Had the effort, as far as it was the result, or had the appearance of being the result, of combination, and proceeding from a body, been confined to revive the former class of doctrines, which, though Scriptural, Primitive, Catholic, and undeniably witnessed to by the authorized documents of the English Church, had been as much forgotten and discarded, as the love of our neighbour among the Jews, so that when taught by our Lord and St. John it was at once an old and new commandment 2, I see no reason to believe that any of these evil results would have occurred. They who, through defective education, were ignorant of or opposed to these truths, would have had no ground for creating disturbance, it being easy to prove to demonstration that they were, every one of them, engaged under their own hands to the maintenance of all and each of these things; and their opposition to them as contrary to their subscription to the Prayer Book, as a man's adoption of the Romish doctrine of purgatory, image-worship, or Mariolatry, would be to his subscription to the Articles. Unfortunately (to speak according to human judgment) this course was not pursued, but the doctrines of the second Class being put out together with the others in the manner I have described, men were led to draw the natural conclusion, that an attempt was being made to change the religion of the Church, by teaching systematically and by combination, and by a new and private school within her, doctrines which she has no where authorized. Hence all these suspicions and alarms; and strange and ill would it have argued for the state of the Church and religion among us, if suspicion and alarm had not been awakened: suspicion in those who did not know, alarm in those who did know, the parties chiefly concerned. Consequently, there were comparatively few of those who had most hailed the commencement of the series, and had most rejoiced in its success in reviving in men's minds a regard for the Catholic doctrines of our formularies which had been forgotten, who did not rejoice in a stop being put to that series, when the inconvenient course above alluded to was pursued concerning it.

But now advantage is being taken of the check occasioned by the indiscreet exhibition of doctrines of the second class, to raise a clamour against those of the first class also; on the score of the one, to cast discredit on the other, as if they had the same and no higher authority; and to involve in one common censure both the authorized doctrines of the Church, and the individual theological positions of some of her members; and to excite suspicion against all connected with the theological movement, not only on account of the indiscreet promulgation of the second class of opinions, which has been the work of one or two individuals, but on account of the propagation of the first class, which has been the united object of all. And therefore it has become necessary to point out the marked distinction between the two, and to uphold the value of the general objects of the Divines alluded to, and of their particular labours on different points of the genuine Church doctrines or prin

2 I write no new Commandment, but an old Commandment, which ye have heard from the beginning; again a new Commandment I write unto you.-1 John ii. 7, 8. John xiii. 14. Levit. xix. 18. Luke x. 27. 29.

ciples, by citing testimonials of approval from those whose names must command respect. The means of doing this being within my reach to probably as large an extent as of most, I have thought it good to undertake it. If any shall uncharitably think that the drawing the above distinction is a mere subtle invention to serve a present purpose, let him amend his opinion by referring to the British Magazine, where he will find that, three years ago, in April 18393, before any of this clamour had arisen, I drew the same distinction, and offered open and plain, though ineffectual, remonstrance to the course pursued by my friends, clearly foreseeing the natural and necessary consequence of it. Before I quit this subject, I feel bound in justice to those same friends, and to myself also, to say this, that, deeply as I have ever regretted the course pursued by them in the promulgation of the theological opinions in question, and much as (I believe) I differ from them in respect to many of them, yet I know no writing of any one of them, which, if regarded as the work of an individual, has exceeded the legitimate limits of fair and free discussion which the Church has ever allowed. Nothing which can by possibility be made a handle for ecclesiastical interference, beyond the expression of an individual bishop's advice, unless Christian and clerical liberty shall be abridged to a degree unpractised in any former age of the Church, or towards any other body of Theologians.

