The via media of the Anglican church : illustrated in lectures, letters, and tracts written between 1830 and 1841

.r\^r<f\M.

^^^^'r^^^fef

**NT\

m^^\^

lV)V>0^

^-;-%.

C Si

^ ;: :^::^^\>..i

■Te^ <:>

4415 Wexford Road
Indianapolis, Ind. 46226

V, ^«"£-,'

i^^'^^f'

THE VIA MEDIA

OP

THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
VOL. IL

LONDON :

PRINTED BY GItBEUT AND BIVINQTON, tD.,

ST. JOHN'S HOUSE, CLEEKENWELL EOAD, E.G.

THE VIA MEDIA

THE ANGLICAN CHUECH,

ILLUSTRATED IN LECTURES, LETTERS,
AND TRACTS

WRITTEN BETWEEN 1830 AND 184L

JOHN HENRY CARDINAL NEWMAN.

IN TWO VOLUMES,
ITH A PREFACE AND NOTES.

VOL. II.

LONDON

ANS, GREEN, AND CO.

AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ti» STREET

1888

All rights reserved.

VOL. ri.

OCCASIONAL
LETTERS AND TRACTS-

CONTENTS.

L— Suggestions in behalf of the Chttboh Missionabt

Society, 1830. ....... 1

n.— Via Media, 1&B4 19

III.— *EeST0BATION of SrFFBAGAN BiSHOPS, 1835 . . 49

IV.— On the Mode of Conducting the Contboveest
WITH Rome, 1836 (being no. 71 of Tbacts fob

THE Times) 93

V. — Letteb to a Magazine in behalf of Db. Pusey's

Tbacts on Holy Baptism, 1837 .... 143

VI. — Letteb to the Maegauet Peofessob of Divinity
on Mb. R. H. Fboude's Statements on the

Holy Euchabist, 1838 195

VII.— Remabks on Cebtain Passages in the Thiety-

NiNE Aeticles, 1841 259

VIII. — DOCUMENTABY MaTTEB CONSEQUENT UPON THE FOBE-

GoiNO Remabks on the Thibty-nine Abticles . 357
IX. — Letter to Dr. Jelf in Explanation of the

Remabks, 1841 ... ... 365

X. — Letteb to the Bishop of Oxfobd on the same

subject, 1841 395

XI. — Retractation op Anti-Catholic Statements,

843—1845 426

I.

SUGGESTIONS

EESPECTFOLLY OFFEEED TO

INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT CLERGYMEN
OF THE UNIVERSITY,

IK BEHALF OF

THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY,

BY

A MASTER OK ARTS.

1830.
{Not published, but sent to a certain number of residents.)

VOL. II.

NOTICE.

I WROTE the following Letter and circulated it in the
University in February, 1830, at a time when I was one
of the secretaries of the Oxford Branch of the Church
Missionary Society. At that time I was on the whole
Protestant in doctrine, with a growing disposition to-
wards what is called the High Church. I had for many
years greatly esteemed the Church Missionary Society,
but thought it- ought to be under the Bishops. I had
made inquiries with a view to the possibility of my
becoming one of its missionaries.

My object then in this Letter was at once to enlarge
the circle of subscribers to the Society, and to direct and
strengthen the influence of the University and thereby
of the Anglican hierarchy, upon it. And with this view
I urged that the Society itself, by its rules, did actually
pledge itself to welcome that influence which I thought
so necessary for it, and I considered it a great mistake
in the mass of the clergy not to accept a position so
frankly offered to them.

B 2

4 SUGGESTIONS IN BEHALF OF

My Letter, however, gave great oflTence to the leading
members of its Oxford Branch, to which I belonged ; and
at the next Annual Meeting, consisting mainly of junior
members of the University, Dr. Symons of Wadham in
the chair, they unanimously voted another, I forget
who, into the office I held. '

I did not leave the Association till, I think, four years
afterwards, having in the meantime preached and had a
collection in St. Mary's Church for it. On that occasion
I recollect mentioning the "good man," (as I called him
with great sincerity,) Dr. Wilson of Queen's, afterwards
Canon of Winchester, a Calvinist by reputation, who
introduced the Society to Oxford.

July^ 1883. — This incident has been the occasion of
much misrepresentation, and to prevent permanent mis-
takes I am obliged to add as follows : —

Four years ago, on Mr. L., a friend of mine, saying of
me in a periodical of name, that there were various false
stories in circulation about the part I plaj'ed towards
certain evangelical bodies (for instance at the time when
I was secretary to the Bible Society, an office which I
never held), a correspondent of the editor wrote to him
to say that what Mr. L. treated " as an amusing myth,"
was an affair in which he (the writer) " was a personal

THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY. O

actor;" that "if I denied that I was ever a secretary to
the Bible Society, the denial must have been barely that
I was secretary in the year 1826," whereas he (the writer)
spoke of 1829 and 1830; that " when '^ the secretary
" presented his Report " I " moved 254 amendments " to
it ; that " the number of emendations " (he repeated) " was
254,'' though " Mr. L. made it 250 ; " that " they were
designed to transform the evangelical style of the Report
into one which was '' perhaps better ;*' that " meanwhile
I had written " and circulated '' a most hostile tract/' or
letter ; and that, at the Annual Meeting that followed, it
was carried unanimously "that the Rev. J. H. Newman
should be no longer secretary."

The two main points in this uncalled-for and unfounded
contradiction to Mr. L.'s statement which I think it
necessary to deny, are first, that the occurrence which my
assailant writes about took place in the Bible Society,
whereas it took place in the Church Missionary Society, as
the pamphlet which follows sufficiently shows ; and next,
that I moved 254 amendments to the secretary's Annual
Report.

1. As to the first charge, it does but involve a question
of memory, and is important only so far as it bears upon
the general trustworthiness whether of Mr. L.'s account,
or of the one contradictory to it. Now I deny that

6 SUGGESTIONS IX BEHALF OF

I ever was secretary to any Bible Society. I was indeed
a member of the Oxford Branch, and spoke at two
Annual Meetings, but I know I never was secretary to it,
and never spoke or wrote against it. All that I recollect
of my two speeches is, that Dr. Shuttlev/orth, after-
wards Bishop of Chichester, said of one of them that it
was the only good one delivered at the meeting. This
my own denial would be enough, but in addition to it, it
is pleasant to me to be able to say that Mr. L.'s opponent
himself on second thoughts had the candour in a sub-
sequent letter to withdraw what he had so strongly
asserted in his first. He writes, " If Cardinal Newman
means that the Letter or Tract to which I referred was
directed to the question, not of the Bible Society, but of
the Church Missionary Society, I am sure that his memory
is likely to he better than mine ; he scores a line under the
words which I have printed in italics. He proceeds, " In
fact I never had a copy of the Tract ; I onlj-^ read it at
the time.'*

2. Secondly, as to the question of " amendments moved "
by me, which he says ran to the number of 254, his
using elsewhere the word " emendations " instead of what
he culls " amendments," seems to explain the diflBculty
of the wonderful number to which they ran. Not one
" amendment " did I " move,*' as far as I remember or

THE CllUliCII MISSIOXAllY SOCIETY. <

believe ; but it is very likely, from what he says, that at
a preliminary meeting the intended Annual Report was
read to the Committee, of whom I was one ; and, though
I recollect nothing about it now, perhaps or probably I
objected to the conventional Evangelical phraseology in
which it was drawn up, and the friends of its author on
counting up my proposed " emendations " of style, found
254 words affected by my criticism. I am sure there
was no moving, voting, and dividing upon them. If this
explanation will not hold, I can give no other ; anyhow,
in the received meaning of the word, the notion of 254
amendments is absurd.

I am glad that in my lifetime so wholesale a charge
has been made and refuted.

P.S. — The following letter to me from Mr. [Archdeacon]
R. I. Wilberforce under the early date of Oct. 2, 1828,
will illustrate my pamphlet. It shows that my criticism
on the Church Missionary Society was that of others
also, in the years during which I made it, and that I
was doing nothing unreasonable or unfair in attempting
to make the Society's obedience to Episcopal authority a
fact as well as a profession. Mr. Woodruff, I believe, was
one of the chief officials of the Society in 1828.

Oct. 2, 1828. — I have just seen Woodruff here, who tells me
that the only objection to such a rule as [Provost] Hawkins

8 SUGGES1I0NS, E1C.

seemed to desiderate in the Chui-ch Missionary Society was, that
it would seem to imply that such a principle was not what they
had acted on hitherto. But they had always acted upon the
general rule of conforming to the laws of the Church, and have
therefore conceived that their missionaries would, of course, be
under Episcopal authority. Is there any law of the kind you
mention in the Propagation Society ? — R. I. W.

What Dr. Hawkins and I, not to say Mr. R. I. Wilber-
force, felt in 1828 and 1830, Mr. Hope Scott independently
of us felt in 1837. This appears from a passage in the
(unpublished) memoir of him, on which the Editor observes,
" It is remarkable that, in the year 1830 Mr, Newman, as
the Secretary of the Oxford Association of the Church
Missionary Society, had already printed and circulated a
pamphlet in the University, in behalf of this very subor-
dination which Mr. Hope in 1837 advocated," vol. i.
p. 120.

SUGGESTIONS

TS BEHALF 07

THE CHUECH MISSIONARY SOCIETY.

Rev. SiE,

Persons whose names carry weiglit with
thein ought not to consider the application of a stranger
an intrusion. You are a sharer in that aggregate of
influence which determines the movements of our Oxford
community. I address you as such ; and, unless i ask an
audience of unreasonable length, find, my apology in the
very circumstance which induces me to seek it.

I am to speak a few words in behalf of the Church
Missionary Society, which I would fain see generally
countenanced by the clergy ; yet so far am I from being
blind to the existing defects of that institution, praise-
worthy as are its aim and exertions, that it is a keen
sense of them that has led me to the step I am now
taking.

Perhaps the faults exhibited in its proceedings are felt
by those who have closely examined them even more
strongly than by yourself. I do not defend the circum-
stances of its origination, which must be ascribed in-

10 SUGGESTIOXS IX I5KIIAI-F OF

deed to motives worthy of all respect, but at the same
time evinced little regard for the duty of Church order
and canonical obedience. Nor has it yet cleared itself,
except in part, from the dishonour of its first irregulari-
ties; which, though not seated in its constitution, still
are mischievous attendants on its actual operations. And
because I think they are great, yet accidental evils; —
evils especially as regards the interests of that Church to
which the Society is attached, distracting her present and
still more endangering her future peace; and yet re-
movable at the word of our ecclesiastical rulers, without
any compromise of principle on their part : on these
accounts it is that I anxiously and earnestly call upon
those who have the power promptly and with one accord
to put an end to them.

The facts of the case are these. A society for mis-
sionary purposes, supported mainly by members of the
Church of England, professing her doctrines and dis-
cipline, and making use of her name, has extended ita
operations into every diocese of the kingdom ; and (as far
as its object is concerned) has laid out anew the Church's
territory, dividing it into districts of its own appointing.
It has moreover remodelled our ecclesiastical system, the
functions of which are brought under the supreme direc-
tion of a committee of management in London ; with
which all its members are in immediate or ultimate cor-
respondence, and which at various times has sent out
its representatives through the country, preachers and
(indirectly) lay-advocates, to detail its proceedings in
large assemblies, and collect contributions for its great
object.

Moreover, its practice of addressing itself to the multi-
tude in public meetings, — besides offending against the
peculiar sobriety of our Church's character, — has a direct
tendency to disarrange her parochial system ; to give a

THE CHURCH MISSIONAKY SOCIETY. 11

prominence to preaching over other religious ordinances,
which neither her formularies nor the annals of her
history sanction ; and to make the people, not the Bishop,
the basis and moving principle of her constitution.

And further, by sending out missionaries for the propa-
gation of the Gospel, this Society has taken on itself a
function which, not less than that of ordination, is to be
considered the prerogative of the supreme rulers of the
Christian Church.

To finish the summary of the evils existing in the pro-
ceedings of this Society, the doctrines held by some of its
most active directors, though not acknowledged perhaps by
the individuals themselves to be Calvinistic, still are more
or less such practically, whatever dispute may be raised
about the exact meaning of words and phrases.

The sum expended by the Society in the course of the
last year exceeded 55,000/. It has two hundred and
twenty- two Associations — It numbers, in all, nine Bishops
among its members ; and, as far as it is possible to form an
estimate from the subscription list attached to the Report,
above fourteen hundred clergy.

That a society thus availing itself of the name of our
Church, yet actually conducted on principles so widely
different from those which her doctrine and discipline
imply, and advocated moreover with such zeal, and as
yet with such singular success, is doing secret injur}'- to
her highest domestic objects — the pure, sober, and ade-
quate religious training of her people, — can hardly be
doubted.

On the probable increase of the mischief, some light is
thrown by the circumstance, that, while there is a visible
resemblance in actual adiyiinist ration between the system
of this and other missionary societies of recent origin, there
appears on the other hand an inclination in some persons
who are favourable to these latter institutions to detach

12 SUGGESTIONS IN BEHALF OF

it still further from the Church, and to connect it in a
more formal way with their own bodies:' — an object
which, it is presumed, cannot be attained without the
Church's losing many respectable members, lay, and even
clerical, who support the Society ; nor even prosecuted
without weakening, to an indefinite extent, their attach-
ment to her principles and interests.

— I have detailed plainly and openly the errors visible
in the conduct of the Church Missionary Society ; but do
not suffer them to engross your attention. I have men-
tioned them not on their own account, but for the sake of
exhibiting their unfavourable bearing on the well-being
of the Church. Let me entreat you to go on, from con-
sidering these mistakes, to consider the evil. Contemplate
this state of things, not as a fact merely exciting your
disapprobation of the Society, but as a mischief of melan-
choly interest to a body of which you are a member.
View it, not as if you were an indifferent spectator, but
as feeling that it involves a grave practical question, which
claims an answer from you. — Hoic should the clergy act in
relation to this Society ? — This is a problem to be solved
amid opposite difficulties ; in considering which, provided
no principle be compromised, we must be determined by
the suggestions of an enlarged Christian expediency.

Now, in viewing this question, we must not dwell on
the manner of its first establishment. The spirit which
originated it gave no character to its constitution, and has
in a great measure died away. We are considering the
Society as it exists at present. Past faults may serve to
confirm a condemnation, but cannot counteract a favour-

1 Vid. New Model of Cliristtan Missions, by the author of the Natural
History of Enthusiasm ; and Eclectic Review, January, 1830. On the
other hand, it is a gratifying fact, that within the last few months, the
Society has given up its connection with the Missionary Register.

THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 13

able judgment formed on existing grounds; so we put
them aside.

Taking the case then as it now stands^ I beg you to
observe, that all the existing evils are destroyed at once
and for ever, directly the clergy throw themselves into the
Society — which they may do without any sacrifice of
principle on their part. In this r6spect there is a marked
distinction between it and the Bible Society. To join the
latter implies (as many think), a concession, that it is
lawful for orthodox believers to co-operate with heretics,
that the Bible directly supplies a complete rule of dis-
cipline as well as of doctrine, and that dissenters may be
recognized as independent bodies on a footing with the
Church. But in the case of this Society, the authority
of our ecclesiastical rulers is acknowledged by its very
name ; which its regulations so well bear out, that you
may search in vain through them all for any principle of
a sectarian tendency. All clergymen who are subscribers
are ex officio members of the managing committee ; — the
lay-members being limited to the number of twenty-four,
six of whom vacate their seats at the end of every year.
And for actual instances of their respect for our eccle-
siastical system, when their foreign operations come in
contact with it, I may refer to the uniform conduct of
their Indian mission, witnessed as it is by the testimonies
of Middleton and Heber, and illustrated by their munifi-
cent grant in aid of Bishop's College, Calcutta, first of
5000/., then of 1000/. annually for several years.

So much on the question of principle. — And as to the
practicability of legitimatizing this Society, its admission
into the bosom of the Church is easy, because it may be
done without compromise of principle. Not only has it
placed itself in the hands of the Church by its rules, it
has also (I believe) taken every opportunity, or rather
used every solicitation, by which an approximation might

14 SUGGESTI0N8 IN BEHALF OF

be made towards a system of episcopal and archicli'aconal
superintendence. The conduct of its leading members has
been on the whole marked by fairness, candour, a simple
desire to do good, and an unaffected willingness to listen
to advice offered from authority. Whatever is irregular
in their proceedings may be attributed partly to their
deficient insight into tire duties implied in Church union,
and into the genius of our ecclesiastical system ; and partly
to the mere absence of spiritual authorities, who alone can
confirm the acts of a religious body. Its present irregu-
larities spring from circumstances of a negative, not a
positive character. Its directors are, it is plain, involved
in a difficulty arising from the anomalous mode of the
Society's first establishment — a difficulty from which the
Church alone can extricate them, by supplying her sanc-
tion and guidance — and this, which they have no right to
claim, I call upon her to do, not for their sake, but for
her own. Why should we stand aloof, and allow our name
to be used by a Society, without availing ourselves of that
right of control over its movements which the assumption
of that name gives us ? Why should we not put an end
at once to so distracting a state of things by the only way
left us for remedying it, now that the time is gone by when
we might hope to stop the progress of the Society by dis-
countenancing it ? And why should we not avail our-
selves of its influence and its resources for those great
missionary objects which it is our duty ever to keep in
view ; and in so doing, far from weakening our Church's
exertions (according to the common objection) by divert-
ing contributions from the Propagation Society, actually
add ready-made, and at a small cost, and for an object
which needs provision, a most efficient organ of Christian
benevolence to the number of those through which the
Church at present fulfils her peculiar duties? Why,
because she has rid herself of the corruptions of the

THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 15

Papal times, and the rashness of the age of Laud, should
she not still retain some portion of the vigour and
fearlessness which she possessed in both those periods of
her history ?

Things cannot remain as they are. This Society must
approach to the Church, or recede from her. If with an
unwise timidity we let things take their course, it will
insensibly be familiarized to the principles and practices of
schism, and be lost to us with its resources, actual success,
prospects for the future, its piety and activity; in the
process of its separation, perplexing and enfeebling that
Church, which has already enemies enough without our
providing others for her. As yet, however, our seats are
kept for us in its ranks, and we may claim them. The
clergy still may direct its movements and regulate its
associations, and substitute the decencies of parochial order
for the excitement of fortuitous and unauthorized speakers
at a public meeting. In a word, they may annex it to the
Christian Knowledge and Propagation Societies, as a
sister-institution in the work of evangelical charity.

Even if the accomplishment of so great an object in-
volved the temporary distraction of the Society, and the
ultimate defection of a portion of its members, still it
would be supremely desirable. But in fact, an important
advantage is rarely attainable by so certain and unostenta-
tious a proceeding as is here open to us. It is only neces-
sary for the clergy of each diocese and archdeaconry to take
upon themselves the management of the Associations in their
own neighbourhoods. This would be a gradual mode 'of
connecting the Society with the Church, should it be thought
unwise for her higher authorities to take the lead, by giving
their support to the Parent Institution. To existing ir-
regularities in preaching and public meetings, a stop would
be put at once ; and the influence of the Associations would
soon be felt reacting on the Committee in London. When

16 SUGGESTIONS IN KEIIAl.F OF

a beginning is once fairly made, I have good. hope the
ultimate completion of the design is secured ; and honoured
will be his name — whoever that dignitary or man of station
be — who is the first to give his countenance to it, recom-
mending it by the weight of his influence to a number of
sound and right-minded clergy, and then securing for it
the direct patronage of our spiritual rulers.

I have addressed you. Rev. Sir, as having your share of
influence in our Oxford circle ; — and I address you at this
time as believing that a crisis is at hand in the ecclesiasti-
cal history of the Society. It will be something to have
succeeded merely in awakening your attention to an im-
portant subject, though 1 fail to guide your judgment to
the conclusions I myself have adopted. I take my leave,
acknowledging the favour you have done me in giving me
this patient hearing.

I am, etc.

A Master of Arts.
Oxford,

Feh. 1, 1830.

Extract from the Laws and Begulations of the Church
Missionary Society.

I. Tms institution shall be conducted by Patrons, Vice-Patrons,
a President, Vice-Presidents, a Committee, and such officers as may
be deemed necessary, all being members of the Established Church.

3. Annual subscribers of one guinea and upwards, and if Clergy-
men, half-a-guinea, ****##
shall be members of this Society during the continuance of siich
subscriptions.

II. The Committee shall consist of twenty-four lay-members of
the Established Church, and of all such Clergymen as are members
of the Society. Eighteen members shall be annually appointed
from the old Committee, and six from the general body.

17. The general Committee shall app>ointthe places where missions
shall be attempted, shall direct the scale upon which they shall be

THE CHURCH MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 17

conducted, and shall superintend the affairs of the Society iu
general.

According to the Table prefixed to the last Report, the Society-
has 9 missions ; viz. to West Africa, Mediterranean, North, South,
and W^ern India, Ceylon, Australasia, West Indies, and North-
west America — And in these 51 stations employs 28 Episcopal
Clergy, 17 Lutheran ditto ; 63 lay-teachers, men and women ; and
205 native teachers ; and supports 295 schools, for boys, girls, or
adults, containing in all 12,419 scholars.

The Oxford Association includes 40 Clerf/ymen, of which number
about 30 are resident members of the University.

VOL. II.

n.

VIA MEDIA.

{Being Nos. 38 and 40 o/'Tkacts pok the Times.)
1834.

.c 2

VIA MEDIA.

No. I.

Laicus. — "SVill you listen to a few free questions from
one wlio has not known you long enough to be familiar
with you without apology ? I am struck by many things
I have heard you say, which show me that, somehow or
other, my religious system is incomplete : yet at the same
time the world accuses you of Popery^ and there are
seasons when I have misgivings whither you are carrying
me.

Clericus. — I trust I am prepared, most willing I cer-
tainly am, to meet any objections you have to bring
against doctrines which you have heard me maintain.
Say more definitely what the charge against me is.

L. That your religious system, which I have heard
some persons style the Apostolical, and which I so name
by way of designation, is like that against which our
forefathers protested at the Reformation.

C. I will admit it, i.e. if I may reverse your statement,
and say, that the Popish system resembles the Apostolical.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise, seeing that all cor-
ruptions of the truth must be like the truth which they
corrupt, else they would not persuade mankind to take
them instead of it ?

22 VIA MEDIA. NO. I.

L. A bold thing to say, surely ; to make the earlier
system an imitation of the later !

C. A bolder, surely, to assume that mine is the later,
and the Popish the earlier. When think you that my
system (so to call it) arose ? — not with myself ?

L. Of course not ; but whatever individuals have held
it in our Church since the Reformation, it must be acknow-
ledged that they have been but few, though some of them
doubtless eminent men.

C. Perhaps you would say {i.e. the persons whose views
you are representing), that at the Reformation, the stain
of the old theology was left among us, and has shown
itself in its measure ever since, as in the poor, so again
in the educated classes ; — that the peasantry still use and
transmit their Popish rhymes, and the minds of students
still linger among the early Fathers ; but that the genius
and principles of our Church have ever been what is
commonly called Protestant.

L. This is a fair general account of what would be
maintained.

C. You would consider that the Protestant principles
and doctrines of this day were those of our Reformers in
the sixteenth century ; and that what is called Popery
now, is what was called Popery then.

L. On the whole : there are indeed extravagances now,
as is obvious. I would not defend extremes ; but I sup-
pose our Reformers would agree with moderate Protestants
of this day, in what they meant by Protestantism and by
Popery.

C. This is an important question, of course ; much
depends on the correctness of the answer you have made
to it. Do you make it as a matter of historj^, from
knowing the opinions of our Reformers, or from what you
consider probable ?

L. I am no divine. I judge from a general knowledge

VIA MEDIA. NO. I. 2-3

of history, and from the obvious probabilities of the case,
which no one can gainsay.

C. Let us then go by ^yrobabilities, since you lead the
way. Is it not according to probabilities that opinions and
principles should not be the same now as they were three
hundred* years since ? that though our professions are the
same, yet we should not mean by them what the Reformers
meant ? Can you point to any period of Church histor}',
during which doctrine remained for anytime uncorrupted?
Three hundred years is a long time. Are you quite sure
we do not need a second reformation ?

L. Are you really serious? Have we not Articles and
a Liturgy, which keep us from deviating from the
standard of truth set up in the sixteenth century ?

C. Nay, I am maintaining no paradox. Surely there
is a large religious party all around us who say the great
body of the Clergy has departed from the doctrines of our
Martyrs at the Reformation. I do not say I agree with
the particular charges they prefer ; but the very circum-
stance that they make them is a proof there is nothing
extravagant in the notion of the Church having departed
from the doctrine of the sixteenth century.

L. It is true; but the persons you refer to, bring forward,
at least, an intelligible charge ; they appeal to the Articles,
and maintain that the Clergy have departed from the
doctrine therein contained. They may be right or wrong ;
but at least they give us the means of judging for ourselves.

C. This surely is beside the point. We were speaking
of j)robabi/ities. What change actually has been made, if
any, is a further question, a question oifact. But before
going on to examine the particular case, I observe that
change of some sort was probable; probable in itself you
can hardly deny, considering the history of the universal
Church ; not extravagantly improbable, moreover, in spite
of Articles, as is sufficiently proved by the extensively

24< VIA MEDIA. — >;o. 1.

prevailing opinion to which I referred, that the clergy
have departed from them. Now consider the course of
religion and politics, domestic and foreign, during the
last three centuries, and tell me whether events have
not occurred to increase this probability almost to a cer-
tainty ; the probability, I mean, that the member's of the
English Church of the present day differ from tlie prin-
ciples of the Church of Rome more than our forefathers
differed. First, consider the history of the Puritans from
first to last. Without pronouncing any opinion on the
truth or unsoundness of their principles, were they not
evidently further removed from Rome than were our
Reformers ? Was not their influence all on the side of
leading the English Church farther from Rome than our
Reformers placed it ? Think of the fall of the Scottish
Episcopal Church. Reflect upon the separation and ex-
tinction of the Nonjurors, upon the rise of Methodism,
upon our political alliances with foreign Protestant com-
munities. Consider especially the history and the school
of Hoadley. That man, whom a high authority of the
present day does not hesitate to call a Socinian,' was for
near fifty years a bishop in our Church.

L. You tell me to think on these facts. I wish I were
versed enough in our ecclesiastical history to do so.

G. But you are as well versed in it as the generality
of educated men ; as those whose opinions you are now
maintaining. And they surely ought to be well acquainted
with our history, and the doctrines taught in our different
schools and eras, considering they scruple not to charge
such as me with a declension from the true Anti-popish
doctrine of our Church. For what the doctrine of the
Church is, what it has been for three centuries, is a matter
of fact which without reading cannot be known.

' " It is true he was a Bishop, though a Sociniau." — Bp. Blomfield's
Letter to C. Butler, Esq., 1825.

VIA MEDIA. — ^■o. 1. 20

Z. Let us leave, if you please, this ground o(probabilifi/,
which, whatever you may say, cannot convince me while
I am able to urge that strong objection to it which you
would not let me mention just now. I repeat, we have
Articles ; we have a Liturgy ; the dispute lies in a little
compass, without need of historical reading : — do you mean
to say we have departed from tfiem ?

C. I am not unwilling to follow you a second time, and
will be explicit. I reply, we have departed from them.
Did you ever study the Rubrics of the Prayer Book ?

L. But surely they have long been obsolete ; — they are
impracticable !

C. It is enough ; you have answered your own question
without trouble of mine. Not only do we not obey them,
but it seems we style them impracticable. I take your
admission. Now, I ask you, are not these Rubrics (I
might also mention parts of the Services themselves which
have fallen into disuse), such as in the present day incur
the odium of being called Popish ? and, if so, is not this
a proof that the spirit of the present day has departed
(whether for good or evil) from the spirit of the Reforma-
tion ? — and is it wonderful that such as I should be called
Popish, if the Church Services themselves are considered
so?

L. "Will you give me some instances ?

C. Is it quite in accordance with our present Protestant
notions, that unbaptized persons should not be buried with
the rites of the Church ? — that every Clergyman should
read the Daily Service morning and evening at home, if
he cannot get a congregation ? — that in college chapels
the Holy Communion should be administered every week ?
— that Saints' Days should be observed ? — that stated
days of fasting should be set apart by the Church ? Ask
even a sober-minded really serious man about the obser-
vance of these rules ; will he not look grave, and say that

26 VIA MEDIA, — NO. I.

he is afraid of formality and superstition if these rules
were attended to ?

L. And is there not the danger ?

C. The simple question is, whether there is more danger
now than three centuries since? was there not far more
superstition in the sixteenth than in the nineteenth cen-
tury ? and does the spirit of the nineteeth move with the
spirit of the sixteenth, if the sixteenth commands and the
nineteenth draws back ?

L. But you spoke of parts of the Services themselves as
laid aside ?

G. Alas! ....

What is the prevailing opinion or usage respecting the
form of absolution in the ofSce for Visiting the Sick ?
What is thought by a great body of men of the words
in which the Priesthood is conveyed ? Are there no
objections to the Athanasian Creed ? no murmurs against
the Commination Service ? Does no one stumble at the
word " oblations," in the Prayer for the Church Militant?
Is there no clamour against parts of the Burial Service ?
No secret or scarcely secret complaints against the word
" regeneration " in the Baptismal ? No bold protestations
against reading the Apocrypha ? Now do not all these
objections rest upon one general ground : viz. That these
parts of our Services savour of Popery ? And again, are
not tliese the popular objections of the day ?

L. I cannot deny it.

C. I consider then that already I have said enough to
show that the Churchman of this day has deviated from the
opinions of our Reformers, and has become more opposed
than they [the latter] were to the system they protested
against. And therefore, I would observe, it is not fair to
judge of me, or of such as me, in the oflf-hand way which
many men take the liberty to adopt. Men seem to think
that we are plainly and indisputably proved to be Popish,

VIA MKUIA. — NO. I. 27

if we are proved to differ from the generality of Church-
men now-a-days. But what if it turn out that they are
silently floating down the stream, and we are upon the
shore ?

L. All, however, will allow, I suppose, that our Refor-
mation was never completed in its details. The final
judgment was not passed upon parts of the Prayer Book.
There were, you know, alterations in the second edition
of it published in King Edward's time ; and these tended
to a more Protestant doctrine than that which had first
been adopted. For instance, in King Edward's first book
the dead in Christ were prayed for ; in the second this
commemoration was omitted. Again, in the first book
the elements of the Lord's Supper were more distinctly
offered up to God, and more formally consecrated than in
the second edition, or at present. Had Queen Mary not
succeeded, perhaps the men who effected this would have
gone further.

C. I believe they would ; nay indeed they did at a
subsequent period. They took away the Liturgy alto-
gether, and substituted a Directory.

L. They ? the same men ?

C Yes, the foreign party : who afterwards went by the
name of Puritans. Bucer, who altered in King Edward's
time, and the Puritans, who destroyed in King Charles's,
both came from the same religious quarter.

L. Ought you so to speak of the foreign Reformers ? to
them we owe the Protestant doctrine altogether.

C. I like foreign interference, as little from Geneva, as
from Rome. Geneva at least never converted a part of
England from heathenism, nor could lay claim to patri-
archal authority over it. Why could we not be let alone
and sufiered to reform ourselves ?

Z. You separate then your creed and cause from that
of the Reformed Churches of the Continent ?

28

VIA MKDIA. — NO. I.

C. Not altogether ; but I protest against being brougbt
into that close alliance with them which the world now-a-
days would force upon us. The glory of the English
Church is, that it has taken the via media, as it has been
called. It lies between the (so called) Reformers and the
Romanists ; whereas there are religious circles, and in-
fluential too, where it is thought enough to prove an
English Clergyman unfaithful to his Church, if he i)reaclie8
anything at variance with the opinions of the Diet of
Augsburg, or the Confessions of the Waldenses. However,
since we have been led to speak of the foreign Reformers,
I will, if you will still listen to me, strengthen my argu-
ment by an appeal to them.

L. That argument being, that what is now cried up as
l^rotestant doctrine, is not what was considered such by
the Reformers.

G. Yes ; and I am going to offer reasons for thinking
that the present age has lapsed, not only from the opinions
of the English Reformers, but from those of the foreign
also. This is too extensive a subject to do justice to in a
conversation, even had I the learning for it ; but I may
draw your attention to one or two obvious proofs of the
fact.

L. You must mean from Calvin ; for Luther is, in some
points, reckoned nearer the Romish Church than our-
selves.

C. I mean Calvin, about whose extreme distance from
Rome there can be no doubt. What is the popvJar
opinion now concerning the necessity of an Episcopal
Regimen ?

L. A late incident has shown what it is ; that it is
uncharitable to define the Catholic Church, as " the body
of Christians in every country governed by Bishops,
Priests, and deacons ;" such a definition excluding pious
Dissenters and others.

VIA MEDIA. — NO. I. 29

0. But what thought Calvin? ''Calvin held those
men worthy of anathema who would not submit them-
selves to truly Christian bishops, if such could be had." ^
What would he have said then to the Wesleyan
Methodists, and that portion of the (so called) Orthodox
Dissenters, which is friendly at present to the Church ?
These allow that we, or that numbers among us, are
truly Christian, yet make no attempts to obtain Bishops
from us. Thus the age is more Protestant now than
Calvin himself.

L. Certainly in this respect ; unless Calvin spoke rhe-
torically under circumstances.

C. Now for a second instance. The following is his
statement concerning the Lord's Supper. "I understand
what is to be understood by the words of Christ ; that
He doth not only offer us the benefits of His death and
Resurrection, but His very body, wherein He died and
rose again. I assert that the body of Christ is really
(as the usual expression is) ; that it is truly given to us in

the Sacrament, to be the saving food of our souls."

" The Son of God offers daily to us in the Holy Sacrament,
the same body which He ouce offered in sacrifice to His

Father, that it may be our spiritual food.'' "If

any one ask me concerning the manner, I will not be
ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my
reason to comprehend, or my tongue to express. '^ ' Now,
if I were of myself to use these words, (in spite of the
qualification at the end, concerning the manner of His
presence in the Sacrament,) would they not be sufficient
to convict me of Popery in the judgment of this minute
and unlearned generation ?

L. You speak plausibly, I will grant ; yet surely, after
all, it is not unnatural that the Reformers of the sixteenth

2 Vide Mr. Perceval's Churchman's Manual, p. 13.
* Vide Tracts for the Times, No, 27.

30 VIA MEDIA. — NO. I.

century should have fallen short of a full Reformation in
matters of doctrine and discipline. Light breaks but
gradually on the mind : one age begins a work, another
finishes.

G. I am arguing about a matter of fact, not defending
the opinions of the Reformers. As to this notion of their
being but partially illuminated, I am not concerned to oppose
such a view, being quite content if the persons whom you are
undertaking to represent are willing to admit it. And then,
in consistency, I shall beg them to reproach me not with
Popery but with Protestantism, and to be impartial enough
to assail not only me, but "the Blessed Reformation/' as
they often call it, using words they do not understand.
It is hard, indeed, that when I share in the opinions of
the Reformers, 1 should have no share in their praises of
them.

L. You speak as if you really agreed with the Re-
formers. You may say so in an argument, but in sober
earnest you cannot mean to say you really agree with the
great body of them. Neither you nor I should hesitate to
confess they were often inconsistent, saying, at one time,
what they disowned at another.

C. That they should have said different things at
different times, is not wonderful, considering they were
searching into Scripture and Antiquity, and feeling their
way to the Truth. Since, however, they did vary in their
opinions, for this very reason it is obvious T should be say-
ing nothing at all, in saying that I agreed with them,
unless I stated explicitly at what period of their lives, or
in which of their writings. This I do state clearly : I say
I agree with them as they speak in the formularies of
the Church ; more cannot bo required of me, nor indeed is
it possible to say more.

L. What persons complain of is, that you are not satis-
fied with the formularies of the Church, but add to them

VIA MEDIA. — NO. I. 31

doctrines not contained in them. You must allow there is
little stress laid in the Articles on some points, which
are quite cardinal in your system, to judge by your way of
enforcing them.

C. This is not the first time you have spoken of this
supposed system of ours. I will not stop to quarrel with
you for calling it ours, as if it were not rather the Church's ;
but explain to me what you consider it to consist in.

L. The following are some of its doctrines : that the
Church has an existence independent of the State ; that
the State may not religiously interfere with its internal
concerns; that none may engage in m.inisterial works ex-
cept such as are episcopally ordained ; that the consecration
of the Eucharist is especially entrusted to Bishops and
Priests. Where do you find these doctrines in the formu-
laries of the Church; that is, so prominently set forth, as
to sanction you in urging them at all, or at least so strongly
as you are used to urge them ?

C. As to urging them at all, we might be free to urge
them even though not mentioned in the Articles ; unless
indeed the Articles are our rule of faith. Were the Church
first set up at the Reformation, then indeed it might be
right so to exalt its Articles as to forbid to teach " what-
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby.'*
I cannot consent, (I am sure the Reformers did not wish
me,) to deprive myself of the Church's dowry, the doctrines
which the Apostles spoke in Scripture and impressed upon
the early Church. I receive the Church as a messenger
from Christ, rich in treasures old and new, rich with the
accumulated wealth of ages.

L. Accumulated ?

C. As you will yourself allow. Our Articles are one
portion of that accumulation. Age after age, fresh battles
have been fought with heresy, fresh monuments of truth
set up. As I will not consent to be deprived of the records

32 VIA MEDIA. — NO. I.

of the Reformation, so neither will I part with those of
former times. I look upon our Articles as in one sense an
addition to the Creeds ; and at the same time the Homanists
added their Tridentine articles. Theirs I consider unsound ;
ours as true.

L. The Articles have surely an especial claim upon
you ; who have subscribed them, and are therefore more
bound to them, than to other truths, whatever or wherever
they be.

G. There is a popular confusion on this subject. Our
Articles are not a body of divinity, but in great measure
only protests against certain errors of a certain period of
the Church. Now I will preach the whole counsel of God,
whether set down in the Articles or not. I am bound to
the Articles by subscription ; but I am bound, more
solemnly even than by subscription, by my baptism and
by my ordination, to believe and maintain the whole
Gospel of Christ. The grace given at those seasons comes
through the Apostles, not through Luther or Calvin,
Bucer or Cartwright. You will presently agree with me
in this statement. Let me ask, do you not hold the
inspiration of Holy Scripture ?

