ducing at Oxford the same fruits which it brought forth in other ages, when cultivated in other soils, and by other husbandmen. We say not that the theology of the tractarian* party was

"Of Cerberus and blackest midnight born,

In Stygian cave forlorn."

But we do say, that it was born of Aristotle, amid the darkness of the scholastic system; and we are somewhat confirmed in this view by the fact, that no distinguished student of practical philosophy has as yet, to our knowledge, adopted Tractarian views†; for no other cause which we can imagine, but that the mind which has been taught to reason accurately, and to measure truth and falsehood by the sure rule of experiment, is too well disciplined not to apprehend the relative proportion of things, and too strong to be entangled in the cobwebs of Tractarian fallacies.

If we go back to the time of the Apostles, we see that Christianity had scarcely begun to well freshly from its fountain, before its streams were corrupted by the influx of a false philosophy. St. Paul found it needful to remind his Corinthian converts, placed as they were in the very centre of Grecian civilization, and subjected to the dangerous influence of its subtle theories, that, "after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." He intersperses through his epistles occasional warnings against the attempts that were being made, even in his time, to adulterate the truth of Christianity with the alloy of human systems; and he lived long enough to see the errors of the Gnostics assuming a definite form and expression, and to denounce an evil which threatened to undermine the very foundations of gospel truth. St. John wrote somewhat later; and to such a height had the Gnostic heresy already attained, that an acquaintance, at least with its leading features, is necessary to a right understanding both of his gospel and his general epistle. And where were the arms of the Gnostics fabricated? Whence did they procure the weapons which they wielded against the early Church? From the schools of Grecian philosophy. It was in them that the restless love of speculation, which distinguished these heretics, was nurtured. It was in them that they were taught to theorize; and, finally, it was in them that they were furnished with the means by which their theories might be defended and upheld. The new Platonists followed the Gnostics, and ex

*We use the word Tractarian, without any purpose to offend, for want of a better distinctive appellation, and from dislike to party names drawn from those of individuals.

This remark will be found to hold true even in cases where the far better protection of a spiritually-enlightened mind is wanting.

erted an influence yet more injurious, in proportion as the line which separated their errors from the simplicity of the gospel was less clearly traced, and their opinions, at least in some of their more modified forms, blended more easily with acknowledged truth. It is observable that all these heresies had their origin in the attempt to accommodate the scheme of Christianity to moral systems invented in the schools of Greece; and, antecedently, in the speculative character of mind induced by the exclusive study of dialectics, ethics, and rhetoric, in an age as yet unacquainted with the corrective discipline of experimental philosophy.

It has been well observed that truth is simple and error manifold. The history of the early Church presents us with a very remarkable illustration of this principle. As men began to theorize respecting the gospel, diverging streams flowed off in every direction from the main current of Christianity. These were the outbreaks of rationalism-the outpourings of avowed heresy, as it severed for ever from the Church. Within the Church the developement of error was exactly in the opposite direction. The same leaven of philosophy was at work; but the effect produced was mysticism, the reverse of rationalism, and yet its inseparable companion. The disciplina arcani was introduced and formed into a definite system. Two modes of instruction prevailed, as formerly in the schools of the Pythagoreans; the exoteric for the multitude, the esoteric for the favored few. Scripture was supposed to have a hidden sense, independent of its natural and grammatical meaning; and the power of investigating and ascertaining this sense became the test of superior sanctity. The mystical interpretation of Scripture is carried to its greatest height in the writings of Origen; and it is a singular proof of the inconsistency of error with itself, that the same person, who was led, in one instance, to the commission of a crime, by following the letter of the written word in preference to its spirit; should have been remarkable for his forced explanations of the most simple passages of Scripture, and for the strange and fanciful theories which he has built upon sandhills of his own erection.

It can hardly, we think, be doubted, but that the schools of Grecian philosophy exercised a most injurious influence upon the early Church-that in them generally the heresies which disturbed it had their origin, and from them flowed the corruptions which depraved its purity. We pass to the time of the Reformation.

The scholastic system prevailed in all the universities of papal Europe, when Luther, at the age of twenty-five, was invited to lecture at Wittemberg. The first subjects were the physics and dialectics of Aristotle; but he soon found that Aristotle and Chris

tianity were irreconcilably opposed to each other. Scarcely had the light of the gospel begun to dawn upon him, when he thus expressed himself in a letter to Spalatin: "It is not, as Aristotle thinks, that we become righteous by acting righteously, but rather the converse is true; by being righteous (if I may so express it) we act righteously. First, the person must be changed, then his works. Abel must be accepted first, then his gifts." Earlier in the same year he had addressed to his friend, John Lagus, a letter containing the following strong expressions:-" Aristotle, Porphyry, the theologians of the sentences, these are the fruitless studies of the age. There is nothing I so burn for, as to strip bare that actor, who has deluded the Church in that truly Grecian mask of his, and to expose his ignominy to all mankind. I have in my hands some little commentaries that I have written on the first book of his physics, in which I intend to act again the part of Aristæus towards that Proteus of mine, that most crafty deceiver and deluder of the human mind: so much so indeed, that, if Aristotle had not been flesh, I should not have blushed to assert that he was the very devil. It is the severest part of my affliction, that I am compelled to see young men of excellent talents, naturally qualified for good pursuits, passing their lives and wasting their labours in such farces." Somewhat more than a year after, he wrote on the same subject in a more sanguine mood, "God is working among us. Our theology and St. Augustine proceed prosperously, and by the help of God are triumphant in our university. Aristotle is gradually losing ground, and will presently be consigned to irretrievable ruin. The lectures on the sentences are ill frequented, while all the hearers are attracted to the schools of biblical theology." As the Reformation advanced we find Luther acting upon the deliberate conviction, that the Pope and Aristotle were natural allies, and that, in order to attack popery with success, he must first force the intrenchments of the scholastic system. Accordingly, in the spring of the year 1518, taking advantage of a general assembly of the Augustinian order at Heidelberg, he put forth forty theses, styled by him "paradoxes." Of these, twentyeight related to theology, the other twelve were directed against Aristotle; and so completely did the event approve the discernment of Luther, that, in tracing the progress of the Reformation in particular universities, and among particular bodies, we may observe that the light of gospel truth was diffused among them just in proportion as they emancipated themselves from the trammels of Aristotle; and that those who adhered to Aristotle adhered likewise to the corruptions of popery. The Augustinian Order, which was conspicuous for its early and uncompromising hostility to the scholas

