individually, as the Romanist would argue [where do the Romanists say that the promise was made to St. Peter ' individually?"] or whether, as Churchmen in England would say, it was made to him as the representative of the Apostolic body, and so the type of the Christian ministry. Or, on the other hand, we shall see whether the mention of St. Peter in this passage, and the prominent place which seems in it to be given him, stand so completely alone that it cannot be wrought into any thing like a regular system. Now, if we look carefully into St. Matthew's Gospel, we seem to find, throughout, a peculiar place occupied by St. Peter...... Throughout St. Matthew's Gospel, St. Peter seems to be put forward in a very peculiar manner, of which, however, we are scarcely aware, until we compare the other Evangelists, and observe the difference between them in their selection and arrangement of the events they record. This is, however, too extensive a subject to enter upon at present. Our only object is to suggest the inquiry, whether there is not something more than casual in the prominent place which St. Peter occupies in St. Matthew's Gospel, and whether this peculiarity does not imply the existence of some deeper meaning than we should at first sight attach to several apparently insulated passages, in the centre of which stands the noble confession in the sixteenth chapter, and the gracious and glorious promise which was founded upon it."-Tracts, No. 49, pp. 3-5.

XVIII. UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

The Italics in the following passages are not in the text of the authors.

"The Latin ecclesiastical system of the middle ages may be considered the shadow, dark indeed and shapeless, still the shadow of that gracious design, which would have been accomplished, had Christians possessed faith enough to keep closely to God's revealed will. For what we know, it was

intended that all the kingdoms of the earth should have been made subject to the spiritual rule of the Church. The presumption of man defeated this purpose; but it could not so far defeat it, but some sort of fulfilment took place-[fulfilment in the case of the Papacy.']"—Newman's Paroch. Serm. vol. ii. pp. 279, 280.

"As for ourselves, what was the exact measure of the offences of our forefathers in the faith, when they tired of the Christian Theocracy, and clothed the Church with the purple robe' of Cæsar, it avails not to determine. Not denying their sin, still, after contemplating the glories of the Temple which they built, we may well bewail our present fallen state."-Ibid. p. 280.

"Then, as now, there was the prospect, and partly the presence in the Church, of an Heretical Power enthralling it, exerting a varied influence and an usurped claim in the appointment of her functionaries, and interfering with the management of her internal affairs. Meanwhile

we may take comfort in reflecting, that though the present tyranny has more of insult than has hitherto attended the ascendency of Arianism, we may rejoice in the piety, prudence, and varied graces of our Spiritual Rulers; and may rest in the confidence, that, should the hand of Satan press us sore, our Athanasius and Basil will be given us in their destined season, 'to break the bonds of the oppressor, and let the captives go free.'"-Newman's Arians, p. 422.

These extracts might have been greatly extended, and a fuller evidence thus obtained of the mode of treating theological subjects, which these writers employ. But there is enough to show at least a tendency in their views towards those of the Church of Rome. Doubtless they

1

have their qualifications and restrictions, by which the imputation of Popery may be repelled. Mr. Newman, for instance, would limit that designation to the state of the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent, (see his Arians, p. 421,) and probably would not object to that kind of Popery which existed before the Council. Nor does he object to his system and doctrines being thought like Popery, since if" primitive," they ought, he thinks, to bear some likeness to Popery.—(See Advertisement to 3d Vol. of Parochial Sermons.) Professor Pusey again warns us to "distinguish between the practical corruptions of the Church of Rome, and her theoretical errors. For it often happens," he adds, "that she leads her members into error, and countenances corruption in them, where her statements in themselves are not very unsound."-(Tracts for the Times, Vol. II. p. 192.) Indeed, while these writers profess their love and reverence of the Church of Rome, they take care to protest against it, as all Protestants of course must do. Thus says a writer in the Tracts:-" Considering the high gifts, and the strong claims of the Church of Rome and its dependencies on our admiration, reverence, love, and gratitude, how could we withstand it as we do; how could we refrain from being melted into tenderness, and rushing into communion with it, but for the words of truth itself, which bid us prefer It to the whole world?". (Tracts; Records of the Church, No. 24, p. 7,

Note.) But, however this may be, it is not the question, as has been before stated, with which we are concerned. It matters not whether these views be Popish or half-popish, or like Popery; or whether their several authors admit or deny the approximation. We only ask once more," Are they judicious writers ? do they rightly state the character of Protestant divinity? are they fit guides of public opinion? are they fit censors of others?"

THE END.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL.