may, in charity, suppose that he inculcates upon his pupils. The present discourse is sufficient to shew that I am not, any more than Dr. Faussett, inclined to approve of Mr. Frowde's Remains. I deeply, indeed, regret the publication of that work without a protest, on the part of the Editor, against the author's many paradoxical positions. With a kind heart and glowing sensibilities, Mr. Frowde united a mind of wonderful power, saturated with learning, and, from its very luxuriance, productive of weeds together with many flowers. Though he always took an original, he sometimes took a morbid view of things, and while from his writings all must derive much food for thought, from many of his opinions the majority of his readers will, like myself, dissent. If, in contemplating the evils inseparable from a great movement, he does not sufficiently appreciate, and I think he does not, the wisdom of our Reformation, or the virtues of many of our Reformers; if while condemning the Romish he censures the English Church, we may think him to be in error in these particulars, without condemning him by wholesale, still less ought those persons to condemn him for not fully appreciating our Reformation, who, like Mr. Scott, consider the work of the Reformers, in retaining our present baptismal service, "a burthen hard to bear," "an absurdity which they did not believe in their hearts." Had Dr Faussett contented himself

with writing a pamphlet or a review, while we might have considered him incompetent to sit in judgment on such a mind as Mr. Frowde's, we should have had no cause of complaint. But cause of complaint the Church has when he makes one work a pretext for attacking certain of his clerical brethren, whose learning he may be unable to appreciate, but whose piety and zeal he would do well to imitate; when he uses the pulpit to compel that attention to himself which he could not secure from the press; and when to give a zest to his declamation, he purposely "impugns and refutes," (or rather attempts to do so) the doctrine which he knows to be preached in the very pulpit in which he takes the bold measure of instructing the young Oxonians how best to transgress the canons of the Church. If Dr. Faussett has a right on one Sunday to attack his brethren in the ministry, than whom he is not himself, one whit more infallible, the brethren thus attacked might, Sunday after Sunday, ascend the pulpit and assail Dr. Faussett and his projected new Oxford school of divinity. If, with equal indiscretion and no greater regard for the regulations of the Church, they had done so, if deducing their own conclusions from Dr. Faussett's manifest opposition to fastings and mortifications of the flesh, they had headed their discourses with the taking title, "Revival of Sensualism," just as he has charged them with "The Revival of Popery," Dr. Faussett would, indeed, have had no just

ground for complaint, but the Church would have had to deplore an exhibition the most disgraceful, though the natural consequence of Dr. Faussett's conduct. To the discretion of the parties attacked, to their Christian forbearance, to that "High Churchism" which ensures their deference to the principles of the Church of England, we are deeply indebted, and their forbearance will speak more eloquently in their favour than all the words of Dr. Faussett in their dispraise.*

In concluding these notes I wish to observe that my intention has not been to bring charges against those who may differ from me in opinion, and yet are united with me in a desire to adhere to the principles of the Church. But I

* After the above note was written and sent to the press, the Bishop of Oxford's Charge was published. The Bishop of Oxford had a right to do what Dr. Faussett had no right to do: his Lordship had a right to pronounce sentence, ex cathedra, after examination, on the conduct and doctrines of his clergy, among whom are the writers of the Oxford Tracts. And his Lordship's sentence has been given in the following words: "I have spoken of increased exertions among us, and of an increasing sense of our Christian responsibilities; and therefore you will probably expect that I should say something of that peculiar developement of religious feeling in one part of the diocese, of which so much has been said, and which has been supposed to tend immediately to a revival of several of the errors of Romanism. In point of fact, I have been continually, though anonymously, appealed to, in my official capacity, to check breaches both of doctrine and discipline through the growth of Popery among us.