L. Undoubtedly.

G. Is it not a clergyman's duty to maintain and confess
it?

L. Certainly.

G. But this doctrine is nowhere found in the Articles ;
and for this plain reason, that both Romanists and
Reformers admitted it ; and the difference between the
two parties was, not whether the Old and New Testament
were inspired, but whether the Apocrypha was of canonical
authority.

L. I must grant it.

G. And in the same w'ay, I would say, there are many
other doctrines unmentioned in the Articles, only because

VIA MEDIA. NO. I. 33

they were not then disputed by either party ; and others
again, for other reasons, short of disbelief in them. I
cannot indeed make my neighbour preach them, for he
will tell me he will believe only just so much as he has
been obliged to subscribe ; but it is hard if I am therefore
to be defrauded of the full inheritance of faith myself.
liOok at the subject from another point of view, and see
if we do not arrive at the same conclusion. A statesman
of the last century is said to have remarked that we
have Calvinistic Articles, and a Popish Liturgy. This of
course is an idle calumny. But is there not certainly a
distinction of doctrine and manner between the Liturgy
and the Articles ? And does not what I have just stated
account for it, viz. that the Liturgy, as coming down from
the Apostles, is the depository of their complete teaching ;
while the Articles are polemical, and except as they embody
the creeds, are mainly protests against certain definite
errors ? Such are my views about the Articles ; and if in
my teaching, I lay especially stress upon doctrines only
indirectly contained in them, and say less about those
which are therein put forth most prominently, it is because
times are changed. We are in danger of unbelief more
than of superstition. The Christian minister should be a
witness against the errors of his day.

L. I cannot tell whether on consideration I shall agree
with you or not. However, after all, you have said not a
word to explain what your real differences from Popery
are; what those false doctrines were, which you conceive
our Reformers withstood. You be^an by confessing that
your opinions and the Popish opinions had a resemblance,
and only disputed whether yours should be called like the
Popish, or the Popish like yours. But in what are youis
different from Home ?

C. Be assured of this — no party will be more opposed to
our doctrine, if it ever prospers and makes noise, than the

VOL. II. x>

34 VIA MEDIA. — XO. I.

Roman party. This has been proved before now. In the
Feventeenth century the theology of the divines of the
English Church was substantially the same as ours is ; and
it experienced the full hostility of the Papacy. It was the
true Via Media ; Rome sought to block up that "way as
fiercely as the Puritans did. History tells us this. In a
few words then, before we separate, I will state some of
my irreconcilable differences with Rome."* ....

L. Thank you for this conversation ; from which I hope
to draw matter for reflection, though the subject seems to
involve such deep historical research, I hardly know how
to find my way through it.

TJie Feast of St. James.

< [Vid. «i/^r. vol. i. Preface, p. xxxii; and iw/Va, Article xi ; Retractation.]

VIA MEDIA.
No. 11.

Laicm. T am come for some further conversation witli
you ; or rather, for another exposition of j'our views on
Church matters, I am not well read enough to argue with
you ; nor, on the other hand, do I profess to admit all you
say : but I want, if you will let me, to get at your opinions.
So will you lecture, if I give the subjects ?

Clericus. To lecture, as you call it, is quite beyond me,
since at best I have but a smattering of reading in Church
history. The more's the pity ; though I have as much as
a great many others : for ignorance of our historical posi-
tion as Churchmen is one of the especial evils of the dav.
Yet even with a little knowledge, 1 am able to see certain
facts which seem quite inconsistent with notions at present
received. For my practice, I should be ashamed of myself
if I guided it by any theories. Here the letter and spirit
of the Liturgy ^ is my direction, as it is of all classes of
Churchmen, high and low. Yet, though I do not lay a
great stress on such views as I gather from history, it is to
my mind a strong confirmation of them, that they just
account for and illustrate the conclusions to which I am
led by plain obedience to my ordination vows.

L. If you only wish to keep to the Liturgy, not to
change, what did you mean the other day by those
ominous words in which you suggested the need of a
second JRfformation ?

> [In these Tracts " Liturgy " stands for the Book of Common Prayer
and Admiuistratiou, <&c.]

D 2

36 VIA MKDIA.— NO. 11.

C. Because T think (lie Clinrch lias in a mccifinvc/orgotlcn
its own principles, as declared in the sixteenth century ;
nay, under stranger circumstances, as far as 1 know, than
have attended any of the errors and corruptions of the
Papists. Grievous as are their declensions from primitive
usage, I never heard in any case of their practice directly
contradicting their services; — whereas we go on latnenting
once a year the absence of discipline in our Church, yet do
not even dream of taking any one step towards its resto-
ration. Again, we confess in the Articles that excom-
munication is a solemn duty of the Church under certain
circumstances, and that the excommunicated person must
be openly reconciled by penance, before he is acknowledged
by the faithful as a brother ; yet excommunication, I am
told, is now a civil process, which takes place as a matter
of course, at a certain stage of certain law proceedings.
Here a reformation is needed.

L. Only of discipline, not of doctrine.

G. Again, when the Church, with an unprecedented
confidence, bound herself hand and foot, and made herself
over to the civil power, in order to escape the Pope, she did
not expect that infidels (as it has lately been hinted) would
be suffered to have the absolute disposal of the crown
patronage.

L. This, again, might be considered matter of disci-
pline. Our Reformation in the sixteenth century was one
in matters oi faith; and therefore we do not need a second
Reformation in the same sense in which we needed it
first,

G. In what points would you say the Church's faith was
reformed in the sixteenth century ?

L. Take the then received belief in purgatory and par-
dons, which alone was a suflBcieut corruption to call for a
reformation.

C. 1 conceive the presumption of the Popish doctriue

VIA MEDIA — XO. II. 37

on these points to He in adding to the means of salvation
set forth in Scripture. Almighty God has said that His
Sox's merits shall wash away all sin, and that they shall
be conveyed to believers through th^ two Sacraments ;
whereas, the Church of Rome has added other ways of
gaining heaven.

L. Granted. The belief in purgatory and pardons
disparages the sufficiency, first of Chrisi's merits; next
of His appointed sacraments.

G. And by " received " belief, I suppose you mean that
it was the popular belief, which clergy and laity acted on,
not that it was necessarily contained in any particular
doctrinal formulary.

L. Proceed.

C. Do you not suppose that there are multitudes both
among clergy and laity at the present day, who disparage,
not indeed Christ's merits, but the Sacraments He has
appointed ? and if so, is not their error so far the surae in
kind as that of the E-omish Church — the preferring Abana
and Pharpar to the waters of Jordan ? Take the Sacra-
ment of Baptism. Have not some denominations of schis-
matics invented a rite of dedication instead of Baptism ?
and do not Churchmen find themselves under the tempta-
tion of countenancing this Papist-like presumption ? —
Again, there is a well-known sect, which denies both
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. A Churchman must
believe its members to be altogether external to the fold
of Christ. Whatever benevolent works they may be
able to show, still, if we receive the Church's doctrine
concerning the means " generally necessary to salvation,"

' [Purgatory as little "disparages the merits of Christ," as the "open
penance and punishment of sinners, in this world, that their souls might be
saved in the day of the Lord," spoken of in the Anglican Commination
Service ; nor do pardons "disparage His Sacraments," for sacraments take
away the guilt, and pardons the punishment, of sin.]

ob VIA MKDIA. — NO. II.

we must consider such persons to bo more heathens, except
in knowledge. Now would there not be an outcry raised,
as if I were uncharitable, did I refuse the rites of burial
to such an one ?

L. This outcry would not proceed from the better in-
formed, or from the rulers of the Church.

C. Happil}^ we are not as yet so far corrupted. Our
Prelates are still sound, and know the difference between
what is modern and what is ancient. Yet is not the mode
of viewing the subject I refer to, a growing one ? and how
does it differ from the presumption of the Papists ? In
both cases, the power of Christ's sacraments is denied ;
in the one case by the unbelief of restlessness and fear, in
the other by the unbelief of profaneness.

L. Well, supposing I grant that the Church of this day is
in a measure faulty in faith and discipline ; more or less, of
course, according to the diocese and neighbourhood. Now,
in the next place, what do you mean by your Reformation ?

C. I would do what our reformers in the sixteenth cen-
tury did : they did not touch the existing documents of
doctrine^ — there was no occasion — they kept the creeds as
they were ; but they added protests against the corrup-
tions of faith, worship, and discipline, which had grown up
round them. I would have the Church do the same thing
now, if I could: she should not change the Articles, she
should add to them : add protests against the erastianism
and latitudinarianism which have incrusted them. I
would have her append to the Catechism a section on the
power of the Church.

L. You have not mentioned any corruptions at present
in worship ; do you consider that there are such, as well
as errors of faith and discipline ?

C. Our Liturgy keeps us right in the main, yet there
are what may be considered such, though for the most

' [This was the point too broadly contended for in No. 90, i'j/r.]

VIA MEDIA. — NO. IT. 39

part occasional. To board over the altar of a Cliurch,
place an orchestra there of playhouse singers^ and take
money at the doors, seems to me as great an outrage, as
to sprinkle the forehead with holy water, and to carry
lighted tapers in a procession.

L. Do not speak so harshly of what has often been
done piously. George the Third was a patron of concerts
in one of our Cathedrals.

C. Far be it from ray mind to dare to arraign the actions
of that religious king I The same deed is of a different
nature at different times and under different circumstances.
Music in a Church may as reverentially subserve the feel-
ings of devotion as pictures or architecture ; but it may not.

L. You could not prevent such a desecration by adding
a fortieth article to the thirty-nine.

C. Not directly : yet though there is no article directly
condemning religious processions, they have nevertheless
been discontinued. In like manner, were an article
framed (to speak by way of illustration) declaratory of
the sanctity of places set apart to the worship of God and
the reception of the saints that sleep, doubtless Churchmen
would be saved from many profane feelings and practices
of the day, which they give into unawares, such as the
holding vestries in Churches, the flocking to preachers
rather than to sacraments (as if the servant were above
the Master, who is Lord over His own house), the luxu-
rious and fashionable fitting up of town Churches, the
proposal to allow schismatics to hold their meetings in
them, the off-hand project of pulling them down for the
convenience of streets and roads, and the wanton prefer-
ence (for it frequently is wanton) of unconsecrated places,
whether for preaching to the poor, or for administering
sacred rites to the rich.

L. It is visionary to talk of such a reformation : the
people would not endure it.i

SUIiPICIAN SEMINARY

T.TPiRARV

40 VIA MEDIA. NO. II.

C. It is; but I am not advocating it, T am but raising
a protest. I say this ought to be, " because of the
angels,'^ ' but I do not hope to persuade others to think us
I do.

L. I think I quite understand the ground you take.
You consider that, as time goes on, fresh and fresh articles
of faith are necessary to secure the Church's purity,
according to the rise of successive heresies and errors.
These articles were all hidden, as it were, in the Church's
bosom from the first,"* and brought out into form according
to the occasion. Such was the Nicene explanation against
Arius; the English articles against Popery: and such
are those now called for in this Age of schism, to meet the
new heresy, which denies the holy Catholic Church — the
heresy of Hoadley, and others like him.

G. Yes — and let it never be forgotten, that, whatever
were the errors of the Convocation of our Church in the
beginning of the eighteenth century, it expired in an
attempt to brand the doctrines of Hoadley. May the day
be merely delayed !

L. I understand you further to say, that you hold to
the Reformers as far as they have spoken out in our for-
mularies, which at the same time you consider as incom-
plete ; that the doctrines which may appear wanting in
the Articles, such as the Apostolical Commission, are the
doctrines of the Church Catholic ; doctrines, which every
piember of it holds as being such, prior to subscription ;
that, moreover they are quite consistent with our Articles,
sometimes are even implied in them, and sometimes clearly
contained in the Liturgy, though not in the Articles, as
the Apostolical Commission in the Ordination Service ;
lastl}', that we are clearly bound to believe, and all of us

» 1 Cor. xi. 10.

* [Here, as above, the principle of doctrinal development is accepted as
true iiud necessary for the Christian Church.]

VIA MEDIA. — NO. II. 41

do believe, as essential, doctrines which nevertheless are
not contained in the Articles, as e. g. the inspiration of
Holy Scripture.

C. Yes — and further I maintain, that, while I fully
concur in the Articles, as far as they go, those who call
me Papist, do not acquiesce in the doctrine of the
Liturgy.

L. This is a subject I especially wish drawn out. You
threw out some hints about it the other day, though I
cannot say you convinced me. I have misgivings, after
all, that our Reformers only hegan their own work. I do
not say they saw the tendency and issue of their opinions;
but surely, had they lived, and had they had the oppor-
tunity of doing more, they would have given into much
more liberal notions (as they are called) than you are
disposed to concede. It is not by producing a rubric, or
an insulated passage from the services, that you can de-
stroy this impression. Such instances only show they
were inconsistent, which I will grant. Still, is not the
genius of our formularies towards a more latitudinarian
system than they reach ?

G. I will cheerfully meet you on the grounds you pro-
pose. Let us carefully examine the Liturgy in its separate
parts. I think it will decide the point which I contended
for the other day, viz. that we now are more Protestant
than our Reformers.

i. What do you mean by Protestant in your present
use of the word ?

C. A number of distinct doctrines are included in the
notion of Protestantism : and as to all these, our Church
has taken the Via Media between it and Popery. At present
I will use it in the sense most apposite to the topics we
have been discussing ; viz. as the religion of so-called free-
dom and independence, as hating superstition, suspicious
of forms, jealous of priestcraft, advocating heart-worship ;

42 VIA MEDIA. — NO. II.

characteristics, wliicli admit of a good or a bad interpreta-
tion, but which, understood as they are instanced in the
majority of persons who are zealous for what is called
Protestant doctrine, are (I maintain) very inconsistent
with the Liturgy of our Church, Now let us begin with
the Confirmation Service.

L. Will not the Baptismal be more to your purpose ?
In it regeneration is connect 3d with the formal act of
sprinkling a little water on the forehead of an infant.

G. It is true ; but I "would rather show the general
spirit of the Services, than take those obvious instances
which, it seems, you can find out for yourself. Is it not
certain that a modern Protestant, even though he granted
that children were regenerated in Baptism, would, in the
Confirmation Service, have inserted some address to them
about the necessity of spiritual renovation, of becoming
new creatures, &c. ? I do not say such warning has
liot its appropriateness ; nor do I propose to account for
our Churches not giving it; but is it not quite certain
that the present prevailing temper in the Church would
have given it, judging from the prayers and sermons of
the day, and that the Liturgy does not? Were that
former day like this, would it not have been deemed
formal and cold, and to argue a want of spiritual-minded-
ness, to have proposed a declaration, such as has been
actually adopted, that " to the end that Confirmation may
be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive
it . . . none hereafter shall be confirmed, but such as can
say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Command-
ments," &c. ; nothing being said of a change of heart, or
spiritual affections ? And yet, upon this mere external
profession, the children receive the imposition of the
Bishop's hands, " to certify them by this sign, of God's
favour and gracious goodness towards them."

L. From tlie line you are adopting, I see you will find

VIA MEDIA. — NO. II. 43

Services more AntI- Protestant (in the modern sense of
Protestant,) than that for Confirmation.

C. Take, again, the Catechism. What can be more
technical and formal (as the persons T speak of would say,)
than the division of our duties into our duty towards God
and our duty towards our neighbour ? Indeed, would not
the very word dji/y be objected to by them, as obscuring
the evangelical character of Christianity ? Why is there
no mention of newness of heart, of appropriating the
mercies of redemption, and such like phrases, which are
now common among so-called Protestants ? Why no
mention of justifying faith?

L. Faith is mentioned in an earlier part of the Cate-
chism.

G. Yes, and it affords a remarkable contrast to the
modern use of the word. Now-a-days, the prominent
notion conve3'ed by it regards its properties, whether
spiritual or not, warm, heart-felt, vital. But in the Cate-
chism, the prominent notion is that of its object, the
believing " all the Articles of the Christian faith,'' ac-
cording to the Apostle's declaration, that it is, " the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.'"

L. I understand ; and the Creed is also introduced into
the service for Baptism.

0. And still more remarkably into the Order for Visit-
ing the Sick : more remarkably, both because of the
season when it is introduced, when a Christian is drawing
near his end, and also as being a preparation for the Abso-
lution. Most comfortable, truly, in his last hour, is such
a distinct rehearsal of the great truths on which the Chris-
tian has fed by faith with thanksgiving all his life long ;
yet it surely would not have suggested itself to a modern
Protestant. He would rather have instituted some more
searching examination (as he would call it,) of the state

44 VIA MKDIA. — NO. IT.

of the sick man's heart; whereas the whole of the ralnister's
exhortation is wliat the modern school calls cold and
formal. It ends thus : — '* I require you to examine your-
self and 3'our estate, both toward God and man ; so that,
accusing and condemning yourself for your own faults,
you may find mercy at our heavenly Father's hand for
Christ's sake, and not be accused and condemned in that
fearful judgment. Therefore, I shall rehearse to you the
Articles of our Faith, that you may know whether you
believe as a Christian man should, or no."

L. You observe the Rubric which follows : it speaks of
a further examination.

C. True ; still it is what would now be called formal
and external.

L. Yet it mentions a great number of topics for exami-
nation : — " Whether he repent him truly of his sins, and
be in charity with all the world ; exhorting him to forgive,
from the bottom of his heart, all persons that have ofiended
him ; and if he hath offended any other, to ask them for-
giveness ; and wliere he hath done injury or wrong to any
man, that he make amends to the uttermost of his power.
And, if he hath not before disposed of his goods, let him
then be admonished to make his will, and to declare his
debts, what he oweth, and what is owing to him ; for the
better discharging of his conscience, and the quietness of
his executors.'" Here is an exhortation to repentance,
charity, forgiveness of injuries, humbleness of mind,
honesty, and justice. What could be added ?

0. You will be told that worldly and spiritual matters
are mixed together ; and, besides, not a word said of look-
ing to Christ, resting on Him, and renovation of heart.
Such are the expressions which modern Protestantism
would have considered necessary, and would have insetted
as being so. They are good words ; still they are not
those which our Church considers the words for a sick-bed

VIA MEDIA. KO. II. 45

examination. She does not give them the prominence
which is now given them. She adopts a manner of address
which savours of what is now called formality. That our
Church was no stranger to the more solemn kind of lan-
guage, which persons now use on every occasion, is evident
from the prayer *'for a sick person, when there appeareth
small hope of recovery," and " the commendatory prayer ;"
still she adopts the other as her ordinary manner.

L. I can corroborate what you just now observed
about the Creed, by what I lately read in some book or
books, advocating a revision of the Liturgy. It was vehe-
mently objected to the Apostles' Creed, that it contained
no confession of the doctrine of the atonement, nor (I
think) of original sin.

C. It is well to see persons consistent. When they go full
lengths, they startle others, and, perhaps (please God) them-
selves. Indeed, I wish men would stop a while, and seriously
reflect whether the mere verbal opposition which exists
between their own language and the language of the Services
(to say nothing of the difference of spirit), is not a sort of
warning to them, if they would take it, against inconsider-
ately proceeding in their present course. But nothing is
more rare at this day than quiet thought. Everyone is in
a bustle, being bent to do a great deal. We preach, and run
from house to house ; we do not pray or meditate. But to
return. Next, consider the first exhortation to the Com-
munion : would it not bo called, if I said it in discourse of
my own, "dark, cold, and formal ''? "The way and
means thereto [to receive worthily] is, — First, to examine
your lives and conversations by the rule of God's com-

mani.Dwnts, &c Therefore, if any of you be a

blmphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of His word, an
adulterer, or be in malice, or envy, or any other grievous crime,
repent you of your sins," &c. Now this is what is called,
in some quarters, b}' a great abuse of terms, "mere morality."

<1G VIA MEDIA. — NO. II.

L. If I understand you, the Liturgy, all along, speaks
of the Gospel dispensation, under which it is our blessed-
ness to live, as being, at the same time, a moral law ; you
mean that this is its prominent view ; and that external
observances and definite acts of duty are made the means
and the tests of faith.

C. Yes ; and that, in thus speaking, it runs quite
counter to the innovating spirit of this day, which pro-
ceeds rashly forward on large and general views, — sweeps
along, with one or two prominent doctrines, to the com-
parative neglect of the details of duty, and drops articles
of faith and positive laws and ceremonial observances, as
beneath the attention of a spiritual Christian, as monastic
and superstitious, as forms, as minor points, as technical,
lip-worship, narrow-minded, and bigoted. — Next, consider
tlie wording of one part of the Commination Service : —
'* lie was wounded for our offences, and smitten for our
"wickedness. Let us, therefore, return unto Him, who is
the merciful receiver of all true penitent sinners ; assuring
ourselves that He is ready to receive us, and most willing
to pardon us, if we come unto Him with faithful repent-
ance ; if we will submit ourselves unto Him, and from
henceforth walk in His ways ; if we will take His easy
yoke and light burden upon us, to follow Him in lowli-
ness, patience, and charity, and be ordered by the govern-
ance of His Holy Spirit ; seeking alwayn His glory, and
serving Him duly in our vocation with thanksgiving :
T/a's if we do, Christ will deliver us from the curse of the
law," &.C. Did another say this, he would be accused by
the Protestant of this day of interfering with the doctrine
of justification by faith.

L. You have not spoken of the daily service of the
Church or of the Litany.

C. I should have more remarks to make than I like to
trouble you with. First, I should observe on the absenca

A'lA MEDIA.— NO. II. 47

of what are now called, exclusively, the great Protestant
doctrines, or, at least, of the modes of expression in which
it is at present the fashion to convey them. For instance,
the Collects are summaries of doctrine, yet I believe they
do not once mention what has sometimes been called the
" articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesito.^' This proves to
me that, true and important as this doctrine may be in a
controversial statement, its direct mention is not so appo-
site in devotional and practical subjects as modem Pro-
testants of our Church would consider it. Next, consider
the general Confession, which prays simply that God
would grant us " hereafter to live a godly, righteous, and
sober life." Righteous and sober ! alas ! this is the very
sort of words which Protestants consider superficial ;
good, as far as they go, but nothing more. In like
manner, the priest, in the Absolution, bids us pray God
" that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and
holy." But I have given instances enough to explain
my meaning about the Services generally : you can con-
tinue the examination for yourself. I will direct your
notice to but one instance more, — the introduction of the
Psalms into the Daily Service. Do you think a modern
Protestant would have introduced them into it ?

L. They are inspired.

G. Yes, but they are also what is called Jewish. I do
certainly think, I cannot doubt, that had the Liturgy been
compiled in a day like this, only a selection of them, at
most, would have been inserted in it, though they were all
used in the primitive worship from the very first. Do we
not hear objections to using them in singing, and a wish
to substitute hymns ? Is not this a proof what judgment
would have been passed on their introduction into the
Service, by Reformers of the nineteenth century ? First,
the imprecatory Psalms, as they are called, would have
been set aside, of course.

48 VIA MEDIA. — NO. II.

L. Yes; I cannot doubt it; though some of them, at
least, are prophetic, and expressly ascribed in the New
Testament to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

G. And surely numerous other passages would have
been pronounced unsuitable to the spiritual faith of a
Christian. I mean all such as speak of our being rewarded
according to the cleanness of our hands, and of our walk-
ing innocently, and of the Lord's doing well to those that
are good and true of heart. Indeed, this doctrine is so
much the characteristic of that heavenly book, that I
liardly see any part of it could have been retained by
present reformers but what is clearly predictive of the
Messiah.

L. I shall now take my leave, with many thanks, and
will think over what you have said. However, have you
not been labouring superfluously ? "We know all along
that the Puritans of Hook^^r's time did object to the
Prayer Book : there was no need of proving that.

C. I am not speaking of those who would admit they
were Puritans ; but of that arrogant Protestant spirit (so
called) of the day, in and out of the Church (if it is possi-
ble to say what is in and what is out), which thinks it
takes bold and large views, and would fain ride over the
superstitions and formalities which it thinks it sees in
those who (I maintain) hold to the old Cathoh'c faith;
and, as seeing that this spirit is coming on apace, I cry
out betimes, whatever comes of it, that corruptions are
])0uring in, which, sooner or later, will need a second
Reformation.

The Feast of St. Bartholomew,

III.

THE RESTORATION

OB

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS,

A MEANS OF EFFECTING

THE MORE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OP EPISCOPAL DUTIES,
AS CONTEMPLATED BY HIS MAJESTY'S

RECENT ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
1835.

VOL. TI.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The writer of the following remarks thinks it advisable
to state at the outset, with reference to the recent Commis-
sion, that, — without pronouncing how far and in what
cases the formal approval of the Church to the Report of
such a Commission may be dispensed with, agreeably
to ecclesiastical usage, — or how far a ' Commission is of
authority, in which the Lay Members outnumber the
Clerical, — or how far it is expedient or pious to alienate
for the benefit of other places endowments left for the uses
of particular sees or parishes, — he desires to view the
Commission as the expression of the Church's wish for
certain changes in her economy, sanctioned and furthered
by the King, as her supreme governor, at the instance of
the Bishops, his natural ecclesiastical advisers. If the
appointment of it be considered in any sense as an
arbitrary interference of the State with her temporalities,
it would, of course, be inconsistent with Church principles
in any degree to recognize it.

March 12, 1835.

£ 2

THE

RESTORATION OF SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS.

It has been the misfortune of the Established Church
during the last several years, when, in common with our
other institutions, its framework and actual operations have
been freely discussed, that the plans recommended for the
increase of its efficiency have taken the shape of reforms,
and not of restorations of its ancient system. Nothing but
the prevailing ignorance concerning ecclesiastical matters
can adequately account for this mistake. Authors, not
indisposed (to say the least) to the doctrine and discipline
of the Church, have indulged in projects for its better
adaptation to present circumstances, which, from their
novelty and boldness, could only be justified by the absence
of historical precedent and experience. They have not
even taken the pains to ascertain its actual position rela-
tively to the State and to the Nation ; as if it had now, for
the first time, mude its appearance among us, and suddenly
lighted upon our soil, based on no definite principles or
engagements to which regard must necessarily be paid in
all measures of alteration, however beneficial. Or, if they
have seemed to understand the necessity of moving on the
line of former ecclesiastical arrangements, they have not
done more than catch at such acts of the Tudor sovereigns

64 THE RESTORATION OF

as are distinguislied above the rest for tlieir anomalous aud
extraordinary character ; without attempting to enter into
the g-cnius, or accurately to settle the principles, of our
religious institutions. Writers, thus regardless of the
constitutional relation of the past towards the present,
could not be expected to recognize the philosophical bond
which connects one age with another, the correspondence
of certain periods in the recurring cycles of human affairs,
and the instruction thence derivable for our political
conduct. Accordingly, far from feeling reverence for an
institution which has, in one shape or other, existed in the
country for at least 1200 years, they have not allowed it to
avail itself of its antiquity even as a guide, but have con-
sidered it as a mere subject for external interference and
for ingenious experiment.

2.

But, in truth, to such as turn their minds ever so little
to its history and antiquities, it is evident that the Church
is '' like a man that is a householder, which bringeth forth
out of his treasure things new and old." It is no birth of
a day, no creation of a political crisis, no tender and inex-
perienced offspring of kings' courts or domestic retreats.
It has from the first bsen thrown upon the world ; and it
knows the world well in all its artifices and all its wants.
It has a store of weapons for all times and circumstances,
(if it be allowed and keep in memory the use of them,)
a vigorous principle of life, and an inherent self- renovating
power. It has gone through all the periods of human
society ; from the state of luxury and decay, in which it
originally found the world, to the age of revolutions
which followed, thence to the night of barbarism, the
second dawn of science, the growth of political freedom,
and of the commercial spirit, and the ascendency of the
law, down to the present day, when the over-civilization

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 55

of its first period seems to have returned. It grew up
against a military t^-ranny ; it fearlessly threw itself upon
the intelligence, and ruled the lawlessness of great cities ;
it extended itself over the broad country, into mountain
recesseSj and over boisterous seas. It had its persuasives
for the feudal sovereign, as well as for the multitudes
which were its first capture. It has since attached itself,
among ourselves, to limited monarchy, and has been found
to be the best bond and medium of intercourse between
King and People. And all this it has often proved itself
to be, by the mere instinct of its natural character, and
when it was itself partially ignorant of its prev ious history
and its true position. How is it possible that any juncture
of affairs can occur, which it has not already met and
overcome ? Doubtless it is fully adequate to the gracious
purpose for which it was founded, that of coping with
human nature inall its forms ; and has nothing to fear at
the present time but from our ignorance of its resources,
and the panic terrors, and loss of self-command, and
credulous trust in empirics, thence resulting.

The chief problem, for example, before the Church at
present, is how to supplj"- the local wants of an overgrown
and disaffected population ; but this, serious as it is, is no
novel one. No city can threaten religious truth more
fiercely than Constantinople in the fourth and fifth cen-
turies ; a city created for the very purposes of imperial
luxury, hallowed by no local antiquities, the home of no
religious remembrances, the abode (in the historian's words)
of a " lazy and indolent populace," ' the port of commerce,
and (by a fortune unparalleled perhaps in any other city)
the very focus of a speculative misbelief, and of the almost
fanatic party which upheld it. Yet even here Christianity
triumphed ; triumphed so far as to maintain itself in place
an'3 authority for ages, and to be able to extend the light

* Gib'jon, Hiot. cli. xvii.

56 THE RESTORATION OP

of religion to such as would receive it. "What need have
we to do more now, than to master and apply that policy
(to borrow a statesman's word) which enabled the Church
to achieve its early victories ?

These refloctions, admitting of a minute and various
application at the present time, are however only made
here by way of introducing to the reader the particular
measure which is to be the subject in the following pages ;
the restoration, in the larger or more populous dioceses, of
the primitive institution of Suffragans, that is. District
Bishops, as assistants to the Diocesans of each. At the same
time, this instance itself, which is to engage our attention,
will incidentally tend to recommend the important general
principle under which it falls ; viz. that, to improve our
system, we have need, not of innovation, but rather of
such historical knowledge, insight into human nature and
our own national character, statesmanlike sagacity, wisdom,
and sound judgment, as may enable us to develop the
latent powers of the Church into the form most suitable to
arrest and control the existing fashion of the times.

However, it may be necessary to add, that in what has
been, oris to be, said about Antiquity, nothing is assumed
as to its intrinsic authority at the present day. For
though such authority may, in the opinion of many men,
suitably be claimed for it, yet the primitive practice of the
Church is here adduced either as a medium of historical
experience, or in mere illustration of general principles
otherwise established.

Of the three subjects which are to engage the attention
of the Ecclesiastical Commission lately appointed by his

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 67

Majesty, the first includes in it a reference " to the more
equal distribution of episcopal duties," in ^' the several
dioceses of England and Wales/^ Thus, the E-oyal testi-
mony is expressly borne to the existence of an inconve-
nience which has long been felt by all well-wishers of the
Church, the excessive ecclesiastical duties which weigh
upon certain of the sees, and the desirableness of relieving
them, in some way or other, of a portion of them. It is not,
however, generally considered, that another of the heads of
inquiry set before the Commissioners opens a way to the
attainment of this object. The proposed consideration of
" the state of the several cathedral and collegiate churches
within the same " portion of the kingdom, " with a view to
the suggestion of such measures as may render them most
conducive to the eflSciency of the Established Church," may
obviously be made subservient, without any great difficulty,
to the improvement of the diocesan system. And this, indeed,
seems to be contemplated in the Commission itself; for in
projecting " the prevention of the necessity of attaching
by commendam to bishoprics benefices with cure of souls," it
does in fact naturally lead the mind to the consideration
of the deaneries and chapters, as the means through which
an addition of income may be effected, when such bene-
fices are withdrawn. But if the cathedral and collegiate
dignities may be made subservient to diocesan purposes in
this way, why may they not in another? Why should
they not be made the means of relieving the overburdened
sees of a portion of their present duties, as well as of detach-
ing parochial responsibilities from certain others? Why
not employ them in the endowment of a certain number
of suffragan or assistant bishops, to take the charge of dis-
tricts in relief of certain sees ? If the necessity of such an
addition to the present episcopal body can be shown, one
would think there could not be a more appropriate appli-
cation of the chapter dignities (supposing any new appli-

58 I ill: KKSTO RATION OF

cation to be made of any of them), nor one which would
more recommend itself to the laity ; whose solicitude has
hitherto been directed towards the well being of the inferior
clergy, not from any want of personal respect or attach-
ment as regards the Bishops, but because the laborious
exertions of parochial ministers, and the deficiencies in the
parochial system, are more before their eyes. Yet a very
little consideration will teach us, that additional Bishops
are called for in various districts as fully and urgently as
additional clergy ; — called for quite independently of the
coincidence of our possessing places of emolument, which
may be used in the creation of them. It is necessary to
insist upon this ; lest persons, who happen to have made
up their minds to the application of the cha2:)ter dignities
to other purposes, should feel towards the measure I am
recommending, as towards a theory or project which in-
terferes with their own particular plans for strengthening
the Church ; whereas, let them assign these dignities as
they will, still it will be true, that an addition to our
existing Bishops is desirable; in whatever way that addition
is to be provided.

5.

The obvious reason for increasing our number of Bishops
is the increase in the population. In Elizabeth's reign
(1588), the population of England amounted only to
4,400,000; two centuries before (1378), to 2,300,000;*
now it reaches to 13,897,187.' At the present time, the
diocese of Chester contains 1,883,958 souls ; that is, more
than three-fourths of the whole population of England in
the reign of Richard II. London has 1,722,685 ; York,
1,490,538 ; and Lichfield, 1,045,481 ; these three together
being nearly equal to the whole population 250 years
since. But such overwhelming charges speak for them-

3 Hallam, Const. Hist. cb. i. 3 Population Rituins, 1831.

Sl'FFRAGAN BISHOrS. 59

selves, even though there were no contrast in numbers
between the sixteenth century and the nineteenth.

This prim a facie case for an addition is conlirmed by
the fact, that even three centuries ago, and prior to the
increase, such a measure was actually contemplated by
our Reformers. Prior to those local accumulations of
population, which present so distressing a problem to the
Christian philanthropist, and prior to that spirit of un-
belief, and systematized opposition to the vital and ancient
doctrines of religion, which is the perplexity of the
orthodox churchman now, Cranmer, in the first years of his
primacy, projected a considerable extension of the episcopal
office. On the confiscation of the abbey lands (1539), he
advised Henry with the proceeds to endow from fifteen
to twenty new sees, five of which were actually created,
and four now remain.* Another plan for increasing the
efiiciency of the Church, which he succeeded, as far as
Parliament was concerned, in executing to the extent of
his wishes, was the measure to which I shall more directly
call the reader's attention in the sequel, the addition of
Sufi"ragans to the existing sees, to the number of twenty-
six. It appears, then, that finding the whole number
of Bishops twenty-one, he designed to raise it at least to
sixty, that is, nearly to treble it, with a view to meet the
wants of the Church in that day; whereas, five only,
scarcely more than an eighth part of the addition he
contemplated, were created.

Ussher, whose authority in matters of ecclesiastical
discipline has always been popular, went much farther
than Cranmer ; though he had in part a different object
in view in the reformation he proposed. He was desirous

* Westminster did not survive its first bishop. Bingham (Antiq. ix. 8)
says Cranmer proposed " near twenty " sees. Short (Church Hist.) men-
tions, from Strype, a plan for twenty. Burnet (Hist. Reform, iii.) enu-
merates fifteen.

60 THE RESTORATION OF

perhaps of removing from the episcopate some part of that
secular appearance which accidentally attaches to it in
inconsiderate minds, when the sees are few, and richly
endowed ; yet undoubtedly he is a witness, and a most
important one, of the desirableness of what may be called
a resident episcopacy, and of an increase of the number of
Bishops for that purpose. In a plan which he drew up in
1641, when the first committee on Church affairs was
lormed, he pi-o posed that suffragan Bishops should be
appointed equal to the number of rural deans in each
diocese, with a jurisdiction extending over the respective
deaneries. This project, indeed, did not deserve, nor did
it meet with success ; but the testimony which it bears to
the need of increased episcopal superintendence is cor-
roborated by the Declaration put forth by Charles II. in
1660, in which suffragan Bishops are promised to the
larger dioceses, though this intention was never fulfilled.

6.

Such is the evidence of later times ; if, on the other
hand, we recur to the infancy of English Christi^mity, we
find the first founders of our Church equally decisive in
the policy of multiplying its Episcopal centres, and of
doing so gradually. Augustine, the first Archbishop of
Canterbury, had been empowered by Gregory to erect
another metropolitan see at York, on the understanding,
even in that missionary era, that each province was to
contain twelve sees. The subsequent conduct of the
English Bishops, following up this intention by their own
acts, is an independent witness to its wisdom. Dorchester,
the first see of the AVest Saxons, during the rule of its second
bishop, gave birth to Winchester ; which in turn has been
relieved, at a later date, of Exeter, Bath and Wells,
Salisbury, and Bristol. But before this, Lindisfarne, in
the north, had become the mother see of York, and thence.

SUFFllA-GAN BISHOPS. 61

again, of Hexham and Whithern/ By gradual additions
like these the dioceses amounted to seventeen even in the
time of Bede, who expresses his desire of a still further
increase.* Such was the shoot made by the Church after
the Saxon invasion. Far more numerous in point of sees
was the original British Church, which had been intro-
duced from Gaul. At the synod of Brew, held in the
seventh century by reason of the Pelagian troubles, there
are said to have been present as many as 118 British
Bishops ; and this report, even though it be an exaggera-
tion, is an argument, by its very existence, of the preva-
lence of notions concerning Episcopal superintendence
very different from the present.

Again, in Ireland, at one time, there were from fifty to
sixty sees.

The primitive dioceses of southern and eastern Christen-
dom were still more numerous, as is well known. The
Churches in Italy were but rural Deaneries in extent,

* Inett, vol. i. pp. 48. 90, &c.

^ Bede, writing in 735 to Egbert, Bishop of York, " recommends in terms
very passionate and full of concern, the increasing the number of Bishops
and secular clergy, to preach God's holy word in country towns and villages.
For, saith he, there are many villages in the woody and mountainous parts,
which for many years never saw the face of a Bishop, and have none to
instruct them in the common principles of religion or morality, and yet
there is no place but what pays tribute to their Bishop. — But, to perfect
this great work, he tells Egbert, that he thought nothing so likely as to
increase the number of Bishops, and advises that for that end this prelate,
with the advice of Ceolwulf, King of Northumberland, and his council,
should erect several new Bishoprics, and in order thereto, they should take
several of the monasteries, and iu them erect new sees ; and that, by this
means, York, according to the ancient platform of Gregory the Great, might
be erected into a metropolitan see ; and, if need require, he recommends
that they should take the lands belonging to other monasteries. Thus,
saith he, ' those houses of which we all know there are many, unworthy the
name of monasteries, from serving the ends of vanity and luxury, may be
brought to assist and bear a part in the burthen of the Episcopal office.'"
— Inett, vol. i. p. 156.

