Sect. 2. Remedies in the power of those who have spiritual Sect. 4. Benefits that may be conferred on our Church by Sect. 6. The absence of any present external model to guide Sect. 6. Application of these canons to the vindication of the THE IDEAL OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. MR. PALMER'S pamphlet has, as might have been expected, been so widely circulated, and read with so much interest, that some notice of it, on the part of those against whom it is principally directed, seems almost imperatively called for. Who these are, Mr. Palmer makes no secret. 'It is the design,' he says in his preface at the very outset, of the following pages to clear those who uphold Church principles from the imputation of approving certain recent tendencies to Romanism;' to draw a line of demarcation between our principles and those of the British Critic.' (p. v.) The periodical in question he considers to have been marked of late by an 'impetuosity and recklessness,' 'better fitted to revolutionize than to reform.' (p. ix.) The feelings with which 'the friends of Church principles contemplate' such aberrations,' are those of sorrow, and even indignation;' although, as the author'most firmly and humbly trusts,' 'in no degree mingled with hostility to those brethren.' (p. 46.) The most favourable interpretation which can be given to ‘language and conduct which has deeply shocked every soberminded and orthodox believer,' is the attributing it to the indiscretions of youthful and ardent minds; inability to cope with controversial difficulties; a too great readiness to receive without examination any thing which may be plausibly advanced; too great confidence in intellectual powers and theological attainments.' (pp. 46, 7.) But it admits, in the author's opinion, of a very different construction, which 'appearances B 6 seem to justify,' but of which he cannot bring himself to entertain the notion;' a construction which would imply, on the part of the writers whom he censures, 'revolting iniquity,' disgraceful and detestable treachery and hypocrisy.' (p. 68.) These are very serious charges; and, as being one of those against whom they are brought, I am quite confident that the love of justice, so characteristic of Englishmen, will insure for me a patient hearing, if in the attempt to meet them I should find it necessary to trespass at greater length than I could wish on the public attention. And if it be asked why I come forward on the occasion, not having been Editor of the British Critic, nor in any way responsible for its general tone, the reply is easy; viz. that if we except the article on Bp. Jewel, the writer of which has already published a formal defence and explanation of its language, a greater number of the other passages, selected by Mr. Palmer for reprobation, were written by myself, than by all the other contributors put together. At the same time, of course, I am only professing to defend those articles for which I am myself responsible; and my doing so will be no impediment in the way of any other writer in the British Critic, who may wish to do the same in his own behalf. Nor, much less, is it at all necessary to allude to any other of the various matters which Mr. Palmer's pamphlet embraces. Whether or no some of the principles advocated in the British Critic are displeasing to the authors of the Tracts,' (p. vi.) is a matter on which they should speak, not the contributors to that Review, nor yet Mr. Palmer himself. Whether or no any principles adopted by the same periodical, be wholly subversive of' doctrines inculcated in the Tracts,' (p. 45, note,) is a question which I cannot be called on to discuss, for I never either wrote in the Tracts, or professed to follow their teaching in every particular. And so much of my own writing has been in various other quarters the subject of very pointed and severe censure, that I shall have quite enough to do in defending myself. At the same time, I am particularly glad of the opportunity to come forward and take on myself the full responsibility which is justly mine; 6 as far as I may be involved in Mr. Palmer's allusion, (p. 83,) I can assure him that I have no wish whatever to avail myself of the shelter of the anonymous, or shrink from avowing what I have not shrunk from publishing." The articles which I have contributed to the British Critic are those on Arnold's Sermons,' (October, 1841,) 'Whately's Essays,' (April, 1842,) Heurtley's four Sermons,' (April, 1842,) Goode's Divine Rule,' (July, 1842,) St. Athanasius,' (October, 1842,) Church Authority,' (Jan. 1843,) The Synagogue and the Church,' (July, 1843,) and 'Mill's Logic' (October, 1843). On looking them over with a view to the present object, I find nothing in them of a doctrinal nature which I can retract, except part of the second note in p. 52, of No. lxiii., in which I think I have overstated the weight due to internal evidence on the canonicity of Scripture; and except also that I could not, as at present minded, use the expressions at the bottom of p. 333, and also of p. 355, in No. lx.; neither of which passages, as far as my knowledge extends, has been made matter of comment.b a "As a general rule it may be said, that no man writing upon controverted questions without the constant sense of responsibility which publicity entails, will write with the same degree of caution, the same degree of considerate forethought, the same degree of tenderness for the weak, and of wise and comprehensive charity, to which he would attain if he had that aid. An increased severity of judgment, a higher strain of invective, a more copious use of rhetorical colouring, a more artful and constant recourse to dialectic subtleties, a greater recklessness of consequences, and a blunted instinct for pure truth, commonly distinguish anonymous authorship upon matters deeply moving the nature of man. The anonymous writer conducts a process, that ought to be judicial, in the dark; in the dark he condemns, he lashes, and he stabs; unseen himself, he sees, and he acts without the salutary check which the consciousness of being seen imposes."-Foreign and Colonial Quarterly Review for October, 1843, p. 596. These most forcibly and justly expressed dangers have been, in my own case, considerably counteracted by that necessity of avoiding individual peculiarities of opinion which results from writing in a Review. Certainly I am bound to state, that I can find no instances in which I have overstated my own convictions; but a considerable number in which I have much understated them. Since writing the above, I observe that Mr. Palmer (p. 51) has expressed a criticism on the former of these passages. That particular opinion, however, there implied, to which he objects, is one which I do not retract. メ In defending these articles, I conceive that I have mainly to prove two points. First, that the various expressions and sentences quoted by Mr. Palmer and others, which seem to have shocked and startled so many excellent men, were not put forth wantonly and without careful deliberation; but were no more (often less) than the adequate exponents of my own deep, intimate, deliberate, and habitual conviction. Secondly, that they are not inconsistent with a genuine 'allegiance' and attachment to the Church of England,' (see Palmer, p. 50,) in the truest sense of the words. I cannot profess that I am surprised, or have any right whatever to complain, if my own articles in general have given a very different impression. This may have arisen in part from the circumstance, that (in consequence of having ordinarily treated on subjects put before me by others, and of having been also precluded from the distinct expression of any sentiment which might directly clash with those advocated by other contributors), I have never hitherto had the opportunity of putting forth a connected and methodical view on the present condition and prospects of our Church. I cannot but hope that many statements, when viewed in their proper place and connection with reference to such a view, may appear, even to those wholly unprepared to receive them, as not destitute of reason and probability; which yet might of themselves, without such explanation, most naturally convey the impression of being wild, violent, and eccentric; of being introduced in a spirit of wantonness, and maintained in a spirit of exaggeration. Such then is the task to which I must necessarily apply myself: to draw out such a theory on our present circumstances, as may give a natural, unexaggerated meaning to the sentiments of which complaint has been made, and shew their consistency with a hearty loyalty to our own Church. For such a theory, although it most certainly was implied in the various articles I have written, still, I most readily acknowledge, could not have been deduced from them without a far closer attention than I had any right to expect; even if it should have occurred to readers (which is not very likely) to distinguish |