The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-18 00:00:00

WHO ROLLED THE POWDER IN ?
(From the Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette.)
We have discussed the great question which is
agitating Englishmen not as a question of Protestant
doctrine against Catholic doctrine, albeit, if the lead- 1
ing article of a newspaper were the proper place for
entering on such a discussion, we are quite prepared
to do so. That there may be no mistake on this head
let us state distinctly that we are Protestants. We I
have confined ourselves to the:advocacy of the great
principle of civil and religious libarty—a principle
which the people, in a state of alarm and agitation,
have recognized over and over again by the repetition
of a form of words, but by their very attitude prove
they do not carry out in practice. The alarm and
agitation—the explosion of Protestant zeal, was of
course preceeded by preparations. Who assisted in
these preparations ? In fact " who rolled the powder
in ?" Unquestionably the Tractarians ; and
amongst this party no one stood for a time
more prominent than the now Bishop of Oxford. He
and his brothers have been on " the very verge
of the precipice "—one has already slipt over,
and the Bishop of Oxford has been, and is still making
desperate efforts to recover his position. When a
man is attacked and hotly pursued—pushed, in fact,
to " the very verge of the precipice," he naturally
/urns round and fights manfully for the only resting
place left to him—he deals heavy blows, and repeats
them in rapid succession, and then, pressed by the
number of his pursuers, these blows become random
hits, deadly in their power when they take effect, but
wanting in that skill which a more advantageous
battle-field might afford an opportunity of displaying.
This is precisely the position of some of the leaders
of the Tractarian party.
That,Dr. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford,
' was for some years a prominent member of this
party, is a fact well known to all those of our readers
who live within sight of the Rectory of Alverstoke.
The alterations made by him in the ceremonies of that
church was a subject of continual conversation and anim-
adversion in this locality, and it became manifest that as
regards external signs and peculiarity of doctrine, the
rector, his curates, and his flock, were rapidly becom-
ing Roman Catholics. We perfectly remember the
discussion which followed the removal of Dr. Wil-
berforce to the cathedral of Westminster, and shortly
after this his translation to the see of Oxford. Men
speculated regarding the course he would pursue—
the favour with which Puseyites would be treated,
and they playfully plumbed the depth of the sincerity
of a bishop's frown on those doctrines, forms, and
ceremonies which a rector had inculcated, enforced,
and practised. From this period to the period of the
arrival of the Pope's Bull, Dr. Wilberforce is said by
all men to have been "on the very verge of the
precipice." The Tractarian rector became a Trac-
tarian bishop, but paradoxical as it may appear,
although in this latter position he enjoyed increased
ecclesiastical power—by this very power his wings
were clipped, and it became more difficult to show
forth his peculiar views. Men have always
looked upon him with suspicion. He never did
anything to remove this suspicion ; at least be
never did so in a hearty, straightforward manner.
How could the Bishop of Oxford, as such, denounce
those doctrines which, as Rector of Alverstoke, he had
been instrumental in desseminating ? How could he
frown down the efforts of snen, who would havo
turned round and cried, " Thou dids't help to teach
me ?" How could be tell Dr. Pusey that he was un-
dermining the Protestant Church, when the sap was
pushed onwards by himself before he became Bishop
of Oxford ? We marvel not, therefore, that Tracta-
rianism continued to be tolerated at Oxford, or that
Bishop Wilberforce now says that he is " on principle
and by disposition E 0 largely tolerant of others." But
is this a fact ? Verily, out of his own mouth shall he
be judged. He says—" Who needs now to be told
that there is no weapon that it is not judged lawful to
use by those who are now arrayed against us ? who
needs to be told that Romanism is a system which so
saps honesty in men's minds that there is nothing dis-
honest that is not thought holy ?"
We simply ask is this in accordance with the spirit
of Protestantism ? Is this in accordance with what
most men mean when they contend that they are to-
lerant towards one another ? We have always
thought tolerance was the result of an intellectual
process which disposes a person to be patient and in-
dulgent towards those whose opinions and practices
differ from his own, provided such opinions are sin-
cerely maintained, and such practices spring from up-
right motives. To reprobate and denounce others
merely because their actionss, honestly meant, and
opinions, sincerely maintained, differ from our own,
is intolerance. To anathematise, then, five-sixths of
the people of Ireland and one-third of our own
fellow-citizens, is not a specimen of tolerance.