62 THE RESTORATION OF

being not above five or six miles from each other. The
kingdom of Naples (unless the revolutions of tlie last
thirty j^ears have occasioned any change) contains 147
sees, of which twenty are archbishoprics; and the state of
Asia Minor, Syria, and Africa, was quite conformable to
this model.''

I am far from supposing that we, in our altered circum
stances, must do everything which former times have
done; or that tbe English Church, united as it is to the
State, need be conformed to the usage of the kingdom of
the Two Sicilies ; but I take leave to claim for the first acre
of Christianity, sanctioned as it is by the almost universal
consent of after times, that it had a reason for what it did,
and that there is some natural advantage to the Church
in the multiplication of Bishops, (which may be hindered
indeed, or become a disadvantage, or otherwise attained,
under certain political circumstances, but) which sanctions
and confirms arguments for that multiplication drawn from
other sources.

7.

Such arguments are to be found in the enormous size of
some of our present dioceses, as is partly allowed, partly
implied, in the words of the Royal Commission. Consider-
ing the peculiar nature of the duties of a Christian Pastor,
surely a population rising from 900,000 to 1,800,000 was
never intended to be the charge of one man. I would not
willingly seem to intrude into the concerns of others; but
surely the inferior clergy and the laity are bound in duty,
not indeed to go before, or to act without their Rulers, but
to concur in such sentiments and measures as those Rulers
seem to approve. If, indeed, they wished things to remain
as they are, private men would have no right to speak on
the subject ; but we are sanctioned by the King's Commis-

7 Vide Bingham, Autiq. ix.

8UFFKAGAX BISHOPS. 63

slon to enlarge upon an evil which, I will venture to say,
every thinking man will admit, the over-populousness of
the existing dioceses. Such vast charges must be dis-
tressing even to the most vigorous minds; oppressing them
with a sense of responsibility, if not, rather, engrossing,
dissipating, and exhausting their minds with the mere
formal routine of business. If they are able to sustain
such duties, they are greater than the inspired lawgiver
of Israel, who said, " I am not able to bear all this people
alone, because it is too heavy for me." Nothing is more
necessary to the Rulers of the Church, than that they
should have seasons of leisure. A whirl of business is
always unfavourable to depth and accuracy of religious
views. It is one chief end of the institution of the minis-
terial order itself, that there should be men in the world
who have time to think apart from it, and live above it,
in order to influence those whose duties call them more
directly into the bustle of it.

So much was this felt in early times, that places of
retreat were sometimes assigned to the Bishops at a dis-
tance from their cit\^, whither they were expected to
betake themselves, during certain seasons of the year, for
the purpose of collecting their minds. Doubtless such
leisure may be abused, as everything else ; but so far is
clear, that while leisure may become an evil, an incessant
hurry of successive engagements must be an evil, a serious
evil to the whole Church, hurtful to any one, and more
than personally hurtful, dangerous to the common cause,
in the case of those who are b}^ office guides of conduct,
arbiters in moral questions, patterns of holiness and wisdom,
and not the mere executive of a system which is ordered
by prescribed rules, and can go on without them. And
when it is recollected that, in addition to their ecclesiasti-
cal duties, our Prelates have their place in the councils of
the realm, most beneficially to the nation (which, indeed,

64 THE RESTORATION OF

as a Christian people, is bound to uphold them there), not
to mention the necessity of their meeting together annually
for various ecclesiastical purposes, it must be evident to
every one that they, more than any other order in the
Church, require assistance in their dioceses, during at
least a part of the year ; and that to them especially
applies an appellation, in its right and honourable sense,
which is given by our adversaries with a mixture of pity
and disrespect to others. The Bishops are the true " work-
ing Clergy;" and niost undoubtedly, the moment they
give us a hint of their wishes (which they recently have
done in the Royal Commission), we are absolutely bound,
we cannot without undutifulness omit, to evidence our
interest, and promise our co-operation, in whatever they
shall determine for the better administration of their
dioceses, and meanwhile to assist them by such suggestions
as we have reason to hope may not be unpleasing to
them.

8.

What I have said suggests another view of the subject.
Much is said about the advantages of a resident Clergy,
and these certainly cannot easily be overrated ; but surely
there are as great benefits resulting from a resident
Episcopacy also. I own I cannot enter into the views of
those who, measuring the duties of the Bishop's office by
the number of his Clergy, contend that, because these,
though far more numerous than formerly, have not
increased of late years proportionally to the population,
therefore the country needs no increase of the Episcopal
order ; or who set against the increase of routine business,
the present improvement of the roads, the expeditiousness
of posting, and the promptness and precision of communica-
tions of all sorts. Certainly, if the office and work of a
Bishop lie chiefly in being a referee, or controlling power,

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 65

in matters of business, without present or personal superin-
tendence, without the influence of name and character,
without real jurisdiction, without actual possession and use
of his territory ; then, indeed, a modern writer's assertion
will be true, that all the Bishops of England may be
swept away without the people knowing the change.'* If
he is mainly the functionary of statutes, the administrator
of oaths, an agent in correspondence about the building of
churches, the management of societies, and the " serving
of tables/' important as these objects are, still surely they
would be much better accomplished by putting the Epis-
copate into commission. One general board would manage
the routine ecclesiastical business of the kingdom far more
promptly and uniformly than a number of persons chosen
without special reference to such qualifications. But if a
Bishop is intended to bear with him a moral influence, to
have the custody of the Christian Faith in his own place
and day, and by his life and conversation to impress it in
all its saving fulness of doctrine and precept upon the face
of society, if he is (o be the centre and emblem of Chris-
tian unity, the bond of many minds, and the memento of
Ilim that is unseen, he must live among his people. Let
us not forget that great ecclesiastical principle, which is
as fundamental in Christianity, as in its nature it is the
offspring of a profound philosophy. One Bishop, one
Church, is a maxim so momentous, that, if his presence
can by no expedient be made to extend through it, there
is sufficient reason for dividing it into two. He is in
theory the one pastor of the whole fold ; and though by
name an overseer or superintendent, yet his office lies quite
as much in being seen in his diocese, as in seeing. Human
nature is so constituted as to require such resting-places
for the eyes and hearts of the many. Some minds there
may be of peculiar make, whether of unusual firmness or

' Hallum, Const. Hist. ch. xv.
VOL. II. p

03 THE llESTORATION OF

insensibility, who can dispense with authorities to steady
their opinions, and with objects for the exercise of their
affections ; but such is not the condition of the mass of
mankind. They cry out clamorously for guides and leaders,
and will choose for themselves if not supplied with them.
Here, then, Christianity has met our want in the Episcopal
system, and in extending the influence of that system we
are co-operating with it.

9.

Few persons can have witnessed the coming of one of
our Bishops to consecrate some country church, or to con-
firm in some remote district, without being struck with
the persuasive power of his presence in eliciting from the
rural population a kindly and respectful feeling towards
the Church over which he presides. The hour and circum-
stances of his coming are only one part of the benefit re-
sulting from it. Days and days before the Confirmation,
it is looked forward to as a great event. From the Clergy-
man down to the little child fust come to school, all is
expectation. Catechist and catechumens are all coming
before him who is the representative and delegate of the
Chief Pastor, who one day will visit once for all. Lessons
are learned, admonitionsgiven, with reference to adirectand
immediate religious object. Let it not be objected that the
novelty is the cause of this. Sunday comes once a week, yet
does not, by its frequency, lose its force as a memorial of the
next world. And there is one portion of the community', the
largest, and to the Christian teacher the most interesting,
to whom the presence of the Chief Pastor must be ever
new, — the fresh and fresh generations of children, who
are advancing forward from infancy to 3'outh. It is obvi-
ously most necessary to impress them with dutiful feelings
towards the Church. In the opening of life they are
brought before the Bishop to make their first solemn con-

SUP'FRAGAN BISUOPS» 67

fession, and to receive from his hand the fulness of those
blessings which were made over to them in bxptism.
This, indeed, may be done with a small number of func-
tionaries, by congregating the children who are to be con-
firmed into towns from the villages round. But no one
who knows anything of large assemblies of young persons
but will deprecate a necessity which has so injurious an
effect to say the least on the solemnity of the sacred
ordinance; — no one, I suppose, on the other hand, has
witnessed the decency, the tranquillity, and the sanctity of
those more private Confirmations which our Bishops, at
an expense of personal convenience, are so ready to hold,
but must understand the benefit which would accrue if
such an arrangement could be the custom of the Church ; I
mean, the benefit of imparting to a religious rite those asso-
ciations of home scenery and home faces which will endear
to them in after-life the memory of the Administrators i —
and no one but will confess, that, unless some very giave
difficulties interfere, such familiar meetings between
Pastor and flock are the true means of strengthening the
Establishment with the people at large.

Viewing the matter even in a political light, I should
say to the parties competent to do it, — Increase the num-
ber of our Bishops. Give the people objects on which
their holier and more generous feelings may rest. After
all, in spite of the utilitarianism of the age, we have
hearts. We like to meet with those whom we may admire
and make much of. We like to be thrown out of our-
selves. The low-minded maintenance of rights and pri-
vileges, the selfishness which entrenches itself in its own
castle or counting-house, the coldness of stoicism, and the
sourness of puritanism, are neither the characteristics of
Englishmen^ nor of human nature. Human nature is not
republican. We know what an immediate popularity is
given to the cause of monarchy, when the sovereign shows

F 2

C8 THE UESTORATION OF

himself to his people, and demands their loyalty. And,
in like manner, those who watch narrowly may see all the
purer and nobler feelings of our nature brought out in spec-
tators, in a less enthusiastic, only because in a more reve-
rential way, by the sight of the heads of the Church;
when in proportion to the knowledge and religious temper
of each, that flame of devoted and triumphant afiection is
kindled among them, which has ever led to the highest
and most glorious deeds, which, as it is loyalty in the
subject, is gallant bearing in the soldier, and piety in the
child ; — and, witnessing it, they will understand that this
is the one point in which the Church, as a visible system,
has the advantage of all sects ; that this is, in fact, our
characteristic, our peculiar treasure.

10.

True it is, that the struggle of Christianity mainly lies
with the towns in this day, and not in the country ; but I
conceive that in towns, too, a mass of latent generosity
and affection ateness exists, if we knew how to elicit it.
The question is not, whether the prominent character of a
town population is not evil, whether it is possible to turn
it as a body in favour of the Church, but whether we have
any right to leave to themselves those scattered embers of
a nobler temper, which, over and above their own precious-
ness, would, if concentrated, be a powerful antagonist to
the waywardness and the selfishness of the many. But,
putting aside this part of the subject, surely if the pre-
sence of a Bishop is more persuasive in the country, it
is more necessary in the town. It is scarcely too much
to say, that our great cities require even a missionary
establishment. They require the formal appointment of
an Evangelist, commissioned to enlighten and reclaim
those outskirts of Christendom, which, in the heart of a
Christian country, tread very closely upon heathenism.

SUFFRAGAX BISHOPS. C9

If the vice, the ignorance, the wretchedness there existing
are to be an3-how met, it is not by the labours of a few
parochial Clergymen, however exemplary and self-denying,
occupied (as they are) with the services of their churches,
the management of their vestries, the visitation of their
sick, the administration of alms, and their domestic duties
and cares, but by one of disengaged mind, intent upon
the signs and the exigencies of the times, and vested with
authority to promote co-operation among his fellow-labour-
ers, and to conduct the Christian warfare on a consistent
plan. In such populous neighbourhoods, every denomina-
tion of Christianity is organized for action, except that
which we consider the ti ue form of it ; which, instead of
being able to address itself to the thousands of ignorant
and depraved who are to be found there, with the view
of benefiting them, has to battle for its own existence
against the combination of restless and inveterate enemies.
Or if any organization is to be found there on the part of
the Church, it is of a very ambiguous character ; — some
religious society, for instance, which has been founded
among semi-dissenters, and admits them to membership
and even to rule, which thinks it a great merit to avow
its intention of furthering the interests of the Establish-
ment, or considers it has at once proved its churchman-
ship, if it has succeeded in obtaining the names of some
ecclesiastical dio^nitaries among: its well-wishers and
patrons. Or at beat, a number of zealous and well-
intentioned laymen, very little informed in the principles
of their own communion, have contrived, perhaps, to set
in motion some system of parochial visiting, which, carrying
away by the force of novelty first the Clergy of the place,
whether the latter will or no, and next themselves, and
going apace towards Methodism and Dissent, seems to claim
of the Church the grant of a resident Overseer, free from
the secular business which besets Diocesan, Archdeacon,

rO THE RESTORATION OF

and Incumbent, and able to guide and regulate the
Church's movements.

11,

Such is the state of things at the best ; but it may be
far worse. Perhaps we shall find the Clergy, whom
accident has thrown together in one place, differing from
one another by various shades of opinion (as men always
will differ), and going on to differ in conduct (as men
need not differ), cold and distant towards each other, split
into parties with leaders on both sides ; and all this mainly
for want of a common superior. The most friendly- dis-
posed minds often feel the need of an umpire in matters
of duty, when neither likes to have the responsibility of
abandoning his own view for that of the other, and both
would rejoice to be allowed to defer to a third person. And
if this occur in the case of friends, much more is it true,
when there is a want of familiarity and sympathy between
the parties, a difference of ages, tempers, habits, judg-
ments, or connexions, or some mutual jealousies and sus-
picions j and when the warmth of affectionate allegiance
to a common superior is the only means of drawing out,
kindling, and fusing together discordant minds. In this
state of things, it will perhaps happen that some intrusive
layman, scarcely a member of the Church, self-confident
and ready-ton gued, will become the ordinary arbiter of
all differences, and the virtual ecclesiastical head of the
place; or some adjacent landed influence will exert itself
in acts subversive of that Establishment, towards which at
best it entertains cold, perhaps unfriendly feelings. It is a
question, indeed, whether the present most lamentable
differences of religious opinions among the Clergy would
ever have existed, had we been allowed a larger supply of
ecclesiastical heads. To provide for soundness and unity
of doctrine has been one special object of the Episcopal

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 71

Form from the first. The schools of philosophy were
many and discordant; but the " One Faith," put into the
hands of every Bishop, forthwith becomes the rallying
point and profession of his whole diocese. So necessary
is this, that in Protestant Germany, where the episcopal
order has been suspended since the Heformation, schools of
doctrine are found to arise from time to time (as under
Spener, Neander, and the like), to supply the absence of
authoritative teachers, as if nature witnessed in favour of
Episcopacy ; and this state of things is acquiesced in and
defended by pious men from the evident necessity of the
case, in spite of St. Paul's warning against taking Masters
and setting up one against another. Without such instru-
mentality, both by way of stimulus and instruction,
religious truth will languish ; schools will arise and fall,
and waste themselves in mutual quarrels ; while the enemy
will not fail to turn all such scandals and failures to the
injury of religion itself.

12.

If the control I speak of is ever to be exercised, it
mxist be soon. The evil does not admit of delay. Already
almost, fulfilling the description of the historian, nee vitia
nostra nee remedia pati possumtcs ; our sufferings do but
make us shrink from the treatment necessary for a cure.
Educated in irresponsible freedom of word and action, we
resist any external authority ; so much so, that the view
above given of the episcopal office, perhaps may startle, to
say the least, some persons, who would fain consider them-
selves Churchmen. But are we not, if the truth must be
spoken, tending to this — to learn to dispense with the
episcopal system altogether ? Is not this the upshot (so to
say) of our present ecclesiastical and civil policy ? Could
indeed, as llallam implies, the bulk of the laity, could
a large number of the Clergy, give any answer, satisfactory

72 THE RESTORATION OF

even to themselves, if asked plainly what was the use of
having Bishops ? This is not the place to enter into any
theological discussion concerning it, though some hints on
the subject have been incidentally thrown out in the fore-
going pages. Only let us observe carefully the fact.
Does the popular religionist of the day know the benefit
of them, who enlarges on the "orthodoxy" of certain
Dissenters, who lays a stress on certain sectaries agreeing
with the Church in " doctrine/' who would direct Missions
by means of Boards, and dissuades from dissent on the
mere ground of the Church being the State Religion ? Or
on the other hand, does the popular politician, — who keeps
his eye fixed upon the parochial Clergy, who considers
them the essence of the Establishment, who makes their
residence ' up and down the country (not merely a most
important, but) the'one object of his solicitude, who would
multiply and establish them (which indeed he may most
beneficially do, but) to an undue preponderance and
dangerous influence over the Episcopate, while he so fully
recognizes in them mere instruments and adjuncts of the
State, that it would be but consistent in him, if he could,
to put them once for all under a Minister of Public
Instruction ? Lastly, in spite of the acknowledged influ-
ence of the Bishops within the range of their personal
friends, is there not, if it may be said, a painful and growing
separation of feeling, on the whole, between the Episcopal
Bench and the Clergy ? Is there not going on a gradual
organization of the Clergy into associations and meetings,
which threatens, unless the Bishops become part of it, to
eject their influence, as something foreign to our system ?
If these things be true in any good measure, even though

' [This was a reference to the stress laid, at the time, by some
dL-reD(I«rs of the Establishment in and out of Parliament, on its securing a
"resident gentleman " iu every j-arish.J

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 73

exaggerated, it will follow that there is a tendency in the
age to dispense with Episcopacy. Let us then understand
our position. To those, indeed, who regard the Episcopal
Order as the bulk of Christians for eighteen hundred years
have regarded it, who see in it the pledge and the channel
of the blessings of Christianity, associate it with the various
passages of history with which it is implicated, and con-
sider it as the instrument of numberless civil benefits, the
thought of such a loss gives too piercing a pain to allow of
their enlarging on it. All, however, that I say here is,
let us see where we stand ; let us do what we do wittingly ;
lest, perhaps, we one day rise in the morning, and to our
surprise find our treasure gone.

13.

It follows to inquire, how best the evil, which I have
been dwelling on, may be remedied ; and of three methods
which with that object have found advocates, one, I con-
ceive, has already been set aside by the foregoing remarks
as not meeting the necessities of the case, viz. the proposi-
tion to change the sites of the existing sees, and to remove
them from the less to the more populous districts of the
country. Independently of the objections which lie against
so violent a measure as a new distribution of the ecclesias-
tical territory, it may be said that even the smaller dioceses
are larger than would be desirable, were that territory to be
divided afresh ; that, such as those dioceses are at present,
they are in some sort witnesses and memorials of a better
state of things ; and that, in matter of fact, more Bishops
are wanted, and that to transfer the sees is only to shift
about, not to remove the evil. Nor is such an expedient
consonant with ecclesiastical usage. Here we may take
the authority of Bingham, whose name, on such subjects,
as every one knows, stands very high ; he devotes a por-
tion of his elaborate work on Christian Antiquities, to the

74 THE RESTORATION OP

consideration of the dioceses of the first ages, and his wit-
ness is as follows: — "One great objectioi)/' he says,
" against the present Diocesan Episcopacy, and that which
to many may look the most plausible, is drawn from the
vast extent and greatness of some of the northern dioceses
of the world, which makes it so extremely difficult for
one man to discharge all the offices of the episcopal
function The Church of England has usually fol-
lowed the larger model, and had great and extensive
dioceses ; for at first she had but seven bishoprics in the
whole nation, and those commensurate in a manner to the
seven Saxon kingdoms. Since that time, she has thought
it a point of wisdom to contract her dioceses, and multiply
them into above twenty ; and if she should think fit to add
forty or a hundred more, she would not be without
precedent in the practice of the Primitive Church/^ '

Bingham's leaning then was towards an addition of
dioceses after the primitive model ; and this is a second
suggestion which may be made for the remedy of our
ecclesiastical deficiencies. But, direct and natural as it
is, I shall leave it to be advocated by others. Any sub-
division of dioceses, even though unattended with a sup-
pression of sees elsewhere, must be considered unadvis-able,
for several reasons. For, over and above the legal diffi-
culties which may attach to it, it is an organic change,
and so irretrievable. It is a measure taken without trial,
the abrupt passing into law of what is only an experiment.
Moreover, as multiplying centres of government, it tends
to dissipate the energies of the Church, and admits the
risk of dissension and discordance of operation.

There is a third expedient, the creation of Suffragans,

which is an increase of Bishops without an increase of sees.

This seems to me in all respects the safest as well as

simplest mode of relieving such Diocesans as at present

* BingLam's Antiq. ix. 8, fin.

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS 75

are oppressed by an excess of pastoral duties. To this
system our attentioa shall be directed in what follows.

14.

Suffragans, or district Bishops, Chorepiscopi (as they
were anciently called), are Bishops located in a diocese,
assistant to the see, without jurisdiction of their own, and
ecclesiastically subject in all matters to the Diocesan.
They are altogether his representatives and instruments,
enabling him, as it were, to be in different parts of his
diocese at once, and to continue his pastoral labour unre-
mittingly, as it is called for. Their history is as follows : —

In primitive times the first step towards evangelizing a
heathen country seems to have been to seize upon some
principal city in it, commonly the civil metropolis, as a
centre of operation ; to place a pastor, that is (generally)
a Bishop there, to surround him with a sufficient number
of associates and assistants, and then to wait till, under
the blessing of Providence, this Missionary College was
able to gather around it the scattered children of grace
from the evil world, and to invest itself with the shape and
influence of an organized Church. The converts would,
in the first instance, be those in the immediate vicinity of
the Missionary or Bishop, whose diocese nevertheless
would extend over the heathen country on every side,
either indefinitely, or to the utmost extent of the civil
province ; his mission being without restriction to all to
whom the Christian faith had never been preached. As
he prospered in the increase of his flock, and sent out his
clergy to greater and greater distances from the city, so
would the homestead (so to call it) of his Church enlarge.
Other towns would be brought under his government,
openings would occur for stations in isolated places ; till
at length, " the burden becoming too heavy for him,'' he
would appoint others to supply his place in this or that

76 TUB RESTORATION OF

part of the province. To these he would commit a greater
or lesser share of his spiritual power, as might be necessary ;
sometimes he would make them fully his representatives,
or ordain them Bishops ; at other times he would employ
Presbyters for his purpose. In process of time, it would
seem expedient actually to divide the province into parts ;
and here again the civil arrangement was followed, the
several lesser cities becoming the sees of so many
dioceses, coextensive with the districts of which those
cities were the political centres. Thus at length there
were as many sees as there were cities of the empire, and
all of them in their respective places subordinate to the
Metropolitan as he was called, or Bishop of the civil
metropolis, from whom, always in the theory, often in
fact, they sprang; while at the same time each had an
independent internal jurisdiction of his own. The Bishops
of the subordinate cities included in a province were called
Suffragans to the Metropolitan, because they had the right
of voting with him in the provincial council. In this
sense it is that the Bishops of London, Rochester, "Win-
chester, and the rest are suffragans of the Archbishop of
Canterbury ; but this, though the first and most appro-
priate sense of the word " Suffragan," must not be confused
with that to which I have already appropriated it.

15.

The same process by which the organization of the
province was conducted, was at the same time carried
within the limits of its several dioceses also. According
to the necessities of each (whether from its populousness
or its extent, being mountainous perhaps or desert, with a
scattered people, or but partially Christian), the Bishop
appointed about himself a number of assistant Bishops
and Presbyters, distributing them here and there as he

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 77

judged best.^ These assistant Bishops so far resembled in
position the diocesans of a province, that they were
scattered through a district and connected with a centre ;
but they differed from them in having no independent
jurisdiction and territory of their own. They were not,
like parish priests, fixed to one spot and with rights in it,
but diocesan officials subject altogether to the see to which
they were assistants, as being but the representatives and
delegates of the Bishop holding it. These, then, are the
ecclesiastical functionaries whose restoration I am advo-
cating; Chorepiscopi, or Country-bishops, as they were
anciently called, and in more modern times (though the
reason is scarcely known), Suffragans.

The office of these Chorepiscopi, or district Bishops, was
to preside over the country clergy, inquire into their
behaviour, and report to their principal ; also to provide
fit persons for the inferior administrations of the Church.
They had the power of ordaining the lower ranks of
Clergy, such as the readers and sub-deacons ; they might
ordain priests and deacons, with the leave of the city
Bishop, and administer the right of confirmation ; and,
what was a still greater privilege, they were permitted to
sit and vote in councils. Thus, on the whole, their office
bore a considerable resemblance to that of our Archdeacons
or to the ancient Visitors ; except, of course, that Arch-
deacons are Presbyters, and that they were Bishops, had
the power of ordination and confirmation, and the reverence
due by right to that high spiritual office, whether or not
united to civil dignities.

^ The country-Presbyters in like manner were called iirixdpioi nptcr-
$vTfpoi. Vide Concil. Neocaesar. Can. 13. Dr. Routh's note upon the
thirteenth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, in which he vindicates the
prerogative of ordination to the episcopal order against the presbyterian
objections drawn thence, is but one out of the many benefits which he has
conferred upon apostolical Christianity.

78 THE RESTOUATION OF

These Chorepiscopi or Suflfragan Bishops did not last
into the middle ages. From the time that Christianity
was recognized by the State, there was a growing disposi-
tion on the part of the Bishops principal, to dispense with
a subsidiary order. As their sees grew in wealth and
civil importance, they are said to have become impatient
of a class of ecclesiastics who were their equals in spiritual
dignity, and who hindered them, in some sense, from
enjoying monarchical rule in their respective dioceses.
As early as the middle of the fourth century, a Provincial
Council of Laodicea decreed, that for the future no Bishops
should be provided for the country villages, but only the
Visitors already spoken of; and though this local decision
did not necessarily affect the other parts of Christendom,
yet it was a symptom of what was secretly going on in the
religious temper of those times, and the presage of what
was to follow in succeeding centuries, till in the ninth
the Pope caused a primitive institution to be set aside
altogether.

16.

As to our country, situated at the furthest extremity of
the West, it but slowly received that complete ecclesiastical
organization, which sprang up in Asia almost under the
feet of those who first " preached the good tidings ^^ there.
The early British Church, indeed, may have more nearly
resembled the Eastern dioceses than did the Saxon ; but if
we commence with the time of Augustine (a.u. 596), we
shall find from thence down to these last centuries, a
partial indeed, but a growing wish to conform to the fully
furnished system of Antiquity. Indeed, up to the present
date, when (to mention what is a sign of the times) Rural
Deans have been revived in various dioceses, there has
been a continual effort of the Church, in spite of events
which have from time to time thrown it back, to complete
the development of its polity. The dioceses were originally

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 79

of the larger class, from the circumstance that the sees
were of the nature of Missionary Stations in a heathen soil.
Large as they were, and intended for subdivision by
Gregory, yet they had but insufficient increase, and little
internal organization all through the Saxon period, accord-
ing to the most probable opinion. Arch-presbyters
indeed, or Rural Deans, there were, and Archdeacons ;
but to these the Bishops delegated no large jurisdiction,
employing them occasionally according to circumstances.
An improvement was made upon this imperfect state of
things at the Conquest, by the accident of civil changes.
William separated the ecclesiastical from the secular
Courts, and this in the event threw upon the Bishops a
multiplicity of business, in which hitherto they had had
no concern.^ Their time being no longer free for the
service of their dioceses, some new arrangement became
necessary in the ecclesiastical system, in order to supply
the consequent deficiency in pastoral superintendence.
Lanfranc was the first to divide his diocese into Arch-
deaconries and Deaneries, and was followed by Thomas
of York and Remigius of Lincoln, the latter of whom
created in his own as many as seven fixed Archdeaconries.''
The like improvement followed in other dioceses, in conse-
quence of the decree of a council held at Winchester.
Even these means were not sufficient to relieve the Bishops,
especially since, holding baronies under the feudal tenure,
they were often called upon for personal service as vassals
of the Crown. This led to the introduction of Yicarii or
Coadjutors, as they still exist in the Roman communion;
Bishops, that is, who, without having a fixed position in the
dioceses, were substitutes for the Bishops in possession, and
relieved them of those duties for which secular engage-
ments or other reasons incapacitated them. These too are
called Suffragans, though not Chorepiscopi. Sometimes
* Vide Inett, vol. ii. pp. 63—65.

80 THE RESTORATION OF

they were agents of more than one Diocesan at once ; an(l
they evaded the ecclesiastical irregularity of being bishops
at large, i.e. without local station in the Church, by being
made (what is familiarly called) Bishops in partibus, i e.
in partibus injidelium, according to a well-known arrange-
ment in the Roman Catholic Church, which making it a
rule not to recede from territory which once has been
Christian, keeps up the complement of Bishops in those
countries which have relapsed into heathenism, and em-
ploys them for various purposes in other parts of the
Catholic world. Such were the Suffragan Bishops of the
middle ages. For instance, we read of one Petrus Corba-
riensis or Corabiensis (whatever foreign see is thus denoted)
in 1332, suffragan or coadjutor of several sees in the
province of Canterbury ; in 1531, of a Bishop of Sidon,
and again of a Bishop of Hippo assisting Cranmer in the
administration of his diocese.*

17.

This system of Coadjutors, though advantageous in
itself and of ancient authority, evidently became an abuse,
and destroyed the object of its own institution, if ever one
man was allowed to serve at once several Churches. Ac-
cordingly, at the Reformation, Cranmer (as I have already
incidentally noticed) obtained from Henry VIII. the resto-
ration of the primitive system of the Chorepiscopi, under
the received name of Suffragans, by an Act of Parlia-
ment passed in the twenty-sixth year of his reign, which
is still in force ; with this only difference between them
and their predecessors in early times (if there really was
even this), that, though still district Bishops, they were
fixed in towns, not in villages, as the necessities of the
case plainly required. London, Winchester, Bath and

« Collier, Keel. Hist. vol. i. p. 531. Vide also Strype's Memorial* of
Cranmer, i. 9, aud WLartoa's Observations.

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 81

Wells, Salisbury, Lincoln and York, were amonf^ the sees
thus assisted. " These " [Suffragans] , says Burnet, " were
believed to be the same with the Chorepiscopi in the primi-
tive Church; which, as they were begun before the fits';
Council of Nice, so they continued in the Western Church
till the ninth century, and then, a decretal of Damasus
being forged that condemned them, they were put down
everywhere by degrees, and now revived in England.
The suffragan sees were as follows : Thetford, Ipswich,
Colchester, Dover, Guildford, Southampton, Taunton,
Shaftesbury, Molton, Marlborough, Bedford, Leicester,
Gloucester, Shrewsbury, Bristol, Penrith, Bridgewater,
Nottingham, Grantham, Hull, Huntingdon, Cambridge,
Pereth [sic], Berwick, St. Germain's, and the Isle of
Wight ;^ twenty-six in all, the Diocesan in each case
having the power of nominating two persons, out of whom
the King chose, the Archbishop consecrating. No temporal
provision is made for them by the Act, which instead supposes
them to be beneficed, and extends to them a licence of non-
residence,and '* for thebettermaintenanceof theirdignity,''
the privilege of ''holding two benefices with cure." It
would seem also that the revenues of the see were expected
to be made in some measure subservient to this purpose ;
for the Act provides that they shall not " take any profits
of the places or sees whereof they shall be named . . . but
only such profits ... as shall be licensed and limited to
them,'' &c. Sometimes, as we learn from the subsequent
history, they were preferred to dignities in. the chapter
attached to the see.

* Burnet, Hist. Refbrin. iii. The Bishop's form of pi-esenting nominees
to the King, and his letters of Commission to them, are given in Strype's
Cranmer, Appendix, Nos. xxi. xxii. The Suffragans were not obliged, by
the Act of 26 Henry, to take their title from a town in the diocese where
they served. In 1537, Bird, Suffragan of Penrith, was located in Lhmdaff,
and Thomas, Suffragan of Shrewsbury, in St. Asaph. Wharton, on Strype,
says this arrangement was afterwards altered.

VOL. II. o

82 THE KBSTORATION OF

^ 18.

Little is known about the history of this experiment,
made under very different political circumstances from the
present ; but it came to an end in the reign of James the
First, Dr. Routh enumerates asmany as ten who exercised
the office in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth.*
The only plausible objection to which the institution was
exposed, lay in the apprehension that in troubled times
they might be made the agents of schism atical proceedings
against the Church. But it is obvious that oaths might
easily be imposed, restraining them, according to the inten-
tion of the office, as fully as Archdeacons, from all in-
dependent power and jurisdiction in the Church.^ As
easy would it be to preserve so marked a separation
between them and the possession of the civil dignities of
the see, as would prevent their ever being looked upon as
diocesans elect in their respective neighbourhoods. It only
remains to add, what I have above had occasion to mention,
that Charles the Second, in his Declaration concerning

• Reliqu. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 439.

7 Burnet, iu his life of Bishop Bedell, p. 2 (ed. 1685), thinks it probable
that Suffragans were discontinued in consequence of their interfering iu
some instances with the jurisuiction of the Sees. " He was put in Holy
Orders (1590—1600) by the Bishop Suffragan of Colchester, Till I met
with this passage, I did not think these Suffragans had been continued so
long ill England. How they came to be put down, I do not know ; it is
pr ibable tliey did ordain all that desired Orders so promiscuously, that the
liishops found it necessary to let them fall. For complaints were made of
tliis .Suffragan, upon which he was threatened with the taking his Commis-
Kiou from liim ; for though they could do nothing hut by a delegation from
the Bishop, yet the orders they gave were still valid, even when they trans-
gressed in conierring them," &c. In the Act of 26 Henry VIII., no provi-
sion is made for imposing on them oaths of obedience to their respective
sees; without which, irregularities of course might be expected. The
Non-juring Bishops appointed Suffragans (of Thetford and Ipswich, vid.
Keitlewell's Life, p. 134), but only by way of keeping up their Succession
without interfering with the diocesans in possession.

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 83

Ecclesiastical affairs, upon his restoration, promised their
re-establishment, " because the dioceses, especially some of
them, are thought to be of too large extent \" but for some
reason or other the intention was not executed. It may
be added that, for the towns mentioned in the Act of
26 Henry VIII., they might now be appointed by the com-
petent authority without going anew to ParKament.

19.

In thus setting before the reader the past history of
Suffragans, and the ground on which a restoration of this
primitive oflBce seems to be desirable at the present time, I
must be considered to have gone almost to the limits of
that liberty which is allowable in ecclesiastics in private
station. To notice the particular sees which might be
thus strengthened, — or any specific plan by which the
additional provision might be made, — in what cases Arch-
deacons, or Chancellors, should be chosen, — in what cases
Canons or Prebendaries, as exempt from the semi-civil
engagements which press upon Archdeacons,^ — whether
certain chapter dignities should be annexed to the see
providing Suffragans, or immediately to the Suffragans
themselves, — requires a practical acquaintance with our
ecclesiastical state, and a knowledge of details, which those
only possess upon whom the decision depends. However,
if, according to the popular rumour, no difficulty is to be
found, not only in annexing stalls to town livings, but even
in reconstructing dioceses, surely no very delicate process
will be involved in such arrangements as would be required
by the measure here recommended ; and under this feeling
it was suggested in the opening of these remarks, that the
Royal Commission, in contemplating changes in the appli-

* U. Biirnes, Chancellor of York, was in 1566 consecrated Suffragan of
Nottingham. R. Rogers, Prebendary of Canterbury, was in 1569 conse-
crated SufFiiigan of Dover. Strype's Life of Parker, iii. 15.

G 2

84 THE RESTORATION OF

cation of chapter dignities, did itself open a way to the
restoration of the Suffragan system.

Without interfering, then, with questions of detail,
which, unless they involved some objection to the measure
itself, lie beyond the province of these remarks, a brief
reference shall be made in conclusion to the serious political
reasons which exist for strengthening the Church beyond
the mere temporary repairs and expedients of the day. I say
political reasons, for we all know, that, over and above its
sacred character, which ever must be paramount in our
thoughts, the Church is a special political blessing. It is
confessedly a powerful instrument of state, a minister of
untold temporal good to our population, and one of the
chief bulwarks of the Monarchy. No institution can be
imagined so full of benefit to the poorer classes, nor of such
prevailing influence on the side of loyalty and civil order.
It is a standing army, insuring the obedience of the people
to the Laws by the weapons of persuasion ; by services
secretly administered to individuals one by one in the most
trying seasons of life, when the spirit is most depressed,
the heart most open, and gratitude most ready to take root
there. And as evident is its growing importance at this
era in our history, when Democracy is let loose upon us.
Either the Church is to be the providential instrument of
re-adjusting Society, or none at all is vouchsafed to us.
The Church alone is able to do, what it has often done
before, — to wrestle with lawless minds, and bring them
under. The Church alone can encourage and confirm the
better feelings of our peasantry, conciliate the middle
classes, and check the rabble of the towns. The only
question, debated on all hands, is, how it may be best made
subservient to these purposes ; and here it is that there is
a want of large and clear-sighted views in a number of
excellent men, sincerely attached both to its interests and
to those of the Monarchy.

SUFFRAGAX BISHOFS. ' 85

20.

I would suggest, then, that, if the Crown wishes, at this
perilous juncture, to strengthen the Church for the Crown's
advantage, it must not limit itself to improvements in the
mere working of the system ; it must relax in some degree
those restraints which press upon the constitution of the
Church as an Establishment. At present, though more
exactly organized than any other branch of our Institu-
tions, possessed of various powers and privileges, and
capable in its own nature of the most vigorous and effective
action, the Church has virtually little political indepen-
dence, and is scarcely more than an instrument, nay, in
many of its functions, almost a mere department of the
Government. That, in spite of this, it really has a will of
its own, and exerts an elevated moral influence, no one can
doubt ; but the opportunity of its doing so, is owing to
the mere liberality of the State hitherto, which has not
kept so firm a hold of it as it might have done. Though
exposed, it is not yet subj ected to State tyranny ; and there
would be no reason why it should not continue in its present
circumstances, had not grave changes lately taken place in
our civil constitution. It is as clear as it is deplorable, that,
in consequence of these, the enemies of the Crown maybe its
professed servants, and use its ecclesiastical influence and
patronage against it. Were the Church in the King's own
hand, we might rest content ; assured that he, for religion
sake, to say nothing of inferior motives, would treat his
truest and most loyal servant with due honour. But the
balance of the Constitution having been disturbed, the state
of things on one side of the Throne being new, and that on
the other old, the Democracy may any day step in between
the King and the Church, and turn the influence of the
latter against himself. Should indeed so miserable an
event take place, and the Crown's high and varied Church

86 THE RESTORATION OF

patronage come into the hands of a deliberately and sys-
tematically irreligious party, it will be for the Church to
consider what becomes it upon the emergenc}', and surely
the providence of God will raise up instruments of our
deliverance in that day of rebuke, as He has done of old
time. This is altogether another matter ; but are members
of the Church, are friends of the Monarchy, justified in
risking a crisis, in which the Church, prevented from her
customary loyal service, will have no duty remaining but
to save herself ?

