ration of eminent Christians is entirely in accordance with primitive usage-at least when sanctioned by the Church. Still, I doubt the expediency, or even the propriety, of publishing it. Practices, however innocent and praiseworthy, which have been extensively abused, do not stand precisely on the same footing as they did before: at least, we should approach them cautiously, for fear of falling into the same abuse. If it had been a forgotten point of essential doctrine or practice, then, of course, they were right to call attention to it. But no one will say it is of that character. While, on the other hand, it is obviously calculated to give the impression to many persons, that the writers have a leaning to Popish customs. There are many other passages which, in like manner, grate unnecessarily on the prejudices of Protestants; but very few, if any, which, if candidly interpreted, are not in accordance with scriptural truth'.

1 In common with many of those who feel grateful to the Oxford Tract writers for the service which they have rendered to the Church, I cannot but regret the publication of Froude's Remains, notwithstanding the many important truths and admirable sentiments contained in them. The peculiarly strong and almost paradoxical language, in which that writer expresses himself, was sure to be taken up by opponents, and used in argument against the views which he advocates. For instance, when he says, "Really I hate Reformers and

K

RIDLEY.

You seem, then, yourself not to find much fault with these writers.

HERBERT.

I should not like to make myself responsible for all their doctrines. Some, indeed, require a very deep consideration before one ought to pronounce a decided judgment upon them. Still I do not hesitate to avow my conviction that the good which they have done to the Church is most extensive. They have been the

the Reformation more and more," it might easily have been foreseen, as it has actually happened, that those who wished to disparage his opinions, would quote the words apart from the context, and represent that he was a Papist; whereas, the language which he uses towards the Papists themselves is even stronger than this, for he calls them "wretched Tridentines;" says, "I really do think them idolaters;" declares "I never could be a Romanist," and "wishes for the total overthrow of the system." An unbiassed reader of course sees that when he declares his hatred of the Reformation, he does not speak of the English Protestant Church, but "the perverse anti-ecclesiastical spirit to which the Reformation gave birth." It might be just as fairly argued that our Saviour encouraged the infraction of the fifth commandment, when he says that we ought to "hate father and mother for his name's sake." At the same time, I think that the editors might have predicted the unfair and mischievous use which would be made of these strong paradoxical expressions, and would have acted more prudently if they had suppressed them.

instruments of Providence to supply what was most required, namely, those principles of union, for want of which the Church was in the act of falling to pieces.

At the same time it is not necessary that we should blindly follow those whom we most admire. What human mind is free from error? What human intellect can comprehend the whole counsel of God, or scan the height and depth of his infinite love? Even inspired writers seem to have contemplated one portion of divine truth more strongly than another. St. Paul and St. James, though preserved by inspiration from error, appear to have regarded the scheme of divine revelation from somewhat different aspects. Why should not Churchmen, then, be content to believe that individually they can take but a partial view of infinite truth?

I confess I should like to see the Apostolical writers those, I mean, of whom we have been speaking-use rather more conciliation towards their Evangelical brother Churchmen - for brother Churchmen they are beyond a question, both by the election of God at baptism, and by their own voluntary continuance in the Church's communion. The Evangelicals ought not to be judged of entirely by the language of

their writers. Men who have committed themselves by writing—especially by frequent writing-to any set of opinions, do not easily change at least, they do so more gradually. As a body, the Evangelicals must be acknowledged, even by those who least like their doctrines, to be highly conscientious and excellent men; and a zeal for what they regard as scriptural truth, is one of their leading characteristics. Their fault is, that they have been led to consider their own private system instead of the Church system, as the perfect interpretation of God's word; and have eked out their want of true Church principle with a fanciful scheme of spiritual union, which is not in accordance either with Scripture or with history; and this error has led to the distortion or exaggeration of other doctrines, which are, in themselves, essentially scriptural. Their system affords no bond of visible union, and entirely overlooks the true value of the visible Church "the pillar and ground of the truth." But let the scriptural and historical evidence of Church doctrines be plainly laid before them; let it be shown that these doctrines do not in the least trench upon the great scriptural truths of the atonement, the corruption of human nature, and other points which they

justly deem essential, and they will gradually correct the deficiency of their own creed, and bring it into accordance with that of the Church universal. Such, indeed, is the process now going on.

Already many Evangelicals have avowed a change or modification of their sentiments; and many more, without avowing it, are unconsciously adopting the language of the Church.

I look confidently for the time,—and that not very far distant,-when, by the blessing of God, all the best of the Evangelicals will fall into the true Church system': and also I think it is reasonable to expect a great accession to the Church from the dissenting bodies, when the sin of separation is plainly recognised.

That which, at present, Churchmen should most studiously avoid, is acrimonious collision amongst each other. I do not mean that we ought to sink or smother differences; that is a latitudinarian principle-or rather, no principle at all-but that we should discuss our various opinions with temper and moderation—not exaggerating differences, and making mountains of

1 I imagine there are very few indeed amongst the Evangelicals who hold such opinions as those contained in Mr. Baptist Noel's tract on Unity of the Church.