul among many witnesses. The Thessalonians had been exhorted to hold the traditions which they had received, whether by word or apostolic letter." (p. 22.)

Here follow other texts urged by Catholics, after which he proceeds as follows:

"If the words, the commandments, the tradition which the latest of these holy writers severally commend in these and similar passages meant only or chiefly the Scriptures before written, would there not appear a more significant mention of those Scriptures; something

nearer to the tone of our own divines, when they are delivering precepts on the rule of faith? As it is, the phraseology of the Epistles exactly concurs with what we should be led to expect, that the Church would be already in possession of the substance of saving truth, in a sufficiently systematic form, by the sole teaching of the Apostles. As long as that teaching itself, or the accurate recollection of it, remained in the world, it must have constituted a standard or measure of Christian knowledge, though it had never seemed good to the Almighty to confer on us the additional boon of the books of the New Testament."—p. 23.

The sentiments of the Fathers are then appealed to, as confirmatory of this opinion. "Do they not employ Church tradition," asks Mr. Keble, "as parallel to Scripture, not as derived from it? and consequently as fixing the interpretation of disputed texts, not simply by the judgment of the Church, but by the authority of that Holy Spirit which inspires the oral teaching itself, of which such tradition is the record;"* Again: "If we will be impartial, we cannot hide it from ourselves, that this unwritten word, if it can be anyhow authenticated, must necessarily demand the same reverence from us," (as the written must have done from the early Christians, when they ascertained it,) "and for exactly the same reason—because it is his word.”+

But here the learned professor introduces a limitation necessary to prevent a last step over the rubicon of Protestantism. When the Scriptures were thus written, they were so written as to" contain every fundamental point of doctrine;" so that now, "nothing is to be insisted on as a point of faith necessary to salvation, but what is contained in, or may be proved by, canonical Scripture."+ This second part of the discourse then closes by reducing to three classes the objects for which apostolical tradition is a rule. 1. "The systems and arrangement of fundamental articles;" 2. "Interpretation of Scripture;" and 3. " Discipline, formularies, and rites of the Church." This outline will leave in our readers no room for astonishment, that Mr. Keble's sermon should have been openly charged with Catholicism, or "Romanism." Now, we declare that, to a very great extent, the charge is well-grounded. Strike out a few sentences, in which he tacks his theory to the Thirtynine Articles, and the sermon might have been preached in St. Peter's at Rome. Whether these few passages neutralize the body of the discourse, we leave it to the members of his Church to decide. How far his opinions are ours, that is, Catholic, we have a right to judge; how far they are, at the same time, those of his professed religion, let others see. But, in the mean time,

Page 24.

The words in italics throughout these quotations are so in the original.
Page 30.

VOL. III.NO. V.

E