21.

This consideration, if there were no other, would suffice
to show, that something more is requisite at this moment
than a bare improvement of the working of the Church
s/stem. The late civil changes involve the necessity of
ecclesiastical ; the more simple, silent, and gradual, the
better, still changes such as will secure the foundation as well
as the superstructure of the Church, and guarantee her
immunity from the attempts of any profligate faction which
may force its way into power. The same State interests
which, at some former eras of our history, called for her
entire subjection, surely now suggest her partial emanci-
pation. There have been times, we know, when the Civil
Power, consulting for its own independence, could do
nothing else but fetter down the Church. When she was
entangled in an alliance with Rome, the instinct of self-
preservation dictated those memorable acts, on the part of
the State, violent, yet intelligible in their policy, which
broke her spirit. Again, when she took part with an un-
fortunate family, nothing remained to the new Governors
of the Nation, but to deprive her Bishops, silence her Con-
vocation, and bestow her emoluments on the partisans of
the Revolution. Those distressing times have passed
away. We are no longer exposed to the perplexities of a

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 87

divided allegiance, whether on spiritual or civil grounds.
The Episcopal form, ever repressive of democratic ten-
dencies, is at present in the hands of an emphatically loyal
Church. Loyalty, indeed, has been her badge since King
Charles's days ; and the constancy with which she once
clung to his descendants, is at this day an evidence of her
prospective fidelity to the present reigning family. What-
ever portion of independence was bestowed on her now,
would all be exercised one way. Putting duty out of the
question, she has ten thousand motives for a jealous main-
tenance of the prerogatives of the Crown. If then it is the
policy of the latter to create for itself friends, especially in
the present peculiar circumstances of the Succession, let
not its counsellors be so insensible to its interests, as to
overlook the ready-formed servant and champion which
stands beside it ; which, restored to a substantive form,
would afibrd it an efiective protection, but which, as a mere
dependent, will but become a weapon in hostile hands.
And, if they see the expedience of cutting her bonds, let
them do so while they can.

22.

It should be observed, moreover, that the same act of grace
which would secure the Church against the practices of the
Democracy, would also give her popular consideration. One
chief part of political power confessedly consists in the dis-
play of power. The multitude of men have no opinions, and
join the side which seems strongest. While the Church
acts through indirect and concealed channels, she will have
little influence upon public opinion. A score of Anarchists
assembled at a tavern will make a greater impression on the
social fabric than she. On the other hand, in proportion as
hermoral power is concentrated, and broughtout in particu-
lar persons or appointments, will it inspire courage into its
friends, or gain over those who else would fall away to the

88 THE RESTORATION OF

other side. If any one eays that a modest and retiring influ-
ence is the peculiar ornament of the Church,! answer that it
is her privilege in peaceful, not her duty in stirring times.
Here is one secret of the success of Dissent. Men do not like
to attach themselves to an impalpable system, to a quality,
rather than an embodied form of religion. But such the
Established Church ever must be, while possessed of no
inherent liberty of action, no judicial or legislative powers,
no ample provision of rulers and functionaries, — in a word,
till she is seen in some sufficient sense to be one.

23.

I am far from imagining that great changes could be
made at once, or that the Clergy, long accustomed to their
present position, could be persuaded, without reluctance,
to undertake their own concerns, or could at once duly
fulfil such a task ; or that it would be ever advisable to leave
them altogether to themselves, or that power should be put
into the hands of the Clergy to the exclusion of the Laity.
Or, to take particular cases, I could not desire at this
moment to see the Convocation possessed of the privilege
of free discussion on Church matters; the probability being,
that from the long suspension of such liberty, the present
exorbitant influence of thepre8byterate,and other causes too
painful to mention, scandalous dissensions, perhaps a schism,
would be the result. Much less would any alteration be
endurable, which tended to give to the Laity the election
of their Ministers ; a measure utterly destructive of the
Church, in the present vagueness of the qualification of
Church membership. But there are improvements upon
our existing condition which might fairly be begun at
once ; some of which, being mentioned in the King's
Speech, afford a pleasing anticipation that Government is
not insensible to the considerations here ventured on.

SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS. 89

Such, for instance, is the intention of strengthening the
discipline of the Church in the case of unworthy Ministers;
who are at present sheltered, if Incumbents, by the
Law's extreme jealousy of the rights of property. Such
again will be our riddance of the necessity of marrying
Dissenters; and thereby of degrading a high Christian
ordinance into a civil ceremony. Such again, to proceed
by way of illustration, would be the protection of the
Clergy from all liability of legal annoyance for refusing
the Lord's Supper to scandalous persons. Such, more-
over, would be the restoration to the Church of some
means of expressing an opinion on the theology of the
day ; which, though a delicate function, is urgently
called for, now that the State has seemingly abandoned
the office of conducting religious prosecutions, and when
individuals are in various ways usurping a power not exer-
cised by the rightful authority. Such, again, would be the
repeal of the Statute of Praemunire, which, though plainly
barbarous and obsolete, yet, as far as it is known, degrades
the Church in the eyes of the Nation, by seeming to
intimidate her in the exercise of her most solemn and
acknowledged prerogatives. liastly, such, in its degree, is
the measure, which it has been the object of these pages to
advocate ; the appointment of Suffragans being a visible
display and concentration of ecclesiastical power, and the
substitution of the definiteness and persuasiveness of per-
sonal agency for the blind movements of a system.

24.

I must not conclude without briefly expressing my
earnest hope, that nothing here said may be understood to
recommend any perversion of the Church to mere political
purposes. Her highest and true office is doubtless far
above any secular object; yet He who has " ordained the

90 THE RESTOUATION OF SUFFRAGAN BISHOPS.

powers that be/' as well as the Church, has also ordained
that the Church, when in most honourable place and most
healthy action, should be able to minister such momen-
tous service to the Civil Magistrate, as constitutes an
immediate recompense of his piety towards her.'

* [Whatever is exact and important in the facts brought togetlier in this
Pamphlet was supplied to the Author by the friendly aid of the Ven. B.
Harrison, the present Archdeacon of Maidstone.^]

APPENDIX.

POPULATION AND BENEFICES OF THE SEPAEATE
DIOCESES.

{From the Returns ©/"ISSl.)

Population.

Benefices.

Chester . . .

. 1,883,958

616

London . . .

. . 1,722,685

577

York ....

. 1,496,538

828

Lichfield . . .

. 1,045,481

623

Lincoln . . .

. 899,468

1,273

Exeter . . .

. 795,416

607

Winchester . .

. 729,607

389

Norwich . . .

. 690,138

1,076

Durham . . .

. 469,933

175

Canterbury . .

. 406,272

343

Bath and Wells

. 403,795

440

Salisbury . . .

. 384,683

408

St. David's . .

. 358,451

451

Gloucester . . ,

. 315,612

283

Worcester . .

. 271,687

222

Chichester . .

. 254,460

266

Bristol . . . .

. 232,026

255

Hereford . . .

. 206,327

326

Peterborough .

. 194,339

306

Rochester . .

. 191,875

93

St. Asaph . .

. 191,166

160

Llandaff . . .

. 181,244

194

Bangor . . .

. 163,712

131

Oxford . . .

. 140,700

208

Carlisle . . .

. 135,002

128

Ely

. 133,722

166

92

APPENDIX.

COLLEGIATE CHAPTERS.

1. Brecon . . .

2. St. Katherine's

3. Manchester

4. Ripon . .
6. Southwell .

6. Westminster

7. Windsor

Dean and Prebendaries.

Master and Brethren.

Warden and Fellows.

Dean and Prebendaries.

Prebendaries.

Dean and Prebendaries.

Dean and Canons.

8. Wolverhampton . . Prebendaries.

SEVENTEEN DIOCESES IN BEDE'S TIME (a.d. 731).

Kent 1. Canterbury.

2. Rochester.
East Saxons .... 3. London.
East Angles .... 4. Dumnock.

5. Helmer.
West Saxons .... 6. Winchester.

7. Sherburn.
Mercia 8. Lichfield.

9. Leicester.

10. Lindsey.

11. Worcester.

12. Hereford.
South Saxon . . . .13. Selsey.
Northumberland . . .14. York.

16. Lindisfarne.

16. Hexham.

17. Whithem.

IV.

ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTING THE
CONTROVERSY WITH ROME.

(Being No. 71 of Tracts for the Times.)
1836.

ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTING THE
CONTROVERSY WITH ROME.

The controversy with Roman Catholics has overtaken us
" like a summer's cloud.'^ We find ourselves in various
parts of the country preparing for it^ yet, when we look
back, we cannot trace the steps by which we arrived at our
present position. We do not recollect what our feelings
were this time last year on the subject, — what was the
state of our apprehensions and anticipations. All we know
is, that here we are, from long security, ignorant why we
are not Roman Catholics, and they, on the other hand, are
said to be spreading and strengthening on all sides of us,
vaunting of their success, real or apparent, and tavmting
us with our inability to argue with them.

The Gospel of Christ is not a matter of mere argument :
it does not follow that we are wrong, and they are right,
because we cannot defend ourselves. But we cannot claim
to direct the faith of others, we cannot check the progress
of what we account error, we cannot be secure (humanly
speaking) against the weakness of our own hearts some
future day, unless we have learned to analyze and to state
formally our own reasons for believing what we do believe,
and thus have fixed our creed in our memories and our
judgments. This is the especial duty of Christian Minis-
ters, who, as St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, must be
ready to dispute, whether with Jews or Greeks. That we
are at present very ill practised in this branch of our duty

96 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTINO

(a point it is scarcely necessary to prove), is owing in a
very great measure to the protection and favour which has
long been extended to the English clergy by the State.
Statesmen have felt that it was their interest to maintain
a Church, which absorbing into itself a great portion of
the religious feeling of the country, sobers and chastens
what it has so attracted, and suppresses by its weight the
intractable elements which it cannot persuade ; and, while
preventing the political mischiefs resulting whether from
fanaticism or self-will, is altogether free from those formid-
able qualities which distinguish the ecclesiastical genius of
Rome. Thus the clergy have been in that peaceful con-
dition in which the presence of' the civil magistrate super-
sedes the necessity of the struggle for life and ascendency;
and amid their privileges it is not wonderful that they
should have grown secure, and have neglected to inform
themselves on subjects on which they were not called to
dispute. It must be added, too, that a feeling of the un-
tenable nature of the Roman faith, a contempt for the
arguments used in its support, and a notion that it could
never prevail in an educated country, have not a little
contributed to expose us to our present surprise.

In saying all this, the writer does not forget that there
is still scattered about the Church much learning upon the
subject of Romanism, and much intelligent opposition to
it ; nor, on the other hand, does the present undertaking,
of which this Tract is the comraencamcnt, pretend to be
more than an attempt towards a suitable consideration
of it on the part of persons who feel in themselves, and
see in others, a deficiency of information.

It will be the object, then, of these Tracts, should it be
allowed the editor to fulfil his present intention, to con-
sider variousl}', the one question, with which we are
likely to be attacked — why, in mutter of fact, we remain
separate from Rome. Some general remarks on the line

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 97

of argument hence resulting^ will be the subject of this
paper.

2.

Our position is this. "We are seated at our own posts,
engaged in our own work, secular or religious, interfering
with no one, and anticipating no harm, when we hear of
the encroachments of Romanism around us. We can but
honour all good Roman Catholics for such aggression ; it
marks their earnestness, their confidence in their own
cause, and their charity towards those whom they consider
in error. We need not be bitter against them ; modera-
tion, and candour, are virtues under all circumstances.
Yet, for all that, we may resist them manfully, when they
assail us. This then, I say, is our position, a defensive
one ; we are assailed, and we defend ourselves and our
flocks. Thei'e is no plea for calling on us in England to
do more than this, — to defend ourselves. We are under
no constraint to go out of our way spontaneously to prove
charges against our opponents ; but when asked about our
faith, we give a reason why we are this way of tliinking,
and not that. This makes our task in the controversy
incomparably easier, than if we were forced to exhib.t an
offensive front, or volunteer articles of impeachment against
the rival communion. " Let every man abide in the same
calling wherein he was called,^' is St. Paul's direction.
We find ourselves under the Anglican reghnen ; let every
one of us, cleric and layman, remain in it, till our opponents
have shown cause why we should change, till we have
reason to suspect we are wrong. The onus prohandi plainly
lies with them. This, I say, simplifies our argument, as
allowing us to content ourselves with less of controversy
than otherwise would be incumbent on us. We have the
strength of possession and prescription. We are not
obliged to prove them incurably corrupt and heretical ; no,
nor our own system unexceptionable. It is in our power,

VOL. II. H

9s ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTIXG

if we will, to take very low ground ; it is quite enough to
ascertain that reasons cannot be brought why we should
go over from our side to theirs.

But besides this, there are the Apostle's injunctions
against disorder. Did we go over to the Roman Catholics,
we should be fomenting divisions among ourselves, wliich
would be a /)r/w?(l/ac/e case against us. Of course there
are cases where division is justifiable. Did we believe, for
instance, the English Church to be absolutely heretical,
and Romanism to be pure and Catholic, it would be a duty,
as the lesser evil, to take part in a division which truth
demanded. But otherwise it would be a sin. Those dis-
senters who consider union with the State to be apostasy, or
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration a heresy, are wrong,
not in that they separate from us, but in that they so think
of baptismal regeneration or of religious establishments.

And further, a debt of gratitude to that particular branch
of the Church Catholic through which God made us
Christians, through which we were new born, instructed,
and (if so be) ordained to the ministerial office ; a debt of
reverence and affection towards the saints of that Church ;
the tie of that invisible communion with the dead us well
as the living, into which the Sacraments introduce us ; the
memory of our great teachers, champions, and confessors,
now in Paradise, especially of those of the seventeenth
century, — Hammond's name alone, were there no other, or
Hooker's, or Ken's, — bind us to the English Church, by
cords of love, except something very serious can be proved
against it. But this surely is impossible. The only con-
ceivable causes for leaving its communion are, I suppose,
the two following ; first, that it is involved in some
damnable heresj' ; or secondly, that it is not in possession
of the sacraments : and so far we join issue with the
Romanist, for these are among the chief points which he
attempts to prove against us.

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 99

However, plain and satisfactory as h this account of our
position, it is not sufficient, for various reasons, to meet the
need of the multitude of men. The really pious and sober
among our flocks will be contented with it. They will
uaturally express their suspicion and dislike of any doctrine
new to them, and it will require some considerable body of
proof to convince them that they ought even to open their
ears to it. But it must be recollected, that there is a mass
of persons, easily caught by novelty, who will be too
impetuous to be restrained by Such advice as has been
suggested. Curiosity and feverishness of mind do not wait
to decide on which side of a dispute the onus prohandi lies.
The same feelings which carry men now to dissent, will
carry them to Romanism ; novelty being an essential
stimulant of popular devotion, and the Roman system, to
say nothing of the intrinsic majesty and truth which
remain in it amid its corruptions, abounding in this and
other stimulants of a most potent and effective character.
And further, there will ever be a number of refined and
affectionate minds, who, disappointed in finding full matter
for their devotional feelings in the English system, as at
present conducted, betake themselves, through hiuman
frailty, to Rome. Besides, ex parte statements may easily
suggest scruples even to the more sensible and sober
})ortion of the community ; and though they will not at all
be moved ultimately from the principle above laid down,
viz. not to change unless clear reason for change is assigned,
yet they may fairly demand of their teachers and guides
what they have to say in answer to these statements, which
do seem to justify a change, not indeed at once, but in the
event of their not being refuted.

Thus then we stand as regards Romanism. Strictly
speaking, and in the eyes of soberly religious men, it

K 2

100 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTINO

ought not to be embraced^ even could it be made appear
in some points superior to (what is now practically) the
Anglican system ; St. Paul even advising a slave to
remain a slave, though he had the option of liberty. If
all men were rational, little indeed would be necessary in
the way of argument, only so much as would be enough
to set right the misconceptions which might arise on the
subject in dispute. But the state of things being other-
wise, we must consult for men as they are ; and in order
to meet their necessities, we are obliged to take a more
energetic and striking line in the controversy than can in
strict logic be required of us, to defend ourselves by an
offensive warfare, and to expose our opponents' argument
with a view of recommending our own.

This being the state of the case, the arguments to be
urged against our Roman opponents ought to be taken
from such parts of the general controversy as bear most
upon practice, and at the same time kept clear of what is
more especially sacred, and painful to dispute about. Their
assault on us will turn (it is to be presumed) on strictly
practical considerations. They will admit that the English
Church approaches in many points very near to themselves,
and for that very reason was wrong in separating from
them ; — that it is in danger as being schismatical, even
if not heretical : — that our Lord commanded and pre-
dicted that His Church should be one ; therefore, that the
Roman and the Anglican communions cannot both be His
Church, but that one must be external to it; — that the
question to be considered by us is, what our chance is of
being the true Church ; and, in consequence, of possessing
the sacraments : — that we confess Rome to bo a branch of
Christ's Church, and admit her orders, but that Rome does
not acknowledge us ; hence that it is safer for us to imite

THE COXTROVKKSY WITH ROME, 101

to Rome : — that we are, in matter of fact, cut off from the
great body of the Church Catholic, and stand by our-
selves : — that we suffer all manner of schism and heresy to
exist, and to propagate itself among us, which it is incon-
ceivable that the true Church, guided by the Holy Spirit,
should ever do : — that this circumstance, if there were no
other, being a patent fact, involves a primd facie case
against us, for the consideration of those who are not
competent to decide in the matter of doctrine : — that if
our creed were true, God would prosper us in maintaining
it, according to the promise : — moreover, were there no
other reason, that our foims of a Iministering the sacra-
ments are not such as to make us sure that we receive
Goi)\s grace in them.

These and the like arguments, we may suppose, will be
urged upon the attention of our members, being not of a
technical and scholastic, but of a powerful practical
character ; and such must be ours to oppose them. Much
might be said on this part of the subject. There are a
number of arguments which are scarcely more than
ingenious exhibitions, such as would be admired in any
ga?ne where skill is everything, but which as arguments
tell only with those of our own side, while an adversary
thinks them unfair. Their use is not here denied in matter
of fact, viz. in confirming those in an opinion, who already
hold it, and wish reasons for it. When a man is (rightly
or wrongly) of one particular way of thinking, he needs,
and (it may be added) allowably needs, very little argument
to support him in it to himself. Still it is right that that
argument should be substantially sound ; substantially,
because for many reasons, certain accidental peculiarities
in the form of it may be necessary for the peculiarities of his
mind, which has been accustomed to move in some one line
and not in another. If the argument is radically unreal,
or (what may be called) rhetorical or sophistical, it may

102 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTIXG

serve the purpose of encouraging those who are already
convinced, though scarcely without doing mischief to them,
but certainly it will ofFend and alienate tlie more acute
and sensible ; while those who arc in doubt, and who desire
some real and intelligible ground for their faith, will not
bear to be put off with such shadows.

Thus, for instance, to meet the charge of scepticism,
brought against us by Roman Catholics, because we do
not believe this or that portion of their doctrine, an
argument has been sustained by Protestants, in proof of
the scepticism of the Roman system. Who does not see
that, Romanism erring on the whole in superstition not in
scepticism, this is an unreal argument, which will but
offend doubting and distressed minds, as if they were
played with ; however plausibly and successfully it might
be sustained in a trial of strength, and whatever justice
there really may be in it ? Nor is it becoming, over and
above its inexpediency, to dispute for victory not for truth,
and to be careless of the manner in which we urge conclu-
sions, however sound and important.

Again, when it is said that the saints cannot hear our
prayers, unless Gou reveal them to them ; so that Almighty
God, upon the Roman theory, conveys from us to them
those requests which they are to ask back again of Ilim
for us, we are certainly using an unreal, because an un-
scriptural argument, Moses on the Mount having the sin
of his people first revealed to him by God, that he in turn
might intercede with God for them. Indeed, it is through
Him '' in whom we live, and move, and have our being,"
that we are able even in this life to hear the requests of
each other, and to present them to Ilim in prayer. Such
an argument then, while shocking and profane to the
feelings of a Roman Catholic, is shallow even in the judg-
ment of a philosopher. Here again may be mentioned
the unwarrantable application of texts, such as that of

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 103

John V. 39, "Search the Scriptures," in disproof of the
Roman doctrine that the Apostles have handed down some
necessary truths by Catholic Tradition ; or again, Eccles.
xi. 3, "If the tree fall towards the south, or towards the
north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be,"
as a palmary objection to Purgatory.

The arguments, then, which we use, must be such as
are likely to convince serious and earnest minds, who are
really seeking for the truth, not amusing themselves with
intellectual combats, or desiring to support an existing
opinion anj^how. However popular these latter methods
may be, of however long standing, however easy both to
find and to use, they are a scandal ; and, while they lower
our religious standard from the first, they are sure of
hurting our cause in the end.

5.

But again, our arguments must not only be true and
practical, but we must see that they are not abstract argu-
ments and on abstract points. For instance, it will do
us little good with the common run of men, in the ques-
tion of the Pope's power, to draw the distinction, true
though it is, between his primacy in honour and authority,
and his sovereignty or his universal jurisdiction. The
force of the distinction is not here questioned, but it will
be unintelligible to minds unpractised in ecclesiastical
history. Either the Bishop of Rome has really a claim
upon our deference, or he has not ; so it will be urged ;
and our safe argument in answer at the present day will
lie in waiving the question altogether, and sajnng that,
even if he has, according to the primitive rule, ever so
much authority, (and that he has some, for instance the
precedence of other bishops, need not be denied,) it is in
matter of fact altogether suspended, and under abeyance,
while he upholds a corrupt system, against which it is

104 ox IHE MODE OF CONDUCllXG

our duty to protest. At present uU will see he ought to
have no " jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or
authority, within this realm." It will be time enough to
settle his legitimate claims, and make distinctions, when
he removes all existing impediments to our acknowledging
him ; it will be time enough to argue on this subject, after
first deciding the other points of the controversy.

Again, the question of the Rule of Faith is an abstract
one to men in general, till the progress of the controversy
opens its bearings upon them. True, the intelligible
argument of ultra-Protestantism may be taken, and we
may say, " the Bible, and nothing but the Bible," but
this is an unthankful rejection of another great gift,
equally from God, such as no true Anglican can tolerate.
If, on the other hand, we proceed to take the sounder
view, that the Bible is the record of necessary truth, or of
matters of faith, and the Church Catholic's tradition is the
interpreter of it, then we are in danger of refined and
intricate questions, which are uninteresting and uninfluen-
tial with the many. It is not till they are made to see
that certain notable tenets of Homanism depend solely on
the Apocrypha, or on Tra lition, not on Scripture, that
they will understand why the question of the Hule of Faith
is an important one.

It has been already said, that our arguments must also
keep clear, as much as possible, of the subjects more
especially sacred. This is our privilege in these latter days,
if we duly understand it, that with all that is painful in
our controversies, we are spared that distressing necessity
which lay upon the early Church, of discnssinir questions
relative to the Divine Nature. The doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation form a most distressing subject of
discussion for two rtasons ; first, as involving the direct

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 105

conteinplation of heavenly things, when one should wish
to bow the head and be silent ; next, as leading to argu-
ments about things possible and impossible with God, that
is (practically) to a rationalistic line of thought. How
He is Three and yet One, how He could become man, what
were the peculiarities of that union, how lie could be
everywhere as God, yet locally present as man, in what
sense God could be said to suffer, die, and rise again, — all
these questions were endured as a burden by the early
Christians for our sake, who come after ; and with the
benefit of their victories over error, as if we had borne
the burden and heat of the day, it were perverse indeed
in us, to plunge into needless discussions of the same
character.

This consideration will lead us to put into the back-
ground the controversy about the Holy Eucharist, which
is almost certain to lead to profane and rationalistic
thoughts in the minds of the many, and cannot well be
discussed in words at all, without the sacrifice of *' godly
fear,^* while it is well-nigh anticipated by the ancient
statements and the determinations of the Church concern-
ing the Incarnation. It is true that learned men, such as
Stillingfleet, have drawn lines of distinction between the
doctrine of transubstantiation, and that high mystery ; but
the question is, whether they are so level to the intelli-
gence of the many, as to secure the Anglican disputant
from fostering irreverence, whether in himself or his
hearers, if he ventures on such an argument. If transub-
stantiation must be opposed, it is in another way; by
showing, as may well be done, and as Stillingfleet himself
has done, that, in matter of fact, it was not the doctrine of
the early Church, but an innovation at such or such a
time ; but this is a line of discussion which requires
learning both to receive and to appreciate.

106 ON TIIK MODE OF CONDUCllXG

7.

In order to illustrate the above view, the following are
selected by way of specimen of those practical grievances,
to which Christians are subjected in the Roman Commu-
nion, and which should be put into the foreground in the
controversy.

1. The denial of the cup to the laity. Considering the
great importance of the Holy Eucharist to our salvation,
this seems a very serious consideration for those who seek
to be saved. Our Lord says, '' Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye liave no life
in you." ' If it be recriminated, as it sometimes is, that
we think it no risk to sprinkle instead of immersing in
baptism, it is obvious to answer that we not only do not
forbidj we enjoin immersion ; that we only do not forbid
sprinkling in the case of infants, and tliafc the laity are
defrauded, if defrauded, by their own fault, or the fault
of the age, not the fault of the Church.

2. The necessity of the priest's intention to the validity
of the Sacraments. The Church of Rome has determined,
that a Sacrament does not confer grace unless the priest

1 [Catholics believe that " totus Christus," our Lord in body and blood,
in soul, in divinity, in ail that is included in His I'orsonality, is present at
once whether in the consecrated Host or in the Chalice. Indeed, liow else
can His Presence be spiritual ? He who partakes of cither species receives
Him in His whole huniim nature as well as in His Divine ; but His whole
humanity is not present, if His blood be absent. And in fact communion
was received from the first in one species only ; in Scripture, Acts ii. 42,
XX. 7 ; it is recognized as a custom by St. Cyprian and St. Dionysius in the
ante-Nicene era, as well as by St. Basil, St. Jerome, and otliers later. It is
known to have been in use in Pontus, Egypt, Africa, and Lombardy during
the same period ; perhaps also in Spain and Syria afterwards. Again :
communion of children was almost universal in primitive times; it is still
the custom in the Greek, Russian, and Monophysite Churches : is it then
a less innovation to deny infant communion, as Anglicans do, than to deny
communion in both species ?j

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 107

means it to do so ; so that if he be an unbeliever, nay/ if
he, from malice or other cause, withholds his intention,
it is not a means of salvation. Now, considering what
the Romanists themselves will admit, the great practical
corruption of the Church at various times, — considering
that infidels and profligates have been in the Papal Chair,
and in other high stations, — who can answer, on the
Church of Rome's own ground, that there is still preserved
to it the Apostolical succession as conveyed in its sacra-
ment of Orders ? what individual can answer that he him-
self reall}' receives, in the consecrated host, even that
moiety of the great Christian blessing which alone remains
CO him in the Roman Communion ? ^ We indeed believe,
(and with comfort) that the administration of the Sacra-
ment is eftectual in those Churches, in spite of their
undermining their own claim to the gift. Still let it be
recollected, no one can become a Romanist without pro-
fessing that the Church he has joined has no truer cer-
tainty of possessing it than that Communion has, which,
probably on the very account of its uncertainty in this
matter, he has deemed it right to abandon,

3. The necessity of Confession . By the Council of Trent,
every member of the Church must confess himself to a

' [This is not so; an unbeliever can consecrate validly. St. Thomas
says, " Non obstante infidelitatc potest [minister] intendere faeere id quod
facit ecclesia, licet a)stimet id nihil esse ; et talis intentio sufficit ad sacra-
mentum."]

' [Tliis objection can be retorted on the Anglican doctrine of the Sacra-
ments. A malicious Anglican minister might make a point of only wetting
the child's ciip with the baptismal water, or, from disbelief in baptismal
regeneration, might use so little water that it was not even a sprinkling, or
froiTi a habit of hurry and carelessness might use the words only once over
a circle of children, whom he sprinkled separately, or might drop or inter-
polate words in the form of ordination or consecration, from a conscientious
scruple as to saying, " Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins " &c. At
least form and matter are necessary in the belief of Anglicans, though
intention is not.J

108 ON THE MODE ON CON DUCTING

priest once a year at least. This confession extends to all
mortal sins, that is, to all sins which are done deliberately
and are of any magnitude. Without this confession,
(which of course must be accompanied by hearty sorrow
for the things confessed), no one can be partaker of the
Holy Communion. Here is a third obstacle^ in the way
of our receiving the grace of the Sacraments in the Roman
Church, which surely requires our diligent examination,
before it be passed over. That there is no such impedi-
ment sanctioned in Scripture, is plain, yet to believe in it
is a point of faith with the Roman Catholic. The practice
is grievous enough ; but it is not enough to submit to it :
you must believe that it is part of the Gospel doctrine, or
you are committing one of those mortal sins which are to
be confessed ; and you must believe, moreover, that every
one who does not believe it, is excluded from the hope of
salvation. But, not to dwell on the belief in the necessity
of confession itself, consider the number of points of faith
which the Church of Rome has set up. You must believe
every one of them ; if you have allowed yourself to doubt
any one of them, you must repent of it, and confess it to
the priest. If you knowingly omit any one such doubts
which you have entertained, and much more if you still
cherish it, your confession is worse than useless ; nay,
such conduct is considered sacrilege, or the sin against
the Holy Ghost. Further, if under such circumstances
you partake of the Communion, it is a p irtaking of it
unworthily to your condemnation.

8.
4. The unwarranted anathemas of the Roman Church

* [Catholics would consider the want of confession to be the real " ob-
stacle" to communion. As to "points of frtith " they accept them all on
the ground that the infallible Church proposes them. If we doubt ot some,
whj believe any ? They all come on the same authority. Vide next note.]

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 109

is a subject to whicli the last head has led us. Here let
us put aside, at present, the prejudice which has been
excited in the minds of Protestants, against the jjrinciple
itself of anathematizing, by the variety and comparative
unimportance of the subjects upon which the Roman
Church has applied it in practice. Let us consider merely
the state of the case in that Church. Every Romanist is,
by the creed of his Church, in mortal sin, unless he
believes every one else excluded from Christian salvation,
who, with means of knowing, declines any one of those
points which have been ruled to be points of faith. If a
man, for instance, who has had the means of instruction,
doubts the Church's power of granting indulgences, he is
exposed, according to the Romanists, to eternal ruin,*
Now this consideration, one would think, ought (o weigh
with those of our own Church who may be half-converts to
the Roman ; not that our own salvation is not our first
concern, but that such cruelty as this is, such narrowing
the Scripture terms of salvation, (for no one can say this
doctrine is found in Scripture,) is a presumption against
the purity of that Church's teaching. But a further
reflection may be added to the above. Such as have not
had an opportunity of knowing the truth, are, it must be
observed, not exposed to this condemnation. This at first
sight would seem a comfort to those whose relatives and
friends have died in Protestantism. But observe, the
Church of Rome, we know, retains the practice of praying
for the dead. It will be natural for a convert from
Protestantism, first of all, to turn his thoughts towards

* [It is a fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church that as to matters
of Christian Faith she cannot err in her teaching. It follows at once that
whoever denies anything she teaches, as her power to grant Indulgences,
denies an article of faith, and necessarily falls under an anathema. Of course
then no one can helong to the Church who rejects what the Church, the
" pillar and ground of the Truth," professes to have received from heaven.]

110 ox THE MODE OF CONDUCTING

those dearest relations, say his parents, who have lived
and died in involuntary ignorance of Catholicism. He is
not allowed to do so^ he can only pray lor the souls in
Purgatory ; none have the privilege of being in Purgatory
but such as have died in the communion of the Roman
Church, and his parents died in Protestantism,*

5. Purgatory may be mentioned as another grievous doc-
trine of Romanism.'^ Here again, if Scripture, as inter-
preted by tradition, taught it, we should be bound to receive
it ; but, knowing as we do, that even St. Austin questioned
the doctrine in the fifth century, we may well suspect the
evidence for it. The doctrine is this ; that a certain definite
punishment is exacted by Almighty God for all sins com-
mitted after baptism ; and that they who have not bysufier-
ings in this life, whether trouble, penance, and the like, run
through it, must complete it during the intermediate state
in a place called Purgatory. Again, all who die in venial
sin, that is in sins of infirmity, such as are short of mortal,

' [This is not so. Tliose who die in invincible ignorance are not in the
place of lost souls ; tliose who are not lost, are either in purgatory or in
heaven.]

1 [There is no doctrine of the Church which so practically and vividly
brings home to the mind and engraves upon it the initial element of all true
ri'ligion, — seu,-e of sin original and actual, as an evil attaching to one and all, —
as does Purgatory. As to the thought that friends departed have to endure
suffering, our comfort is that we can pray them out of it ; but that all, save
specially perfect Christians, before they pass to heaven endure, with sensi-
tiveness in proportion to their sins, the pain of fire, is testified by almost a
consensus of the Fathers, as is shown in No. 79 of the Tracts for (he Times.
This certainly is the doctrine of Antiquity, whatever want of proof there
may be for the exact Roman doctrine. TcrtuUinn speaks of purification in a
subterranean prison ; Cyprian of a prison with fire ; Origen, Basil, Gregory
Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, I'auliuus, Jerome,
Augustine, all speak of fire. These positive testimonies are not invalidated
by other passages which speak generally of rest and peace following upon
death to holy souls, which are expressions frequent also in the mouths of
Catholics now, in spite of their od'ering masi-es for those very dead of whom
they thus hopefully speak.]

Tllli COXTllOVEllSl WITH IIOJIE. Ill

go to Purgatory also. Now what a light does this throw
upon the death of beloved and revered friends ! Instead
of their " resting from their labours," as Scripture says,
there are (ordinarily speaking) none who have not to pass
a time of trial and purification, and, as Romanists are
authoritatively taught, in fire, or a torment analogous to
fire. There is no one who can for himself look forward
to death with hope and humble thankfulness. Tell the
sufferer upon a sick-bed that his earthly pangs are to
terminate in Purgatory, what comfort can he draw from
religion ? If it be said, that it is a comfort in the case of
bad men, who have begun to repent on their death-bed ;
this is true, I do not deny it ; still the doctrine, in accord-
ance, be it observed, with the ultra-Protestantism of this
age, evidently sacrifices the better part of the community
to the less deserving. Should the foregoing reasoning
seem to dwell too much on the question of comfortableness
and uncomfortableness, not of truth, I reply, first, that
I have already stated that Scripture, as interpreted by
tradition, does not teach the doctrine ; next, that I am
arguing against the Romanists, who are accustomed to
recommend their communion on the very ground of its
being safer, more satisfactory, and more comfortable.^

6. The Invocation of Saints. Here again the practice
should be considered, not the theory. Scripture speaks
clearly and solemnly about Christ as the sole Mediator.®

* [Here comes in the consolation afforded by the doctrine of Indulgences.
Catholics believe that, by their own pi avers, works, &c. , in their lifetime, as
appointed by the Church, and by their iriends' prayers for them after their
death, their just measure of Purgatory may be shortened or superseded.]

' [Our Lord bore the sins of the world : in that work of power and
mercy, which is distinct from and above any other. He is the sole mediator,
and whatever intercessory power the Saints have is from and in Him. If
through gross ignorance this is or has been here or there forgotten, it is not
the fault of the Church, which has ever taught it, but of the perversity of
human nature.]

112 ON Tin; MODE OF CONDUCTING

When prayer to tlie Saints is recommended at all timrs
and places, as ever-present guardians, and their good works
pleaded in God's sight, is not this such an infringement
upon the plain word of Gob, such a violation of our
allegiance to our only Saviour, as must needs be an
insult to Him ? His honour He will not give to another.
Can we with a safe conscience do it ? Should we act thus
in a parallel ease even with an earthly friend ? Does not
St. John's example warn us against falling down before
angels ? ' Does not St. Paul warn us against a voluntary
humility and worshipping of angels ? And are not these
texts indications of God's will, which ought to guide our
conduct ? Is it not safest not to pay them this extra-
ordinary honour ?

7. The Worship of Images might here be added to
these instances of grievances which Christians endure in
tlie Communion of Rome, were it not that in England its
rulers seem, at present, to have suspended the practice
out of policy, though it is expressly recommended by the
Council of Trent, as if an edifying usage. In consequence
of this decree of the Church, no one can become a Roman-

' [I do not deny that the passage in tlie Apocatypse, xix. 10, xxii. 8, pre-
sents a difficulty when compared with Catholic tradition and practice. I
should ex|)lain it thus : — In the Old Testament, the angel sometimes ap-
pears by himself as a messenger from God and then receives homage as sucli;
sometimes he is the manifestation of a Divine Presence and thus becomes rela-
tively an object of worship. The angel in Judg. ii. 1, was a messenger, so
was the angel in Dan. x. 5 ; but the angels in Exod. iii. 2, Acts vii. 30,
Josh. V. 13, Judg. vi. 11 and xiii. 3, were the attendants upon God. In the
last three passages the manil'estatiou is first of the angel, then of the Lord of
angels. First it was an angel that appeared to Gideon, then " the Lord
looked upon him," on which, recognizing the Divine Presence, he offered
sacrifice. So Joshua first addressed the ancrel, but the words " Loose thy
shoes," &c., tild liiin who was there, and were equivalent in doctrine to
" See thou do it noi. Wor>bip (Jod " in the Apocalypse. This is pretty
much St. Augustine's explanation of the difficulty. St. John mistook a
messenger or servant of God for a Theophany.J

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 113

ist, without Implying his belief that the usage is edifying
and right ; and this itself is a grievance, even though the
usage be in this or that place dispensed with.^

9.