With respect to one point which has occasioned the greatest clamour, the doctrine of Reserve in communicating Religious Knowledge, as set forth in Mr. Williams's two tracts, I will say thus much :-That, apart from the intense and fervent piety which glows throughout those tracts, and which should compel the affection and respect of all who read them towards the writer, I am no friend to them; but I would ask all who have felt and spoken most keenly upon the subject, just to consider how the case stands. St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, has set forth four points of doctrine as constituting with others the foundation, or first principles of the Christian Religion: namely, repentance towards God, faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, Baptism, and laying on of hands. With respect chiefly to one of these four (the second), Mr. Williams has suggested the expediency and propriety of reserve in some particular cases. In respect to three of the four, (first, third, and fourth) a very large portion of his most active assailants, uniformly and by wholesale, and in their public teachings, practise reserve. Those who attend the Churches of such persons know very well that the case is so; the attempts, made some little time back, to keep these things in the back ground, to speak in the mildest way, in the publications of an influential society, afford another instance of it. But so remarkable an illustration of it has lately been exhibited to the world, in a Charge to the Clergy of a Northern Diocese, that no further proof can be needed that these things are so. The reader may judge of the value of the clamour which was raised against Mr. Williams for throwing out suggestions upon reserve on one point, when he is informed that it proceeded chiefly from those who habitually practise reserve on the three others.

With respect to the memorials against the Tracts and kindred publications, which have been presented to the metropolitan and other bishops, I would 3 British Magazine, vol. xv. p. 537.

offer one remark; namely, that there appears no reason for believing, that any individual who signed them, had read the works against which the memorials were addressed. And if it seem preposterous to any simple-minded man, to suppose that men would take so unreasonable, presumptuous, and uncharitable a step, I could easily refer him to many private cases where such things have been avowed. A case lately came under my knowledge, where one who, Sunday after Sunday, had been harassing the minds of his congregation by tirades against the Tracts, their doctrines, and their authors; and during the week days had gone from house to house on the same mission, denouncing them as papists, was requested to read a publication of one of those whom he was reviling, which had been found in several cases very instrumental in defeating the popish emissaries; his ingenuous reply was, that it was against his conscience to read any of the works proceeding from any of the writers in question, as his doing so would be to run himself unnecessarily into the way of temptation. But this is a private instance; let me name a published one. One, whom I do not wish to name, in holding up to reproach the conduct of his brother clergymen, bases his accusation, in part, on a work of which he openly declares, “I have not seen, nor do I wish to see it." (See the Churchman for January, 1842, p. 43.)

I have no wish to dwell upon such a subject, nor to say a word which shall be unnecessarily painful to the feelings of those who so conduct themselves; we have, I hope, learned a better lesson. All I would say to them is, "Remember that, whether you wish it or not, we are your brethren, partakers in your baptism, partakers in your eucharist, partakers in your orders. Do only so much justice, so much charity to those who worship, feed, and minister at the same altars with yourselves, as to read our writings, before you hold us up to reproach, either from the chair, the pulpit, or the press; or in the words of the son of Sirach, Blame not before thou hast examined the truth; understand first, and then rebuke." "

Upon the whole subject I would offer the following suggestion: that the value of any set of theological doctrines and opinions, professing to be Church principles, and of the writings containing them, will be likely, in the nature of things, to be more truly estimated in those portions of the Church which have nothing but Church principles to support them, than in those where the Church has been accustomed to rest, in a great degree, upon the support of the civil power; and, in that false confidence, has thought herself at liberty to pay comparatively less regard to her own principles. In plain English, the value of the Tracts is likely to be better ascertained, and more impartially judged, in times of danger to the Church, than in times of peace; in the colonies, more than in the mother country; in Scotland and America, more than in either. If, in the abstract, men feel they must admit the correctness of this principle, let them not flinch from the application of it, when they find that, during all the time of the Church's late danger here in England, not a single memorial against the Tracts was presented to any Bishop, though they were in course of publication during all that time. Men felt then, or acted as if they felt, that they could not, during such times, afford to lose the support which the Church received from the principles contained in them.

It is only since times of peace have apparently returned, that men's mouths are opened to clamour against that which, but for their clamour, would have been an affaire passe. Let them observe, further, that the value of the Tracts has been more openly acknowledged in the colonies than in the mother country, (e.g. by the Bishops of Toronto and Madras); in America, than in either of these. I will not dwell upon the reprinting of them, and wholesale distribution of many of the publications of the same school, under episcopal sanction there; for though the extent of this has been very great, I am not prepared with documents to demonstrate it; I will refer rather to the written opinions of two of the ablest of the American prelates, the Bishop of New Jersey, and another whose name, as I have not had time to apply to him for permission to give it, I am under the necessity of withholding. The former has published his, in a most powerful vindication of the Oxford writers from the imputation of popery, in a pamphlet printed at Burlington, 1841, a copy of which, by his kindness, is now before me, entitled, "A brief Examination of the Proofs by which Mr. Boardman attempts to sustain his Charge, that 'A large and learned Body of the Clergy of the Church (of England) have returned to some of the worst Errors of Popery."" The opinion of the latter is expressed in Letters addressed to myself. The letter from which the first extract is taken is dated

"Dec. 1, 1838.

