It is not the advocates of Church principles, but their opponents, who disparage man's position on earth, and undervalue that body and those members which he bears about him here, and which shall exist anew hereafter, glorified, yet the same.

"It is very singular (remarks Mr. Gladstone, in another place) to observe how many of the pious among us actually seem to have forgotten that this body and its organs are portions of our proper selves. Rightly rejecting the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and all that tends to the supremacy of sense in the lives of unthinking men, they rush into some capricious extreme, and regard the body as if it had little more of a permanent relation to themselves than the very clothes that cover it. Hence it seems to us strange to be told, that the body is a fit subject of Christian discipline in its own mode and measure, as well as the immaterial man. Hence we are apt to treat the respect shown to the remains of the dead as a tribute only to the memory of one who must doubtless have carried away from earth with him some fraction, at least, of human love, or as a security against making light of a subject so awful as death; but surely we ought rather to regard even the stark and breathless corpse as the subject of respect, and of a present and future interest-present, inasmuch as in it the deceased is paying, as we hope, the sole remaining forfeit of a sinful, but ransomed, nature; and future, inasmuch as that frale (according to the touching phrase of the Italians), that dust returning to dust, is part and parcel of that very humanity redeemed by Christ, part and parcel of the object of his love, and worthy therefore, surely, of ours. Hence it is that we scarcely understand why the resurrection of the body should have been so prominent a subject of the earliest controversies, even from the date of the first Epistle to the Corinthians-should have been secured from question by insertion in the earliest creeds-or should be declared, as it is by St. Augustine, summa fidei nostræ, quæ separat ab infidelibus.”

We must now draw our observations on Mr. Gladstone's "Church Principles Considered in their Results" to a close; before doing so, however, we express our regret that we have not been permitted by our limits to give a fuller analysis of its valuable contents. Enough, however, has been disclosed to induce all our readers to whom these discussions are interesting -and to whom do they not pertain?-to peruse the work for themselves. Let them do so in a serious, candid, patient spirit, and we will answer for it their labour shall not be in vain. It may not be unnecessary, in these days of strife and divisions, to warn impatient or prejudiced readers against a very cursory perusal of this book, and a hasty rejection of it, under a notion that it is an offshoot of the "Tracts for the Times." It is no such thing; it is based on a better foundation than one of any man's building even on the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. We deem it not inappropriate, too, on this occasion, to say a

VOL. IX.-E E

word on behalf of ourselves, more especially as we have been honoured by a quotation from our pages in the House of Commons, to lend sanction to a cause we should feel it dishonour to support. Lord Morpeth, to support his own views with reference to Maynooth, has recently wrested certain remarks against the "Tracts for the Times," which appeared some years ago in this Review, for which its present conductors are not responsible, and which they deem uncharitable; while, at the same time, they as decidedly object to the tendency of the "Tracts" as did the writers of the articles in question. Lord Morpeth's logic is, that since Popery is tolerated at Oxford, it ought in fairness to be encouraged at Maynooth. No logic lecture that we attended at Oxford enables us to feel the force of his lordship's reasoning; for whatever may be our past or present opinion of the "Tracts for the Times," the University is innocent of their parentage; and the State does not pay for their publication, as it does for the noxious writings issued from Maynooth. A few members of the University chose, at their own proper costs and charges, to print and publish, from time to time, some Tracts which they thought suitable to the present state of the Church. These Tracts came forth anonymously, and have from their first appearance been printed in London. The University of Oxford is no more responsible for them than for these pages, written by one of the humblest of her members, one now far and for ever removed from her peaceful happy shades; to which his recollections will, however, fondly cling, so long as memory can do its office" dulces moriens reminiscitur Argos."

The imposition of the responsibility of the "Tracts for the Times" upon the University of Oxford, is on a par with the falsehood reported to have been uttered by a reverend ultra Protestant last summer, at Exeter Hall: that the Romish "Breviary" was the commonest volume; and, moreover, the most saleable in the booksellers' shops at Oxford-an assertion which, in our love of sincerity, we designate a naked lie.

We feel it to be of incomparably less moment to correct an unfair use of anything that may have appeared in our pages, than to rebut a calumnious imputation on the University of Oxford; but we will, in conclusion, subjoin a few words strictly in reference to ourselves. If any discrepancy of tone between what appeared in this Review in the years alluded to and the present article is discernible, it will, we conceive, be equally manifest that different individuals have composed the former articles on the "Tracts for the Times," and the one we are now inditing. But with the internal arrangements of a periodical,

the public have only so far an interest as to require an explanation if any flagrant contradiction of former statements is made at any subsequent period.

With reference to our own position, we may remark, that having been quoted by Lord Morpeth, as dealing unqualified condemnation on the Tracts, and now admitting that their influence has been, on the whole, beneficial, we may, in the eyes of superficial observers, appear guilty of inconsistency. But we pray our readers to remember that many reviewers, disgusted with the flippant arrogance of poor Mr. Froude's Letters, which we tell the editors it was cruelty to expose to the rude gaze of the world, wrote strongly against separate Tracts, who, without retracting that censure, have lived to admit that extensive good has been wrought by the influence. of the series, inasmuch as they have stimulated men to a more careful observance of the rules prescribed by the Church. for holy living. Admitting, however, thus much, and exonerating the learned and pious authors, whose lives might furnish a wholesome example to all of us, from any intention of inculcating Romish doctrines, we devoutly wish that much they have written had not been published to the lay people. The mere diversity of headings-Ad Populum, Ad Clerum, Ad Scholas, will not confine the perusal of Tracts, all of which are composed in the vernacular tongue, to the readers to whom they are severally addressed. In these days, when the Holy Scriptures are to be cast prostrate before each heedless babbler's, or silly woman's, private judgment, and any lewd hand is to be allowed to tumble and toss the contents of the Ark, we subject ourselves to a charge of intolerance in claiming this reserve in the communication of religious opinions; but, nevertheless, we do claim it, and think the Tract writers have violated one of their own most cherished canons, by the indiscriminate freedom with which they have exposed their ideas concerning mysteries not to be understood of the multitude. As there are dark counsels of God, into which the angels are not permitted to look, and no human being may scan-so there are many hard doctrines which, even if true, are not necessary to salvation, and which it is unsafe to communicate even to babes of grace, much less to a careless, scoffing world, who, by their profane reception of them, only heap upon themselves weightier condemnation.*