Such and such-like are the subjects which, it is con-
ceived, should be brought into controversy, in disputing
with Roman Catholics at the present day. An equally
important question remains to be discussed ; viz. What
the informants are, which are to determine our judgment
of Popery ? Here its partisans complain of their op-
ponents, that, instead of referring to the authoritative
documents of the Roman Church, they avail themselves
of any errors or excesses of individuals in it, as if the
Church were responsible for acts and opinions which it
does not enjoin. Thus the legends of relics, superstitions
about images, the cruelty of particular prelatos or kings,
or the accidental fury of a populace, are unfairly imputed
to the Church itself. Again, the profligacy of the Popes,
at various periods, is made an argument against their
religious pretensions as successors to St. Peter ; whereas,
they argue, Caiaphas himself had the gift of prophecy, and
it is, they say, a memorable and instructive circumstance,
that in matter of fact, among their worst popes are found
the instruments, in God's hand, of some of the most im-
portant and salutary acts of the Church. Accordingly
they claim to be judged by tbeir formal documents,
especially by the decrees of the Council of Trent.'

-Now here we shall find the truth to lie between the two
contending parties. Candour will oblige us to grant that

* [Very large numbers of men, whom no one would accuse of superstU
tiously confusing tbe Divine Object with the Image, still testify of them-
selves, that they pray much better with a carved or painted representative
before them tlian without one.]

3 [On this subject, vid. Preface to the first volume of this Edition.]
VOL. II. I

114 ox THE MODE OF COXDUCTIXG

the mere acts of Individuals should not be imputed to the
body ; certainly no member of the English Church can in
common prudence, as well as propriety, do otherwise, since
he is exposed to an immediate retort, in consequence of
the errors and irregularities which have in Protestant
times occurred among ourselves. King Henry the Vlllth,
the first promoter of the Reformation, is surely no
representative of our faith or feelings ; nor Hoadley, in a
later age, who was sufl'ered to enjoy his episcopate for
forty-six years ; to say nothing of the various parties and
schools which have existed, and do exist among us.

So much then must be granted to our opponents ; yet
not so much as they themselves desire. For though the
acts of individuals are not the acts of the Church, yet they
may be the results, and therefore illustrations of its prin-
ciples,'' We cannot consent then to confine ourselves to a
mere reference to the text of the Tridentine decrees, as
Romanists would have us, apart from the teaching of their
doctors and the practice of the Church, which are surely
the legitimate comment upon them. The case stands as
follows. A certain sj'stem of teaching and practice has
existed in the churches of the Roman communion for
many centuries ; this system was discriminated and fixed
in all its outlines at the Council of Trent. It is therefore
not unnatural, or rather it is the procedure we adopt in
any historical research, to take the general opinions and
conduct of the Church in elucidation of their Synodal
decrees; just as we take the tradition of the Church
Catholic and Apostolic as the legitimate interpreter of
Scripture, or of the Apostles' Creed. On the other hand,
it is as natural that these decrees, being necessarily con-
cise and guarded, should be much less objectionable than

* [Yes, of its principles ; but in the following sentences, the popular
practices are made, not illustrations of its priuci])los, but comments and
iutcrpretutions of its doctrim s, which is another matter.]

THE COM'ROVEUsY WITH ROMK. 11-5

tlie actual system they represent. It is not wonderful,
then, yet it is unreasonable, that Romanists should pro-
test against our going beyond these decrees in adducing
evidence of their Churches doctrine, on the ground that
nothing more than an assent to them is requisite for
communion with her. For instance, the Creed of Pope
Pius, which is framed from the Tridentine decrees, and. is
the Roman Creed of Communion, only says " I firmly hold
there is a Purgatory, and. that souls therein detained are
aided by the prayers of the faithful," nothing being said of
its being a placeof punishment, nothini^, or all but nothing,
which does not admit of being explained of merely au
intermediate state. Now supposing we found ourselves in
the Roman Communion, of course it would be a great
relief to find that we were not bound to believe more than
this vague statement, nor should we (I conceive) on
account of the received interpretation about Purgatory
superadded to it, be obliged to leave our Church. But it
is another matter entirely, whether we who are external
to that Church, are not bound to consider it as one whole
system, written and unwritten, defined indeed and adjusted
by general statements^ but not limited to them or
coincident with them.

10.

The conduct of the Catholics during the troubles of
Arianism affords us a parallel case, and a direction in this
question. The Arian Creeds were often quite unex-
ceptionable, differing from the orthodox only in this-,
that they omitted the celebrated word homolision, and in
consequence did not obviate the possibility of that perverse
explanation of them, which in fact their framers adopted.
Why then did the Catholics refuse to subscribe them ?
Why did they rather submit to banishment from one ei;d
of the Roman world to the other ? Why did they becon.o

1 2

116 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTIXO

confessors and martyrs? The answer is ready. They
interpreted the language of the creeds by the professed
opinions of their framers. They would not allow error to
be introduced into the Church by an artifice. On the
other hand, when at Ariminum they were seduced into a
subscription of one of these creeds, though unobjectionable
in its wording, their opponents instantly triumphed, and
circulated the news that the Catholic world had come over
to their opinion. It may be added that, in consequence,
ever since that era, phrases have been banished from the
language of theology which heretofore had been innocently
used by orthodox teachers.

Apply this to the case of Romanism. We are not in-
deed allowed to take at random the accidental doctrine or
practice of this or that age, as an explanation of the
decrees of the Latin Church ; but when we see clearly that
certain of these decrees have a natural tendency to produce
certain evils, when we see those evils actually existing far
and wide in that Church, in difierent nations and ages,
existing especially where the system is allowed to act
most freely, and only absent where external checks are
present,* sanctioned moreover by its celebrated teachers
and expositors, and advocated by its controversialists with
the tacit consent of the whole body, under such circum-
stances surely it is not unfair to consider our case parallel
to that of the Catholics during the ascendency of Arianism.

'• [There are truths, which in the popular mind, taking men as thej' are,
unavoidably pass into error, or what Protestants call corruption. It is not
" that corrupt Church " (as they speak of us") that is in fault, but our cor-
rupt nature. And the higher and more effective the truth, the greater is
the chance of excess and perversion. So much so that faith is hardly real
in a population, if it does not in fact involve a large percentage of supersti-
tion, lu like manner, according to the teaching of Evangelical Protestants,
a correct life may be expected as a matter of course to be attended
by " self- righteousness." And so the exercise of reason iucurs the risk of
rationalism. Yet reason, correctness of life, and faith are gifts of Qod.J

IHE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 117

Surely it is not unfair in such a case to interpret the
formal document of belief by the realized form of it in the
Church, and to apprehend that, did we express our assent
to the creed of Pope Pius, we should find ourselves bound
hand and foot, as the fathers at Ariminum, to the corrup-
tions of those who profess it.

What seems to be a small deviation from correctness in
the abstract system, becomes considerable and serious when
it assumes a substantive form. This is especially the case
with all doctrinal discussions, in which the undeveloped
germs of many diversities of practice and moral character
lie thick together and in small compass, and as if promis-
cuously and without essential differences. The highest
truths differ from the most miserable delusions by what
appears to be a few words or letters. The discriminating
mark of orthodoxy, the Homo'iision, has before now been
ridiculed, however irrationally, as being identical, all but
the letter i, with the heretical symbol of the Hotnceusion.
What is acknowledged in the Arian controversy, must be
endured without surprise in the Roman, in whatever
degree it occurs. We may be taunted as differing from
the Romanists only in phrases and modes of expression ;
and we may be taunted, or despised, according to the fate
of our Divines for three centuries past, as taking a middle,
timid, unsatisfactory ground, neither quite agreeing nor
quite disagreeing with our opponents. We may be charged
with dwelling on trifles and niceties, in a way inconsistent
with plain, manly good sense ; but in truth it is not we
who are the speculatists, and unpractical controversialists,
but they who forget that '^ hsB nugae seria ducunt in
mala."

But again there is another reason, peculiar to the
Koman controversy, which occasions a want of correspond-
ence between the appearance presented by the Roman
theology in theory, and its appearance in practice. The

118 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTINO

separate doctrines of Romanism are Very differcTit, in
position, importance, and mutual relation, in the abstract,
and when developed, applied, and practised. Anatomists
tell us that the skeletons of the most various animals are
formed on the same type; yet the aniirals are dissimilar
and distinct, in consequence of the respective differences
of their developed proportions. No one would confuse
between a lion and a bear; j-^t many of us at first sight
would be unable to discriminate between their respective
skeletons. E-omanism in the theory may differ little from
our own creed ; nay, in the abstract type, it might even
be identical, and yet in the actual framework, and still
further in the living and breathing form, it might differ
essentially. For instance, the doctrine of Indulgences is
in the theory entirely connected with the doctrine of
Penance ; that is, it has relation solely to this world, so
much so that Roman apologists sometimes speak of it
without even an allusion to its bearings elsewhere: but
we know that in practice it is mainly, if not altogether,
concerned with the next world, — with the alleviation of
sufferings in Purgatory.

11.

Ttike again the instances of the Adoration of Images and
the Invocation of Saints. The Tridentine Decree declares
that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the Saints,
and that the Images of Christ, and the Blessed Virgin, and
the other Saints should "receive due honour and venera-
tion ;" words, which themselves go to the very verge of
what could be received by the cautious Christian, though
possibly admitting of a good interpretation. Now we
know in matter of fact that in various parts of the Roman
Church, a worship approaching to idolatrous is actually
paid to Saints and Images, in countries very different from
each other, as for instance, Italy and the Netherlands,

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 1 19

and has been countenanced by eminent men and doctors,
and that without any serious or successful protest from
any quarter : " further that, though there may be countries
where no scandal of the kind exists, yet these are such
as have, in their neighbourhood to Protestantism, a
practical restraint upon the natural tendency of their
system.

Moreover, the silence which has been observed, age after
age, by the Roman Church, as regards these excesses, is a
point deserving of serious attention ; — for two reasons ;
first, because of the very solemn warnings pronounced by
our Lord and His Apostle, against those who introduce
scandals into the Church, warnings, which seem almost
prophetic of such as exist in the Latin branches of it.
Next, it must be considered that the Roman Church has
had the power to denounce and extirpate them.^ Not to
mention its use of its Apostolical powers in other matters,
it has had the civil power at its command, as it has shown
in the case of errors which less called for its interference ;
all of which is a proof that it has not felt sensitively on
the subject of this particular eviL

12.

This may be suitably illustrated by an example. Wake,
in his controversy on the subject of Bossuet's Exposition,
observes that a Jesuit named Crasset had published an
account of the worship due to the Virgin Mary, quite
opposed to that which Bossuet had expounded as the
doctrine of the Roman Church. Bossuet replies, " I have
not read the book, but neither did I ever hear it men-
tioned there was anything in it contrary to mine, and that

• [I reply either it is an exaggeration to say that the worship is idolatrous,
or a misstatement to say that there has been no restraint or hindrance put
upon it.]

' [This charge is considered In the Preface to Volume I.]

120 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTING

Father would be much troubled if I should think there
was." Wake, in answer, expresses his great surprise that
Bossuet should not have heard any mention of a fact so
notorious. Bossuet replies, " I still continue to say that I
have never read Father Crasset's book which they bring
against me." " I will only add here," he continues," that
Father Crasset himself, troubled and offended that any one
should report his doctrine to be different from mine, has
made complaints to me ; and in a preface to the second
edition of his book, has declared, that he varied in nothing
from me, unless perhaps in the manner of expression ;
which, whether it be so or no, I leave them to examine,
who will please to give themselves the trouble,"

Bossuet is known as the champion of a more moderate
exposition of the doctrines of Romanism than that which
has generally been put upon them. Now he either did
agree with the Jesuit or he did not. If he did, not a word
more need be said against the Roman doctrine, as will
appear when I proceed to quote his words ; if he did not,
let the reader judge of the peculiar sensitiveness of a faith,
(as illustrated in a prelate, who for his high qualities is a
very fair representative of his church,) which can anathe-
matize a denial of Purgatory, or a disapproval of the
Invocation of Saints, yet can pass sub silenfio a class of
profanities, of which the following extracts are an instance.*

It must be first observed, that Father Crasset's book is
an answer to a Cologne Tract entitled "Salutary Advertise-
ments of the Blessed Virgin to her indiscreet Adorers ;"
which is said by Wake, truly or not, (for this is nothing

• [There is a large private judgment allowed to individuals in the
Charch of Rome, and that very fact leads humble and charitable minds,
while they profit by the toleration allowed to themselves, not to censure
those who avail themselves of it for a difl'erent tone of religious sentiment.
Much more would a great Prelate like Bossuet, whose words fall upon the
world with great weight, be cautious of dealing side-blows on his friends
and brethren. J

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 121

to the purpose,) to agree with Bossuet in its exposition of
doctrine. This Tract was sent into the world with the
approbation of the Suffragan Bishop of Cologne, of the
Vicar-general, the Censure of Ghent, the Canons and
Divines of Mechlin, the University of Louvain, and the
Bishop of Tournay. Father Crasset's answer was printed
at Paris, licensed by the Provincial, approved by three
fathers of the Jesuit body appointed to examine it, and
authorized by the King. I mention these circumstances
to show that this controversy was not conducted in a
corner ; to which I may add that, according to Crasset,
learned men of various nations had also written against
the Tract, that the Holy See had condemned the author,
and that Spain had prohibited him and bis work from
its dominions. We have nothing to do with the doc-
trine of this Tract, good or bad, but let us see what this
Crasset's doctrine is on the other hand, thus put forth by
the Jesuits in a notorious controversy, and accepted on
hearsay by Bossuet with a studious abstinence from the
perusal of it after the matter of it had been brought before
him.

" Whether a Christian that is devout towards the blessed Virgin
can be damned? Anstcer. The servants of the blessed Virgin
have an assurance, morally infallible, that they shall be saved.'

' [It does not fall into my purpose to explain and thereby to defend these
statements. In fact they could all be explained. E.g., whea it was said
that " the Blessed Virgin's servants have an assurance that they shall be
saved," this was not meant to deny that her "servants" must love God
and believe the Creed, live good lives and die holy deaths in order to deserve
that title, or that '■ without holiness no one shall see God." Moreover, in
oi-der to belong to her confraternity, which Crasset speaks of, over and above
the duties of a good Christian, it was necessary to recite every day the
office of our Lady or that of the Church, or, if a man could not read, devo-
tions instead of them, and to abstain on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday.
As to our Lady's " niothtrly authority," vid. infr. p. 128, &c.]

122 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTINO

" VVhetber God ever refuses anything to the blessed Virgin?
Anstoer. 1, The Prayers of a Mother so humble and respectful are
esteemed a commaud by a Son so sweet and so obedient. 2. Being
truly our Saviour's mother, as well in heaven as she was on earth,
she still retains a kind of natural authority over His person, over
His goods, and over His omnipotence ; so that, as Albertus Magnus
says, she can not only entreat Him for the salvation of her servants,
but by her motherly authority can command Him ; and as another
expresses it, the power of the Mother and of the Son is all one,
she being by her omnipotent Son made herself omnipotent.

" Whether the blessed Virgin has ever fetched any out of hell P
Answer. 1. As to purgatory, it is certain that the Virgin has
brought several souls from thence, as well as refreshed them whilst
they were there. 2. It is certain she has fetched many out of hell :
i. e. from a state of damnation before they were dead. 3. The
Virgin can, and has fetched men that were dead in mortal sin out of
hell, by restoring them to life again, that they might repent. . . .

" The practice of devotion towards her, 1. To wear her scapulary ;
which whoso does shall not be damned, but this habit shall be for
them a mark of salvation, a safeguard in dangers, and a sign of
peace and eternal alliance. They that wear this habit, shall be
moreover delivered out of Purgatory the Saturday after their death.
2. To enter her congregation. And if any man be minded to save
himself, it is impossible for him to find out any more advantageous
means, than to enrol himself into these companies. 3. To devote
oneself more immediately to her service," &c. &c.

" Woe unto the world because of offences ! for it must
needs be that offences come, but woe to that man by whom
the offence cometh ! "

13.

Bossuet's name has been mentioned in evidence of the
really existing connection between the decrees of Trent
and the popular opinions and practices in the Roman
Church, as regards the matters they treat of. But the
labours of that celebrated prelate in the cause of his Church
introduce us to very varied and extensive illustrations of

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 123

another remark which has been incidentally made in the
course of this discussion.

It was observed, that the legitimate meaning of the
Tridentine decrees might be fairly ascertained by com-
paring together those of the Latin Churches, where the
system was allowed to operate freely, and those in which
the presence of Protestantism acted as a check upon it.
This has been remarkably exemplified in the history of the
controversy during the last one hundi-ed and fifty years,
that is, since the time of Bossuet, who seems to have been
nearly the first who put on the Tridentine decrees a
meaning more consonant with Primitive Christianity, dis-
tinguishing between the doctrines of the Church, and of
the Schools. This new interpretation has been widely
adopted by the Romanists, and, as far as our own islands
are concerned, may be considered to be the received version
of their creed ; and one should rejoice in any appearance
of amelioration in their system, were not the present state
of Italy and Spain, where no check exists, an evidence
what that system still is, and what, in course of time, it
would, in all probability, be among ourselves, did an uni-
versal reception of it put an end to the restraint which
controversy at present imposes on them.'

Bossuet's Exposition, which contains the modified doc-
trine above spoken of, was looked at with great suspicion
at Rome, on its fiist appearance, and was with difii-
culty acknowledged by the Pope. It is said to have been
written originally with the purpose of satisfying Marshal
Turenne, who became, in consequence, a convert to Ro-
manism. It was circulated in manuscript several years,
and was considered to be of so liberal a complexion,

' [According to what bas been said above, I allow this, (excepiis excipieH-
din,) with the substitution for "where no chock exists," of "where the
Catholic Creed has got liold of the popular mind, " j

124 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTINO

according to the doctrine of that day, as to scandalize
persons of the author's own communion, and to lead Protes-
tants to doubt whether he dare ever own it. In the year
1671, it was, with considerable alterations, committed to
the press with the formal approbation of the Archbishop of
Rheims and nine other Bishops, but on objections being
urged against it by the Sorbonne, the press was stopped,
and not till after various alterations was it resumed, with
the suppression of the copies which had already been struck
off. It is affirmed by Wake, without contradiction (I be-
lieve) from his opponents, that even with these corrections
it was of so novel an appearance to the Roman divines of
that day, that an answer from one of them was written
to it, before the Protestants began to move in the matter,
though the publication was suppressed. The Roman See
at last accorded its approbation, but not before the con-
versions which it effected had recommended it to its
favour.^

14

It may be instructive to specify some instances of this
change of doctrine, or novel interpretation of doctrine (if
it must be so called), which Bossuet is accused of intro-
ducing.

1. In the private impression of his Exposition, as the

* Nine years intervened between its publication and the Pope's approval
of it. Clement X. refused it absolutely. Several priests were rigorously
treated for preaching the doctriue contained in it ; the university of Louvain
formally condemned it in 1685. Vid. Mosheim, Hist. vol. v. p. 126, note.
[This is from Maclaine, who in a matter of this kind is not always trust-
worthy. The Biographic Univ. says, " Bossuet I'imprima k peu d'exem-
plaires, le distribua aux eveques de France, en leer demandant leur observa-
tions, et aprJis en avoir fait usage, I'ouvrage fut rendu public. C'est ce qui
a doune lieu au bruit repandu par les Protestants, que Bossuet aviiit 61 e
oblige de retirer et de changer sa premiere Edition. L'ouvnige fut haute-
ment approuv^ k Rome."]

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 125

suppressed portioii of the edition may be called,* Bossuet
says,—

" Furthermore, there is nothing so unjust as to accuse the Church
of placing all her piety in these devotions to the Saints : since on
the contrary she lays no obligation at all on particular persons to

join in this practice By which it appears clearly that the

Church condemns only those who refuse it out of contemjpt, or by a
spirit of dissension and revolt."

In the second or published edition, the words printed
in italics were omitted, the first c'ause altogether, and
the second with the substitution of " out of disresjpect or
error."

2. Again, in the private impression he had said,^

" So that it (the Mass) may very reasonably be called a sacrifice."

He raised his doctrine in the second as follows : —

" So that there is nothing wanting to make it a true sacrifice."

In giving these instances, I am far from insinuating
that there is any unfairness in such alterations. Earnestly
desiring the conversion of Protestants, Bossuet did but
attempt to place the doctrines of his Church in the light
ujost acceptable to them. But they seem to show thus
much : first, that he was engaged in a novel experiment,
which circumstances rendered necessary, and was trying
how far he might safely go; secondly, that he did not
carry with him the body of the Gallican divines. In other
words, we have no security that this new form* of Romanism
is more stable than one of the many forms of Protestantism

* [This is an unfiiir insinuation. The impression was private, and, as
never intended for publication, was never " suppressed." What theologian,
before publishing on an important subject, but would offer his writing to
tollers for corrections ?]

* [Not a new form, but a permanent aspect.]

126 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCIINO

which rise and full around us in our own country, which
are mutters of opinion, and depend upon individuals.

15.

3. But again, after all the care b?stowed on his work,
Bossuet says, in his Exposition as ultimately publidhed, —

" Wheu the Church pays an honour to the Image of an Apostle
or Martyr, the inteution is not so much to honour the image, as to

honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image

Nor do we attribute to them any other virtue but that of exciting
in us the remembrance of those they represent," p. 8.*

To this the Vindicator of Bossuet adds,

" The use we make of images or pictures is purely as represen-
tatives, or memorative signs, which call the originals to our remem-
brance," p. 35.

Now with these passages contrast the words of Bellar-
mine, who, if any one, might be supposed a trustworthy
interpreter of the Homan doctrine.

" The images of Christ and of the saints are to be venerated not
only hy accident and improperly , but prop''rli/ and by themselves, so
that they themselves are the end of the veneration [utipsae terminent
venerationem] as considered in themselves, and not only as they
are copies" De Imagin. lib. ii. c. 21.

Again, in the Pontifical we are instructed that to the
wood of the Cross " divine worship (latria) is due ;" * and

* [The Tridentinc definition says, " The images of Christ, the Virgin
Mother of God, and of other saints are to be retained especially in churches,
and due honour and veneration paid them, not because we believe that there
is in them any divinity or virtue, on account of which they are to have
observance, or because of them anything is to be asked, or because any trust
is to be placed in images, as of old was the custom of the heathen, who iu
idols put their hope, but because the honour, wliich is shown to them, is
referred to the prototypes, whom they reprcseut."]

• [Vid. Poiilif. IJoni. p. 713, Meclil. 18i5, Ord. ad recipiendum Imp. Ou
the coutrury, the i;ovt utli (Jcueral CouucjI says diiliuctly that latria, divino

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 127

that saving virtues for soul and body proceed from it;
which surely agrees with the doctrine of Bellarmine as
contained in the above extract, not with that of Bossuet.

4. The Vindicator of Bossuet speaks of the Mass to the
following effect : —

" The council tells TI8 it was instituted only to represent that
which was accomplished on the Cross, to perpetuate the laemory of
it to the end of the world, and apply to us the saving virtue of it,

for those sins which we commit every day When we sa}"^ that

Christ is offered in the Mass, we do not understand the word offer
in the strictest sense, but as we are said to offer to God what tee
present bfforellim. And thus the Church does not doubt to say, that
she offers up our Blessed Jesus to His Father in the Eucharist, iu
which He vouchsafes to render Himself present before Him."

But the Tridentine Fathers say in their Canons, that

'•'The Mass is a true and proper sacrifice; a sacrifice mo< onli/
commemoratory of that of the Cross, but also truly and properly
propitiatory for the dead and the liviug." ^

And Bellarmine says, —

" A true aud real sacrifice requires a true and real death or
destruction of the thing sacrificed." De Missa, lib. i. c. 27.

worship, is not to be paid to the Cross, and, as Bellarmine adds, the Eighth
Council and Pope Hadrian say the same. It is true that Hales, St. Thomas,
Caietan, and others, like the Pontificale, claim for the Cross, latria ; hut
1. Bellarmine considers they had never seen these authoritative decisions ;
and, 2. that tl.ey must have intended latria ox\\y improprih and per
accidens, that is, as in our House of Lords obeisance is made to the empty
Throne, or the lectica or catafalk is incensed, though the corpse is not present.

Bellarmine's view is, that a real aud direct veneration is to be paid to the
Crucifix, as being blest and sacred, and also through it an indirect worship
to our Lord ; just as an alms, given to a poor man, is primarily given to the
object of charity, but still for the honour aud glory of Him who has identi-
fied Himself with His poorest members.]

'' [Our Lord suffered once for all upon the Cross, yet still even now, when
He is " on the throne of majesty in the heavens," He has " somewhat to
offor, viz. that same precious Flesh and Blood, which once for all was
(iffered on Calvary. Thus, as His present offering of His crucified body
is one with His off'ering on Calvary, being its continuation, reiteration,
presentation, or commemoraliou, so is it with the Mass.]

128 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCI'ING

And then he proceeds to show how this condition of the
notion of a sacrifice is variously fulfilled in the Mass.

16.

Leaving Bossuet, let us now turn to the history of the
controversy in our own country, whether in former or
recent times ; and here I avail myself of an article of a
late lamented Prelate" of our Church, in a periodical work
ten years since.' As to the particular instances adduced,
it must be recollected that they are not dwelt on as a suf-
ficient evidence by themselves of that difference of view
between members of the Roman Church at various times
and places, which is under consideration, but as lively
illustrations of what is presumed to be an historical
fact.

The following extract is from Dr. Doyle's Evidence
before the Committee of the House of Commons on the
subject of the Roman Catholic doctrine : —

" The Committee find, in a treatise called ' A Vindication of the
Roman Catholics,' the following curse : ' Cursed is every goddess
worshipper, that believes the Virgin Mary to be any more than a
creature, that honours her, worships her, or puts his trust in her
more than in God ; that honours her above her Son, or believes
that she can in any way command Him.' Is that acknowledged ?
Ans. That is acknowledged; and every Roman Catholic in the
world would say with Gother, Accursed be such person."

Such is the received Romanism of the English Papists
at this day ; and accordingly Dr. Challoner has translated
the famous words in the office of the blessed Virgin, —

" Monstra te esse Matrem,
Sumat per te preces,"

» [Charles Lloyd, Bishop of Oxford, 1827—1829.]
» British Critic, Oct. 1825.

by

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 129

" Exert the Mother's care.
And as thy children own,
To Him convey our prayer," &c.

On the other hand consider the following passage in
the controversy between Jewell and Harding. Jewell
accused the Roman Church with teaching that the blessed
Virgin could command her Son. Harding replies as
follows : —

" If now any spiritual man, suet as St. Bernard was, deeply con-
sidering the great honour and dignity of Christ's mother, do in
excess of mind spiritually sport with her, bidding her to remember
that she is a Mother, and that thereby she has a certain right to com-
mand her Sox, and requii'e, in a most sweet manner, that she use her
right ; is this either impiously or impudently spoken ? Is not he,
rather, most impious and impudent that findeth fault therewith ? " ^

Again, we find in Peter Damiani, a celebrated divine of
the eleventh century, the following words : —

" She approaches to that golden tribunal of divine Majesty, not
asking, but commanding, not a handmaid, but a mistress." ^

^ [The words " Command thy Son " may bear a good sense, as being used
in reference to Luke ii. 51 ; but a Decree of Inquisition of February 28,
1875, has animadverted on them. After reprehending the title " Queen of
the Heart of Jesus," used by a certain pious Sodality, the Decree goes on to
observe that the Sacred Congregation has before now " warned and repre-
hended " those who by sucli language "have not conformed to the right
Catholic sense," but "ascribe power to her, as issuing from her divine
maternity, beyond its due limits," and that "although she has the greatest
influence with her Son, still it cannot be piously affirmed that she exercises
command over Him."]

* [Prosa quam Dallaeus allegat, ut invidiam faciat Catbolicis, quasi
B. Virginem Filio imperare putemus ad Patris dexteram sedenti, uon est ab
Ecclesia probata, et quibusdam tantum Missalibus olim inserta fuit ; quam-
vis innoxius esset iste loquendi modus, " Jure Matris impera Redemptori,"
' qnemadmodum . . . Scriptunx ait, " Deum obedisse voci hominis," quando
orante Josue sol stet. . . . Hoc sensu B. Petrus Damianus, &c. Natal.
Alex. Hist. Sffic. V. Diss. 25. Art. 2. Prop. 2.]

VOL. n. K.

130 O^ THE MODE OF CONDUCTIXG

Albertus Magnus in like manner, —

" Mary pray3 as a daughter, requests as a sister, commands as
a mother."

Another writer says, —

" The blessed Virgin, for the salvation of her supplicants, can, not
only supplicate her Son, as other saint -i do, but also by her maternal
authority command her Son. Therefore the Church prays, ' Monstra
te esse Matrem ;' as if saying to the Virgin, Supplicate for us after
the manner of a command, and with a mother's authority."

After these instances, the article from which I cite asks,
not unreasonably, " Upon whom does the anathema of
Gother fall V

17.

Enough, perhaps, has now been said on the mode in
which it is expedient at the present day to carry on the
controversy with Romanism, — which of its doctrines are
to be selected for attack, what authorities are to be used
in ascertaining them, and what arguments are to be
employed against them. Some remarks shall be added
before concluding, as to the best mode of conducting
the defence of our own Church.

Let it be observed that, in our argument with the
Romanists, we might, if needful, be very liberal in our con-
fessions about ourselves, without at all embarrassing our
position in consequence. While w^e are able to maintain
the claim of our clergy to the ministration of the Sacra-
ments, and our freedom from any deadly heresy, we have
nothing to fear from any historical disclosures which the
envy of adversaries might contrive against our Church,
or from any external appearances which it may present
at this day to the superficial observer. Whatever may
be the past mistakes of individual members of it, or
the tyranny of aliens over it, or its accidental connection

THE CONTROVERSY "WITH ROME. 131

with Protestant persuasions, still these hinder not its
having '^the ministration of the Word and Sacraments;"
and having them^ it has sufficient claims on our filial de-
votion and love. This being understood, then, the follow-
ing remarks are made with a view of showing how far, if
necessary, we may safely go in our admissions.

We may grant in the argument that the English'
Church has committed mistakes in the practical working
of its system ; nay, is incomplete, even in its formal doc-
trine and discipline. We require no enemy to show us
the probability of this, seeing that her own Article ex-
pressly states that the primitive Churches of Antioch
and Alexandria, as well as that of Rome, have erred, " not
only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also
in matters of faith." Much more is a Church exposed to
imperfection, which embraces but a narrow portion of the
Catholic territory, has been at the distance of 1500 to
1800 years from the pure fountains of tradition, and is
surrounded by political influences of a highly malignant
character.

18.

Again, the remark may seem paradoxical at first sight,
yet surely it is just, that the English Church is, for certain,
deficient in particulars, because it does not profess itself
infallible. I mean as follows. Every thoughtful mind must
at times have been beset by the following doubt : " How
is it that the particular Christian body to which I belong
happens to be the right one ? I hear every one about me
saying his oicn society is alone right, and others wrong :
is not each one of us as much justified in saying so as every
one else ? is not any one as much justified as I am ? In other
words, the truth is surely nowhere to be found pure, un-
adulterate and entire, but is shared through the world,
each Christian body having a portion of it, none the whole

K 2

132 ON THE MODE OF OONDUCTINO

of it." A certain liberalism is commonly the fruit of this
perplexity. Men are led on to gratify the pride of human
nature, by standing aloof from all systems, forming a
truth for themselves, and countenancing this or that
body of Christians according as each maintains portions
of that which they themselves have already assumed to be
the truth. Now the primitive Church answered this ques-
tion, by appealing to the simple fact, that all the Apostolic
Churches all over the world did agree together. True,
there were sects in every country, but they bore their own
refutation on their forehead, in that they were of recent
origin ; w'hereas all those societies in every country, which
the Apostles had founded, did agree together in one, and no
time short of the Apostles' could be assigned, with any
show of argument, for the rise of their existing doctrine.
This doctrine in which they agreed was accordingly called
Catholic truth, and there was plainly no room at all for
asking, '' Why should my own Church be more true than
another^s ? " — But at this day, it need not be said, such
an evidence is lost, except as regards the articles of the
Creed. It is a very great mercy tliat the Church Catho-
lic all over the world, as descended from the Apostles, does
at this day speak one and the same doctrine about the
Trinity and Incarnation, as it has always spoken it, ex-
cepting in one single point, which rather probat rcgidam
than interferes with it, viz. as to the procession of the
Holy Ghost from the Son. With this solitary exception,
we have the certainty of possessing the entire truth as
regards the high theological doctrines, by an argument
which supersedes the necessity of arguing from Scripture
against those who oppose them. It is quite impossible
that all countries should have agreed to that which was
not Apostolic. They are a number of concordant wit-
nesses to certain definite truths, and while their testimony
is one and the same from the very first moment they

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 133

});iblicly utter it, so, on the other hand, if there be bodies
which speak otherwise, we can show historically that they
rose later than the Apostles.

This majestic evidence, however, only avails for the arti-
I'les of the Creed, especially the Trinity and Incarnation.
The primitive Church was never called upon, whether in
Council or by its divines, to pronounce upon other points
of faith, and the later Church has differed about them ;
especially about those on which the contest turns between
Romanism and ourselves. Here neither E-ome nor England
can in the same sense appeal to Catholic testimony ; and,
this being the case, a member of the one or the other
Church might fairly have the antecedent scruple rise in
his mind, why his own communion should have the ichole
truth, why, on the contrary, the rival communion should
not have a share of it, and the truth itself lie midway
between them. This is the question of a philosophical
mind, and the Church of Rome meets it with a theory,
perfectly satisfactory, provided only it bs established as a
fact, viz. the theory of infallibility. Th3 actual promise
made, as they contend, to St. Peter's chair, as the centre
of unity, would undoubtedly account for truth being wholly
in the Roman Communion, not in the English, and solve
the antecedent perplexity in question. But the English
Church, taking no such high ground asi this, certainly is
open to the force, such as it is, of the objection, or (as it
was just now expressed) on the prima facie view of the case,
is unlikely to have embraced the whole counsel of God,
because she does not assume infallibility ; and consequently,
no surprise or distress should be felt by her dutiful sons,
should that turn out to be the fact, which her own prin-
ciples, rightly understood, would lead them to anticipate.
At the same time it must carefully be remembered, that
this admission involves no doubt or scepticism as regards
the more sacred subjects of theology, of which the Creed

134 ON TIJE MODE OF CONDI (IING

is the summary ; these liaving been witnessed from the
first b\' the whole Church, — being witnessed too at this
moment, in spite of later corruj)tions, both by the Latin
and Greek Communions.

19.

A consideration has been suggested in the last para-
graph, on which much might be said on a fitting occasion ;
it is (what may be called) a great Canon of the Gospel,
that purity of faith depends on the Sacramentuin Unitafis.
Unity in the whole body of the Church, as ii is the divinely
blessed symbol and pledge of the true faith, so also it is
tlie obvious means (even humanly speaking) of securing it.
The 8acramenfitm was first infringed during the quarrels
of the Greeks and Latins ; it was shattered in that great
schism of the sixteenth century which issued in some parts
of Europe in the Reformation, in others in the Tridentine
Decrees, our own Church keeping the nearest of any to
the complete truth. Since that era at least. Truth has
not dwelt simply and securely in any visible Tabernacle.
This view of the subject will illustrate for us the last words
of Bishop Ken as contained in his wnll : — "As for my
religion, I die in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith,
professed hj the whole Church before the dimnion of End
and West; more particularly I die in tlie communion of
the Church of England, as it sfrouls difitinguishedfroDi all
Papal and Puritan innovations, and. as it adheres to the
doctrine of the Cross."

20.

A third antecedent ground for anticipating wants and im-
perfections in the English Church lies in the circumstances
under which the reformation of its doctrine and worship
was effected. It is now universally admitted as an axiom
in ecclesiastical and political matters that sudlcu and

THE CONTKOVERSY WITH ROME. 1^35

violent changes must be injurious ; and though our own
revolution of opinion and practice was happily slower
and more carefully considered than those of our neigh-
bours, yet it was too much influenced by secular interests,
sudden external events, and the will of individuals, to
carry with it any vouchers for the perfection and entire-
ness of the religious system thence emerging. The pro-
ceedings, for instance, of 1536, remind us at once of the
dangers to which the Church was exposed, and of its
providential deliverance from the worst part of them : the
articles then framed being, according to Burnet, "in
several places coi-rected and tempered by the King's"
(Henry's) "own hand." Again, the precise structure of
our present Liturgy, so primitive and beautiful in its mat-
ter, is confessedly owing to the successive and counteract-
ing influences exerted on it, among others, by Bucer and
Queen Elizabeth. The Church did not make the circum-
stances under which it found itself, and therefore is free
from the responsibility of imperfections to which these
gave rise. These imperfections followed in two ways,
iirst, the hurry and confusion of the times led, as has been
said, to a settlement of religion incomplete and defective ;
secondly, the people, not duly apprehending even what was
soundly propounded, as being new to them, and unable to
digest healthy food after long desuetude, gave a false mean-
ing to it, went into opposite extremes, and fashioned into
unseemly habits and practices those principles which in
themselves conveyed a wholesome and edifying doctrine.'
These considerations cannot fairly be taken in disparage-
ment of the celebrated men who were the instruments of
Providence in the work, and who doubtless felt far more
keenly than is here expressed the perplexities of their
situation : but they will serve perhaps to reconcile our
minds to our circumstances in these latter ages of the
Church, and will cherish in us a sobriety of mind, salutary

136 ON IlIE MODE OF CONDUCTING

in itself, and calculated more than anything else to arm us
against the arguments of Rome, and turn us in affection
and sympathy towards the afflicted Church, which has
been the " Mother of our new-birth." They will but lead
us to confess that she is in a measure in that position which
we fully ascribe to her Latin sister, in caplivity ; and they
will make us understand and duly use the prayers of our
wisest doctors and rulers, such as Bishop Andrewes, that
God would please to " look down upon His holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church, in her captivity ; to visit her once
more with His salvation, and to bring her out to serve
Him in the beauty of holiness."

A fourth antecedent reason for anticipating practical
imperfections in the Anglican system, (and to those mainly
allusion is here made,) arises from the circumstance that
our Articles, so far as distinct from the ancient creeds, are
scarcely more than protests against specific existing errors
of the 16th century, and neither are nor profess to be a
system of doctrine. It is not unnatural then, however
unfortunate, that they should have practically superseded
that previous Catholic teaching altogether, which they were
but modifying in parts, and though but corrections, should
be mistaken for the system corrected.