"Permit me, my dear Sir, to say something on another point by way of expostulation. I suppose you symbolize with our friends, Pusey, Newman, &c., at Oxford. I do myself in the main. On baptism, the other sacrament, and indeed upon all material points, I will go with them ad finem. But, and I put the question with a good deal of self-distrust, are you not investing these great and vital matters unnecessarily with matters comparatively indifferent? I say unnecessarily, being aware that a great many such matters (I mean indifferent) naturally connect themselves with those of fundamental importance. Still, as we are bound to consult the prejudices and weaknesses of mankind, in order to give efficacy to the truth as it is in Jesus, may we not do injury to such truth by dwelling too much upon things not essential to its integrity? I am not for a timid policy, neither for keeping back any of the counsel of God. But while I would be in these respects harmless as the dove, I would, in the manner of my teaching, be also wise as the serpent. Here come again, you will say, those unfortunate remains! Yes, this is one thing, but there are many small things not disagreeable to me, but offensive to those who have this sharp scent of Popery, and not necessarily connected with the proper and fearless exhibition of truth as we high churchmen hold it. Your course may, perhaps, be very good for England; but we look to the Church, not as confined to England, but as being a body scattered over the whole face of Christendom, bearing about the marks of the dying of the Lord Jesus; and hence whatever we do should have regard to this Church Catholic and Apostolic. For if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it.' Any indiscretion committed at Oxford is doubly felt in the United States; from the circumstance, not only that every blunder of our brethren there is seized upon, and turned into a whip of scorpions for our poor backs, but also

that we have neither the books, nor the leisure, and I may add, not the genial atmosphere to work in, which you enjoy. Let me, therefore, suggest two points of caution. One, whether an important distinction should not be made between those matters in the primitive Church, which are identified with fundamental truth and order, and those which manifestly grew out of the exigencies of the Church at particular periods. THE OTHER, whether, in respect to those things which we all hold to be identified with Evangelical truth and Apostolic order, some discretion should not be observed as to the order in which they are presented, and the relative prominence given them in the Christian scheme. I like the materials, and I think them mainly from God, which you furnish as needful to the edifice; but I cannot say that I wholly approve of the manner in which you (Oxford brethren) are disposed to put these materials together. The mere decorations are too near the corner-stone. I submit these suggestions with very great deference for the vastly superior knowledge of our Oxford friends, so far as books are concerned; but for practical wisdom we, in this working country, have some peculiar advantage!

"Most truly and affectionately

"Your friend and brother in Christ,"

I need not tell the reader, how entirely I concurred in the remarks and suggestions contained in the foregoing extract. The other letter which I will cite, is dated

"Feb. 12, 1840.

"The Oxford Tracts are the engrossing theme of our religious periodicals; and they are producing great good, especially in the spirit of self-denial and zealous devotion to the truth as from God, which they have diffused among us. I have read them carefully, and I believe thoroughly, with all their kindred publications; and I most devoutly thank God that He put it into the minds of his servants to write such things. I do not subscribe to everything e. g. the tenth Sermon of Mr. Newman, vol. iv.; what is said in many places about the early Reformers, Cranmer, &c., &c., and about sin after baptism; which point, however, is entirely cleared up in the masterly letter of Dr. Pusey to the Lord Bishop of Oxford, every sentence of which is to my mind according to the truth as it is in Jesus. Do thank that holy brother in my name for this able defence. It is republished in this country. The arguments are mighty, but the charity is irresistible *.”

Such are the terms, in which, on the other side of the Atlantic, a Bishop of a Church which has to contend for its very existence, among other enemies, against the Papists (backed by the Leopoldine Fund, and indefatigable in their exertions), speaks in the fulness of his heart of one, whose name here in England has become a bye-word of reproach, even among those who might be supposed to know better. Truly has our Lord observed, "that a prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

4 The italics are the Bishop's own, in both extracts.