CHRISTIANITY.-ERECTION OF CHURCHES. 469 44. The point of the charges which have been made against their author is, that he had recommended the suppressing or withholding some of the fundamental truths of religion. He himself, however, has publicly disclaimed the meaning imputed to him, and has denied that it could be fairly inferred from his language.4 According to his own professions, his object was not to recommend or sanction the suppression of religious knowledge, but to lay down the principles which, as he conceived, ought to regulate the mode of communicating it.5 6 45. Now here, as before, I do not inquire whether it be consistent with charity or candour to repeat the accusation just as if no such disavowal and explanation had ever been offered: it is enough to say, that the Church can properly take cognizance only of doctrines which are professed or acknowledged; as she cannot be reproached with allowing any of her Ministers to teach an erroneous Doctrine which they have either retracted or disavowed. But the agitation • See the Author's disclaimer examined by the BISHOP OF OSSORY, Pars. 28-34, pp. 441-444. supra. It is due to the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S to observe that when he delivered his Charge, that of the BISHOP OF OSSORY was not published.-ED. 5 It is of the greatest importance to bear in mind, what the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S has altogether overlooked, that "the point of the charges made against the Author" of the Tracts on Reserve refers expressly to this very "mode of communicating religious knowledge" as applied to the "teaching of the Doctrine of Atonement." The " prevailing notion of bringing forward the Atonement explicitly (sic) and prominently (sic) on all occasions" is declared in the first Tract (part iii. sect. 5) to be "quite opposed to what "the Author considers "the teaching of Scripture:" and so far is MR. WILLIAMS from " retracting or disavowing " this assertion, that we find it repeated still more strongly in Tract 87. "The system of which I speak is characterized by these circumstances, an opinion that it is necessary to obtrude, and bring forward prominently (sic) and explicitly (sic) on all occasions the Doctrine of the Atonement." Now it is evident that this system is throughout peculiar, (sic) in distinction from what is Catholic; by the term Catholic, we of course mean a combination of both what the universal Church and the Holy Scripture teach conjointly, (sic) the former as interpreting the latter. It is a plan thoroughly un-Scriptural, un-Catholic, unreal: we will, therefore, at once allow that this maxim of Reserve is directly opposed to it throughout, in its tone and spirit, in its tendencies and effects, in its principles and practices.”Part v. sect. 3. Such, then, upon MR. WILLIAMS' own shewing, is the real question at issue; a question upon which the whole of this most important portion of the controversy depends; but one which, as I have already observed, the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S has entirely lost sight of. It is worthy of remark that, a little further on in the same section of Tract 87, the "prevailing notion" combated by the Author, is described to be the necessity of bringing forward the Doctrine of the Atonement on all occasions, prominently and EXCLUSIVELY." By whom such a "notion" is entertained, MR. WILLIAMS does not inform his readers; though he candidly confesses that "it is really difficult to say any thing in answer to an opinion, however popular, when one is quite at a loss to know on what grounds the opinion is maintained." Perhaps, like Reverence and Reserve, exclusively and explicitly, are to be considered as convertible terms.—ED. 6 The Bishop refers to the professions of the Tractarians on the subject of Tradition; professions which, as I have attempted to shew upon his Lordship's own principle, are not to be trusted. See note 3, p. 248, supra. A similar defence of the Views of the party is suggested by the BISHOP OF EXETER, though sadly weakened by some of his Lordship's subsequent observations. See note 4, p. 193, supra.-ED. 7 How far the Tractarians themselves are disposed to give their opponents the benefit of such disavowals has been plainly shewn in their treatment of DR. HAMPDEN, -ED. which has been produced by the Treatise in question, induces me to add a few remarks. 46. When I consider the character of several of the persons by whom the author's meaning has been, according to his own assertion, misunderstood, I am not at liberty to doubt, that he must in some passages have expressed himself in obscure and incautious terms.8 On the other hand it is certain, that not a few readers who took up the Tracts under an unfavourable prepossession, derived from report and from quotations, were led by a perusal of the whole to a widely different conception of its real import. 