"Now, as regards the latter point, breaches of discipline namely, on points connected with the public service of the Church, I really am unable, after diligent enquiry, to find any thing which can be so interpreted. I am given to understand, that an injudicious attempt was made in one instance, to adopt some forgotten portion of the ancient clerical

have been desirous of pointing out the erroneous position in which we are at present placed by those who would divide us into High-Churchmen and Low-Churchmen. I have shewn that the English Reformers contended for the principles,

dress; but I believe it was speedily abandoned, and do not think it likely we shall hear of a repetition of this, or similar Indiscretions. At the same time, so much of what has been objected to, has arisen from minute attention to the Rubric; and I esteem uniformity so highly (and uniformity never can be obtained without strict attention to the Lubric,) that I confess I would rather follow an antiquated custom (even were it so designated) WITH the Rubric, than be entangled in the modern confusions which ensue from the neglect of it."—p. 19, 20.

It is hoped that, from a sense of justice and from a recollection of who is the Father of Lies, this contradiction on the highest authority, will be immediately published in those periodicals, which gave circulation, a short time ago, to the most preposterous falsehoods against these pious men whose exertions are thus praised by their Bishop. And now for their doctrine: "With reference to errors in doctrine, which has been imputed to the series of publications, called, The Tracts for the Times, it can hardly be expected that, on occasions like the present, I should enter into, or give a handle to, any thing which might hereafter tend to controversial discussions. Into controversy I will not enter. But, generally speaking, I may say, that in these days of lax and spurious liberality, any thing which tends to recall forgotten truths, is valuable: and where these publications have directed men's minds to such important subjects as the union, the discipline, and the authority of the Church, I think they have done good service: but there may be some points in which, perhaps, from ambiguity of expression, or similar causes, it is not impossible, but that evil rather than the intended good, may be produced on minds of a peculiar temperament. I have more fear of the disciples than of the teachers. In speaking therefore of the Authors of the Tracts in question, I would say, that I think their desire to restore the ancient discipline of the Church most praiseworthy; I rejoice in their attempts to secure a stricter attention to the Rubrical directions in the Book of Common Prayer; and I heartily approve the spirit which would restore a due observance of the Fasts and Festivals of the Church."-p. 20, 21.

Here is the sentence of their Diocesan officially recorded. The Bishop thinks it right to add his opinion and advice, which is given in that truly paternal spirit which dictated the charge, and which has always distinguished the conduct of the Bishop of Oxford: "but" adds his Lordship, “ I would implore them, by the purity of their intentions, to be cautious, both in their writings and actions, to take heed lest their good be evil spoken of; lest in their exertions to re-establish unity, they unhappily create fresh schism; lest in their admiration of antiquity,

and resolutely maintained the practices, for defending and maintaining which, those who are now styled High-Churchmen are assailed as Papists. If they, then, were to assail their opponents as persons hostile to the spirit and principles of the English Reformation, as persons who, with respect to baptism especially, are wont to use a language which they acknowledge to be different from the language of the prayer book, however much we might regret the circumstance, it would not be a matter of much surprise to any one. But it is notorious that such, at the present time, is not the Those who are called Low-Churchmen are the assailants, and in assailing High-Churchmen, they are in fact assailing our high-church Reformers, and fighting the battle against them in favour of their old enemies, the Puritans. Surely, then, it is not much to ask, for the sake of peace, that if those who are on the strong side refrain

case.

they revert to practices which heretofore have ended in superstition." By some persons this last sentence, which expresses the sentiment of many who approve of the Tracts in general, though they dissent from them in some particulars, has been construed into a censure on the Tracts for the Times, which would be, in fact, to make the Bishop stultify himself: his Lordship, therefore appends a note to state that such "never was his intention," and he concludes with asserting the very principles advocated in the present discourse: "There must always be allowable points of difference in the opinions of good men, and it is only where such opinions are carried into extremes, or are mooted in a spirit which tends to schism, that the interference of those in authority in the Church is called for. The authors of the Tracts in question have laid no such painful necessity on me, nor have I to fear that they will ever do so. I have the best reasons for knowing, that they would be the first to submit themselves to that authority which it has been their constant exertion to uphold and defend. And I feel sure, that they will receive my friendly suggestions in the spirit in which I have here offered them."