21.

These reasonings prepare us to acquiesce in much of
plausible objection being admissible against our Church,
even in the judgment of those who love and defend it.
When, however, we proceed to examine what its defects
really are, we shall find them to differ from those of Rome
in this all-important respect, which indeed has already
been in part hinted, that they are but omissions. Rome
maintains positive errors, and that under the sanction of
an anathema; but nothing can be pointed out in the
English Church which is not true, as far as it goes, and

THE CONTROVEKSY WITH HOME. lo7

even when it opposes Rome, with a truly Apostolical tole-
ration, it utters no ban or condemnation against her ad-
herents. On the other hand, the omissions, such as they
are, or rather obscurities of Anglican doctrine, may be sup-
plied for the most part by each of us for himself, and thus
do notinterferewiththeperfect development of the Christian
temper in the hearts of individuals, which is the charge
fairly adducible against Romanism. Such, for instance,
is the phraseology used in speaking of the Holy Eucharist,
which though protected safe through a dangerous time by
the cautious Ridley, yet in one or two places was at least in
intention defaced by the interpolations of Bucer, through
an anxiety in some quarters to unite all the reformed
Churches under episcopal government against Rome.
And such is the omission of any direct safeguard in the
Articles, against disbelief of the doctrine of the Apostolical
Succession.

And again, for specimens of the perverse reception by
the nation, as above alluded to, of what was piously in-
tendedj reference may be made to the popular sense put
upon the eleventh article, which, though clearly and
soundly explained in the Homily on Justification or Salva-
tion, has been erroneously taken to countenance the wildest
Antinoraian doctrine, and is now so associated in the minds
of many with this wrong interpretation, as to render
almost hopeless the recovery of the true meaning.

22.

And su'jh again is the mischievous error, in which the
Church in her formal documents certainly has no share,
that we are but one among many Protestant bodies, and
that the differences between Protestants are of little con-
sequence ; whereas the English Church, as such, is not
Protestant, only politically, that is, externally, or so far as
it has been made an establishment, and subjected to

138 ox THK MODE OF CONDUCTING

national and foreign influences. It cluiius to be merely
Reformed, not Protestant, and it repudiates anj' fellowship
with the mixed multitude which crowd together, w^hether
at home or abroad, under a mere political banner. That
this is no novel doctrine, is plain from the empliatic omis-
sion of the word Protestant in all our Services, even in
that for the fifth of November, as remodelled in the reign
of King William; and again from the protest of the
Lower House of Convocation at that date, on this veiy
point, which would have had no force, except as proceed-
ing upon recognized usages. The circumstance here re-
ferred to was as follows. In 1G89 the Upper House of Con-
vocation agreed on an address to King AVilliam, to thank
him, " for the grace and goodness expressed in his message,
and the zeal shown in it for the Protestant Religion in
general, and the Church of England in particuLir/' To
this the Lower House objected, as importing, according to
Birch in his Life of Tillotson, " their aiming common
union with the foreign Protestants." A conference between
the two Houses ensued, when the Bishops supported their
wording of the address, on the ground that the Protestant
Religion was the known denomination of the common doc-
trine of such parts of the West as liad separated from
Rome. The Lower House proposed, with other alterations
of the passage, the words " Protestant Churches," for
•' Protestant Religion," being unwilling to acknowJedge
religion as separate from the Church. The Upper House
in turn amended thus, — "the interest of the Protestant,
Religion in ifA«s and f///o^/(gr" Protestant Churches," but the
Lower House, still jealous of any diminution of the English
Church by this comparison with foreign Protestants, per-
sisted in their opposition, and gained at length that tin
address, after thanking the King for his zeal for the Church
of England, should proceed to anticipate, that thereby
"the interest of the Protestant Religion in [not "thi-

THE COXTROVEKSY WITH ROME. 130

and " but] " all other Protestant Churches would be better
secured." Birch adds, " The King well understood why
this address omitted the thanks which the Bishops had
recommended, for . . the zeal which he had shown for
the Protestant Religion ; and tchy there teas no expression
of tenderness to the Dissenters, and hut a cool regard to the
Protestant Churches."

23.

Another great practical error of members of our Church
h;is been their mode of defending its doctrines; and this
lias arisen, not from any direction of the Church itself, but,
as it would appear, from mistaking, as already mentioned,
the specific protests contained in its Articles for that
Catholic system, which is the rightful inheritance of it as
well as other branches of the Church. We have indeed
too often fought Horaan Catholics on wrong grounds, and
given up to them the high principles maintained by the
early Church. We have indirectly opposed the major
premiss of our opponents' argument, when we should have
denied the fact expressed in the minor. For instance ;
thej' have maintained that Transubstantiation was an
Apostolical doctrine, as having been ever taught ever}'-
where in the Church. We, instead of denying this fact
as regards Transubstantiation, have acted as if it mattered
very little whether it were true or not, (whereas the
principle is most true and valuable,) and have proceeded
to oppose Transubstantiation on supposed grounds of rea-
son. Again, we have argued for the sole Canonicity of
the Bible to the exclusion of tradition, not on the ground
that the Fathers so held it, (which would be an irrefra-
gable argument,) but on some supposed internal witness of
Scripture to the fact, or some abstract and antecedent
reasons against the Canonicity of unwritten teaching.
Once more, we have argued the unscripturalness of iuiage

140 ON THE MODE OF CONDUCTING

worsliip as its only condemnation ; a mode of argument,
which one would be very far indeed from pronouncing
untenable, but which opens the door to a multitude of
refined distinctions and pleas ; whereas the way lay clear
before us to appeal to history, to appeal to tli^^ usage of the
early Church Catholic, to review the circuuistances of the
introduction of image worship, the Iconoclast controversy,
the Council of Frankfort, and the late reception of the
corruption in the West.

So much, then, on the objections which ma}- be urged
against the English Church, which relate eitlur to mere
omissions, not positive errors, or again to faults in the
practical working of the system, and are in these respects
dissimilar from those which lie against the Church of
Home, and which relate to clear and direct perversions and
corruptions of divine truth. Should it, however, bo asked,
whence our knowledge of the truth should be derived, since
there is so much of meagroness and mistake in our more
popular expounders of it, it may be replied, first, that the
writings of the Fathers contain abundant directions how
to ascertain it ; next, that their directions are distinctly
propounded and supported byour Divines of the seventeenth
century, though little comparatively at present is known
concerning those great authors. Norcoull a more accept-
able or important service be done to our Church at this
present moment, than the publication of some systematic
introduction to tlieology, embodying and illu>tr iting the
great and concordant principles and doctrines set forth by
Hammond, Taylor, and their brethren before and after
them.

24.

Lastly, should it be inquired whether this admission of
incompleteness in our own system docs not load to projects
of change and reform, on the part of individuals ; it must

THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. 141

be answered plainly in the negative. Such an admission
has but reference to the question of abstract perfection ; as
a practical matter, it will be our wisdom, as individuals, to
enjoy what God's good providence has left us, lest, striving
to obtain more, we lose what we still possess.

Oxford,
The Feast of the Circumcision, 1836.

V.

LETTER ADDRESSED TO A MAGAZINE

ON BEHALF OP

DR. PUSEY'S TRACTS ON HOLY BAPTISM
AND OF OTHER TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

(^JBeing No. 82 of the said Tracts^
1837.

NOTICE.

I SHOULD hesitate for several reasons to include the follow-
ing Letter among these republications, did it not serve to
illustrate the state of the controversy at the time when
it was written, and had it not been a step towards the
90th Tract.

In order to understand it aright, passages from publica-
tions of the day must first be given, out of which it grew.

1.

Dr. Pusey, in the second Volume of the Tracts for the
Times (No. 69, On Baptism^ pp. 134—137), writes as
follows : —

" The term ' regeneration ' came to be used for the
visible change, or almost for sanctificution ; and its original
sense, as denoting a privilege of the Christian Church,
was wholly lost. . . . Undoubtedly, the pious men under
the Old Dispensation were sanctified ; and, in these days
of ordinary attainment, how must we look back with
shame and dejection upon the worthies of the elder Cove-

VOL. II. I.

146 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

naut, upon those * three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job,' or
upon Abraham, the Father of the faithful and the ' friend of
God/ Greatly were they sanctified. . The Spirit of God . .
purified the breast of the * Preacher of righteousness ' . .
yet was not Noah therefore regenerate. . Regeneration is
a privilege of the Church of Christ. . Sanctification on the
contrary includes various degrees."

2.

And in the Advertisement to the same Volume occurred
the following passage : —

" We have almost embraced the doctrine, that God
conveys grace only through the instrumentality of the
mental energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active
spiritual contemplations, or (what is called) communion
with God, in contradiction to the primitive view, accord-
ing to which the Church and her Sacraments are the
ordained and direct visible means of conveying to the soul
what is in itself supernatural and unseen. For example,
would not most men maintain, on the first view of the
subject, that to administer the Lord's Supper to infants, or
to the dying and insensible,' however consistently pious
and believing in their past lives, was a superstition ? and
yet both practices have the sanction of primitive usage.
And does not this account for the prevailing indisposition

> [Vid. Bingham, Antiq. xv. 4. § 9.]

DR. PUSEY's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 147

to admit that Baptism conveys regeneration ? Indeed,
this may even be set down as the essence of Sectarian
doctrine (however its mischief may be restrained or com-
pensated, in the case of individuals), to consider faith, and
not the Sacraments, as the instrument of justification and
other Gospel gifts/' &c.

3.

This was in 1835. Towards the end of the next year,
a Protestant Magazine of established reputation was led to
animadvert with great severity upon the above passages,
and on the line of doctrine advocated in the Oxford Tracts,
as follows : —

" In reply to the question which [a correspondent] puts
to us, as to 'what authority' the doctrine which he
quotes from the Oxford Tracts rests upon, we can only
say, Upon the authority of the darkest ages of Popery,
when men had debased Christianity from a spiritual
system, a * reasonable service,' to a system of forms, and
ceremonial rites, and opera operata influences ; in which,
what Bishop Horsley emphatically calls * the mysterious
intercourse of the soul with its Creator,' was nearly
superseded by an intervention of ' the Church * — not as
a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of
God is preached, and the sacraments are 'duly ad-

L 2

148 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE OX THE SUBJECT OF

ministered according to Christ's ordinance/ as the Church
of England defines it — but as a sort of ' mediator be-
tween God and man,* through whom all things relating to
spiritual life were to be conveyed. Those who could not un-
derstand that * God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him,
must worship Him in spirit and in truth,' and those who
had neither the reality nor 'the appearance of spiritual
life,' readily allied themselves to a religion of ceremonials,
in which the Church stood in the place of God. And as
the Popish priesthood found their gain in encouraging
these ritual and non-spiritual views of Christianity, they
eventually prevailed throughout Christendom, till the Re-
formation restored the pure light of Scripture, and taught
men to look less to the priest and more to God ; less to

* outward and visible signs,' and more to * inward and
spiritual graces ;' and not to infer that, because their
name stood upon the register of baptism, it was therefore
enrolled in the Lamb's book of life, when there was no

* appearance ' of spiritual vitality in their heart or
conduct.

" This fatal reliance upon signs, to the forgetf ulness of
the things signified, was rendered more proclivious, from
the circumstance that in the early Church persecution so
purified its ranks, that there was little temptation for men
to call themselves Christians who were not such in heart ;
and as adult converts were the first candidates for baptism.

DR. PUSEY's tract ON HO],Y BAPTISM. 149

the outward and visible sign of regeneration was not re-
sorted to till the inward and spiritual grace was already
actually possessed ; for there had been spiritually a ' death
unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness/ before the
party applied to make a public confession of his faith in
Christ, at the risk of subjecting himself to all the secular
perils which it involved.

" We have devoted so many scores, nay, hundreds of
pages to the questions propounded in the extract from the
Oxford Tracts (especially at the time of the Baptismal
controversy, upon occasion of Bishop Mant's Tract, when
not a few of our readers were thoroughly wearied with the
discussion), that we are not anxious to obtrude a new
litigation ; but we have readily inserted the extract fui'-
nished by our correspondent, because nothing that we
could say would so clearly show the unscriptural charactei*
of the vs^hole system of the Oxford Tracts, as to let them
speak for themselves. When the Christian reader learns
that Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Job, and David,
and Isaiah, and Daniel, were not regenerate persons, were
not sons of God, were not born again, but that Voltaire
was all this, because he had been baptized by a Popish
priest, we may surely leave such an hypothesis to be
crushed by its own weight. It is the very bathos of
theology, an absurdity not worthy to be gravely replied to,
that men were * sanctified,* ' greatly sanctified ;' were the

150 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

friends of God, that 'the Spirit of God dwelt in their
hearts, and wrought therein incorruption, self-denial,
patience, and unhesitating, unwearied faith ; who yet,
having been *by nature born in sin, and the children of
wrath,' and never having been baptized, so as to be made
' the children of grace,' were still ' unregenerate,' and
therefore, in Scripture language, * children of the devil.'
Sanctified, unregenerate friends of God ! The Spirit of
God dwelling in men, who, not being * born again,' were
of necessity, being still in their natural condition, * chil-
dren of the devil ! ' What next ?

*' We defy a score of Dr. Hampdens, even were they to
give lectures in favour of pure Socinianism, to do so much
mischief to the cause of religion, in a high academical
station, as is done by setting forth such doctrine as that
contained in the following passage from one of the
Oxford Tracts ; — for Socinianism makes no pretensions to
be the doctrine of the Church of England, nor do any
members of that Church profess to find it in Scripture ;
whereas the absurdity, the irrational fanaticism, the intel-
lectual drivelling under the abused name of faith, which
dictates such sentiments as the following, must disgust
every intelligent man, and make him an infidel, if he is
really led to believe that Christianity is a system so utterly
opposed to common sense. The writer complains, that

DR. PUSEY^S TRACT OX HOLY BAPTISM. 151

* we have almost embraced the doctrine, that God conveys
grace only through/ &c. [as above, p. 146.]

" Did ever any man, but the most ignorant Popish fanatic,
till these our modern days, write thus ? Administering
the Lord's Supper (by which we feed upon Christ * hy
faith with thanksgiving ' — that is, in a purely spiritual
banquet) to infants, or to the dying or insensible, is not
superstition, if it can be proved that there were in some
former age some persons weak and ignorant enough to act
or advocate such folly and impiety ! Why not equally
vindicate the Pope's sprinkling holy water upon the
horses, or St. Anthony's preaching to the fishes ? We
will only say. Let those who adopt a portion of this scheme,
and not the whole, mark well whither they are tending.
Upon the showing of the Oxford Tracts themselves, the
whole system hangs together. You are to adopt some
irrational mystical system, by which grace is conveyed —
not through * faith, prayer, active spiritual contemplations,
or (what is called) communion with God,' but — in the
same manner that the Lord's Supper conveys grace when
administered to an infant, or an insensible person. We
have never been extreme in our views respecting the lan-
guage used in our Liturgy concerning Baptism. We have
thought that the words might be consistently used, either
in reference to the undoubted privileges of Christian

152 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

baptism ; or in faith and charity, upon the principle stated
in the Catechism, where it is said, * Why then are infants
baptized, when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot
perform them ? (faith and repentance.) Because they
promise them both by their sureties ; which promise, when
they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.'
Upon either of these principles we can cheerfully use our
Baptismal Service. But if the use of it is to sanction the
doctrine stated in this Tract ; if we are to believe that
baptism * conveys to the soul what is in itself supernatural
and unseen,' in the selfsame way that the Popish wafer is
alleged to convey grace to infants and insensible persons —
(why not to idiots ?) — and if our Chvirch Service is to be
tortured to bear this meaning ; then we confess, that the
sooner such a stumbling-block is removed the better.

" The Oxford Tract writers will not allow us to connect
the outward and visible sign of Baptism, or the Lord's
Supper, with the inward and spiritual grace, through the
medium of * faith, prayer, active spiritual contemplations,
or (what is called) communion with God,' but only
through the selfsame channel by which * primitive usage '
supposed grace to flow to an infant or insensible person,
when operated upon with the holy Eucharist. Nay, they
sneer at and ridicule ' what is called ' communion with God
(poor Bishop Ilorsley's 'mysterious intercourse of the

DR. PUSEY's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 153

soul with its Creator '), as being something so ' called,'
but without warrant ; whereas true communion with God
is through the intervention of * the Church :' by which
intervention there is this communion when the priest puts
a consecrated wafer upon the lips of an infant or insensible
person. The Church of England teaches, after Holy
Scripture, that we are 'justified by faith;' Professor
Pusey teaches that the Sacraments are the appointed in-
struments of justification. The learned Professor ought
to lecture at Maynooth, or the Vatican, and not in the
chair of Oxford, when he puts forth this Popish doctrine.
It is afflicting beyond expression to see our Protestant
Church — and in times like these — agitated by the revival
of these figments of the darkest ages of Papal superstition.
Well may Popery flourish ! well may Dissent triumph !
well may XJnitarianism sneer ! well may all Protestantism
mourn, to see the spot where Cranmer and Latimer shed
their blood for the pure Gospel of Christ, overrun (yet
not overrun, for, blessed be God, the infection is not — at
least so we trust — widely spread) with some of the most
vain and baneful absurdities of Popery. We ask Pro-
fessor Pusey how, as a conscientious man, he retains any
oflBce in a Church which requires him to subscribe to all
the Thirty-nine Articles, and to acknowledge as Scriptural
the doctrines set forth in the Homilies ? Will any one of

154 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

the writers, or approvers of the Oxford Tracts, venture to
say that he does really believe all the doctrines of the
Articles and Homilies of our Church ? He may construe
some of the Offices of the Church after his own manner ;
but what does he do with the Articles and Homilies ? We
have often asked this question in private, but could never
get an answer. "Will any approver of the Oxford Tracts
answer it in print ? "

The following letter was the consequence of this chal-
lenge.

DR. PUSE\'S TRACT ON HOLY BAPTISM. 155

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF A
MAGAZINE.

Part I.

Jan. 11, 1837.

Sir, — Through that courtesy, which is on the whole
characteristic of your Magazine, in dealing with opponents,
I am permitted to answer in its pages the challenge, made
in a late number to Dr. Pusey and the writers of the
Tracts for the Times, on certain points of their theology.
The tone of that challenge, I must own, or rather the
general conduct of your Magazine towards the Tracts, since
their first appearance, has been an exception to its usual
mildness and urbanity. However, I seize, as an ample
amends, this opportunity of a reply, which, if satisfactory,
will, as appearing in its pages, be rather a retractation on
your part than an explanation on mine.

One would think that the Tracts had introduced some
new articles of faith into English theology, such suiprise
at them has been excited in some quarters ; yet, much as
they have been censured, no attempt, that I know of, has
been made to prove them guilty — I will not say, in any
article of faith, but — even in any theological opinion, incon-
sistent with that religious system which has been received
among us since the date of the *' Ecclesiastical Polity."
Indeed, nothing is more striking than the contrast ex-
hibited in the controversy between the detiniteness and
precision of the attack upon them, and the vagueness of the

156 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SL'BJEtT OF

reasons for making it. From the excitement on the
subject for the last three years, one would think nothing
was more obvious and tangible than the offence which they
contained ; yet nothing, not only to refute, but even to
describe their errors definitely, has yet been attempted.
Extracts have been made with notes of admiration ; abuse
has been lavished ; invidious associations suggested ; irony
and sarcasm have lent their aid ; their writers have been
called Papists, and Non-jurors, and Lauds, and Sache-
verells, and that not least of all in your own Magazine ;
yet I much doubt whether, for any light which you have
thrown on the subject, its readers have, up to this hour,
any more definite idea of the matter in dispute than they
have of Sacheverell him self, or of the Non-jurors, or of any
other vague name which is circulated in the world, mean-
ing the less the oftener it is used. If your readers were
examined, perhaps they would not get beyond this round
of titles and epithets : or, at the utmost, we should but
hear that the Tracts were corruptions of the Gospel, human
inventions, systems of fallible men, and so forth. These
are the fine words which you give your friends to feed upon,
for bread.

Even now, Mr. Editor, when you make your formal
challenge apropos of Dr. Pusey, you do not distinctly and
pointedly say, as a man who was accusing, not declaiming,
ichat you want answered. You ask, " Will any of the
writers or approvers of the Oxford Tracts venture to say
that he does really believe all the doctrines of the Artich-s
and Homilies of our Church ?" How unsuitable is this !
Why do you not tell us which doctrine of the Articles you
have in your mind, and then prove your point, instead of
leaving us to guess it ? One used to think it was the
business of the accuser to bring proof, and not to throw
upon the accused the onus of proving a negative. What !
am I, as an approver of the Tracts, to go through the

DR. PUSEy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 157

round of doctrines in Articles and Homilies, measuring
Dr. Pusey first by one, then by the other, while the Editor
sits still, as judge rather than accuser ? What ! are we
not even to have the charge told us, let alone the proof ?
No ; we are to find out both the dream and the interpre-
tation.

2.

So much for the formal challenge which your Maga-
zine puts forth ; and I can find nothing, either in the
remarks which precede it or in its acceptance of my
offer, precisely coming to the point, and informing me
what the charge against Dr. Pusey is. It is connected with
the Sacraments, certainly : you wish him and his friends,
according to your subsequent notice, " to reconcile some of
the statements in them [the Tracts] respecting the Sacra-
ments, with soryie of those in the Articles and Homilies !"
In your remarks which precede the challenge, you do
mention two opinions which you suppose him to hold,
which I shall presently notice ; but you are still silent as
to the Article or Homily transgressed. This is not an
English mode of proceeding : and I dwell on it, as one of
the significant tokeas in the controversy, as to what is the
real state of the case and its probable issue. Here are
two parlies : one clamours loudly and unsparingly against
the other, and does no more ; that other is absorbed in his
subject, appeals to Scripture, to the Fathers, to custom, to
reason, in its defence, but answers not. Put the case
before any sharp-sighted witness of human affairs, and he
will give a good guess which is in the right. If, indeed,
there is one thing more than another that brings home to
me that the Tracts are mainly on the side of Truth — more
than their reasonings, their matter, and their testimonies ;
more than argument from Scripture, or appeal to Antiquity,
or sanction from our own divines ; more than the beauty

158 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

and grandeur, the thrilling and transporting influence, the
fulness and sufficiency of the doctrines which they desire to
maintain — it is this : the evidence which their writers
bear about them, that they are the reviled party, not the
revilers. I challenge the production of anything in the
Tracts of an unkind, satirical, or abusive character ; any-
thing personal. One Tract only concerns individuals at
all, No. 73 ; and that treats of them in a way which no
one, I think, will find to be any exception to this remark.
The writers nowhere attack your Magazine, or other
similar publications, though they evidently as little
admire its theology, as your Magazine approves of the
theology of the Tracts. They have been content to go
onward ; to preach what is positive ; to trust in what they
did well, not in what others did ill; to leave Truth to
fight its own battle, in a case where they had no office or
commission to assist it coercively. They have spoken
against principles, ages, or historical characters, but not
against persons living. They have taken no eye for eye,
or tooth for tooth. They have left their defence to time,
or rather committed it to God. Once only have they
hitherto accepted of defence, even from a friend,'' a partner
he indeed also, but not in those Tracts which he defended.
This, then, is the part that they have chosen ; what your
Magazine's choice has been, is plain even from the article
which leads me to write this letter. We are there told
of the Oxford writers "relying on the authority of the
darkest ages of Popery ;" of their advocating " the bathos
in theology, an absurdity not worthy to be gravely replied
to,*' of their " absurdity," " irrational fanaticism," ** intel-
lectual drivelling," of their writing like " the most
ignorant Popish fanatic," of their "sneering and ridicul-
ing," of their reviving the ''figments of the darkest ages
of Papal superstition," " some of the most vain and baneful
' Dr. PusC}'» Euruest Btmonatrancc, in volume 8 of the " Tracts."

DR. PTJSEY's tract ON HOLY BAPTISil. 159

absurdities of Popery \' and all tliis with an avowal you
do not wish to discuss the matter. Brave words surely !
"Well and good, take your fill of these, Mr. Editor, since
you choose them for your portion. It does but make our
spirits rise cheerily and hopefully thus to be encountered.
Never were our words on one side, but deeds were on the
other. AVe know our place, and our fortunes ; to give a
witness and to be condemned, to be ill-used and to succeed.
Such is the law which God has annexed to the promulga-
tion of the Truth ; its preachers suffer, but its cause prevails.
Be it so. Joyfully do we all consent to this compact ;
and the more you attack us personally, the more, for the
very omen's sake, will we exult in it.

With these feelings, then, I have accepted your
challenge, not for the sake of Dr. Pusey, much as I love
and revere him ; not for the sake of the writers of the
Tracts ; but for the sake of the secret ones of Christ, lest
they be impeded in their progress towards Catholic truth
by personal charges against those who are upholding it
against the pressure of the age. As for Dr. Pusey himself,
and the other writers, they are happy each in his own
sphere, wherever God's providence has called them, in
earth or heaven; and they literally do not know, and
do not care, what the world says of them.

3.

Now, as I have already said, I cannot distinctly make
out the precise charge brought against Dr. Pusey and his
friends ; that is, I cannot determine ichat tenet of his is
supposed to be contrary to which of the Thirty- nine Articles.
However, you condemn two of their statements, — the notion
that the Sacraments may, for what we know, in certain
cases be of benefit to persons unconscious during their
administration ; and next that Regeneration is a gift of the

160 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

New Covenant exclusively. I will take them in the order
you place them in.

1. First, then, of Regeneration, as a gift peculiar to the
Gospel. — You remark thus upon a passage from Dr. Pusey'a
work on Baptism, in which he contrasts regeneration and
sanctification, and says, that the former is a gift of the
Gospel exclusively, the latter is the possession of all good
men : " We have devoted," you say, " so many scores, nay,
hundreds of pages to the questions propounded in the
extract from the Oxford Tracts (especially at the time of
the Baptismal controversy, upon occasion of Bishop Mant's
Tract, when not a fewof our readers were wearied with the
discussion), that we are not anxious to obtrude a new
ligitation ; but we have readily inserted the extract
furnished by our correspondent, because nothing that we
could say would so clearly show the unscriptural character
of the whole system of the Oxford Tracts, as to let them
speak for themselves." — Now at first sight there might
seem to be an inconsistency in your persisting for some
years in speaking instead of lis, then suddenly saying, it is
best to let the Tracts "speak for themselves," and then in
the very next sentences, relapsing in eandem cantilenain,
into the same declamatory tone of attack as before ; but
there is really none. In either case you avoid discussion,
which, as you candidly confess, and very likely with good
reason, you are tired of. I doubt not you are discouraged
at finding that you have still to argue about what you have i
already settled once for all. Or rather, if you will let mej
speak plainly, and tell you my mind, perhaps there haa^
been that in the religious aspect of the hour, which has '
flattered many who agree with you, and perhaps yourself,
that the day of mere struggle was past, and the day of]
triumph was come ; that your principles were now pro-
fessed by all the serious, all the active men in the Church, j
your old opponents drooping or dying off; and that now,]

111!, pusey's tuact on holy BArXlSM. IGl

by the force of character in your friends, or by influence
in high places, your view of doctrine would be sure of
making a permanent impression uponour religious system.
And if 80, you are not unnaturally surprised to find ^' uno
avulso, non deficit alter ;" to find a sudden obstacle in
your path, and that from a quarter whence you did not
expect it ; and, in consequence, you feel stimulated to
remove so inconvenient a phenomenon hastily rather than
courteously. And hence, partly from weariness, partly
from vexation, you would, if you could, carry your
theological views by acclamation, not after discussion. If
all this be so, you are quite consistent, whether you quote
our words without comment, or substitute your own
comment for them. In one point alone you are irre-
trievably inconsistent, to have inserted your challenge
at the end of your article. You are safe while you eschew
argument.

4.

But what is the very doctrine that has created this
confusion ? It is Dr. Pusey's asserting, after primitive
authorities, that the Old Fathers, though sanctified, were
not regenerated. Is this, after all, the doctrine which con-
travenes the Articles, and is such that a divine who holds
it should quit his Professorship ? In which of the Articles
is a syllable to be found referring to the subject, one way
or the other — except so far as they tend our way, as
implying, from their doctrine of regeneration in baptism,
that those who are not baptized, and therefore the Old
Fatliers, are not regenerate ? If then the plain truth must
be sp»ken, what your Magazine wishes is to add to the
Articles. Let this be clearly understood. This Magazine,
which has ever, as many think, been over-liberal and lax
in its explanations of our Services, and in its concessions to
Dissenters, desires to forge for us a yoke of commandments,

VOL II. M

1G2 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OK

and, as I should hold, of commandments of men. Years
n^o, indeed, we heard of much from it in censure of Bishop
Marsh's Eighty-seven Questions which put his private sense
on our Church formularies; but it would seem that an
Editor may do what a Bishop may not. In reviewing
those arbitrary Questions, your Magazine pointedly spoke
of the wisdom of the framers of the Royal Declaration
prefixed to the Articles, which prescribes that they shall
be taken in no new or peculiar sense; contrasting, to use
its own words, " the spirit of peace, of moderation, of manly
candour, and comprehensive liberality, which breathes
throughout this Declaration, with the subtle, contentious,
dogmatical, sectarian, and narrow-minded spirit wliich,"
it proceeded, " we grieve to sa}', pervades the Bishop of
I'eterborough's Eighty-seven Questions.^' (March, 1821.)
But why is liberality to develope on one side only ? Why
must Regeneration by Baptism be an open question, but
the Regeneration of the Patriarchs a close one ? Why
must Zuinglius be admitted, and the school of Gregory
and Augustine excluded? Or do men by a sort of
superstition so cleave to the word Protestant, that a Saint
who had the misfortune to be born before 1517 is less of
kin to them than heretics since ? But such is your Maga-
zine's rule : it is as zealous against Bishop Marsh for
coercing one way, as against us for refusing to be coerced
the other.

Will it be said that Dr. Pusey and others would do the
same, if they could ; that is, would limit the Articles to
their own sense? No; the Articles are confessedly wide
in their wording, though still their width is within bounds ;
they seem to include a number of shades of opinion. Your
Magazine may rest satisfied that Dr. Pusey's friends will
never assert that the Articles haveanj'^ particular meaning ;
at all. They aspire, and (by the divine blessing) intend,
to have a successful fight ; but not by narrowing the

DK. PUSEy's TRACr ON HOLY BAPTISM. 163

Church's Creed toLutheranism, Calvinism, or Zuinglianism
after your pattern, but from a confidence that they are
contending for the Truth, and as seeing that Providence is
wonderfully raising up witnesses and champions of the
Truth, not in one place only, but at once in many, as
armed men from the ground.

But to return. It is hard to be put on our defence, as
it appears we are, for opinions not against the Articles ;
but be it so. Let us hear the form of the accusation.
You speak thus : " When the Christian reader learns that
Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Job, and Dayid, and
Isaiah, and Daniel, were not regenerate persons, were not
sons of God, were not born again, but that Yoltaire was
all this, because he had been baptized by a Popish priest,
we may surely leave such an hypothesis to be crushed by
its own weight." To be sure, the hypothesis is absurd, if
your own sense is to be put upon the word " regenerate ;"
but it will be observed, that it all depends upon this ; and
it is not evident that it will be absurd when Dr. Pusey's
own sense is put upon his own words. If all who are
sanctified are regeneratOj then I say, it is absurd to say
that Abraham was noi regenerate, being sanctified. On
the other hand, if onhj Christians are regenerate, then it is
absurd to say that Abraham was regenerate, being not a
Christian. What trifling upon words is this ! what is the
use of oscillating to and fro upon their different meanings ?
Surely, your business, Mr. Editor, was to prove his sense
wrong, not to assume your own sense as undeniable, and to
interpret his words by it; else, when j/ofi assert, "no one,
unless regenerated on earth, shall enter heaven," he, in
turn, might accuse you, quite as fairly, of denying the
salvation of Abraham, because, in his view, Abraham
was not regenerated on earth.

M 2

1G4 LETIER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

6.

I will now state briefly the view of Dr. Pusey, derived
from the goodly fellowship of the Fathers, proved from
Scripture, and called by your Magazine " the very bathos
of theology/^ All of us, I suppose, grant that the Holy
Spirit is given under the Gospel, in some sense, in
which He was not given under the Law. The llomily
(ind of Faith) says so expressly: " Although they," the
Old Testament saints mentioned Heb. xi., " were not
named Christian men, yet was it a Christian faith that
they had : God gave them then grace to be His children,
as He doth us now. But now, by the coming of our
Saviour Christ, we have received more abundantly the
Spirit of God in our hearts, whereby we may conceive a
greater faith, and a surer trust, than many of them had.
But, in effect, they and we be all one : we have the same
faith," &c. Though man's duties were the same, his gifts
were greater after Christ came. Whatever might be the
spiritual aid that was vouchsafed before, afterwards it
was a Divine Presence in the soul, abiding, abundant,
and efficacious. In a word, it was the Holy Ghost Him-
self: He influenced indeed the heart before, but is not
revealed as residing in it. Now, when we consider the
Scripture proof of this in the full, I think we shall see
that this special gift, which Christians have, is really
something extraordinary and distinguishing. And,
whether it should be called Regeneration or no, so far is ^
clear, that all persons who hold that there is a great gift
since Christ came, which was not given before, do, in their
degree, incur your censure, as holding a " very bathos of
theology." You might say of them, just as you say of
Dr. Pusey, " When the Christian reader learns that Abra-
ham was sanctified, yet ' had not the Spirit, because thaf
Jesus was not yet glorified/ we may leave the hypothesis
to be crushed by its own weight."

D!l. rUSEv's TRACT OX HOLY BAPTISM. 165

6.

Now for the Scripture proof. I contend, first, that
there is a spiritual difierence between Christians and Jew's ;
and, next, that the accession of spiritual power, which
Christians have, is called Regeneration. Let it be under-
stood, however, that I am not adducing proofs of this, as
if you had any claim on me for them ; but showing 3'our
readers that, even at first sight, it is not so utterly irra-
tional and unplausible a notion as to account for your
saying, "What next?" in short, to show that the
" absurdity " does not lie with Dr. Pusey.

The prophets had announced'the^jromjse. Ezek. xxxvi.
25 — 27 : " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye
shall be clean ... a new heart also will I give you, and
a neic spirit will I put within you . . . and I will put J/y
spirit tcithin you." Again, xxxvii. 27 : " My tabernacle
also shall be with them.^' Yid. also Heb. viii. 10. In
Isa. xliv. 3, the gift is expressly connected with the per-
son of the Messiah : "I will pour water upon. him that is
thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground : I will pour My
Spirit upon Thy seed, and My blessing upon Thine off-
spring."

Our Saviour refers to this gift as the promise of His
Father, Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4. He enlarges much
upon it, John xiv. — xvi. It flows to us from Him : " Of
His fulness have all we received.'^ (John i. 16.)

St. John expressly tells us it was not given before Christ
was gloT'ified. (John vii. 39.) In like manner St. Paul
says, that though the old fathers lived by faith, yet they
received not the promise. (Heb. xi. 39.) And St. Peter,
that even the prophets, though they had the prophetic
Spirit — " the Spirit of Christ which was in them " — yet,
after all, had not " the glory which should follow ;" which
was " the Gospel with the Holy Ghost sent down from

166 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUUJECl' Ol"

heaven ;" that is, the Spirit, in the special Christian sense.
Consider also St. Paul's use of the term " spirit," e. g.
Rom. viii., as being the characteristic of the Gospel.

It is described in the New Testament under the same
images as it is promised in the Old, — a tabernacle in us,
and a fount of living water (1 Cor. iii. 17 ; vi. 19 ; 2 Cor.
vi. 16—18 ; John iv. 14 ; vii. 38).

Nothing, I think, but the inveterate addiction to sys-
tematizing so prevalent can explain away texts which so
expressly say that we have a Divine presence which the
Jews had not.

Now, secondly, is this gift to be called Regeneration ?
I grant that there is a sense in which the terms applicable to
Christian privileges are also apj^licable to Jewish. The
Jews were " sons of God," were " begotten " of God, had
'' the Spirit,^' saw " the glory of God/' and the like ; but,
in like manner, the Saints also in heaven, as their peculiar
gift, will see " the glory of God," and Angels are "sons of
God;" yet we know that nevertheless Angels and Saints
are in a state different from the Jews. The question, then,
still remains open, whether, in spite of the absence of dis-
criminating terms. Christians also have not a gift which
the Jews had not, and whether the word regeneration, in its
proper sense, does not denote it.

Our proof then is simple. The word " regeneration "
occurs twice only in Scripture ; in neither can it be in-
terpreted to include Judaism ; in one of the two, most
jirobably in both, it is limited to the Gospel ; in Titus
iii. 4, 5, certainly ; and in Matt. xix. 28, according as
it is stopped, it will mean the coming of Gospel grace,
or the resurrection.^

' [Thia subject is also treated of in the author's Parochial Sermons, vol.
vi. 13. Two opinions are here ndvanced, which require careful wording :
that the Jews had not the gift of regeneration, and that they had not

DR. PLSEY's tract ON HOiA' BAPTISM. 167

7.

Such is some small portion of the Scripture notices on
the general subject, which I bring to show that Scripture
does not so speak as to make the view maintained by Dr.
Pusey, with ail Saints, guilty of absolute " absurdity " on
the face of the matter, and a " bathos in theology." And
the following consideration will increase this impression.
In truth his view is simply beyond, not against your own
opinion. It is a view which the present age cannot be
said to deny, because it has not eyes for it. The Catholic
Church has ever given to Noah, Abraham, and Moses, all
that the present age of Protestantism gives to Christians.
You cannot mention the grace, in kind or degree, which
you ascribe to the Christian, which Dr. Pusey will not
ascribe to Abraham ; except, perhaps, the intimate know-
ledge of the details of Christian doctrine. But he con-

the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, both of these being the privilege of
Christians.

I observe, in addition to what I have said in the text, that Nicodemus,
" the master in Israel," knew nothing of gospel regeneration, and though
a religious man, evidently had not received the gift; and that St. Thomas
with the Schola holds generally that the Mosaic Sacraments did not cause
grace ex opere operato and physich, but only conferred legal sanctity,
signifying, not anticipating, Gospel grace.

