her (the church's) doctrine, especially for that use of the word having the precedent of scripture." And by endeavouring to prove that the article was not against him, Bishop Taylor admitted meanwhile that the article in its true and proper sense was the criterion of the doctrine of the church of England. In like manner, the twenty-second article was appealed to in the case of Breeks v. Woolfrey; the law principally relied on, said Sir Herbert Jenner, was the twenty-second article, but in the learned judge's opinion it would not stand the trial; and the Presbyter, in fact, gives up this ground. Bishop Taylor's remark, as really cited by Sir Herbert Jenner, is "this only, that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckoned," (as made in early times,)" the church of England never did condemn by any express article, but left it in the middle. Had there been any such express article, Sir Herbert Jenner's judgment would have been different; as would Bishop Taylor's. And so, too, Bishop Burnet himself only says, that "we have DEPARTED from the practice of the ancients," that we have "let that custom fall," that we "do not in this follow" their precedent; (the capitals and italics are the Presbyter's ;) but Bishop Burnet does not say that it is "contrary to the doctrine and constitution of the church of England;" he only, on his own judgment, condemns it by implication with "other disorders" of early times, calling it "a groundless and a much abused precedent, though set us in ages which we highly reverence.

But the Presbyter has other witnesses. One is, the author of "The Faith and Practice of a Church-of-England Man." (London: 1688.) He says—

"This work bears the imprimatur' of William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and may therefore reasonably be presumed to contain nought contrary to the doctrine and constitution of the church of England. Though God (says the writer, p. 130) is so willing to be prayed to by us, yet still there are some prayers which I cannot think he is much pleased withall; and that is, prayers for the dead.... And though the ancients, on some mistaken notions concerning the soul, did sometimes thus pray for the soul of good men,' ""&c.

What does this witness, again, depose to? He simply gives his own opinion as to what kind of prayers he "cannot think" the Almighty "is much pleased with," and declares certain notions of the ancients "mistaken." If there be nothing here "contrary to the doctrine and constitution of the church of England," though it may be questioned whether speaking disrespectfully of "the ancients" is quite in accordance with its constitution, yet, if he had never so expressly condemned such prayers, this writer, after all, is not the church of England, and neither he nor Bishop Burnet disproves Jeremy Taylor's statement, that "such prayers the church of England did never condemn by any express article, but left it in the middle." But one witness still remains :

"That I may not trespass unnecessarily upon your grace's time, I will only in this part of my subject quote one more authority against the judge. Thomas Vane, who renounced protestantism, and gave his reasons for so doing in his book, entitled, ‘A Lost Sheep Returned Home,' (printed at Paris, 1649, dedicated to Henriette Marie, Queen of England, and published with the appro

.....

batio doctorum, H. Holden, J. Calaghan,' who ' obtained leave' so to do,) says, chap. x. p. 155, . . . . . protestants deny prayer for the dead; so did Arius, for which he is condemned by Saint Augustine (Hær. 53) and Saint Epiphanius, (Hær. 75.)

"Now," says the Presbyter, going into a somewhat elaborate argument, more elaborate even than Sir Herbert Jenner's, "those prayers for the dead which protestants denied in 1649 cannot be those connected with purgatory, because purgatory had not been invented in the days of Arius. I will take Sir Herbert Jenner's date for the dawn of purgatory; he places it in the fifth century; but Arius, as your grace will remember, aspired to the bishopric of Alexandria about the year 312. It is not, therefore, probable that he lived to see the fifth century. I have also internal evidence, as pointed out by Bishop Burnet, that Epiphanius, who was somewhat junior to Arius, was unacquainted with the doctrine of purgatory......I have now, then, my lord archbishop, legitimately arrived at the conclusion, that the prayers for the dead, which the Romanist Thomas Vane charges the protestants with denying in the seventeenth century, are those prayers for the dead unconnected with purgatory, which Sir Herbert Jenner affirms are not rejected by our church."

Whatever Thomas Vane may say, or the "protestants' of whom he speaks, or whatever may be the value of his testimony and theirs, or the chances that some of them were not good church-of-England men, considering what condition the church of England was in in 1649, and that the afore-mentioned Jeremy Taylor was living about this time, however all this may be, it is a comfort for these protestants that if they did really "deny prayer for the dead," they did it, it seems, in company with Arius, condemned for it by Saint Augustine and Saint Epiphanius. And if the choice be between Arius and these two saints, most Christians would be unwilling to identify themselves with Arius. However, pace viri docti Thomæ Vane, and pace doctorum H. Holden, J. Calaghan, it was not Arius but Aerius, quite a different person, though a heretic, as every one will remember, who denied prayer for the dead, and was condemned for it by "Saint Augustine (Hær. 53) and Saint Epiphanius (Hær. 75.)" But whether the "protestants" in question were Arians or Aerians, that "lost sheep,” Thomas Vane, does not supply any proof that the church of England in 1649 did "deny prayers for the dead." Jeremy Taylor knew probably full as much about her doctrine and constitution at that particular time as did this worthy.

