writer lamented the influence which the foreign Reformers had exercised on our Reformation. Our services bear the traces of Zwingle and Calvin. But for Martin Bucer the English clergy might still have been allowed to exorcise the devil before the administration of baptism.

Latitudinarianism or Rationalism was dealt with as represented by Erskine of Linlathen, and Jacob Abbot, an American divine. To rationalise is defined as asking questions which are out of place, refusing to believe certain things unless they can be accounted for. The typical Rationalist was Nicodemus, who asked, How can these things be?' or those who said, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' Another was Hume who limited the possible to the actual, believing it impossible for God to do anything greater than what we see is done. Erskine had said that he might understand many things which he did not believe, but he could not believe anything addressed to his reasoning faculty which he did not understand. Rationalists were informed that Revelation is a mystery, in part revealed but in reality concealed. Mystery in Scripture had been explained as that which was once concealed but is now revealed.' In opposition to this it was said that a mystery is a doctrine of which the one side is illuminated and the other still secret. Things under the law were not a mystery because they were not known, but began to be a mystery by being revealed. So then what is revealed is still mysterious and to be accepted, not by reason but by faith, which in the last analysis seems to be simply submission to authority.

Popular theology is contrasted with the Catholic faith. The one centres in the Atonement and its effect upon our minds, the other embraces also such doctrines as the Trinity, and the Incarnation. Sacramental efficacy is in a sense outside the sphere of reason. Erskine found that the object of the gospel was to bring the character of man into harmony with that of God. This stamped him as a Rationalist. It is measuring divine revelation by human standards. Revealed doctrines are not motives to conduct, but objects of faith. Jesus did not ask Nicodemus to look at the practical aspect

of what He taught him, He simply asked him to believe. While Erskine saw in the gospel the manifestation of God, the Tract writer saw the gospel more in the mystery unveiled than in what was revealed. Jacob Abbot's Rationalism was of the same kind as Erskine's. He dwelt on the human side of Christ's character and said little about expiation. Thus while the Catholic faith says that God is man, the Rationalist says that man is God. Abbot spoke of the invisible as manifested in Christ. This in the Tracts is called by the vague appellation Pantheism. To find in the gospel chiefly what commends itself to the intellect or reaches the heart and feelings is 'the snare of the Protestant world."1

Three of the tracts were intended to prove that all authority in the Church was committed to the Bishops. That was so well-known in antiquity that heretical sects took care to have a bishop through whom the Apostolical succession might be continued. Episcopal anathemas in former times were the Church's main safeguard against misinterpretation of Scripture, and in modern times nearly all non-episcopal Churches have corrupted the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Church of Scotland may be called an exception, but something may be ascribed to its vicinity with the Church of England. The objection is anticipated that the Church of Rome with its Episcopal succession has grave doctrinal errors. The answer is that in the degree that the Roman Church has swerved as a Church from Christian verity, she has laboured also to induce her subject bishops to part with their claims to a succession, properly Apostolical.' This is shown from the debates in the Council of Trent, where the Papal legates maintained that bishops have their authority not immediately by divine right, but through the See of Rome, ‘A remarkable proof that the spirit of Popery, as of all anti-Christian corruptions, shrinks back, as it were, instinctively from the presence of Apostolical principles of order.'

Tract 71 was on the controversy with the Romanists. The various doctrines on which Protestants differ from Roman Catholics were discussed, and the Roman side condemned. Bossuet had represented many of these doctrines under a

modified form, but we had no evidence that this form was the right one. For English Churchmen to go over to Rome would be to disobey the apostle's injunction against disorder. Every one should abide in the same calling wherein he is called. We are the Anglican regimen, and should remain in it till our opponents have shown why we should change, till we have reason to suspect that we are wrong.