As to the second statement, though it is de fide that justification has
never been bestowed by an external imputation, whether under the Old Law
or now, but has always been consequent on an inward gift, still it must be
observed that the author in the above passage expressly mentions sanctifica-
tioii as one of the Jewish privileges, though only a sanctification of a legal
diaracter, inward indeed but not that direct presence of the Holy Ghost
which the Fathers predicate of Christian justification, nor a quality, habit,
or permanent possession ; while on the other hand theologians allow that a
justification by imputation without inward sanctification might have been
the rule in the revealed system, though it is not, and in fact in our own
system venial sins are not necessarily wiped out by grace, and may be, and
sometimes are, by extrinsic condonation.]

168 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

siders that Christians have a something beyond all this,
even a portion of that heaven brouglit down to earth,
which will be for ever in heaven the portion of Abraham
and all saints in its fulness. It is not, then, that Dr.
Pusey defrauds Abraham, but you defraud Christians.
That special gift of grace, called " the glory of God,"* is
as unknown to the so-called religious world in this country
as to the " natural man." The Catholic Religion teaches,
that, when grace takes up its abode in us, we have so
superabounding and awful a grace tabernacled in us, that
no other words describe it more nearly than to call it an
Angel's nature. Now mark the meaning of this. Angels
are holy; yet Angels before now have become devils.
Keeping this analogy in view, you will perceive that it is
as little an absurdity to say that Abraham was not regene-
rate, as to say that he wa"? not an Angel ; as little unmean-
ing to say that Voltaire had been regenerated, as it would
be to say he became 'a devil, as Judas is actually called.
Let me suit one or two of your sentences to this view oi
the subject, and then I will release you from the troubU
of hearing more about it for a month. You will then speak
thus: "When the Christian reader learns that Noah,
Abraham, and Moses, were not Angels, yet that Judus be-
came a devil, we may surely leave such an hypothesis to
be crushed by its own weight. It is the very bathos of
theology, an absurdity not worthy to be gravely replied
to — that Jews were sanctified, the friends of God, had the
grace of God in their hearts, and yet were not Angels.
Sanctified, non-angelic friends of God ! grace dwelling in
any but Michael, Gabriel, the Cherubims and the Sera-
phims ? What next ? "

Alas ! sir, that you should so speak of your own privi-
eges ! Perhaps it is ray turn now to ask you, "What
next ? " and this I mean to do. Before proceeding to the
* [Viz. 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; 1 Pet. iv. 1 ! ; 2 Pet. i. 3.]

i

DR. PUSEy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 169

other opionion attributed by you to Dr. Pusey, I wish to
learn what you will say to what is now offered you. Only
I would remark, that the subjects which I have not yet
touched upon are to come, when due attention shall be
shown to your remarks about Justification, the Homilies,
and kindred points.

Part II.

8.

■Marclx 3, 1837.

2. I now proceed to the second of the charges which
you have brought against Dr. Pusey. After saying what is
necessary upon it, I stall, as I promised, notice the sub-
ject of Justification, the Homilies, and the Articles ; and
shall intersperse the discussion with some remai ks, as brief
as is practicable, on the various matter which, as you
happily express yourself, you have " ramblingly and cur-
sorily set before your readers," in your animadversions on
the portion of my Letter already published.

That portion occupies not so much as seven pages of
your larger tj^pe, and that spread out into two numbers.
It has elicited from you in answer about sixty pages of
your closest. I think then I have a claim in courtesy,
nay in justice, that 5'ou should put in the whole of this
reply unbroken by a word of your own. I will not em-
brace the entire subject in it, but leave one portion for an
after Number of your Magazine, that you may not say I
burden you with too much at once. But what I send, I
hope to see inserted without mutilation. Do grant me this
act of fairness — you will have months upon months, naj*,
the whole prospective duration of your Magazine, for your
reply : I, on the other hand, limit myself to one letter.

170 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SV HJ KCT OF

All I ask is the right of an Englishman, a fair and un-
interrupted hearing.

9.

The second charge then which you bring against Dr,
Pusey is this : — that he holds that the Sacraments may,
for what we know, in certain cases, be of benefit to persons
unconscious durin,^ their administration. You quarrel,
however, with this mode of stating his supposed opinion :
5'ou say, " Mr. Newman misstates what we said. We were
denying the utility of administering the Lord's Supper to
infants or insensible persons, as the Papists employ ex-
treme unction ; whicli Mr. Newman skilfully turns into a
charge of our denying that there is any benefit in Infant
Baptism ^^ (p. 124), Now, I really think you leave the
matter as you found it. You have said, the notion of the
Holy Eucharist benefiting infants was " an absurdity,"
"intellectual drivelling," "irrational fanaticism," &c. I
ask, then, w/iy is not the doctrine that Holy Baptism
benefits them, all these bad things also ? Surely you are
speaking of the very notion of infants being benefited by
means of external rites, when you say it implies *' a system
utterly opposed to common sense." You must mean there
is an antecedent absurdity in the notion ; antecedent to a
consideration of the particular case. You speak, just as I
have worded it, against the very notion that " the sacra-
ments," one as well as the other, " may, for what we
know, in certain cases, be of benefit to persons unconscious
during their administration." Wliat is an absurdity
when supposed in one case, is an absurdity surely in the
other. I cannot alter my wording of the argumentative
ground which you take up against our doctrine.

Next let us consider the very passage which has led you
to use these free epithets. It stands thus : " We have
almost embraced the doctrine that God conveys grace only
through the intrumentality of the mental energies, that

DR. PUSEY's tract ON TIOLY BAPTISM. 171

is, through faith^ prayer, active spiritual contemplation, or
(what is called) communion with God, in contradiction to
the primitive view, according to which the Church and
her sacraments are the ordained and direct invisible moans
of conveying to the soul what is in itself supernatural
and unseen. For example: would not most men main-
tain, on the first view of the subject, that to administer the
Lord's Supper to infants, or to the dying and insensible,
however consistently pious and believing in their past
live*!, was a superstition ? and yet both practices have the
sanction of primitive usage. And does not this account
for the prevailing indisposition to admit that baptism
conveys regeneration ? Indeed, this may even be set down
as the essence of sectarian doctrine (however its mischief
may be restrained or compensated in the case of indi-
viduals), to consider faith, and not the sacraments, as the
instrument of justification and other Gospel gifts." — These
words you attribute to Dr. Pusey. You say, " Professor
Pusey teaches that the sacraments are the appointed in-
struments of justification; the learned Professor ought
to lecture at Maynooth, or the Vatican, and not in the
chair of Oxford, when he puts forth this Popish doctrine.^'
Again, in pp. 118, 119, you speak of Dr. Pusey 's saying
that the grace of the sacrament is unconnected " with the
mental energies, that is, through faith, prayer, active
spiritual contemplations, or what is called communion with
God " (here you interpose of your own, '' For shame. Dr.
Pusey, to speak thus lightly of ' communion with
God ! ' ") ; that " to administer the Lord's Supper to in-
fants, or to the dying and insensible," is not " superstition,"
but "■ a practice having the sanction of primitive usage ; ^'
and " primitive usage,'^ you add, *^ the Oxford Tracts "
(Tracts for the Times) " teach is of Apostolical authority."
It is quite clear you attribute the above sentences to
Dr. Pusey.

172 LEITER TO A MAGAZINE ON TIIK SUBJECU OF

Let me ask youthen a question. Should anyone accuse
you of having written them, should you not be startled ?
Supposing I boldly attributed them to you, and retorted
your interjection of indignation at them upon yourself,
would you not consider it somewhat outrajjeous ? Be
judge then in your own case. Those sentences no more
belong to Dr. Pusey than to you. They are not in his
Tract. They are not his writing. No one man is charge-
able with the work of another man. Not even were Dr.
Pusey to profess he approved the general sentiment of the
passage, would you have any right to charge him with the
very wording of it. Every man has his own way of express-
ing himself; you have yours ; Dr. Pusey might approve
the sentiment, yet criticize the wording. All these strong
sayings then against Dr. Pusey are misdirected. Mr.
Editor, be sure of your man, before you attack him.

10.

However, let us examine the words, whosesoever they are.
They occur in the Advertisement to the second volume of
the Trncts. Now, in what they say about administering
the Holy Eucharist to children or to the insensible, they do
not enforce it, as you suppose, on "Apostolical authority."
A usage may be primitive, yet not universal ; may belong
to the first ages, but only to some parts of the Church.
Such a usage is either not Apostolical, else it would be
everywhere observed ; or at least not binding, as not being
delivered by the Apostles as binding. For instance ; the
Church of Ephesus, on St. John's authority, celebrated the
Easter- feast after the Jewish manner, yet such a custom is
not binding on us. Now, supposing I said, " the great
reverence in which the Jewish Dispensation was held in
the best and purest ages, is shown in this, that the
quartodeciman usage has primitive sanction ; " must I
necessarily mean that all Christendom, and all the Apostles,

DR. PUSEy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 173

observed Easter on the fourteenth day of Nisan ? must I
mean tliat we are bound to keep it on that day ? must I
mean to extol such a usage, and to advocate ii ? Yet
would it not in fact show in them who so observed it an
attachment to the usages which once had been divine ?
Apply this instance to the sentence of this writer, who is
not Dr. Pusey, this Pseudo-Pusey, as I may call him ; and
see whether it will not help your conception of his mean-
ing. He does not say, he does not imply, that to
administer the second Sacrament to infants is Apostolic;
he does not consider it a duty binding on us. He does
but say, that since it has a sanction in early times, it is not
that *' absurdity," " irrational fanaticism,'^ and so forth,
which your Magazine says it is : and his meaning may be
thus worded : " Here is a usage existing up and down the
early Church, which, right or wrong, argues quite a different
temper and feeling from those of the present day. This
day, on the first fiew of the subject, calls it an absurdity;
that day did not.'' Surely it is fair to estimate inward
states of mind by such spontaneous indications. To warn
men against the religious complexion of certain persons at
present, I might say, " they belong to the Pastoral Aid
Society," though other men of the same religious sentiments
might not belong to it. To describe the temper of our
Bishops 130 years since, I should refer to the then attempt,
nearly successful, of formally recognizing the baptism of
Dissenters. Again, the character of Laud's religion may
be gathered even from the exaggerated account of his con-
secrating St. Catharine Cree's church, without sanctioning
that account.

When such indications occur in primitive times, though
they are not of authority more than in modern times, yet
they are tokens of what is of authority, — a certain reli-
gious temper, which is found everywhere, always, and in
all, though the particular exhibitions of it be not. In like

174 LETTKU TO A MAGAZINE OX THK SUHJECT OF

manner the spiritual interpretations of Scripture, which
abound in the Fathers, may be considered as proving the
Apostolicity of the principle of spiritualizing Scripture ;
though 1 may not, if it so happen, acquieice in this or that
particular application of it, in this or that Father. And
so the administration of the Lord's Suj)pin- to infants in
the church of Cyprian, Saint and Martyr, is a sanction of
a principle, which you, on the other hand, call " an
absurdity," "intellectual drivelling," and "irrational
fanaticism." For my part, I am not ashamed to confess
that I should consider Cyprian a better interpreter of the
Scripture doctrine of the Sacraments, of "the minding of
the Spirit " about them, than even the best divines of this
day, did they take, as I am far from accusing them of
doing, an ojDposite view. You, however, almost class the
Saint among " ignorant fanatics," p. 119, and at least make
him their associate and abettor.

Now, if this interpretation of the passage in question
be correct, as I conscientiously and from my heart believe
it to be, it will follow that you have not yet made good
even the shadow of a shade of a charge of opposition to
the Articles — not only against Dr. Puscy, but against the
Tracts generally ; for no one can say that anj' one of the
Articles formally /oriiV/s us to consider that grace is con-
veyed Ihrough the outward symbols ; while, on the other
hand, one of them expressly speaks of "the body of
Christ" as "given," as well as " taken, in the Supper;"
words, moreover, which are known to have meant, in the
language of that day, " given by the administrator;" and
therefore, through the consecrated bread. At the same
time, let it be observed I do not consider the writer of the
Advertisement to say for certain that the outward elements
benefit true Christians when insensible ; only as much as
this, that we cannot be sure they do not.

DR. PUSEY's tract 0J< HOLY BAP'llSM. 175

11.

Before closing this head of my subject, I shall remark
on the words upon which you exclaim, " For shame. Dr.
Pusey ! " though he has no reason to be ashamed of what
he did not write. They are these : " or what is called,
communion with God.^' You often mistake, Mr. Editor,
by not laying the emphasis on the right word in the
sentence on which you happen to be commenting. This
is a case in point. The stress is to be placed upon the
word *' called " — "what is^ called communion with God."
The author meant, had he supplied his full meaning, " what
is improperli/ called.^' There is nothing to show that he
denies *' the communion of saints " with God and with
each other, and, in subordination to the mystical union,
the conscious union of mind and affections. He only
condemns that indulgence of mere excited feeling which
has now-a-days engrossed that sacred title.

To show that this is no evasion or disingenuousness on
my part (for you sometimes indulge in hints about me to
this effect), I will give your readers one or two more
instances of the same insensibility on your part to the
emphatic word in a sentence, and the last of them a very
painful instance.

1. I said, in the former part of my letter, that Dr. Pusey's
friends insist on no particular or peculiar sense of the
Articles, — a fault which I had just charged upon you. I
had said you were virtually imposing additions : then I
supposed the objection made, that tee should do so, had we
the power, — as is often alleged. To this I answer, " Yoar
^lagazine may rest satisfied that Dr. Pusey's friends will
never assert that the Articles have any particular meaning
at all.^' You have missed the point of this sentence :
accordingly, you detach it from the context, and prefix it
to the opening of the discussion, before it appears in its
proper place in print ; and when it does appear, you

176 LETTEK lO A MAGAZINE 0.\ THE SLliJECT Of

print it in italics. This is taking a liberty with my
text. However, to this subject I shall have occasion to
recur.

2. Another instance occurs in your treatment of the
ITomilies and Mr. Iveble. The Homily speaks of "the
stinking puddles of men's traditions." You apply this as
an answer to Mr. Keble's sermon, who speaks of God's
traditions, even those which St. Paul bids us "hold;" and
who considers, moreover, that no true traditions of
doctrine exist but such as may be also proved from Scrip-
ture ; whereas the Homily clearly meuns by men's
traditions, that is, such as caitnothe proved from Scripture.
You would have escaped this mistake, had you borne in
mind that traditions, "devised hymen's imagination," are
not Divine traditions, and that it as little follows that
Catholic Traditions are to be rejected because Jewish and
Koman are, as that the Christian Sabbath is abolished
because the Jewish is abolished. But you saw that Mr.
Keble said something or other about tradition, and you
were carried away with the word.

3. The last mistake of this kind is a serious one. It is
a charge brought against Dr. Pusey. He has said, "To
those who have fallen, God holds out only a light in a dark
place, sufficient for them to see their path, but not bright
or cheering, as they would have it ; and so, in different
ways, man would forestall the sentence of his judge ; the
Romanist by the sacrament of penance, a modern class of
divines by the appropriation of the merits and righteousness
of our blessed Redeemer." You add three notes of
admiration, and say, " We tremble as we transcribe these
awful words," p. 123. I dare not trust myself to speak
about such heedless language as it deserves. I will but
say, in explanation of your misconception, that Dr. Pusey
compares to Roman restlessness, not the desiring and
praying to be clothed, or the doctrine that every one who

DR. FUSRy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 177

is saved must be clothed, in " the merits and righteousness
of our blessed Redeemer," but the appropriation of them
without warrant on the part of individuals. He denies that
individuals who have fallen into sin have any right to claim
them as their own already ; he denies that they may
" forest all the sentence of the Judge '^ at the last day; he
maintains they can but flee to Christ, and a'ljure Him by
His general promises, by His past mercies to themselves,
by His present distinct mercies to them in the Church ; but
that they haveno personal assurance, no right to appropriate
again what was given them plenarily in baptism. This is
his meaning ; whereas you imply that he denies the duty of
looking in faith to be saved hy Christ's merits and righteous-
ness ; that he denies backsliders the hoiJe of it. If you do
not imply this, if you really mean that the act of claiming
Christ's merits on the part of this or that individual (for of
this Dr. P. speaks) is, as you express it, ''a most Scriptural
and consoling truth," and that it is " blaspheme us,'' but
for " the absence of wicked intention in the writer," to com-
pare to the Roman penance the confidence which sinners
are taught to feel that their past offences are already for-
given them, — if this be your meaning, I am wrong, but I
am charitable, in saying you have mistaken Dr. Pusey.

Now I come to the consideration, which you especially
press upon us, of (I) the Homilies, (2) the Articles, and
(3) Justification.

12.

And first concerning the Homilies.

1. You ask, " How do these clergymen reconcile

their consciences to such declarations as those which
abound, in the Homilies, affirming that the Church of Rome
is ' Antichrist,' &c. ? " And you say that you are considered
" persecutors " or a persecutor, because you ask how I and
others " reconcile such things in the Homilies with the

VOL. II. N

178 LElTEll TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

Oxford Tracts.'* Who considers you a persecutor ? not I ;
nor should I ever so consider you for asking a simple
question in argument. What I have censured you for,
lias been the use of vague epithets, calling names, and the
like, which I really believe that you, Mr. Editor , in your
sober reason disapprove as heartily as I do. For instance :
I am sure you would think it wrong to proclaim to the world
that such or such an one was an ultra-Protestant. It would
be classing him with a party. There are ultra-Protestants in
the world, we know ; but we can know so little of indivi-
duals that we have seldom right to call them so, unless they
themselves take the name. A man may hold certain ultra-
Protestant notions, and we may say so ; this is deciding
about him just as far as we know, and no further. The
case is the same in the more solemn matters of heaven and
hell. We say, for instance, that they who hold anti-Trini-
tarian doctrines " will perish everlastingly ;" but we dare
not apply this anathema to this or that man ; the utmost
we say is, that he holds damnable errors, leaving his
person to God. To say nothing of the religiousness of
such a proceeding, you see how much of real kindness and
considerateness it throws over controversy. Of course I
do not wish to destroy what are facts ; men are of different
opinions, and they do act in sets. There is no harm in
denoting this ; many confess they so act. In conversa-
tion we never should get on, if we were ever using cir-
cumlocutions. But in controversy it does seem both
Christian and gentlemanlike to subject oneself to rules ;
and, as one of these, to make a distinction between
opinions and persons ; to condemn opinions, to condemn
them in persons, but not to give bad names to the persons
themselves, till public authority sanctions it. If I think
you have aught of the spirit of persecution in you —
(and to be frank with you, and in observance of my own
distinction, though you are not a " persecutor," you speak

UK. pusey's tract on holy baptism. 179

In somewhat of a persecuting tone,) it is not for perplexing-
nie with questions, or overwhelming me with refutations,
but because your st3'le is " rough, rambling, and cursory,"
I think it like a persecutor to prefer mere general charges,
to use unmeasured terms, to be oratorical and theatrical, and
when challenged to speak definitely, to accuse the party
challenging, of complaining, of being angry^ and the like.

13.

Now to come to the Homilies. You ask how I reconcile
my conscience to the Homilies calling Rome Antichrist, I
holding, as I do, the doctrines of the Tracts. To this I
answer by asking, if I may do so without offence, howf/o«
reconcile to your conscience the Homilies saying that "the
Holy Ghost doth teach" in the book of Tobit? how you
reconcile to your '^ subscription" that they five times call
books of the Apocrypha " Scripture ;" that Baruch is
quoted as a *' prophet'' and as "holy Baruch," Tobit as
" holy Father Tobit," the author of Wisdom and the Son
of Sirach as " the Wise Man," and that the latter is said
" certainly to assure us " of a heavenly truth ; in a word,
that the Apocrypha is referred to as many as fifty-three
times? Here you see I have the advantage of you,
Mr. Editor. For though I believe the Old and New
Testament alone to be plenarily inspired, yet I do believe,
according to the Homily, what you do not believe, that the
Holy Ghost did speak by the mouth of Tobit. Here you
see is the advantage of what you call my " scholastic
distinctions," p. 193. When I said that the great gift of
the Holy Ghost, called regeneration, was reserved for
Christians, and yet that the Jews might be under His
blessed guidance, you said I was drawing a scholastic
distinction. This is one instance on your part of calling
names. What do you mean by scholastic ? Beware, lest,
when you come to define it. you include unwittingly the

N 2

180 LEITER TO A MAGAZIKE ON THE SUBJECT OF

most sacred truths under it. There are persons who think
the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity "scholastic;"
and 80 it is, but it is something more, it is Apostolic also.
It is no proof that the distinction in question is not
Scriptural, that it is, if it is, scholastic. However, anyhow,
the " distinction " serves me in good stead as to this instance
which you bring against me from the Homilies ; it enables
me to understand and to assent to their doctrine concerning
the Apocrypha. I consider the gifts and operations of the
lUessed Spirit to be manifold ; some are outward, some
inward, some sanctify, some are grants of power, some of
knowledge, some of moral goodness. What He is towards
Angels, towards glorified Saints as Moses and Elias,
towards the faithful departed, towards Adam in Paradise,
towards the Jews, towards the Heathen, towards Christians
militant, — what He is in the Church, in the individual, in
the Evangelist, in the Apostle, in the Prophet, in the
Apocryphal writer, in the Doctor and Teacher, — is all holy,
but admits of differences of kind and of degree. Life is
the same in all living things ; yet there is one flesh of men,
another of fishes, another of birds : and so the spiritual
gift in like manner may be the same, yet diverse ; it ma\
be applied to the heart or to the head, as an inward habit
or an external impression ; for one purpose, not for another;
for a time, or for ever. Thus inspiration may be partial
or plenary. This view of God's gracious influences you
call scholastic. I, on the other hand, call the common
division, into miraculous and moral or spiritual, jejune and
unauthorized. However, whether I be right or you, I am
at least able to do with mine, what you cannot with yours ;
— I c:in agree with the Homily. If you will not take my
explanation, which I sincerely believe to be the right one
you must " reconcile your conscience " to a better or to a
worse ; till you find one, you must reconcile it to a dis-
agreement with the Homily.

Dll. TUSEY's tract on holy BAl'TISM. 181

14.

Now I will put another difficulty to you. The last
Homily in the Volume is " against Disobedience and
Wilful Rebellion." It is one of the most elaborate of
them, consisting of no less than six parts. It advocates
unreservedly the doctrine of passive obedience to the
authorities under which we find ourselves by birth. /
hold this doctrine, you do not.^ Let me put before you
some of the statements of this Homily, — the direct, explicit
developments of ics title. " If servants,'^ it says, " ought
to obey their masters, not only being gentle, but such as
be froward, as well, and much more, ought subjects to be
obedient, not only to their good and courteous, but also to
their sharp and rigorous princes," Part I. " A rebel is
worse than the worse prince/'' ibid. " But what if the
prince be undiscreet and evil indeed, and it is also evident
to all men's eyes that he so is ? I ask again, what if it
belong of the wickedness of the subjects, that the prince is
undiscreet and evil? shall the subjects both by their
wickedness provoke God, for their deserved punishment,
to give them an undiscreet or evil prince, and also rebel
against him, and withal against God, icho for the punish-
ment of their sins did give them such a prince ?" ibid.
Now, considering the high Tory doctrine, as it is called,
contained in such statements, I am led to ask you whether
you approve of the Revolution, and the substitution of
William III. for James II. ; and, if you do, how you
'' reconcile your conscience " to give your adhesion to this
Homily, and why you are not consistent enough to
designate its writer and all " subscribers " to it " Lauds
and Sacheverells."

' The charge against the Magazine was not of disloyalty, but of holding
the doctrine that subjects may, under circumstances, i-ebel against their
civil governors, e.g. as in the instance of the Revolution of 1688 in England^
in Greece iu 1821, in Spain in 1823, in France in 1830.

182 LEITKE TO A MAGAZIISE O^ THE briiJECT OF

You are not the person, then, to take my conscience to
task for not receiving every sentence of the Homilies as a
formal enunciation of doctrine. I might, iudeed, were it
worth while, enlarge upon the venturousncss of a writer,
who seems, according to my apprehension, to hold that
baptism is not a means of grace, but only " a sign, seal,
and pledge,'* p. 167, and yet uses the Liturgy, being the
man to make appeals to the conscience of others. But
let this pass. Here, in the very instance of the Homilies
which you urge, you do not come into court with clean
hands. You shrink from certain portions of them ; and
yet you use strong language about the difficulty which you
conceive others feel about other portions. Under these
circumstances, were I merely writing for you, I should
leave you to marvel either at my conscience, or at j'our
own ; but I write not for you alone ; and in what I shall now
say in explanation of my own bearing towards the Homilies,
I may perhaps do something towards excusing yours.

15.

I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed the Homilies,
though 3'ou say I have, pp. 151, 15 i ; though you add to
my subscription to the Articles this further subscription ;
nor was it ever intended that any member of the English
Church should be subjected to wliat, if considered as an
extended Confession, would indeed be a yoke of bondage.
Romanism surely is innocent, compared with a system
which would impose upon the " conscience " a thick
octavo volume, written flowingly and freely by fallible men,
to be received exactly sentence by sentence. I cannot
conceive any grosser instance of a Pharisaical tradition than
this would be. No : the Reformers would have shrunk
from the thought of so unchristian a proceeding — a
proceeding which would render it impossible (I will say)
for any one member, lay or clerical, of the Church, who was

DR. PUSEY's tract OX HOLY BAVTISM. 183

subjected to such an ordeal, to remain in it. For instance :
I do not suppose that any reader whatever would be
satisfied with those political reasons for fasting, which,
though indirectly introduced, are fully accepted and. dwelt
upon in the Homily on that subject. He would not like
to subscribe the declaration that eating fish was a duty,
not only as a bodily mortification, but as making provi-
sions cheap, and encouraging the fisheries. He would not
be able to approve of the association of religion with
secular politics.

How, then, are we bound to the Homilies ? By the
Thirty-fifth Article, which speaks as follows : " The
Second Book of Homilies .... doth contain a godly and
wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as
doth the former Book of Homilies.^' Now, observe, this
Article does not speak of every statement made in them,
but of the " doctrine.'^ It speaks of the view or cast or
body of doctrine contained in them. In spite of ten
thousand incidental propositions, as in any large book,
there is, it is obvious, a certain line of doctrine which
may be contemplated continuously in its shape and
direction. For instance ; if you say you disapprove the
doctrine contained in the Tracts for the Times, no one
supposes you to mean that every sentence and half-sentence
is a lie. If this were so, then you are most inconsistent,
after denouncing them, in considering, p. 167, that they
"contain much that is godly and edifying, much that you
are grateful for, and much that, if separated from its
adjuncts, would be highly valuable in these daj's of
liberalism and laxity." You even give logical reasons to
show that there is no inconsistency in this, and you protest
against the notion. And in like manner, I say, when the
Article speaks of the doctrine of the Homilies, it does not
measure the letter of them by the inch, it does not imply
they contain no propositions which admit of two opinions;

184 LETTIiR TO A ilAGAZINE ON TIIK SUliJKI r OK

but it speaks of a certain determinate teacliiii^j^, and
moreover adds, it is " necessary for these fiim s." J)ocs not
this, too, show the same thing? If a mm sail, The
Tracts for the Times are seasonable at this moment, as their
name assumes, would he not be considering them as
taking a certain line, and bearing a certain way ? Would
he not be speaking, not of phrases or sentences, but of a
"doctrine^' in them, viewed as a whole ? Would he be
inconsistent, if after praising them as seasonable, he
continued, " Yet I do not pledge myself to every view or
sentiment in them ; there are some things in them hard of
digestion, or overstated, or doubtful, or subtle " ?

Let us, then, have no more of superfluous appeals to our
consciences in such a matter. Reserve them for graver
cases, if you think you see such. If anything could add
to the irrelevancy of the charge in question, it is the
particular point in which you consider I dissent from the
Komilies, even if I do, which will not be so easy to prove ;
— a question concerning the fultilraent of pro[)hecy : viz.
whether Papal Rome is Antichrist ! An iron yoke indeed
you would forge for the conscience, when you obli<;ed us
to assent, not only to all matters of doctrine which the
Homilies contain, but even to their opinion concerning
the fulfilment of prophecy. Why, we do not ascribe
authority in such matters even to the unanimous consent
of all the Fathers. But you allow us no private judgment
whatever; your private judgment is all particular and
peculiar.

16.

I might put what I have been saying in a second point
of view. Take the table of contents ])r ■!ix d to the Books
of Homilies, and examine the headings ; these surely,
taken together, will ^iv(^ the substance of their teaching.
Now I maintain that I hold fully and heartily the doctrine

DR. PUSEY's tract ON HOLY BAFTIS-M, 185

of the Homilies under every one of these headings: nor
(excepting on Justification and Repentance) will you
yourself be inclined to doubt; it. The only point to which
I should not accede, nor think mj'self called upon to
accede, would be certain matters, subordinate to the
doctrines to which the headings refer — matters not of
doctrine, but of opinion, as that Roras is the Antichrist ;
or of historical fact, as that there was a Pope Joan, which,
by-the-bye, I doubt whether you hold any more than I do.
But now, on the other hand, can you subscribe the doctrine
of the Homilies under every one of its formal headings ?
I believe you cannot. The Homily against Disobedience
and Wilful Rebellion is in many of its elementary
principles decidedly opposed to your sentiments. And yet
it is you who tax another with not holding by the
Homilies ! Unless I had some experience that to be
represented as " troublers of Israel " and " pestilent
fellows " is the portion of those who fight against the
Age, I should feel astonished at this.

I verily and in my conscience believe, that whether we
take the text or the spirit of the Homilies, I do hold both
the one and the other more exactly than those who question
me. Do not, then, in future appeal to me, as if I for an
instant granted that the Homilies were on your side; —
but I propose to say in ore on this subject when I come to
speak on Justification.

17.

2. It follows to speak of the Articles.

You imply that I put no sense at all upon them, but
take them to mean anything ; and subscription to be no
test or measure of my opinions. Now is not this some-
what a strong charge to bring against a Clergyman ? and
particularly the member of a University which has, within

18G LEITER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE STJHJliCT OF

the last two years, shown extraordinar}', and almo>'
unanimous, earnestness in maintaining the necessity oi
subscription, even in the case of undergraduates, against
an external pressure? Why did not Dr. Pusey's friends
quietly sit by, and leave others to set them free ? Surely
the facts of the case are strong enough to excuse a little
charity, had certain persons any to give. They really do
astonish me, after all — prepared as I am for such exhibitions
— by the ease and vigour with which they fling about ac-
cusations ; showing themselves perfect masters of their
weapon. In one place you say that we hold that there is
" not one baptized person, not one regenerated person, not
one communicant, among all the Protestant churches,
Lutheran or Reformed, except the Church of England, and
its daughter churches,^' p. 122. Now, what would you
say if we affirmed that you held that men could be saved
by faith without works ? You would think us very
unscrupulous, and might use some strong words. AVell,
then, there is not a word, which you would apply to such
a statement, that I might not with perfect sincerity and
truth apply to yours. You have touched on a large
subject, on which we have nowhere ventured any opinion
whatever, and in which we do not hold what you have
expressed — the subject of lay baptism — but on which an
opinion is forthcoming when needed.

Another remarkable exhibition of the same controversial
method is your asserting that one of the Tracts called
the Dissenters " a mob of Tiptops, Gapi s, and Yawns,"
pp. 172, 174, 177, 185, 186. Five times you say or imply
it. Now it so happens that the Tract in question has
nothing to do with Dissenters ; but aims at those who
wish alterations in the Liturgy on insufficient grounds,
a circumstance which in itself excludes Dissenters. To
those of your readers who do not know this excellent
Tract (it is one of the parts of Richard Nelson), the

DR. FUSEY S TRAGI' ON HOLY BAl'TiSM. 187

following explanation will he acceptable. The subject of
the Tract is the shortening of the Church Service. Tiptop
is a "travelling man from Hull or Preston/^ who "quarters
at " a public-house in Nelson's village, " sometimes for a
fortnight at a time/' and " dabbles in religion as well
as in poli'ics ;" a man who is praised by his admirers as
"talking beautifully, and expounding on a»7/ subject a
person might choose to mention, politics, trade, agriculture,
learning, religion, and what not." He " lectures about
the Church Prayers ■" among other things ; and among
his hearers are Yawn, a farmer whose sons go to
t!ie Church school, and who himself "scircely ever," as
iie boasts, " misses a Sunday," coming into the service
" about the end of the First Lesson ;" and Ned Gape, who
also is a church-goer, though a late one. In what sense of
the words, then, Mr. Editor, do you assort, that when
Richard Nelson, in the end of the story, says that he
"cannot stand by and see the noble old Prayer-book
pulled to pieces, just to humour a mob of Tiptops, Gapes,
and Yawns," that the writer calls Dissenters by those
titles ?

18.

Now for the meaning and authority of the Articles. You
seem to me to confuse between two things very distinct ;
the holding a certain sense of a statement to be tri(e, and
imposing that sense upon others. Sometimes the two go
together ; at other times they do not. For instance, the
meaning of the Creed (and again, of the Liturgy) is
known; there is no opportunity for doubt here ; it means
but one thing, and he who does not hold that one meaning,
does not hold it at all. But the case is different (to take
an illustration), in the drawing up of a Political Declara-
tion, or a Petition to Parliament. It is put together by
persons, differing in matters of detail, though agreeing

188 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUUJECl' OF

together to a certain point and for a certain end. Each
narrowly watches that nothing is inserted to prejudice his
own particular opinion, or stipulates for the insertion of
what may rescue it. Hence general words are used, or
particular words inserted, which by superficial inquirers
afterwards are criticized as vague and indeterminate on
the one hand, or inconsistent on the other ; but, in fact,
they all have a meaning and a history, could we ascertain
it.* And, if the parties concerned in such a document are
legislating and determining for posterity, they are respec-
tive representatives of corresponding parties in the gene«|
rations after them. Now the Thirty-nine Articles lie between
these two, between a Creed and a mere joint Declaration ;
to a certain point they have one meaning, beyond that
they have no one meaning. They have one meaning, so
far as they embody the doctrine of the Creed ; they hav(
different meanings, so far as they are drawn up by mei
influenced severally by the discordant opinions of the
day. This is what I have expressed in the former part^
of my letter : " the Articles," I say, " are confessedly
wide in their meaning, but still their w-idth is within
bounds : they seem to include a number of shades of
opinion."

Next, as to those points (whatever they are) in which
they cannot be said to have one meaning. Each subscriber
indeed assigns that meaning which he at once holds himself
and thinks to be the meaning; but this is his "particular"
meaning, and he has no right to impose it on another.
In saying, then, that I should put no "particular meaning"
on portions of the Articles, I spoke not of my own belief,
but of my enforcing that belief upon others. I do sincerely
and heartily consider my sense of the Articles, on certaii
points to be presently mentioned, to be the true sense; but

• Hence faith, Justification, infection, &x., are nsed, not dtfiucd in th4
Articles.

DR. TUSEy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 189

I do not feel sure that there were not represented at the
drawing up of the Articles, parties and interests which led
the framers, (not as doing so on a principle, but spon-
taneously, from the existing hindrances to perfect unani-
nnty>) to abstain from perfect precision and uniformity of
statement. "What can be more truly liberal and forbearing
than this view? yet for thus holding that Calvinists and
others, whom I think mistaken, may sign the Articles as
well as myself, I. am said myself to sign them with " no
meaning whatever." And you actually take my own
sentiment out of my mouth, clothe it in the words of the
Royal Declaration, and then gravely make a present of it
to me back again, as if it were something wise and high of
your own. " The Iloyal Declaration,^' you say, " prefixed
to the Articles, congratulates the Church that all the clergy
had ' most willingly subscribed ' to them, *■ all sorts taking
them to be for them:' which shows that each conscien-
tious individual had carefully examined into their meaning,
and not that he signed them without attaching any * par-
ticular meaning at all.' " p. 191. Of course ; — these are
just my sentiments.

Accordingly I go on to say, that I look forward to suc-
cess, not hy compelling oihexi to take one view of the Articles,
but by convincing them that mine is the right one. And
this will explain what you call my "pugnacious terms."
Were I fighting against individuals or a party in the
Church, tlm would be party spirit : but then I should wish
to coerce them or cast them out ; whereas I am opposing
principles and doctrines — so, I would fain persuade and
convert, not triumph oA-er those who hold them. I am
not pugnacious ; I am only " militant."

It will explain, too, what you consider my overweening
and provoking language. For I consider I am but speak-
ing what the Catholic Fathers witness to be Christ's Gospel.
I am exercising no private judgment on Scripture; and

190 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE OX THE SUBJECT OF

while I will not enforce my own coercively, having no
authority to do so, I will never put it forward hesitatingly,
as if I did not think all other doctrines plainly wrong.

So much about myself. On the other hand, ray charge
ngainst you is, and I repeat it, that you do wish to add to
the Articles ; that is in the same sense in which you
accused Bishop Marsh of wishing to do so. You wish to
impose upon me your particular or peculiar notion that
the Patriarchs were regenerated ; which is an invasion of
private judgment, as permitted in our Church, as gross as
if I strove to enforce on you my particular notion, in
accordance with the Homily, that the Holy Ghost ppoke
" by the mouth of Tobit." Till you name the particular
points of opinion for which you call on Dr. Pusey to
resign his Professorship, and state the article or determi-
nation of the Church which he transgresses, I will never
caase to say that (unwittingly, of course, not with bad
intention) you do wish and aim to add to the Articles of
subscription.

19.

To sum up what I have said, and to be at the same time
more specific. I consider that the first five Articles have
one definite, positive, dogmatic view, even that which has
been from the beginning, the Catholic and Apostolic Truth
on which the Church is built.

From the Sixth to the Eighteenth, I conceive to
have one certain view also, brought out in its particular
form at the Reformation ; but, as in the Seventeenth, not
clearly demonstrable to be such to the satisfaction of the
world.

In the remaining Articles, taken as a bod}/, I think
there is less strictness, perspicuity, and completeness of
meaning. Some, though clear and definite in their mean
ing, are but negative, or protestant, as being directed

i

DR. PL'SEy's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 191

against the Romanists ; others, which are positive, are
derived from various schools ; in others the view is left
open or inchoate.

The first division I humbly receive as Divine, proveable
from Scripture, but descending to us by Catholic tradition
also. The next I admit and hold as deducible from
Scripture by private judgment, tradition only witnessing
here and there. The last division I receive only in the
plain letter, according to the injunction of the Declara-
tion, because I do believe in my conscience that they were
not written upon any one view, and cannot be taken
except in the letter ; because I think they never had any
one simple meaning ; because I think I see in them the
terms of various schools mixed together — terms known by
their historical associations to be theologically discordant,
though in the mere letter easy and intelligible.