47. The title itself would certainly seem to indicate an object very different from suppression:9 as Reserve in communicating s May it not be fairly inferred from this, and indeed from the whole tenor of the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S observations, that he is not speaking from his own knowledge of the Tracts on Reserve? As there is not a single word in his Lordship's remarks tending to the contrary supposition, I trust that the suggestion may be made without any appearance of disrespect. See the case of the BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER; notes 5, 6, p. 6; and 5, p. 427. supra.-ED. 9 ARCHDEACON BROWNE, in an Appendix to one of the very valuable Charges which he has delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely during the progress of the Tractarian controversy, thus alludes to the manner in which it has been attempted to mystify the object and tendency of the Tracts on Reserve. ་ "A striking instance of the want of ingenuousness presents itself in DR. PUSEY'S recent Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. In vindication of the Author of Tracts 80 and 87, he says, (p. 73.) To speak on one subject which has been, perhaps, more widely misunderstood than any other, (though not a Doctrine) "Reserve," or "Reverence," in communicating religious knowledge, the principles of the Tracts on that subject (of which an impartial person has said, that they contain as much deep and true philosophy as any in the whole series) may be expressed in these few words: great Reverence is to be used lest you propose religious truth to minds unfit to receive it. Whatever rule as to Holy Truth is meant by our Blessed Lord's words," Give not that which is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine,”—that and no other is meant by these Tracts.' "According to this statement, it is clearly intended that the reader should consider the terms Reserve' and 'Reverence' as synonymous. Now, turning to Chalmer's Abridgment of Todd's Edition of Johnson's Dictionary, I find that the only acceptation in which each term respectively can be used in reference to the communication of religious knowledge, is, of the former, something concealed in the mind;' of the latter, veneration, respect, awful regard.' What resemblance there is between these meanings, I leave the reader to judge. But if a shadow of doubt existed upon this point, it is instantly dissipated by turning to the exordium of the 80th Tract. The first section of part 1st is thus headed-General Allusions to this Mode of CONCEALMENT. Then the Tract opens with this paragraph-The object of the present inquiry is to ascertain whether there is not in God's dealings with mankind, A VERY REMARKABLE HOLDING BACK OF SACRED AND IMPORTANT TRUTHS, as if the knowledge of them were injurious to persons unworthy of them. And if this be the case, it will lead to some important practical reflections.' "On the misapplication of the words which DR. PUSEY has quoted from St. Matthew, vii. 6, I will adduce the judicious remarks of PROFESSOR SCHOLEFIELD, in the second of his admirable Sermons (Scriptural Grounds of Union Considered) preached before the University of Cambridge : "There was doubtless,' observes the learned Professor, 'a depth of Divine wisdom in our Saviour's injunction to his disciples, not to give that which is Holy to the dogs, nor to cast their pearls before swine; but the figurative terms He employs, at once lead us to the right interpretation of it, that they were not to obtrude the holy mysteries of their religion upon the profane gaze of heathen scoffers and persecutors. And it surely is sufficient, in the absence of all proof on the other side, barely to deny the application of it either to the practice of building churches, circulating Bibles, and MR. WOODGATE'S ANALYSIS OF TRACTS ON RESERVE. 471 appears to imply some kind of communication: not to mention the important distinction, with which we are all familiar in religious subjects, between the communication of knowledge as a merely intellectual process, and that of truth as a moral one. 48. But if we take a much surer test than any of these, and judge of the author's drift from the character of the system which he professes to reprobate, we must be inclined to consider it rather as a protest against Reserve, than a recommendation of it. 49. If, as he, whether with or without good reason, assumed, there was a popular mode of teaching, which dwelt almost exclusively on a portion of the truth, so as virtually to withhold and suppress others not less important, the natural remedy for the evil would have been, not to keep one part back, but to bring the rest more prominently forward.1 50. That the treatise is deficient in practical directions for the application of its principles, has been admitted by its defenders.