* Do not the Tract writers violate Isaac Casaubon's maxim which they themselves frequently quote :-" Universam doctrinam Christianam veteres distinguebant in τὰ ἔκφορα, id est, ea quæ enunciasi apud omnes poterant, et τὰ ἀποῤῥητα, arcana temere non vulganda?" And does not Bacon speak soundly when he says, "It is a point of great inconvenience and peril, to entitle the people to

Earnestly, therefore, but in no unfriendly spirit, do we repeat our call upon the Tract writers to rest contented with what they have done, and desist from throwing any more stumbling-blocks in the way of the simple-minded. Are they not, at least, incurring the risk of doing that which they most strenuously condemn, namely, bringing into too prominent view certain teachers in the Church? The mere absence of a name from the title-page of the Tracts does not conceal the individual from very general detection. Only a few residents at Oxford may be exactly able to assign each particular Tract to its proper author; but the main body of the writers is publicly known, and their names attached, as terms of reproach or ridicule, to their followers. To our taste this practice is perfectly loathsome; and more, it is in direct violation of an apostolical injunction. A quarter of a century ago a pious clergyman of Cambridge had his respected name twisted into a by-word, and now the same is being done at Oxford. If we are told that this is mere thoughtlessness, that no harm is meant by it, no offence intended to be given, we implore our Christian brethren to remember that thoughtlessness in such a matter is sinful. It has been a distinguishing peculiarity and most blessed privilege of the Church of England not to be named after any man, however eminent or however excellent. Luther, and Calvin, and Arminius, and Wesley, have transmitted their names to their followers; but neither Wickliffe, nor Latimer, nor Ridley, nor Cranmer, has fastened his proper name on Christ's Church in England. Magistrum unum omnes habemus, et in una schola condiscipuli sumus. We find in a charge addressed by the present Bishop of Salisbury to his clergy, in 1839, such an admirable admonition on this head, that, with our earnest commendation of it to our brethren at Oxford and elsewhere, with it we will conclude our paper :

"Have no divisions among yourselves. Do not say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos. Range yourselves under no party banners. Call no man master. Neither adopt for yourselves, nor be fond of applying to others, any of those party appellations, which are so disagreeable to my feelings that I will not name them even for the purpose of marking them with censure. Be faithful ministers of the Church; and do not promote, and as far as possible do not know, of subdivisions in it."

any

hear controversies and all kinds of doctrine?" They say no part of the counsel of God is to be suppressed, nor the people defrauded; so as to the difference which the apostle maketh between milk and strong meat, is confounded, and his precept, that the weak be not admitted unto questions and controversies, taketh no place.

419

ART. VI.-Primitive Christian Worship; or the Evidence of Holy Scripture and the Church concerning the Invocation of Saints and Angels, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. By the Rev. J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D. London: Rivingtons. 1840.

8vo.

2. The Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary Illustrated; or, a Critical Disquisition and Enquiry concerning the Genuineness of the Parody on the Psalms of David, commonly ascribed to St. Bonaventure; comprehending the First Fifty Psalms of the Psalter of the B.V. M., with Selections from the Remainder. By ROBERT KING, A.B., S.T.C.D. Dublin: Grant and Bolton; London: Rivingtons. 1840. 8vo.

3. The New Month of Mary; or, Reflections for each Day of the Month, on the different Titles applied to the Holy Mother of God in the Litany of Loretto; principally designed for the Month of May. By the Very Rev. P. R. KENRICK. London: Dolman. 1841. 12mo.

4. Tributo Quotidiano di affetuosi Preghiere e Lodi per ciascun giorno della Settimana alla immacolata Madre di Dio, Madre di Misericordia e Rifugio di Peccatori, Maria SS. onde godere del materno suo patrocinio in ogni di della vita, e specialmente degli estremi bisogni della morte, tratte dalle opere del Seraf. D. S. BONAVENTURA, con breve e utilissimo indirizzo per assistere alla S. Messa, e visitare la Via Crucis, ed altre aggiunte. Roma. 1836. 18mo.

WE now resume the subject of Mary Worship as practised in the Church of Rome, and have the pleasure of introducing to the notice of our readers the valuable researches of the Rev. J. Endell Tyler, concerning "Primitive Christian Worship," announced in our last number.* Mr. Tyler's volume is drawn up in the form of a conciliatory address to Romanists, as being less controversial, while the facts and arguments which he has adduced remain the same. He eminently excels in "speaking the truth in love;" and if the class of religionists for whom he writes would candidly study and meditate upon the facts and arguments which he has adduced, we think that they must be constrained to abandon the errors of Popery. His volume con

See page 203 of the present volume. Our readers are requested to correct the following typographical errors: In page 176, last line, for Latin read Italian ; and in page 190, line seven of the notes, for Liga read Siga.