commonly loses the fruits. We say fortunately-for he is a useful man, this bigot; and is of service when he is opposed even to truth. Without him, truth would have lost many a fact by which it has been established--many an argument by which it has been illustrated--and many a writer would have been silent who has now adorned its cause, and advanced the progress and happiness of mankind. In the contest between the parties, truth is at last forced from her recess; and, while the combatants lie down, panting with rage and fatigue, the calm and dispassionate observer steps in and carries off the prize. He may laugh at the disappointed warrior; but he may not forget that he never might have gained his mistress, if their din and clamour had not scared her from her obscurity.

ART. III.-The Claim "to Hold, as Distinct from Teaching," explained in a Letter to a Friend. By the Rev. FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A., Fellow of Balliol College, &c. London; Toovey, Piccadilly. 1845.

MR. OAKELEY, notwithstanding the recent decision of the Court of Arches, has thought proper, as will have been seen by the title quoted above, to come out again in print upon his favourite topic; and his endeavour is to show that his position was not, in the abstract, untenable; and that there was, therefore, at least some justification for the course he had thought proper for some time to adopt. In the advertisement to his pamphlet he states the object of its publication in the following language:

"The object of the following few pages is not to defend a certain declaration, but simply to explain it. The author believes that they contain nothing at variance with the hypothesis, gratuitous as it would be, of his having formally abandoned the claim to which they relate, as, under circumstances, impracticable; or, at least, of his being prepared to shape his course with respect to it in deference to the clear voice of authority. But neither, on the other hand, he should say, has he as yet performed any act, or published any words, either expressing or implying an opinion of the abstract untenability of the position with which his name has of late been prominently connected.

"These few pages are put out simply with the view of showing that the author has not used serious words without a serious meaning. An apology to this extent he feels imperatively due to those kind friends and generous benefactors with whose feelings he may seem to have trifled, in hazarding the rupture of intimate ties, if not the sacrifice of precious interests, for the sake of what has been extensively considered, and that on very different sides, as a mere theory, if not a pure conceit. To himself, meanwhile, it has afforded a melancholy satis

faction, in a season of great trial, to analyze, as he has been lately for the first time obliged, the view upon which he has attempted to conduct his ministrations of teaching, and thus to retrace a ground so dear to his memory."-(Claim to Hold, pp. iii. iv.)

Now we do not deny the right of Mr. Oakeley to publish this or any other manifesto that he may think proper to put out; he is at liberty to resort to any course that he may think calculated to clear his position with the public: but we doubt the wisdom of the course adopted, and question its delicacy. Of this latter quality, however, we must not look for much in our unfortunate author: he is too much wrapt up in himself and in his theory to perceive what is required of him at the present moment; at least, we are afraid so, from the following not very modest conclusion to this preface :

"His friends can harbour no better wish, and offer no more serviceable prayer for him, than that every future step of his life may be taken under as large a vouchsafement of light as that which, for nearly six favoured years, has seemed to shine about his path at Margaret Chapel; and that the retrospect of any future course of duty to which it may please Providence to call him may be (less chequered, indeed, by penitential regrets, but) not less endeared by sweet recollections, than that of the happy career which is now drawing to an end. Truly its remembrances come to him, if the word be not too bold, as the fragrance of a 'field which the Lord hath blessed." "—(Claim, &c., p. iv.)

Expressions of this nature would appear to us hardly admissible in any case, much less in the case of one who is under the authoritative censure of his Church; and they appear to us to be highly indelicate, when made use of with regard to the very principles which formed the subject of condemnation. For that Mr. Oakeley conducted his ministrations at Margaret Chapel on the repudiated principle is evident from his own admission. Speaking of his letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, he says (p. 6) In that declaration I merely put into shape what I had been doing for months, and even years, in a natural and unconscious way. I repeat, that this distinction between holding and teaching was no pretext got up for the occasion. If my sermons preached during the last three years were to be published they would fully bear out my statement." So that upon that principle he has confessedly acted, and that principle he asserts to have been highly blessed-nay, no ministrations, he thinks, could be more so, conducted though they might be upon principles that would not be obnoxious to censure, and furthered though they might be by the prayers of his most earnest friends. But this "claim to hold, as distinct from teaching," what is it? It has been said, writes Mr. Oakeley, "How can a person

make up his mind to withhold from his flock what he knows to be true and believes to be important?"" And the answer given to this question appears to him to be so satisfactory as totally to preclude the possibility of the objection being embraced, at least, by any very thoughtful person; and in the discussion of the merits of this question he sets out with the argumentative portion of his pamphlet. But, first, let us endeavour to find out what are Mr. Oakeley's feelings. To ascertain these will not be unimportant in the enquiry as to what he claims to hold; though, if he teach not what he holds, they may not be easy of detection. But Mr. Oakeley candidly admits what his feelings are on the very outset of his explanation. He is not content to say, as he did in his letter to the Bishop of London (p. 21), that the reunion of Christendom is desirable-nay, that it should be a prominent object with us all (though, upon the principle of the reunion, it would depend whether or not it were justifiable)—neither that, in the pursuit of that object, he should conceive that he has a right "to go as near Rome as possible" -a principle which he declares himself in the present pamphlet (p. 8) to be prepared to defend: but he must go beyond this and disparage his own Church: he must submit it to an invidious comparison with the Church from which it has separated, upon an allegation of idolatry; he must claim not only the right to hold, but the right to teach, the doctrines which have led to the separation, and are repudiated by our Church-declining the teaching only for ethical, and not legal, reasons, upon a view of morality which we shall presently have occasion to see, when we come to practice, is not, to say the least we can of an unfavourable nature, very stringent. He talks of waiving his right to teach; and thereby, in effect, claims it. He declines, however, the exercise of this privilege for moral reasons, while he actually uses it. His feelings towards the Church, and his claim to hold, will be seen in the passage we shall now quote: his use of the right to teach will be shown in the course of the examination of other portions of his pamphlet:

*་་

"The object of my putting out a certain declaration in February last, on the subject of subscription to the Articles, was to bring a great question to an issue. I said to myself I will not so much as entertain the thought of leaving the ministry, still less the communion, of the Church of England, as long as I can fulfil the conditions she imposes upon me with a safe conscience. I am deliberately, and, as I believe, finally satisfied that there is no standing-ground between Protestantism and the Roman theology. It is Rome alone which seems to me to propose doctrines on the authority of the Church; as s soon as I leave this firm basis I get adrift, and am thrown in one way

or

another upon private judgment-private views of Scripture, or of antiquity, or of both. If our Lord has left a Church on earth, that Church must be, toties quoties, the authorized expositress of his word; and I see no Church but the Roman which even claims to fulfil this office for the Christian world. On the other hand, Almighty God, of his good purpose, has placed me in the Church of England; there I will, by his help, abide while I may. I have a place to fill, and a work to do, where I am; I will not be the person to cut the knot. Some around me have already, and as I think too soon, given up the contest, and joined the Roman Catholic Church. Others have not proceeded the whole of this length, but they have still withdrawn from ministerial duty. I am more hopeful of the Church of England, and will at least do my best to maintain myself where I am. There seems to me one difficulty, and but one-the Thirty-nine Articles. If I may conscientiously hold the doctrines, I cannot conscientiously repudiate-I am content to forbear from teaching them. I do not (as has been said) deny my right to teach them, if I can hold them. I waive it. I waive it, not reluctantly, but gladly-not because I am precluded from acting upon it, but because I am not disposed so to act. I waive it for ethical, not for legal, reasons. It is as much a conscience with me to keep from teaching as it is a conscience with me to decline renouncing.' This was the view upon which I had unawares acted long before I made my public declaration to the ViceChancellor." (Claim, pp. 5, 6).

In the passage just quoted, Mr. Oakeley expresses a decided preference for the Church of Rome, justifying his remaining in the Church of England upon the ground that the Almighty has placed him there. Placed there he thinks, from his convictions as to Rome, that he must go as near Rome as possible; and, with this view, claims the right to teach, as well as hold, all Roman doctrines, though he pretends to waive the former right for certain reasons. Now we will not concede the point assumed by Mr. Oakeley-we will not admit that God has placed him in the Church of England. For wise ends, doubtless, he has permitted him to be there; but he did not place him there: nor could he establish this point, would the circumstances of his being placed there by the Almighty necessarily involve the admission that he was placed there to further the ends which he seems to contemplate-the going nearer to Rome either by the declaration of his individual leaning to Rome, though from motives he preaches not Roman doctrine; or by the more active course of open preaching. For he must prove that he has received a commission to prepare the Church for the proposed alteration of its principles, before he will be justified in resorting to either of those courses.

But we will not say this alone-we will go farther. Mr. Oakeley has not only not produced his authority, but gone be

yond his pretended claim. His position is that he does not wish to exercise any right beyond that of holding Roman doctrine. Teaching, though it belongs to him as he thinks of right, he waives for moral reasons. But, alas! such is the imperfection of his moral vision that he holds and teaches, notwithstanding his disclaimers; and teaches the doctrine he loves in the most insidious of all methods. This we shall prove, directly, in the examination of his answer to the objection that a man cannot hold without teaching. Let us hear Mr. Oakeley:

"I will just throw out-1. What is Roman doctrine? English Churchmen' know full well that much is so called which they believe to be Anglican doctrine. Of course I never felt myself precluded by my position from teaching all those doctrines which High-Churchmen believe to be common to England and Rome. And let it be considered, when this stock is exhausted, how exceedingly small is the residuum."-(Claim, p. 7.)

Mr. Oakeley just throws out what he thinks will be sufficient for any thoughtful person, and will be surprised if such a person should embrace the objection made to the claim to hold, when he shall have heard even the little argument he throws out. Now every thoughtful person must be convinced that that which is common to Rome and England is not Roman doctrine. Roman doctrine is that which is exclusively such-what Mr. Oakeley calls the residuum. Those points which are common to both communions are open to the promulgation of teachers in both communions; and, of course, there will be no dispute as to teaching that which involves nothing but points like these. It is in the discussion of the residuum that an opening for objection will be found, and in that only. How Mr. Oakeley would treat that residuum we shall presently see.

After glancing at the open or neutral ground in ministerial teaching, and admitting that a man who objects to renounce Roman doctrine will not preach the same ethical sermons as a Protestant-which is a strange admission for him to make—and after a few remarks upon the importance of the preaching which would not be denied to one who should advance subjects which do not enter into controversy, and yet who would stand well with the Church of England and the Catholic Church, our author goes on:

"However, I freely admit that there is a great deal of preaching in which doctrine is, and ought to be, directly involved. But, with respect even to instruction of this more purely theological nature, I deny the position, which I formerly assumed, to be necessarily or clearly an untenable one. For let it be remembered, once more, that there is a broad distinction between theological principles, and thicolo