The Tract which evoked most controversy, and gave most offence, excepting, of course, Tract 90, was on 'Reserve in the communication of Religious Knowledge.' Had this reserve meant merely that God had communicated religious knowledge in the degree that men could receive it, that there had been a progressive development, or education of the race and that we in like manner should adapt our instructions to the capacities and circumstances of those to be taught, the Tract might have passed unnoticed. But it had a controversial object, and to find the true key to its meaning, we must look at it as aimed at the work of the Methodists and the Evangelical clergy The strength of the argument is that in God's manifestations to men there is a kind of veil, as the revelation would be injurious to those not in the right disposition to accept it. Intimations of this are found in the obscurity of Christ's birth, the place of that birth, and His seclusion for thirty years. The conduct of Jesus on many occasions points to the same thing. He evaded questions put to Him, and instead of answering gave the thoughts that were in His own mind at the time. He veiled the truth in parable. His miracles were private. He sometimes enjoined secrecy. There is no unveiling of mysteries to the capacities of men, but a demand for obedience as the only way for the reception of truth. Those who approach it by speculation are punished with blindness. Truth is the reward of holiness. The Fathers were holy men, therefore they must have had truth. They could not have been, as some people say, very weak, injudicious, fanciful.

The practice of reserve is contrasted with that of the modern religious world. The object now is to hasten the knowledge of God, that it may cover the earth as the waters

cover the channel of the sea. We see the Bible circulated by men of all creeds and churches, through the loss of discipline thrown open to all. This is dispensing with church and sacraments, creeds and liturgies, while the highest doctrines are pressed home to all persons indiscriminately, and especially to those living unchristian lives. The writer does not say 'publicans and sinners,' so the reader is left to discover the distinction or to include Christ among the erring preachers. Fearful apprehensions were entertained of the evils which may follow this mode of preaching Christianity. The multiplication of churches, cheap publications, national schools, are among the means of making knowledge easy and pressing it home to all. This utilitarian principle forgets the precept, not to give holy things to dogs, nor to cast pearls before swine. It will defeat itself, for men despise what courts their favour. The Atonement is preached as the great doctrine of Christianity, but St Paul preached Christ crucified, and the necessity of our being crucified with Him. The degeneracy in the Church of England began at the Revolution in 1688, when the Church lost Ken and Kettlewell. Since then there has been no preaching of Christ crucified. The present religious activity is a reaction against the eighteenth century, but our zealous preachers have only caught at the shadow and missed the substance. The subject is resumed in another Tract, where it is shown that the Fathers taught reserve, and that the Holy Catholic Church had always a Disciplina Arcana.1

The Tract which closed the series has always been admired for its amazing dialectic subtlety. It made the Articles of Religion though professedly keeping to the grammatical sense, teach the contrary of what to all men of ordinary understanding seemed the meaning of the compilers. It is admitted that they were written in what is called an uncatholic age, that is the age of the Reformation, yet they are not uncatholic, but may be subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic. Whatever adjective may be put before that word it is here meant as the opposite of Protestant.

The first experiment was made on Article VI, which says that Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved

thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.' What is meant by Holy Scripture is defined, and the books enumerated and described as those of which there never was any doubt in the Church.' The Apocryphal books are also enumerated as not canonical, nor to be used to establish any doctrine, though they may be read for example of life and manners. There is a word by the way for the Apocryphal books. books. Though they are not canonical, the compilers of the Articles do not say they are not inspired. Then it is found that the Article does not say that Holy Scripture is the Rule of faith. This is a common supposition but it is not correct. Our old divines show other rules of faith besides Scripture, such as Apostolical tradition, the Creeds, the first four councils, rules without which it is not safe to judge things by the Scriptures alone. The phrase itself would be better avoided, but in the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, Scripture is not on Anglican principles the rule of faith.

Article XI says 'That we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine.' The Tract writer finds that it does not exclude justification by baptism, and justification by works. The Homilies make faith the sole means but not to the exclusion of other means. Faith may be the sole inward instrument, while baptism is the outward. So works may justify as well as faith but in a different sense. Article XIII says that 'Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit are not pleasant to God, neither do they make man meet to receive grace, or as the school authors say, deserve grace of congruity.' Article XII, however, says 'Albeit, good works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification cannot put away sins and endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and so spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith.' The Tract writer supposes an intermediate state between works done before and works done after justification. The Article says nothing of it, but does not deny it. This state is represented by Cornelius not yet justified, yet by divine aid doing works of alms, prayers,