So much for the Presbyter's witnesses to the "doctrine and constitution of the church of England,"-Bishop Burnet, the anonymous author of "The Faith and Practice of a Church of England Man," and "the Romanist, Thomas Vane." The question remains, whether these outweigh Jeremy Taylor's statement of fact as to the church of England.

The principal reason, however, for exposing ignorance is, to prevent its being mischievous; and perhaps enough has been said to shew that the Presbyter is not a writer on whose authority people should allow themselves to be put in a panic, or fancy themselves in a dilemma.

They may easily keep out, what they might find it difficult to turn out. The homily is quite ground enough for any incumbent to act upon, though not enough to support a charge of contrariety to the church of England in a court of law.

THE OXFORD TRACTS.

GREAT excitement has lately prevailed on this subject, and almost every species of vehicle has been in requisition to convey the sentiments and feelings of multitudes who have just at this time been unable to suppress them. There has been a perfect hurricane of sermons, tracts, pamphlets, magazines, reviews, and newspapers; presenting, too, one of the most curious phenomena of hurricanes, which nothing but the recent discovery of their ways of going on would enable us to understand. At the first outbreak of the storm, we were alarmed with the dangers of fanatic asceticism, backed by uncommon learning. People almost fancied they saw living skeletons flitting up and down Oxford, terrible in Greek, and sackcloth; and calling upon men neither to repent nor believe, but only to fast and read the fathers; and this, from persons of the reported character, station, and talents of the parties, was altogether tremendous. The hollow circle of storm has now so far progressed in its onward course towards infidel apostasy that, by keeping pretty much where they were, they are again in its circumference, and assailed on the other side. In nautical phrase, the south-easter is paying off the north-wester, which those who knew nothing of the philosophy of the thing long since observed that he seldom fails to do with great punctuality and promptitude. We are now given to understand that, abominable as the productions of the Oxford school of divinity are, there cannot be much to fear from the published speculations of " two or three gentlemen happening to reside in or near one of our Universities, who have, rather to the injury of that University, obtained the name of the Oxford Divines,' though they are no more the Oxford divines than the three 'tailors of Tooley-street' were the people of England." Having only this slight and casual connexion with the place,-no chair or fellowship, no college office or cure of souls, among them, there can of course be nothing to apprehend. Have we, in fact, any proof that they have even been heard of in Oxford? But if they have, what could they do, even if they were men of good character? and instead of this, they turn out to be "knaves" and "jesuits," and, what was least expected, rogues as to money-if we may credit the newspapers. All this is very well, and very instructive. "It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good;" and no doubt some benefit will arise from all this excitement, especially if the anti-Puseyite party should ever " deviate into sense," and change their mode of attack for fair and well-informed argument. But it is a business with which the British Magazine would have nothing to do, if it had not been pointedly, repeatedly, and by name, brought into the dispute.

It was mentioned in the Notices to Correspondents of the preceding number that the Rev. C. S. Bird, in a pamphlet which he had pub

lished on the Oxford Tracts, had in plain, unqualified terms affirmed, that the writers of those tracts had this Magazine "under their control." On what ground he hazarded this bold assertion he may not choose to say, but as it has been made by others, it is not sufficient to meet it, as has been already done, with flat contradiction, and a statement that "the Magazine is not under the control, or subject to the slightest interference, of any person who is, or ever was, a member of the University of Oxford," without some further observations tending to shew the position which it really does occupy.

For the writers of the Oxford Tracts, so far as he knows who they are, and for a great part of what he has read in the tracts themselves, and in other publications ascribed to the same writers, the editor has a sincere respect. He believes that they have brought into notice and operation much neglected truth-that, generally speaking, they have led, either by stating or eliciting juster notions of the church, to a sounder and safer view, not only of the church itself, but of popery, dissent, heresy, schism, and all that is external-that they have given an invaluable impulse to ecclesiastical, and especially patristical, studies that they have been in a great degree the instruments of checking the alienation, and the too probable prospect of divorce, between zealous piety and sound learning *-that they have looked bullying

The following letter, which appeared in the "Record " of the 22nd of November, is worth preserving, on many accounts. Five hundred guineas reward, to be paid on the apprehension of the offenders, may lead to their conviction. The writer has not seen the letter which is alluded to.

