adopted by Mr. Goode, and to make the Church's teaching conform to them. Of course failure was inevitable. The circle has never been squared. That or the reconciling of things essentially opposed is a task too great even for the ingenuity and persevering diligence of the Reverend author.

Before leaving this general review of his work, we must say a word or two upon a matter of taste and prudence. Charges of ignorance are freely preferred against those who have heretofore engaged in controversy upon the present topic with Mr. Goode. Such a thing, however it might do in the columns of papers friendly to the author, comes with very bad taste indeed from the Editor of his book; but far worse is it when the Reverend gentleman allows himself to speak in this manner of his adversaries. He says of them "deliberately," yea, even of the "very heads of the party" that they are "very ill-informed individuals."

We question the propriety of such accusations; they partake of the character of slander. They can be preferred by any one. They can wound feelings, or injure reputation even where there is not a particle of foundation for the charge. Therefore a man of fine feeling would not rashly employ them. If his opponent be really an ignorant pretender, such a man would rather prove his ignorance than proclaim it.

But we cannot see how anything is to be gained in the end by such accusations. If made on insufficient grounds, they may be credited for a time, but sooner or later the truth overtakes them, and they bring upon their author the odium he sought to fasten upon his antagonist. If the evidence be furnished,

the denunciations, or charges, might as well be omitted. If it be not furnished, they are worthless. What then are these? Do we not require something more than the mere dictum of Mr. Goode, or his American Editor, to convince us that the Bishop of Exeter, Chancellor Harrington, Archdeacon Churton, the Rev. T. K. Arnold, and others, are ignorant men. Their extensive and varied learning has always been freely acknowledged, even by those who doubt or deny their orthodoxy. If this general judgment is to be reversed, we would like to know on what grounds; but without condescending to inform us, without giving even one illustration of their supposed deficiency, Mr. Goode, in marked violation of good taste and fairness, assures his readers that they are "exceedingly ill-informed !"

Still worse, however, are his positive charges of falsehood, etc., etc. If a controversialist violates truth, or practises arts that are or seem to be dishonest, and we are satisfied that he does this wilfully, we do not expect his opponent to treat him with studious courtesy. On the contrary, in such a case we think it right to call a spade a spade, and expose the trickster so that he may be excluded from the lists of honorable disputation. It is only, however, with great reluctance we should come to such a conclusion. We are bound to exercise that charity, "which hopeth all things." But if the proofs are too many and too strong to be resisted, if there is no room left for reasonable doubt, we hold that we are then fully warranted in condemning him, and in making his guilt known. Yet we are never justified in even insinuating such a charge, unless we give

along with it the facts upon which it is based. Mr. Goode has not done this. He has offered no evidence whatever, although he says of his adversaries that their course is marked by "unblushing effrontery," "unbridled arrogance," "duplicity," and "frequent disregard of truth." The latter charge he repeats, saying, they resort to "all sorts of inconsis-. tencies and offences against truth !"

It might be supposed that language so strong, and judgments so harsh as these, were hastily produced, struck out, as it were, in the heat of conflict, but we are sorry to say they have not even this in their favor. Several of them occur in a chapter; headed "MORALITY OF TRACTARIANISM," and are reprinted here from another work written years before. Being thus coolly reproduced, and without any evidence to support them, they are wholly inexcusable.

But further: we question the prudence of making such charges. They are so easily retorted that no one should venture upon them who is not unusually exact and circumspect. Our author is not so. He has left himself very open to just such attacks. So much so, indeed, that it is hard to believe that he has not earned them. We would not dream of calling Mr. Goode an ignorant man, either as to general scholarship, or the special subjects he undertakes to discuss, but yet he forces us, at times, to believe that he is not acquainted with facts, or writers, that he professes to know perfectly, and which he certainly ought to know. His representations are at times so widely different from the plain truth, that in kindness to himself we must suppose him so far ignorant. He escapes more severe condemnation, only

because we charitably presume that his offences are not intentional.

The laudatory references, made in newspapers and pamphlets, to the erudition, the controversial skill, and the past triumphs of the Reverend gentleman, may be easily pardoned. They are simply the usual glorification of the party champion. Doubtless the Philistines boasted greatly of the man they sent forth to defy the armies of Israel; and why should not our radical brethren extol their own Goliath. Let them do so. It is natural that they should. But we cannot help thinking that while such eulogies may be quite allowable in the columns of a journal, they might, without any great disadvantage, have been omitted from his own book. His victories might have been more appropriately recorded elsewhere, while his learning and ability might have been left to assert themselves. "Good wine needs no bush."

CHAPTER III.

EXPLANATORY.

ALTHOUGH we do not write for the purpose of

setting forth and defending any theory, but rather of reviewing and answering the work of another, we think it will help to make the discussion more easy and agreeable if at the outset we state what we conceive to be the Church's view of the matters in debate. Taking into consideration then its standards, its history, and the "consent of eminent divines," we deduce the following tenets:

I. That our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Christian ministry by commissioning certain chosen persons called "Apostles" to preach and to baptize all nations in his name, and to do all things needful for the full establishment of his Church, and that he promised to be with them. even to the end of the world.

II. That the extent of this commission and promise implies that the ministry should continue to the end of time, and consist of those who should receive a share of the authority originally given to the Apostles, and transmitted from them in regular succession.

III. That the ministry as instituted by them, in direct accordance with the will of our Lord,