OF THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE CORPUS COMMITTEE AT OXFORD. "PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE." LONDON: B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET. SPECIMENS, &c. &c. THE extracts given in the following pages are so unlike what we are accustomed to read in the works of Protestant writers, and so like, on the other hand, what is found in those of Roman Catholics, that it may naturally be asked whether it is seriously meant by the compiler of them to impute Popish error to their authors. Such then is not his intention. It is probable their object in inditing such passages has been to resist Ultra-Protestant principles. Perhaps they have even persuaded themselves that they were most effectually resisting the encroachments of the Church of Rome by reviving a more loyal and respectful veneration for the Church and the sacraments, and primitive antiquity. But however laudable their profession and design,-is their judgment to be trusted? Have they been duly cautious? Are they safe guides to a Protestant public? Is an author to be censured as undervaluing antiquity, or the sacraments, or the authority of the Church, by such writers as these? Does it follow that he must be heterodox, because he does not agree with them and their teaching? And yet these are the persons who are endeavouring to give the law of orthodoxy to the University! These are the persons, who, on the strength of their authority, invite the country clergy, by pamphlets and circulars, to a general rising in support of their peculiar views; who have been exerting every nerve to carry, by numbers and clamour, a vote of condemnation on the opinions of a writer who differs from them. These are the persons who would shut up all free discussion and inquiry in the placets of a majority affirming their decrees! Such a proceeding, indeed, may be very consistent conduct in such persons. No doubt, it may be "painful" to them: no doubt, they may apprehend "danger." But the question recurs-are these persons to be trusted? Are they judicious? Are they safe guides? I. ON THE OMISSIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. "How miserably contrasted are we with the One Holy Apostolic Church of old, which, serving with one consent,' spoke a pure language!' And now that Rome has added, and we have omitted, in the catalogue of sacred doctrines, 6 |