To excommunicate all these people from the list
of honest, conscientious men, we say, is a speci-
men of intolerance. To tell Roman Catholics
that their form of religious belief renders them
so dishonest that they are not fit to be associated
with ; that their code of morality is so perverted
" that there is nothing dishonest which is not thought
holy ;" to taunt the professors of a religious belief
with this, when we man our ships and recruit our
regiments from their ranks, and when not a single
instance of treachery or want of loyalty can be
brought against them ; to forget also the historical
fact that when Catholic Spain sent forth her armada
to crush Protestant England, our fleet was led on,
and led on to victory by a Catholic—Howard ;--we
say, to do all this, and to forget all this, is to shut
our eyes to facts standing out in the glare of the noon-
day sun, and to indulge in language more becoming
the rampant intolerance of the vulgar zealot, led on
by a " No-Popery" howl within the walls of Exeter
Hall, than what should be the calm, deliberative
speech of a Protestant Prelate addressing his clergy
under the shadow of halls built by the ancestors of
the very men whose faith he was denouncing.
It is such language as this which disturbs our
equanimity, and causes us to regret a move-
ment which can do no good to the great cause
of civil and religious liberty, which we are de-
termined to support. It is such facts as these
which " make our heart's blood run cold." We
know that taste and :peculiarity of constitution ren-
der the effect of facts and phenomena widely different
on men. The Bishop of Oxford's blood runs cold at
the idea of an army of scullery-maids sent into this
country to disturb the purity of our faith, a sugges-
tion it appears made by Father Ignatius in a fit of
mad enthusiasm.
" For instance," says Bishop Wilberforce, "he
would say to one of the right mettle, ' There is a
nobleman's family; enter it as a scullery.maid.'
Such facts make our heart's blood run cold."
From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but
a step. A bishop afraid of a scullery-maid! A
scullery-maid producing a bouleversement of a
bishop's circulation ! Pshaw ! This is all sham,
froth, rant, and bluster. If you are a good man
and true, Bishop Wilberforce, there is nobler
game for you. There is Dr. Pusey at your elbow
receiving confessions from the young and uninitiated,
not verbal but written confessions, preserving
them in his desk, and refusing to give them
up when the applicant: beseeches him to do so. Is
this Protestantism ? Ought this man to continue to
be a teacher of youth ? Could any scullery-maid, let
her be ever so enthusiastic, perform an act less in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the people of this country,
with the genius cf our Protestant faith, or with the
principles which we consider should regulate the in-
tercourse between man and man ? Have you done
anything to indicate to the world that you disapprove
of these proceedings ? Have you manfully opposed
Tractarian doctrines ? If not, why not ? Listen. Dr.
Pusey is and was from the first moment the head of
the party, he took up a position and made all the pre-
liminary arrangements for the attack, you " rolled
the powder in," and Pio Nono at the suggestion of
Cardinal Wiseman, who had been closely watching
your movements, applied the torch which has set the
country in a blaze, and rent the Church
for ever into two separate and distinct
parties. And in the midst of all this tur-
moil what have you done ? You have placed
your name at the top of a protest from the clergy of
your diocese, declaring the Bishop of Rome has as-
sumed a power to which he has no right ; so far so
good ; but amongst other things you have pledged
yourself with th 3 other protesters " to discourage the
propagation of all principles and practices tending to
establish Roman opinions within our respective
spheres." You drew up the protest, but this little
sentence was an amendment, and inserted at the
request of the meeting. What is now your posi-
tion ? You have pledged yourself to use your
best endeavours to discourage the very practices
you were foremost in assisting to introduce and to
carry into practice. This is a specimen of consist-
ency, but let it pass. Prove to us that you are in
earnest, and let us hear that Dr. Pusey's confessional
is denounced, and that the accumulated document°,
those specimens of the outpourings of poor weak
humanity, are forthwith returned to their owners.
Above all things, when you denounce Popery,
.re-
member that every man is a Pope, whether he lives
in Rome or in Oxford, who endeavours to lord it over
the consciences of his fellow-men. It is the spirit of
Popery we have to denounce and discourage, not the
piece of humanity the temporary embodiment of the
spirit. It is the principle we disapprove of, not the
Pope or his Cardinal. Accordingly iis the spirit