transmitted to us by the founders of our Protestant Establishment, the former demands our first and most earnest consideration.

When the fortress of our faith is beleaguered with a formidable confederacy, composed of the most heterogeneous and conflicting elements, which has no other bond of union than its unmitigated hatred of the Established Church, it is deeply to be regretted that, at such a critical juncture, any divisions should have arisen amongst the defenders of the citadel. But whatever may be our regrets, and whatever may be the consequences resulting from these divisions, all the blame must attach to those who have so gratuitously and unadvisedly rekindled the flames of controversy, by the dissemination of opinions, which have already been the source of much eager disputation. It is our duty to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. If St. Paul withstood judaizing teachers, we must withstand romanizing writers. Peace in the abstract, is always desirable: and, under existing circumstances, it is so in a peculiar degree. But it is too dearly purchased, if it be purchased by surrendering principle, conniving at error, or compromising the truth. To adopt the plain language of the martyred Latimer, "In the time of the six Articles, there was a Bishop, which ever cried 'unity '-'unity ;' but he would have a Popish unity. St. Paul to the Corinthians, saith, Be of one mind-but he addeth-according to Christ Jesus -i. e. according to God's holy word; else it were better

war than peace. We ought never to regard unity so

much that we would or should forsake God's word for her sake."*

Your thoughts will not fail to have anticipated the bearing of these preliminary remarks. You will naturally conjecture that they have a reference to some publications, which, during the last three or four years, have been put forth by some distinguished members of the sister University.

Thoroughly to sift the dogmas propounded by this school of theologians (which, perhaps, may with most propriety be denominated the Laudian school,)—to analyse their system of doctrine-and to compare it with scripture and with the writings of the Reformers,—would demand qualifications and attainments, combined with the requisite leisure, which I have not the advantage of possessing. The limits of such an address as this, moreover, must effectually preclude the possibility of any such attempt. Upon the present occasion, therefore, I must confine myself to a few brief animadversions upon some of the leading features of the system, as they are developed in a series of tracts, entitled "Tracts for the Times."

One of the most prominent characteristics of this school of theologians, as indicated in these treatises, is, their leaning towards popery. This tendency must be obvious to the most cursory and superficial reader. Indeed the terms, in which the corrupt and apostate Church of Rome is spoken of, are such as must fill every

serious and reflecting mind with no less astonishment than grief. In one tract, this Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, who is drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, is designated as our "Sister in captivity."* In another, the writer evinces his predilections for the mystery of iniquity in the following ardent terms;-" Considering the high gifts and the strong claims of the Church of Rome and its dependencies on our admiration, reverence, love and gratitude, how could we withstand it as we do; how could we refrain from being melted into tenderness, and rushing into communion with it, but for the word of truth itself which bid us prefer it to the whole world? He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." In the apocalypse, we are, indeed, told that the inspired Apostle, when in his prophetic vision, he beheld this strange phænomenon, wondered with great admiration: but this "admiration" was of a nature widely different from that of the writer, whose They will but lead us to confess that she" (viz. the Church of England) "is in a measure in that position which we fully ascribe to her Latin sister -in captivity."-In a note the following lines are given from the Christian Year.

*.66

That the least appearance of unfairness in quotation may be avoided, the concluding sentence of the paragraph is here subjoined.-"How could we learn to be severe, and execute judgment, but for the warning of Moses against even a divinely gifted teacher, who should preach new gods; and the anathema of St. Paul even against angels and apostles, who should bring in a new doctrine ?"-Vol. ii. Records of the Church. No. xxiv. p. 7.

66

sentiments have been presented to you. The Apostolic seer was overwhelmed with amazement (as well he might) when he beheld such a prodigy of unparalleled iniquity and remorseless cruelty engendered within the bosom of the Christian Church. So little was he aware of its possessing any claims upon our " love or gratitude," that he represents the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held, as crying with a loud voice and saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not Judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth ?*

But the prepossession of these writers in favour of the Church of Rome is manifested not only by detached passages and insulated expressions; but, especially, and emphatically, by the general spirit and train of argumentation which pervade the 71st. Tract, written expressly "on the controversy with the Romanists." It is there stated that our "position is a defensive one, we are assailed, and we defend ourselves and our flocks. There is no plea for calling on us in England to do more than this to defend ourselves, We are under no constraint to go out of our way to move charges against the Romanists." * * "We are not obliged to prove them incurably corrupt, and heretical; no, nor our own system unexceptionable. It is in our power, if we will, to take very low ground; it is quite enough to ascertain that reasons cannot be brought why we should go over from our side to theirs." In conformity with the principle here laid down, the writer truly has taken "very low + Vol. iii. 71st. Tract, p. 3.

* See Appendix, No. 1.

ground"-ground so low, that if it were as sound, as I believe it to be fundamentally unsound and untenable, the warning voice in the Apocalypse addressed to the adherents of the papacy-Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues-is calculated to excite visionary and superfluous apprehensions in their minds. If, indeed, the opinions promulgated in this Tract be correct, it would scarcely be too much to affirm, that those faithful and devoted men, whose names are emblazoned on the rolls of martyrdom, Cranmer, and Hooper, and Ridley, and Latimer, and Rogers, and Taylor, and Bradford, and Philpots, with others who were the victims of the Marian persecution, surrendered themselves to the stake without any adequate cause, and instead of being martyrs to the truth, ought rather to be considered as having yielded their lives in support of an abstract theory, which should never have been made the subject of controversy.

Such an affirmation must appear to you of a startling nature, and, upon hearing it advanced, you may very reasonably ask-where is the evidence of its truth? The evidence rests chiefly upon the sentiments enunciated in the Tract under consideration, relative to the doctrine of transubstantiation. This tenet, it is well known, was the leading and primary test of heresy, upon which the Reformers were arraigned and tried before the popish tribunals. They stedfastly, and indignantly repudiated the doctrine, with its legitimate consequence, the sacrifice of the mass; and they refused to offer up the homage of idolatrous worship to a consecrated wafer.