* * See "A Brief Analysis of the Tracts on Reserve in communicating Religious Knowledge," by Henry Arthur Woodgate, B.D.2 establishing National Schools, or to propounding the great truths of the Gospel to congregations of professing Christians, who manifest, by the fact of their attendance on the Prayers of the Church, that, instead of professing the character marked in the words of our Lord, they are desirous of being instructed in the way of Salvation.””— Charge, 1842. See also note on paragraph 28 of the Charge of the BISHOP OF LONDON, supra, p. 436.—ED. Certainly MR. WILLIAMS has not adopted “the natural remedy” suggested by his Lordship: in what sense, then, his Tracts can be regarded as "a protest against Reserve, rather than a recommendation of it,” I must leave the reader of those Tracts to determine.-ED. 2 As a specimen of the candour with which MR. WOODGATE has conducted his "analysis," I subjoin the following passage: "And here I may mention it as a curious circumstance, that these last words (shunning to declare to them the whole counsel of God') have been the form which all those who have taken upon themselves to condemn these Tracts, have selected for the purpose of expressing their accusation and their censure. It is, say, a curious circumstance, and one illustrative of the deceitfulness of the human heart, because it is this very practice of this party, as mentioned above, viz. that in the public teaching they do not declare the whole counsel of God, which appears to have called forth these two Tracts." pp. 15, 16. With regard to the truth of this assertion, it is only necessary to observe that at the time when MR. WOODGATE wrote his analysis, seven Prelates of our Church had "taken upon themselves to condemn" the Tracts on Reserve; and that of these seven, three only, viz. DUBLIN, EXETER, and GLOUCESTER, make any allusion whatever to the words of the Apostle, "shunning to declare the whole counsel of God"!! From such premises, however, would MR. WOODGATE leave his readers to conclude that the Tracts on Reserve have been condemned only by the adherents of a certain party; that party of whom he asserts, with equal candour and truth, that "they have, as is familiar to every one, appropriated to themselves and to their system exclusively, the title of evangelical," p. 13. And yet when he penned the passage above quoted, the ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN, the BISHOPS of CHESTER, EXETER, BOMBAY, GLOUCESTER, RIPON, and WINCHESTER ; the DEAN OF SALISBURY; ARCHDEACONS BROWNE and SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, had severally "expressed their accusation and censure" of the Tracts in question; so also had MR. TOWNSEND, MR. BIRD, MR. LE MESURIER, MR. FABER, MR. GOLIGHTLY, and many other persons of various parties in the Church. MR. WOODGATE, it seems, 66 was aware that much had been alleged against" the Treatise ;..." but considering the quarter whence these allegations for the most part proceeded," he "did not consider them worthy of much consideration; and attributed But it may still be profitable, if it tends to warn us against the danger of partial views and exhibitions of the truth, and to lead us more carefully to preserve both the fulness and the proportion of faith. it to the like feeling, and not to any admission of their truth, that the author had not noticed them or offered any reply."-p. 6. After a time, however, when the Tracts on Reserve were urged as a barrier against the election of their author to the Professorship of Poetry, MR. WOODGATE felt it his duty to read the Treatise for himself, (p. 6.) and, having completed his "analysis," he thus modestly disposes of "the grave and deliberate charges brought"— as he tells us with greater Reserve than Reverence— 66 against" Mr. Williams "by more than one Bishop !"—p. 6. "Let me now ask what ground is there for the outcry which has been raised, and the charges which have been brought against this work? What is there in the principle developed in it, or the mode in which the subject has been treated, which those who receive the Gospel in all its fulness, as maintained by the Church, and as exhibited in the Prayer Book, can find to justify the language which has been held respecting it? Who would not regret that those who have pronounced their official censure upon it, should not, before they did so, have made themselves more fully acquainted with its principle and object, not to be done by a hasty or superficial perusal"-[MR. WOODGATE admits that he himself had only read the Treatise "within the last few days," (p. 6.) and that too during the excitement produced by the contest for the Poetry Professorship]-which had they done, it would be doing them injustice to suppose they would have withheld their concurrence.” -pp. 42, 43. I have ventured to make these observations upon MR. WOODGATE's pamphlet, inasmuch as it is referred to by the BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S as a defence of the Tracts on Reserve, and by DR. PUSEY in his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, (p. 79.) “as a valuable analysis of them, and independent testimony to their value.”