well known (?), and actually found in private collections, as well as in university libraries, comprehend all the matters in debate; so that, when we deal with them, as shall seem due to their merits, we dispose of the present controversy; and if these books, with all their merits, are found to embody a system which we must not copy, and which in Scripture is distinctly foreshown as a departure from the Faith,' then, so far as argument can go, there is an end of the Oxford Tract enterprize."

Now, let it be remembered, that the object of "Ancient Christianity" is not merely the demolition of the "Oxford Tract enterprize," but the doing away with "Church principles;" with such principles as "the divine right of Episcopacy, and the Apostolic succession:" that this was its announced intention; that it was to do a work which the Evangelical Clergy could not do, because they were Churchmen: and we shall see that in now saying that his object is to prevent "the restoration of a certain system or colour of theological doctrine, and a certain scheme of ritual practices and sentiments, and a certain model of ecclesiastical constitution, with its rules of discipline NOW promulgated;" in stating this to be his object, he shifts his ground.

دو

Again: supposing the "Oxford Tract enterprize to be the restoration of something not recognized in the present Church of England, as Mr. Taylor has specified nothing to object to in their objects, but what has been upheld by the great lights of the

Church of England all along, and by consequence imputed to all who hold Church principles all the views of the writers of the Oxford Tracts, he ought to state distinctly what it is that he objects to. He must be very well aware, that the attempt to revive Nicene principles and practices in the mass has never been really made; and it is nothing but misrepresentation to write as though it were so. His readers cannot be supposed to have read all the Oxford Tracts, and other publications of that school; and he should distinctly state what he impugns, and what not, and in what part of their writings that which he impugns is to be found. As it is, he has specified nothing but what high Churchmen in general are agreed in, excepting the "sacrificial virtue" of the Lord's Supper. If he means anything else, let him point out what it is, and possibly we shall find that, now he has come clearly to understand what he is aiming at, not six Churchmen in the kingdom would disagree with him.

Moreover, whatever it be that he oppugns, in saying that "some parts of the system are obviously so opposed to the letter and spirit of the inspired writings, that the two can never be reconciled apart from the aid, either of foreign evidence, or of some hypothesis constructed for the purpose," he takes for granted the very point he ought to have made clear and manifest in starting. Whatever even the Oxford Tract writers bring forward, they bring forward AS harmonizing with the spirit of Scripture, and as recon

cileable with the letter of it, by no more difficult process than that by which we reconcile our present doctrine of the Sabbath with St. Paul's command not to observe sabbaths. Whether they are right on all points, may fairly be doubted; but that is the ground they occupy. So that, to take for granted the contrary, is begging the question, or beginning with a misrepresentation.

Furthermore, when he says that the writings of the Fathers" embody a system which we must not copy, and which in Scripture is distinctly foreshown asa departure from the faith;"" there is just that mixture of truth and falsehood which is calculated to mislead those who only look at the surface of things. It is very true, that the writings of some of the Fathers, from Tertullian downwards, do embody false principles on the subject of marriage and celibacy; and that, after the council of Nice, those notions appear to be pretty generally established: but it is not true, that any false notions were distinctly adopted by the Church universal at any time; nor is it true, that the false principles which did prevail, were those which were "distinctly foreshown as a departure from the faith.'" On the contrary, the Church, both synodically, and by all her great writers, distinctly condemned that very doctrine which the Scripture foretold as "a departure from the faith." If Mr. Taylor chooses to say that, whilst condemning it in words, they upheld it in practice, I totally deny his assertion. The Fathers neither individually nor

6

collectively set forth abstinence from marriage, as either a duty or desirable for all persons: many of them, and those the strongest upholders of celibacy, asserted the direct contrary.

Lastly: In this general statement, Mr. Taylor manages to slip away from the most specific assertions of his first volume, and such as are essential to the argument of that volume.

Let it be remembered that, if any thing is clear in his arguments, it is this: High Church writers press certain points upon us on this principle; that whatever doctrines or system of discipline we find handed down from the beginning by all Christian writers who enter upon the subjects to which they refer, and carried on with the same universality in that great body of professing Christians who held together, under the name of the Catholic Church; the very fact of this early, universal, and continuous prevalence, is an argument for the reception of that doctrine and discipline as divine, even independently of Scripture. I lay down this principle purposely in the strongest and most naked way in which I remember to have seen it laid down.

Now, what Mr. Taylor evidently intends to do in the first volume is, to assail this principle by a contrary assertion. He affirms, that the false principles on religious celibacy, which we now regard as Popish, are fully as well supported on our principles, as any

1 Vol. i. 60-67.

thing we uphold on those principles. He asserts, that they, and their consequent practical abuses, prevailed "from the earliest times;" that they are supported by "the entire catena patrum;" that they "received an ample and explicit sanction from ALL the great writers and doctors of the Church, during the most enlightened and prosperous age of any preceding the Reformation;" that they "affected the Church universal," and "come fully within the test, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.”

These principles, then, and these practices, we now recognize as directly anti-Scriptural: and, consequently, the argument from the immemorial antiquity and universality of any doctrine or practice, falls to the ground entirely.

This is evidently the meaning of Mr. Taylor's argument, if it means any thing. Now, if he is opposing our principle, it is essential to his argument that he should show, (what he asserts,) that the false principles and evil practices which every one acknowledges to have prevailed, subsequently to the council of Nice, over a large portion of the Church, equally prevailed, so far as the evidence can be got at, from the earliest times. This assertion, I say, is essential to his argument; otherwise his parallel with our principle fails. And I have distinctly proved', not only that no evidence exists to support his assertion, but that there is

1

In the 1st and 2n1 Parts of my "Religious Celibacy."