tic system, was the great nursery of those divines who distinguished themselves in the annals of the Reformation.*

We pass on to a third era in the Church, the modern developement of the two opposite principles of rationalism and mysticism among the Protestants of Germany. Here again we observe that this developement was simultaneous with a general movement of the German mind in favour of ethics and metaphysics, closely connected with, if not occasioned by, the publication of Kant's philosophy. The same phenomena re-occur,-not, we suppose without a cause,-which we have already noticed in speaking of the influence of Aristotle and Plato upon the early church; modified, it is true, by the general dissemination of Scriptural knowledge, but still essentially the same. We must look at home for the "On

next illustration of our principle.

Mr. Williams is well known as the author of two tracts, Reserve in Communicating Religious Knowledge"-Nos. 80 and 87 of Tracts for the Times-which have obtained very general notice, both on account of their condemnation by several of the most eminent Prelates of our Church, and of the theological character which they have imparted to the recent contest for the chair of Poetry at Oxford. Of Mr. Williams's pretensions as a poet, we are inclined to think lightly; but he is certainly a man of considerable talent. His prose style is at once graceful, easy, and energetie; and a spirit of piety+ and gentleness breathes in his writings, which wins the affections of the reader, and prejudices his judgment in his own despite. It must be interesting, under any circumstances, to accompany such a writer in the developement of what he conceives to be a great Scriptural principle; to trace the workings of his mind as he has himself described them; and to follow him step by step to the conclusions at which he has arrived. We have read Mr. Williams's tracts with the most painful interest. We have seen him deliberately substituting Aristotle for the gospel; condemning the principles of the gospel because they differ from those of Aristotle; or explaining them away, in order to produce a forced and unnatural agreement; and we have

• It is worthy of remark, that the philosophy of experiment, which originated with our great countryman Bacon, followed the Reformation in England after a very short interval of time, and owed its existence to the general gaol-delivery of the human mind which the Reformation effected. Experimental philosophy has reacted on religion, and has, at least in part, repaid the debt which it had contracted. It has given strength to the intellectual powers, and it has developed the principle, that the parts of truth combine and support each other as a consistent whole. The sophistical trifling of Aristotle, being a part of error, could only assist in establishing the other parts of the system to which it belongs.

+ We use the word "piety" in its proper sense, as equivalent to religious zeal or earnestness, whether well or ill directed.

See Tract 87, History of the subject in the writer's mind.

mourned over this fatal result of the Scholastic system under which Mr. Williams has been educated.

It is the pervading principle of Aristotle's philosophy, that we become righteous by acting righteously. As Luther has observed, the converse rather is true. The gospel teaches that first the person must be changed and then his works. We need hardly add that the Church of England, in her thirteenth Article, expressly condemns the Aristotelian, and asserts the gospel doctrine, Now let us see what Mr. Williams says upon this subject. He would have us keep back the doctrine of the Atonement, on the ground of what he calls "plain moral principles." Religious doctrines," he says, "and articles of faith can only be received according to certain dispositions of the heart; these dispositions can only be formed by a repetition of certain actions. And therefore a certain course of action can alone dispose us to receive certain doctrines; and hence it is evident that these doctrines are in vain preached, unless these actions are at the same time practised and insisted on as most essential." That is, in plain English-There must be a moral preparation for the effectual teaching of the Atonement, by the antecedent performance of certain good works on the part of the person to be taught.* This principle he first illustrates by the case of charity.

"For instance,” he says, "charitable works alone will make a man charitable, and the more any one does charitable works, the more charitable he will become; that is to say, the more will he love his neighbour and love God; for a charitable work is a work that proceeds from charity or the love of God, and which can only be done by the good Spirit of God; and the more he does these works, therefore, the more will he love his neighbour and love God: and he who does not (in heart and intention at least) perform these works, will not be a charitable man, i.e. will not love God or his neighbour: and those are not charitable works which have not this effect; for no external act, such as the giving away of money, is necessarily a work of charity, but only such as consists in the exercise of the principle of charity. He therefore will most of all love God and love Christ, who does these works most; and he will most bring men to Christ, who most effectually, with God's blessing, induces them to do these works, in the way that God hath required them to be done."

This is Aristotle's, and by consequence, this is Mr. Williams's mode of teaching charity. But how did our Saviour teach it? By a direct reference to his Atonement: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Why did he call it a new commandment? Because it was enforced by a new motive, "As I have loved you"

*It is difficult precisely to ascertain what the writers of the Tracts mean, on account of the extreme ambiguity of the language which they employ; but we have tried hard to understand Mr. Williams; we would not willingly misrepresent, and we are inclined to hope that we have expressed his meaning.