SIR, I trust the valuable suggestion lately thrown out by a correspondent in your columns, as to the expediency of offering a prize for an Essay on the Sufficiency of Scripture, will not be allowed to drop. The present seems to be a crisis of vital importance in the cause of Protestantism amongst us, and I have no doubt that a wellwritten treatise which would embrace the whole case as it stands between the Traditionists and the church of England, would be extensively read, and (with God's blessing) proportionately useful.

I agree with your correspondent "Clericus," in thinking that the prize should be a handsome one-at least three hundred guineas. Five hundred would not be too large for the occasion; and if a subscription were opened under the sanction and encouragement of a few distinguished names, that sum, or more, could, I am certain, be readily obtained. A prize of so large an amount would not only ensure a competition of the highest talents and learning, but would by the eclat (if I may so speak) attending it, serve to procure for the successful essay an extended sale, and cause it to be eagerly and generally read by all the educated classes of the people.

The adjudicators ought obviously to be men of the highest standing and authority in the church. If one of our bishops (Winchester or Chester for instance), or a divinity professor, could be prevailed on to undertake the task, in conjunction with one or more of the best known of the beneficed clergy (the names of Bridges, Blunt, and Bickersteth occur to me), there would be a weight and influence given to the work which would tend to promote its usefulness, and would render it of value and importance to the present and all future generations.

I beg to say, that if a subscription be opened, I shall be ready to contribute 51., if the prize proposed to be raised be five hundred guineas or less, and 101., if more than that sum.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c.,

CLERICUS V.

ignorance in the face, dragged it out, and made it record its own sin and shame and, in short, conferred many benefits, directly and indirectly, on the Christian church. At the same time, there are some points, and those of some importance, on which the editor thinks they are mistaken, and on which he would like to see them well matched in controversy. With these views and feelings, of course he can have no objection to admit the letters of these gentlemen or their friends into that department of the Magazine which was originally provided and described as a place in which communications might be "inserted for the purpose of exciting discussion," and which is every month headed by a notice that the editor is not responsible for the opinions of his correspondents. How far it is honest to make him so, is a question for those who do it, if they ever trouble themselves with inquiries of the kind; but if it be thought that those who more or less agree with the Oxford Divines write more frequently than those who oppose them, and that they sometimes write what should "excite discussion," and that, too, without its being answered, the editor acknowledges himself to be of the same opinion. It appears to him, that sometimes things are stated or assumed without sufficient ground, which might furnish matter for very useful and interesting discussion; and if those who thus think will reply at moderate length, and in a Christian and scholarlike manner, they will find no unwillingness to insert their communications.

DISSENTING MATTERS.

THE following extract is from a periodical work, intitled, "The Inquirer." The writer really does not know by what sort of dissenters it is conducted; but for the present occasion that is of little consequence, as the only object is to borrow from it a passage which it has borrowed from a provincial newspaper, respecting the proceedings of very well known and influential members of the independent denomination :

"At Sheffield, on Wednesday, November 21, Mount-Zion Chapel was re-opened by the Rev. John Thorpe, and the report of that event, as given in the Sheffield Independent,' seems to us so instructive, that we think it proper to make a few extracts. The editor of the newspaper says, 'Owing to the constellation of talent which Mr. Thorpe's influence had engaged for the occasion, it had been looked forward to with much anxiety and delight. On Wednesday morning, Dr. Raffles preached from 1 Tim. i. 15,- This is a faithful saying,' &c. The universal testimony of those who heard the sermon is, that great as the reputation of Dr. Raffles deservedly is as a preacher, they had never known him, even in his happiest efforts, to surpass the sermon of the morning. In the evening, the Rev. Dr. John Harris, author of Mammon, preached to a densely crowded congregation, from Heb. iv. 18, Finally, my brethren, whatsoever things are true,' &c. During the whole

The most obvious points, on a cursory inspection, are, the rejection of infant baptism, and of all distinction between clergy and laity in the Christian church. "The very existence of a clerical body of the clergy' originates in fabulous falsehoods and impious traditions, generated by the pride of man in a diseased state of the church," &c. This is in a paper on Chrysostom, in which the writer tells us, th "Chrysostom, on many essential points, is entirely Puseyite."-—p. 25.