—ED. The following notice of the report to which I have alluded at page 427, appeared in the British Critic for January, 1842 : "While we write, we see it reported in the papers that the Bishop of GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL has been induced, by the perusal of the Few Remarks to withdraw the strong terms in which he spoke of the Tracts on Reserve. This was no more than what was to be expected from the kind tone (sic) of his Lordship's censures, and from his having prefaced them,-as if to leave an opening for further inquiry,—with an allusion to the calamitous affliction which had prevented him from entering into the controversies of the last five years." The italics are not the Reviewer's; let the reader compare the passage so printed with the express assertion of the BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER, (Charge, 1841, par. 3, p. 6, supra.) Upon such parts, therefore, of the newly propounded theories as I have had competent means of informing myself, I shall not hesitate to avow my sentiments; particularly on. a recommendation to use Reserve in preaching the Doctrine of our Lord's Atonement:"let him bear in mind, also that, probably before the ink with which the Reviewer wrote was dry-at all events, long before his observations could be in type-DR. MONK had publicly, in the most unqualified terms, contradicted the report in question, and he will have a specimen of disingenuousness not often, it is to be hoped, surpassed even by Tractarian Controversialists.-ED. In addition to the works already quoted on the subject of the foregoing chapter, I beg to refer the reader to MR. TOWNSEND'S Charge to the Clergy of the Peculiar of Allerton, August, 1838; as far as I am aware, the first ex cathedra denunciation of Tractarian Theology.-The Oxford Tract System considered with reference to the principle of Reserve in Preaching, by the REV. C. S. BIRD.-A recent Tract upon Reserve in communicating religious knowledge compared with Scripture; by the REV. HENRY LE MESURIER. A Letter to Roundell Palmer, Esq., in answer to the principal statements made in a Letter addressed by him to Lord Ashley; by a CLERGYMAN.-MR. FABER'S Primitive Doctrine of Justification examined, Appendix IX.-MR. GOLIGHTLY'S Letter to the Bishop of Oxford.-BISHOP M'ILVAINE'S Charges to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Ohio, 1840, 1842; and Oxford Divinity, chap. iii.—Mr. Le Mesurier mentions SCOUGALL'S Christian Life, and KNOX's Christian Philosophy, 66 setting forth what there is of truth in the Tract, unclouded by its errors."-ED. as CHAPTERS XVIII. XIX. I. THE CHURCH OF ROME: HER PRESENT CHARACTER; HOW REGARDED BY THE TRACTARIANS; REUNION WITH; DUTY OF PROTESTING AGAINST. II. THE REFORMERS AND THE REFORMATION. WILSON, BISHOP OF CALCUTTA.-1838. I. Vide Pars. 15. 17. and 36, in Chap. VIII. II. Vide Pars. 2, in Chap. XXV., and 23. and Note, in Chap. XXVI. SUMNER, BISHOP OF CHESTER.-1838. PHILLPOTTS, BISHOP OF EXETER.-1839. I. Vide Pars. 46-57, in Chap. XX. PEARSON, DEAN OF SALISBURY.-1839. I. Vide Pars. 14, in Chap. VIII., 15, 16, in Chap. XXV. HOWLEY, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.-1840. [I.] 2. I would it were possible to extend this great principle of unity to all the Churches of Christendom. The dissensions which separated the Churches of the East and the West, and the corruptions and intolerance which drove the Protestants from the communion of Rome, have been most injurious to the Catholic Church. A reconciliation would, indeed, be desirable. But reunion with Rome 3 has been rendered impossible by the sinister policy of the 3 The following quotation is from an article in the British Critic for July, 1841. "Too many of us speak as if we had gained more by the Reformation in freedom than we have lost by it in disunion. We talk of the blessings of emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and use other phrases of a like bold and undutiful tenor trust, (sic.) of course, that active and visible union with the See of Rome is not of the essence of a Church; at the same time we are deeply conscious that, in lacking it, far We |