20.

And now, lastly, I will say why I take these last Articles
in that one particular meaning, in which I do take them,
and not in another. This again is from no mere private
liking or opinion ; it is because I verily think the Church
wishes me so to take them. We at this day receive the
Articles, not on the authority of their framers, whoever
they were, English or foreign, but on the authority, i.e.
in the sense, of the Convocation imposing them, that is,
the Convocation of 1571. That Convocation, which im-
posed them, also passed the following Canon about
Preachers : — " In the first place, let them be careful never
to teach anything in their sermons, as if to be religiously
held and believed by the people, but what is agreeable to
the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and collected
from that very doctrine hy the Catholic Fathers and ancient
Biahops." This is but one out of the hundred appeals to
Antiquity, which, in one way or other, our Church has put

192 I.ETl'EU TO A MAGAZINE ON THE SUBJECT OF

forth ; but it is rendered special by its ori<:^iTiating in the
Convocation from which we receive the Articles. It is
quite impossible that that Convocation wished us to receive
and explain the doctrines contained in them in any other
sense than that which " the catholic Fathers and ancient
Bishops " drew from Scripture. Far from explaining
away, I amfaithCully maintaining them, when I catholicize
them. It were well for themselves, had others as good a
reason for Calvinizing or Zuinfjlizina: them.

And all this shows how right I am in saying above that
the Articles must not be viewed as in themselves
'perfect system of doctrine. They are, on the face of themj
but protests a^^ainst existing errors, Socinianism anc
Romanism. For instance, how else do you account foi
the absence of any statement concerning the Inspiration of
Scripture ? On the other hand, the Canon of 1571, just
cited, is a proof that the whole range of catholic doctrines
is professed by our Church ; not only so much as is con-^
tained in the Articles. Its reception of the primitive
Creeds is another proof; for they reach to many points not]
contained in the Articles without them. To these docu-
mentary evidences may be added the 30th Canon of 1603.
Speaking of the use of the Sign of the Cross, it says,
" 'The abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use
of it.' Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Churcl
of England to forsake and reject the churches of Italyi
France, Spain, Germany, or any suclx like churchesj
in all things which they held and practised, that, as th^
Apology of the Church of England confes8eth,itdoth witl
reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither eu-j
damaffe the Church of God nor oifend the minds of sobei
men ; and onli/ departed from them in those par/iculai\
points wherein they were fallen, both from themselves
their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical ciiurchc
which were their Jirst founders."

DR. PUSEY's tract ON HOLY BAPTISM. 193

It is clear, then, that the English Church holds all that
the primitive Church held, eyen in ceremonies, except there
be some particular reasons assignable for not doing so in
this or that instance ; and only does not hold the modern
corruptions maintained by Romanism. In these corrup-
tions it departs from Rome ; therefore these are the points
in which it thinks it especially necessary to declare its
opinion. To these were added the most sacred points of
faith, in order to protest against those miserable heresies
to which Protestantism had already given birth. Thus
the Church stands in a Via Media; the first five Articles
being directed against extreme Protestantism, the remain-
ing ones against Rome. And hence, when the Royal
Declaration sa5'S that they " contain the true doctrine of
the Church of England, agreeable to God's word," which
you quote, p. 169, as if it made against me, it speaks of the
doctrine of the English church so/uras distinguished from
other churches. The Declaration does not say the doctrine
of the Gospel, the doctrine of the Church Catholic, or the
whole faith ; but it speaks of it in contrast with existing
systems. This is evident from its wording ; for the clause
" agreeable to God's word" evidently glances at Rome ; and
the history of its promulgation throws abundant light on the
fact that it was aimed against Calvinism and Arminianism,
There is nothing, then, in these words to show that the
Articles are a system of doctrine, or more than the English
doctrine in those points in which it differs from Romanism
and Socinianism, and embraces Arminianism and Cal-
vinism.

No : our Apostolical communion inherits, as the pro-
mises, so the faith, enjoyed by the Saints in every age ;
the faith which Ignatius, Cyprian, and Gregory received
from the Apostles. We did not begin on a new foundation
in King Edward's time ; we only reformed, or repaired,
the superstructure. You must not defraud us, Mr. Editor,

VOL. II. o

194 LETTER TO A MAGAZINE, ETC.

of our birthright, by turning what is a salutary protest into
a system of divinity.

21.

Before proceeding to the subject of Justification, I will
conclude what I have otherwise to say on your sixty pages,
by adducing some further instances of what I consider
misconceptions in them.^ ....

Here then I shall close for the present. One subject,
and a most important one, remains ; that of Justification.
Before I commence it, I invite you to do, what you cannot
decline. You have accused me frequently of " evasions,"
though not intentional ones, of course. I on the other
hand accuse you, instead of coming to the point, of vague
and illogical declamation, though not intentional either.
Now, then, state definitely what Dr. Pusey's opinions are,
for which he ought to give up his Professorship; and
state also, tvhij, that is, what statements of our Church his
own oppose. Till you do this, I shall persist in saying
you wish to add to the Articles of subscription. I challenge
you to do this, and call your readers to attend to your
answer ; and then, in my next, I will do my best to meet

it.

******

N.B. November 1, 1837. The letter was not continued
further, partly on account of the very unsatisfactory mode
in which the above was printed in the pages of the
Magazine, and partly because the challenge, repeated in
its closing words, had not been met.®

7 [As these were matters of detail and uninteresting, they are omitted
here.]

8 [The author did not let the subject of Justification drop ; the next year
(1838) he published a Volume of Lectures on it ; and he completed what
he had to say upon the Articles and Homilies, and on Justification with
reference to them, four years later (1841) in Tract 90.]

i

VI.

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

REV. THE MARGARET PROFESSOR OF
DIVINITT,

MR. R. HURRELL FROUDE'S STATEMENTS
CONCERNING THE HOLY EUCHARIST,

AND OTHER MATTERS THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL.

1838.

o 2

A LETTER,!

8fc,

Rev. Sir,

I MAKE no apology for troubling you with this Letter,
for 1 cannot conceal from myself that I am one of those
against whom your recent Publication is directed. My
first impulse indeed, when I heard of the probability of its
appearance, was to resolve not to answer it, and to re-
commend the same course to others. I have changed my
mind at the suggestion of friends, who, I feel, have taken
a sounder view of the matter; but my original feeling
was, that we have diflferences and quarrels enough all
around us, without my adding to them. Sure I a-n, that
the more stir is made about those opinions which you
censure, the wider they will spread. This has been
proved abundantly in the course of the last few years.
Whatever be the mistakes and faults of their advocates,
they have that root of truth in them which, as I do firmly
believe, has a blessing with it. I do not pretend to say
they will ever become widely popular, that is another
matter ; Truth is never, or at least never long, popular ; —
nor do I say they will ever gain that powerful external
influence over the Many, which Truth vested in the Few,

• [To this Letter, as originally published, applied the well-known para-
dox, " The author had not time to make it shorter." In consequence, he
has now omitted or abridged some superfluous paragraphs which, as they
stood, weakened its controversial force or were irrelevant to his purpose.]

19S A LEriER ADDRESSED TO THE

cherished, throned, energizing in the Few, often has pos-
sessed ; — nor that they are not destined, as Truth has
often been destined, to be cast away and at length trodden
under foot as an odious thing ; — but of this I am sure,
that at this juncture in proportion as these opinions are
known, they will make their way through the community,
picking out their own, seeking and obtaining refuge in
the hearts of Christians, high and low, here and there,
with this man and that, as the case may be ; doing their
work in their day, as raising a memorial and a witness to
this fallen generation of what once has been, of what God
would ever have, of what one day shall be in perfection ;
and that, not from what they are in themselves, because
viewed in the concrete they are mingled, as everything
human must be, with error and infirmity, but by reason
of the spirit, the truth, the old Catholic life and power
which is in them.

And, moreover, while that inward principle of truth
will carry on their tide of success to those bounds wider
or straiter, which, in God's inscrutable providence, they
are to reach and not to pass, it is also a substitute
for those artificial and sectarian bonds of co-operation
between man and man, which constitute what is commonly
called a party. I notice this, because though you do not
use concerning their upholders the word party, you do
speak of an existing " combination," "an indefinite and
apparently numerous body of friends," nay you hint at a
"formidable conspiracy ;" words which mean more than
that unity of action which unity of sentiment produces.
Men who think deeply and strongly, will act upon their
principles ; and if they think alike, will act alike ; and
lookers on, seeing the acts, and not seeing the principles,
impute that to concert which proceeds from unanimity,
So much I would grant in the present case, and no more ;
unless the contingence of two persons thinking alike and

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 199

acting on their thoughts he party spirit, it is impossible to
help the appearance of party in cases where there is not
the reality. Like actions inevitably follow ; but their
doers are not party men, till their own personal success
becomes prior in their thoughts to that of their object.

2,

Such is the position in which the opinions and persons
stand, whom you so heavily censure. And whatever be the
consequence to those persons, I see nothing but advantage
resulting to those opinions from such publicity and
discussion as you are drawing upon them. As far as they
are concerned, I should have no anxiety about addressing
you; but a feeling of the miserable breach of peace and
love which too commonly follows on such controversies, to
say nothing of one's own private convenience, is enough
to make any one pause before engaging in such a
discussion. I cannot doubt you feel it also, and therefore
I deeply regret that a sense of imperative duty should
have obliged you to commence it. No one of course can
deny that there may be cases when it is a duty to liazard
such a result; the claims of truth must not be com-
promised for the sake of peace. No one has any cause to
complain of those who, from a religious regard to purity
of doctrine, denounce what others admire. But this I
think may fairly be required of all persons, that they do
not go so far as to denounce in another what they do not
at the same time show to be inconsistent with the doctrine
of our Church. Now this is the first thought which rises in
my mind on the perusal of your Remarks. I do not find in
them any proof of the contrariety of the opinions and
practices, which you condemn, to our Church's doctrines.
This seems to me an omission. You speak of an " in-
creasing aberration from Protestant principles," " a dis-
position to overvalue the importance of Apostolical tra-

200

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

dition ;*' " cxaggerakd and nnscrijjtuml statements," a
" iendotcy to depreciate the principles of Protestantisno,'*
and to " palliate " the " errors of Popery," " gradual and
near approximation towards" the "Roman superstitions"
concerning ''the Lord's Supper." Now this is all as-
sertion, not proof; and no one person, not even a Bishop
ex cathedra, may at his mere word determine what doctrine
shall be received and what not. He is bound to appeal to
the established faith. He is bound conscientiously to try
opinions by the established faith, and in doing so appeals
to an Unseen Power. He is bound to state in what
respect th.ey differ from it, if they do differ ; and, in so
doing, he appeals to his brethren. The decision, indeed,
is in his own hands ; he acts on his own responsibility ;
but before he acts he makes a solemn appeal before God
and man. What is true of the highest authority in the
Church, is true of others. "We all have our private views ;
many persons have the same private views ; but if ten
thousand have the same, that does not make them less
private; they are private till the Church's judgment
makes them public. I am not entering into the question
about what is the Church, and the difference between the
whole Church and parts of the Church, or what are,
what are not, subjects for Church decisions ; I only say,
looking at the English Church at this moment, and
practically, that if there be two parties in it, the one
denouncing, the other denounced, in a matter of doctrine,
either the latter is promoting heresy, or the former is
promoting schism. I do not see that there is any
mtdium ; and it does seem incumbent on the former to
show he is not infringing peace, by showing that the
latter is infringing trulli.

3.

There is a. floating body of opinions in every Church,

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 201

which varies with the age. They are held in one age,
abandoned in the next. They are distinct from the
Church's own doctrines ; they may be held or abandoned,
not without criticism indeed, because every man has a
right to have his opinion about another's thoughts and
deeds, and to tell him of it, but without denunciation.
The English Church once considered persecution to be a
duty ; I am not here called on to give any opinion on the
question; but certainly the affirmative side of it was not
binding on every one of her members. The great body of
English Churchmen have for three centuries past called
the Lord's Table an Altar, though the word is not in our
formularies : I think a man wrong who says it is not an
Altar, but I will not denounce him ; I will not write in a
hostile toue against any person or any work which does
not, as I think, contradict the Articles or the Prayer
Book. And in like manner, there has ever been in our
Church, and is allowed by our formularies, a very great
latitude as regards the liglit in which the Chuich of
Rome is to be viewed. AVhy must tliis right of private
judgment be infringed ? Why must those who exercise
that right be spoken of in terms only applicable to
heretical works, and which might with just as much and
just as little propriety be retorted upon the quarter they
came from ? Mr. Froude's volumes are called in your
Sermon an " ojfensive publication ;" is this a term to be
applied to writings which differ from us in essentials or
non-essentials? they are spoken of not only as containing
"startling and extravagant" passages, but "poison."
What words do you reserve for heresy, for plain denials of
the Creed, for statements counter to the Articles, for
preachings and practices in disobedience to the Prayer
Book? If at any time the danger from Romanism was
imminent, it was at the time when the Articles were
drawn up ; what right has any one now of his own private

202 A LETTER ADDKESSKD TO THE

authority to know better than their compilers, and to act
as if those Articles were more stringent in their protest
against it than they are ? If the Church of the nineteenth
century outruns the sixteenth in her condemnation of its
errors, let her mould her formularies accordingly. When
she has so done, she has a claim on her members to
submit ; but till then, she has a claim on them to respect
that liberty of thought which she has allowed, nor to
denounce without stating the formal grounds of their
denunciation,

4.

I am speaking, on the one hand, of a public, severe,
deliberate condemnation ; and on the other of the omission
of the grounds on which it is made. If grounds can be
produced, of course I do not object ; and in such case I
leave it for those to decide, whether they be tenable, with
whom the decision lies. Nor on the other hand can any
fair objection be made to friendly expostulation, nay or to
public remonstrance even without grounds stated, if put
forward as resting on the personal authority of the
individual making them. Men of wisdom need not for
ever be stating their grounds for what they say : but then
they speak not ex cathedra, but as if *' giving their
judgment,^' their o^';;^ judgment, " as those that have been
faithful ;" as '' Paul the aged." The private judgment of
one man is not the same as that of another ; it may, if it
so be, weigh indefinitely more than another's ; it may
outweigh that of a number, however able, learned, and
well-intentioned. But then he gives it «« private judg-
ment; he does not come forward to denounce. And,
again, to take the case of men in general, there will ever
be difference of opiniim among them about the truth,
fairness, propriety or expedience of things said and done
by each other. They have full right, as I have already

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVIXITY. 203

Baid, or are even under a duty to speak their mind, thougii
they speak it with pain ; and the parties spoken to must
bear it, though they bear it with pain. All this need not
infringe the bond of charity on the one side or the other.
But to denounce publicly yet without stating grounds is a
different procedura

5.

And next, I am sorry, that, considering that you have
used strong terms concerning Mr. Froude's Volumes, you
have not judged it right to state that they contain as strong
expressions against Popery as your pamphlet contains
against those Volumes. Nay, you might without much
trouble have even cited these, especially as you cite so
many others which seem to you to countenance the errors
of the Papal system ; but perhaps this was too much to
expect. Yet at least you would have had no need to lose
time in finding them, for some of the principal are brought
together in the Preface, which you have evidently read.
These strong disclaimers in the work in question tell the
more from the unsuspicious way in which the Author
made them; in private letters to friends, and in casual
conversation, when nothing called for them but the
genuine feeling of their truth on his part. They shall
find here the place which you have denied them.

Speaking of Italy and Sicily, he says, "These Catholic
countries seem in an especial manner to ' hold the Truth in
unrighteousness.' And the Priesthood are themselves so
sensible of the hollow basis upon which their power rests,
that they dare not resist the most atrocious encroach-
ments of the State upon their privileges. ... I have
seen priests laughing when at the Confessional ; and in-
deed it is plain, that, unless they habitually made light
of very gross immorality, three-fourths of the popu-

204 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

lation [of N^aples] would be excommunicated."* vol. i.
pp. 293, 4.

Such a protest against the practical working of the
existing Roman system abroad, is not much like a recom-
mendation of it at home. I am sure your readers cannot be
prepared for it. All you tell them is, from your title, that
there is a " Revival of Popery," and, from your remarks,
that Mr. Froude's Volumes help it forward. Certainly
you do concede that the persons you speak of are not
"strictly/ Papists ;" and that it would be " as uncharitable
as it is untrue," to say, " thut within certain limits of their
own devising they are not actually opposed to the corrup-
tions and the communion of Rome." p. 24. May I ask,
whose "■ devising " the '' limits " are, which enable you to
assign to these persons their exact place in the scale of
theology ? Certainly not the devising of the Church ; at
least, you do not appeal to it. Such is the measure of
consideration you show to them.

Again : on a friend's saying that the Romanists were
schismatics in England and Catholics abroad, " No/' he
answered, " they are wretched Tridentines everywhere."
p. 434.

In another place he speaks of " the atrocious Council "
of Trent ; and adds, " I own, it " (information concerning
that Council) " has altogether changed my notions of the
Roman Catholics ; and made me wish for the total overthrow
of their system." vol. i. pp. 307, 8.'

2 [Such languag^e arises from a misconception of the rules and the action
of the Catholic system. Immoral men are not publicly excommunicated in
foro exlerno, but, being deprived of the sacraments, or at least of their
grace, till they repent, they are but dead branches of the True Vine, and in
a truer sense excommunicate than if they were cut off from the visible
body.]

' [I cannot in fairness withdraw specimens such as these of the view
taken by my very dear friend of Italy and its religion, thougli of course I
leare them in the text with much pain. He was a man who did nothing by

i

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 205

Now from such passages I gather, that the author did
consider the existing system of Rome, since the Council of
Trent, to he a most serious corruption. Nay, he adds
himself, that he wishes for its " total overthrow." This is
not like giving a helping hand towards " the Revival of
Popery.^' However, the sole impression conveyed to your
mind, by the passage, is, not the direct one that the Roman
system has been hopelessly corrupt sincCy but, by inference
that it was not hopelessly corrupt before. The latter point
you enlarge upon ; the former you let alone. Might I not
put in a plea that you should not deduce /ro//^ a premiss,
without acknowledging that premiss it8elf?

6.

But now, as to this question concerning the Council of
Trent, let us consider what it is Mr. Froude and others
have said about it. Merely this, — not that the Church of
Rome was not corrupt before the Council of Trent, but
that its corruptions before that Council were for the most
part in the Church but not of it ; they were floating
opinions and practices, far and wide received, as the
Protestant opinions in our Church may be at this day,
but, like these opinions in our own case, they were not, as a
body, taken into the Church, and made the system of the
Church till that Council." And this is what Mr. Froude

halves. He had cherished an ideal of the Holy See and the Church of
Rome partly erroneous, partly unreal, and was greatly disappointed when to
his apprehension it was not fulfilled. He had expected to find a state of
lofty sanctity in Italian Catholics, which he considered was not only not
exeuaplifie<l, but was even contradicted in what he saw and heard of them.
As to the Tridentine definitions he simply looked at them in the light of
obstacles to the union of Anglicans with the See of Home, not having the
theological knowledge necessary for a judgment on their worth.]

* Image worship had been sanctioned at the second Council of Nicsea ;
transubstantiution at the fourth Lateran.

206 A Ll.TTEK ADDRESSED TO THE

means by his notions being " changed " about the Roman
Catholics ; he thought, till he was better informed, that
the Church in Council might alter what the Church
in Council had determined; but when he found that
Romanists could not reduce to a matter of opinion what
they had once exalted into a doctrine, that they could not
unloose an anathema they had once tied, that, in his own
words, " they were committed finally and irrevocabl}', and
could not advance one step to meet us, even though the
Church of England should again become what it was in
Laud's time," then, while he called the Council " atro-
cious,'' he went on to *^ wish for the total overthrow " of
the 85'stem, which is built upon it.

How different is this from approving of everything
that took place in the Church before it ! While bitterly
mourning over the degradation and divisions of the Church
Catholic, he is oppressed with the sudden sight of an ap-
parently insuperable difficulty in the way of any future
healing her wounds, the great and formal decision of
the Roman Church at Trent, that points which had been
before but matters of opinion, should be henceforth terms
of communion. There was hope till this decision ; there
were the means of reformation. In the words of one of
the Tracts you refer to, " If she (Rome) has apostatized, it
was at the time of the Council of Trent. Then, indeed, it
is to be feared, the whole Roman Communion bound itself,
by a perpetual bond and covenant, to the cause of Anti-
christ.* But before that time, grievous as were the cor-
ruptions in the Church, no individual Bishop, Priest,

* [What the writer meant by these very strong words in 1833 " bound
to the cause of Antichrist," except that lie thought it right to follow tin'
teaching of Field and Gilpin, presently quoted, it is difficult to say. That
he did not in 1838 subscribe to the Protestant notion that " the Pope was
Antichrist " is plain from what follows ; it is also plain that he was
ashamed of his language by the time he wrote this Letter.]

maugaiu:t professor of divinity. 207

or Deacon, was bound by oath to the maintenance of
them. Extensively as they were spread, no clergyman was
shackled by obligations which prevented his resisting
them ; he could but suffer persecution for so doing. He did
not commit himself in one breath to two vows, to serve faith-
fully in the Ministry, and yet to receive all the superstitions
and impieties which human perverseness had introduced
into the most gracious and holiest of God^s gifts.'^ vol. i.
No. 15.

I confess I wish this passage were not cast in so declama-
tory a form ; but the substance of it expresses just what I
mean. The Council of Trent did, as regards Roman errors,
what, for all we know, (though God forbid !) some future
synod of the English Church may do as regards Protestant
errors, — take them into her system, make them terms of
communion, bind upon her hitherto favoured sons their
grievous chain ; and what that unhappy Council * actually
did for Rome, that does every one in his place and accord-
ing to his power, who, by declaiming against and de-
nouncing those who dare to treat the Protestant errors as
unestablished, gives a helping hand towards their estab-
lishment.

I will quote two passages from very different persons in
corroboration of what has been said. Dean Field and
Bernard Gilpin. Dean Field says, that " none of those
points of false doctrine and error which Romanists now
maintain and we condemn were the doctrines of the Church
before the Reformation constantly delivered, or generally

^ [It is observable that at the commencement of the Oxford movement in
1833 the insuperable obstacle, felt by high Anglicans, to communion witlv
Rome, was the doctrine of the Tridentine Council. By 1865 they seem to
have got over it, and the Vatican decrees are the obstacle now. Will they
be such in another forty years ?J

208 A LEITER ADDRESSED TO TUB

received, by all them that were of it, but doubtfully
broached, and devised without all certain resolution, or
factiously defended by some certain only, who, as a
dangerous faction, adulterated the sincerity of the Christian
Verity, and brought the Church into miserable bondage."
Of the Church, Append, to h. iii. Elsewhere he speaks as
follows : — " There is therefore a great difference to be
made, between the Church wherein our Fathers formerly
lived and that faction of the Pope's adherents, which at
this day resist against the necessary reformation of the
Churches of God, and make that their faith and religion,
which, in former times, was but the private and unresolved
opinion of some certain only. . . Formerly, the Church of Rome
was the true Church, but hud in it an heretical faction : note the
Church itself is heretical, and some certain only are found in it
in such degree of orthodoxy, as that we may well hope of
their salvation." iii. 47.

Bernard Gilpin, whom I shall quote next, is the stronger
evidence, inasmuch as he considered what I certainly
cannot, that the Pope was the Antichrist ; yet he implies
that he only became so at Trent.^ ..." The Church of
Rome kept the rule of faith entire, until that rule was
changed and altered by the Council of Trent ; and from that
time it seemed to him a matter of necessity to come out of
the Church of Rome, that so that Church which is true and
called out from thence might follow the word of God."*

' [" As a boy of fifte-n," I have said of myself,*" I had . . .fully imbibed
[pure Protestantism] . . . The effect of this early persuasion remained a stain
upon my imagination. . . I began in 1833 to form theories on the subject,
which tended to obliterate it ; yet by 1838 I had got no farther than to
consider Antichrist as, not the Church of Rome, but the spirit of the old
Pagan city, the fourth monster of Daniel, which was still alive, and which
had corrupted the Church which was planted there. . . I had a great and
growing dislike, after tlie summer of 1839, to speak against the Roman
Church herself or her formal doctrines." Apolog. pp. 1-0, 121.]

* Wordswoith, Eccles. Uiogr. vol. iv. p. 1)4.

MAHGAEET 1-ROFEbbOll OF DIVINITY. 209

8.

Nothing surely is more intelligible than being in a
Church, and not approving of the acts of its rulers or of
hirge bodies in it. At this day there are many things said
and done among us which you would as little approve as
myself ; and are we answerable for them ? and though we
should be silent when great and grievous errors were put
forth, though we allowed books to go out to the world as
if with our sanction when they had it not, though we gave
persons out of doors the impression that we approved of
them, though when controversy began we took no promi-
nent shaie in it, though we sat still and let others bear the
brunt and odium of it, ought we therefore to be identified
with those errors whatever they are? Certainly not; though
blameless in such a case we certainly should not be, nor
without some sort of debt to them who worked for us. If
Albigenses or Waldenses can be found who really did the
office of witnesses in those strange times of mixed good and
evil, let them have the praise of it ; let the Church have the
shame of it, for not doing the work herself and in a better
way. But it is one thing to say the rulers of the Church
were remiss or incapable ; quite another that they agreed
with their more stirring brethren, who acted instead of
them, and usurped the Churches name, and abused her
offices, and seemed to be more than they were. How then
is it to the purpose to speak of the " systematic impos-
ture of pretended miracles," " the portentous delusions of
Purgatory and Transubstantiation,'' " the especial worship
of the Virgin Mary,^' " the prohibition of Scripture,"
"the establishment of the Inquisition/' &c. as existing
before Trent ? Who defends such things as these ? who
says the Church of Home was free from them before Trent ?
Are not the Tracts, which you refer to, full of protestations
against them, protestations quite as strong as those I read

VOL. II. p

210 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO TJIR

in your pamphlet ? Why are the Tracts to be censured
for stating a plain historical fact, that the Homau Church
did not, till Trent, embody in her creed the mass of her
present tenets, while they do not deny but expressly ac-
knowledge her great corruptions before that era, while
they give the history of Transiibstantiation prior to Trent,
(Xos. 27, 28,) of the Breviary worship of the Blessed
Virgin prior to Trent, (No. 75,) of Purgatory prior to
Trent, (No. 79,) while they formally draw up points in
which they feel agreement with Romanists to be hopeless,
(Nos. 38, 71,) and while they declare, (in large letters, to
draw attention,) that, so long as Rome is what it is,
" union " with it '' is impossible " ? (No. 20.) All that can
be said against them is, that in discuss'ng the Roman
tenets, they use guarded language ; and this I will say,
that the more we have personal experience of the arduous
controversy in question, the more shall we understand the
absolute necessity, if we are to make any way, of weighing
our words, and keeping from declamation.

9.

You speak as if the opinions held by the writers you
censure were novel in our Church, and you ci-uncct them
with the " revival of Popery.'^ Does any one doubt that
on all points o[ doctrine on which a question can occur, there
is a large school in our Church, consisting of her fur most
learned men, mainly agreeing with tliose writers ? Does
any one doubt that their statements are borne out in the
main by Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Montague, ITammond,
Bramhall, Taylor, Thorndike, Bull, Beveiidgo, Ken, and
Wilf^uii, not to mention others ? how many aro there of the
doctrines j^ou object to, which one or other or all of these
great pastors and teachers do not maintain ? I will con-
iine myself to Bramhall, who flourished in the S('V( ntcciith
century, and after holding the see of Derry in the rtigu of

MAllGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 211

Charles the First, and suffering in the great Rebellion, was
made Archbishop of Armagh. And let it be observed
that in thus drawing out one or two of the opinions of this
great man, I am not making myself or any one else
responsible for them ; I am but showing how far divines
may diverge from the views now popular, and yet be held
in reverence both in their own day and since.

1. Of the Real Presence he thus speaks : " So grossly
is he " (his Roman opponent) " mistaken on all sides, when
he saith that * Protestants ' {he should say the English Church
if he would speak to the 2n(rpose) ' have a positive belief that
the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ ;' which were to
contradict the words of Christ, * This is My Body.*^ He
knows better that Protestants do not deny the thing, but
their bold determination of the manner by Trau substantia-
tion." Works, p. 226. — " Abate us Transubstantiation, and
those things which are consequent of their determination of
jthe manner of Presence, and we have nodifference with them
[the Romanists] to this particular. They who are ordained
Priests ought to have powder to consecrate the Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, to make Them
present after such manner as they were present at the first
institution, whether it be done by enunciation of the words
of Christ, as it is observed in the Western Church, or by
Prayer, as it is practised in the Eastern Church ; or whe-
ther these two be both the same thing in effect, that is,
that forms of the Sacraments be mystical prayers and
implicit invocations." Works, p. 485. " Whether it be
corporeally or spiritually, (I mean not only after the man-
ner of a spii'it, but in a spiritual sense,) whether it be in
the soul only or in the Host also, whether by consubstan-
tiation or transubstantiation, whether by production, or
adduction, or conservation, or assumption, or by whatsoever
other way bold and blind men here conjecture, we deter-
mine not.'' p. 21.

p 2

212 A LETTER ADDRKSSKD TO THE

2. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass. " If his Sacri-
fice of the Mass have any other propitiatory 'power or
virtue in it than to commemorate, represent, and apply the
merit of the Sacrifice of the Cross, let him speak plainly
what it is. Bcllarmine luew no more of this Sacrifice than
we." p. 172. " We acknowledge an Eucharistical Sacrifice
of praise and thanksgiving; a commendative Sacrifice,
or a memorial of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; a reprosentu-
tive Sacrifice, or, a representation of the Passion of Christ
before the eyes of His heavenly Father; an impetrative
Sacrifice, or an inpetration of the fruit and benefit of His
passion, by way of real prayer ; and, lastly, an applicative
Sacrifice, or an application of His merits unto our souls.
Let him that dare go one step farther than we do, and say
that it is a suppletory Sacrifice to supply the defects of
the Sacrifice of the Cross ; or else let them hold their peace,
and speak no more against us in this point of Sacrifice for
ever." p. 255. " 1 have challenged them to go one step
farther into it [the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass]
than I do ; and they dare not, or rather they cannot, with-
out blasphemy/' p. 418.

3. Concerning adoration in the Sacrament. " We our-
selves adore Christ in the Sacrament ; but we dare not adore
the species of Bread and Wine." p. 356.

4. Concerning Prayers for the Dead in Christ. " We
condemn not all praying for the dead ; not for their
resurrection and the consummation of their happiness ; but
their prayersfortheirdeliveranceoutof Purgatory." p. 35<>.

5. Concerning the Intercession of Saints. " For \\\o
^intercession, prayers, merits of the Saints,' (taking the
word 'merit' in the sense of the Primitive Church, that
is, not for desert, but for acquisition,) I know no difference
about them, among those men who understand themselves ;
but only about the lust words, ' which they invocate in
their Temples,' rather than Churches. A comprecation botli

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 213

the Grecians and we do allow ; an ultimate invocation both
the Grecians and we detest; so do the Church of Rome
in their doctrine, but they vary from it in their practice,"
p. 418.

6. Concerning Monasteries. " So as Monasteries were
restrained in their number and in their revenues, so as
the jNIonks were restrained from meddling between the
Pastor and his flock ; . . so as the abler sort, who are
not taken up with higher studies and weightier employ-
ments, were insured to bestow their spare hours from their
devotions in some profitable labour for the public good,
that idleness might be stripped of the cloak of contem-
plative devotion ; so as the vow of celibacy were reduced
to the form of our English Universities, so long a fellow,
so long unmarried; . . so as their blind obedience were
more enlightened and secured by some certain rules
and bounds ; so as their mock poverty . . were changed
into competent maintenance ; and lastly so as all opinion
of satisfaction and supererogation were removed ; I do not
see why Monasteries might not agree well enough with
reformed devotion." p. 65.

7. Concerning the Pope. " He must either be meanly
versed in the Primitive Fathers, or give little credit to
them, who will denj' the Pope to succeed St. Peter in the
Roman Bishopric, or will envy him the dignity of a
Patriarch within his just bounds." p. 299.

8. Concerning the relation of the English Church to
Protestantism. " In setting forth the moderation of our
English Reformers, I showed that we do not arrogate to
ourselves either a new Church, or a new religion, or new
holy orders. Upon this he falls heavily two ways. First
he saith, ' It is false,' as he hath showed by innumerable
testimonies of Protestants. . . . For what I said, I pro-
duced the authority of our Church, he letteth that alone,
iuvl sticketh the falsehood upon my sleeve. It seemeth

214 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO TUB

that he is not willing to engage against the Church of
England ; for still he declineth it, and changeth the subject
of the question //-ow the English Church to a confused com-
pany of particular aul/iors of different opinions, of dubious
credit, of little knowled-ge in our English aifairs, tortured
and wrested from their genuine sense." p. 225.

Certainly Bramhall was allowed more liberty of speech
in njatters of doctrine and opinion than is given to members
of our Church now ; yet his subscriptions wero much the
same as ours.

10.

I have been led to this subject from certain passages in
Mr. Fronde's Volumes, about the Council of Trent, which
you have treated, not as evidence (which it is) that he
shrinks from the Church of Rome, being what it is, but as
a ground of complaint against him for not shrinking from
it, when it was what it is not; passages, which are notj
fairly quoted, merely used for your purpose. One otherl
protest on Mr. Froude's part against Romanism of a diffe-
rent character is still to come ; I cannot find it in your
publication.

He says, " Since I have been out here, I have got a
worse notion of the Roman Catholics than I had. I really
do think them idolaters, though I cannot be quite con-
fident of my information as it afiects the character of the

priests What I mean by calling these peoploj

idolaters is, that I believe they look upon the Saints]
and Virgin as good-natured people, that will try to get|
them let off easier than the Bible declares ; and that, asj
they don't intend to comply with the conditions on whicl
God promises to answer prayers, they pray to them as a]
come-off."" Pref. p. xiii.

[If by " good-natupod people who will try to get thorn let off easU
thau the Bible declares,' is implied that wo hold that the saiuts arc \n illinj

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 215

Now since you are properly diffuse on the subject of
Idolatry, I wish this passage had occurred to you, as
showing that, however much you found to censure in Mr.
Fronde's Yolumes, he did concur in your view of Romanism
on a point of no ordinary importance, viz. so far as '* really
to think the Roman Catholies idolaters." And for a parallel
reason I beg to offer my own avowal, which is pretty much
the same. I would say then so much as this, that it is
idolatry to bow down to any emblem or symbol as divine
which God himself has not appointed;' and since He
has not appointed the worship of images, such worship is
idolatrous ; though how far it is so, whether itself or in
given individuals, we may be unable to determine. So far,
then, I am happy to follow you ; however you then say,
" Will it then be credited by any one not already cogni-
zant of the fact, that the Crucifix, the effective engine, the
notorious emblem of Romish superstition, is once more
becoming, with some professed Protestants, an object, not
indeed of worship, — scarcely let us hope even of reverence,
yet at least of religious interest." p. 30. Now that the
crucifix, //"possessed, ought not to be treated with reverence,
is u sentiment into which I cannot enter. We treat the
pictures of our friends with reverence. Statues of illus-
trious persons we treat with reverence ; and we feel indi;r-
nation, if they are damaged or insulted. Who among us
would think better of a man, who, as being above preju-

to encourage us in living without faith, hope, and charity, without the prac-
tice of virtue, and without habitual self-rule, or are able to help us at the
last after a bad life, except by gaining for us, what is so rare and so difficult
ou a death-bed, a true contrition, and a real detestation of our sins, and
piofouiid sorrow for our past bad life, our cultus of the saints certainly is
idolatry. I5ut we do not hold this ; on the contrary we denounce it.]

1 [ What emblems or symbols did the author consider that " God Himself
had appointed " ? I suppose the Lamb and the Dove. Would he say thi'u
that we might bow down to these as divine yet not to a crucifix ? But if
to the crucifix, why not to an image or picture of the Blessed Virgin? or
of St. Joseph ? «fcc. We say God has (by His Church) sanctioned images.]

216 A LKTTER ADDRESSED TO THE

dice, used his Bible for a footstool ? yet what is it but an
English printed book ? Again, would it not offend the run
of religious men, to hear of persons making it a point to
keep their hats on in Church? 3'etwhat is a Church but a
building of brick or stone? Surely then it is impossible
for any religious man, having a Crucifix, not to treat it
with reverence ; and perhaps there are few religious people
in the ordinary walks of life, (such, I mean, as live by good
princi{)les and good feeling, without having their intellect
specially exercised,) who would not treat it with due
respect. But, while I grant this, I more than doubt
whether a Crucifix, carved to represent life as such
memorials commonly are, be not too true to be reverent,
and too painful for familiar contemplation. I state this,
however, as merely my own opinion ; without knowing
the opinion of others. So much I know, that the use of
the Crucifix is in this place no badge of persons whose
mode of thinking you would condemn. How many
Crucifixes could be counted up in Oxford, I know not ;
but you will find them in the possession of those who are
no special friends or followers of Mr. Froude, and perhaps
cordial admirers, except of course on this one poiut, of the
tenor of your publication.

11.

A few words are now necessary on another subject, —
Mr. Froude's use of the word Protestantism, and his
language concerning some of the Reformers. Your
remarks here go to an encroachment on our liberty of j
thought and speech, such as I have before noticed. Iwillj
but ask by which of the Articles, by what part of the Prayei
Book, is a member of our Church bound to acknowledgol
the Reformers, or to profess himself a Protestant ? N0-3
where. To force him then to do so, when he fain woulc
not, is narrowing our terms of communion ; it is in fact

MARGAKEr PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 217

committing the same error which we urge against the
Eoman Catholics. The Church is not built upon, it is not
bound up with, individuals. I do not see why Mr. Froude
may not speak against Jewel, if he feels he has a reason, as
strongly as many among us speak against Laud. Men are
not denounced from high places for calling Laud a bigot or a
tyrant, why then should not like term she used against Jewel?
One may dislike to hear Laud abused, and feel no drawings
towards his abusers; yet may suffer it as a matter in which,
we must bear differences of opinion, however " offensive."
This is the very distinction between our Church and (for
instance) the Lutherans ; that they are Lutherans, but we
are not Cranmerite :, nor Jewelists, but Catholics, members
not of a sect or party, but of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church. And while the name of Luther became the title,
his doirniata were made the rule of faith, of his followers ;
his phrases were noted, almost his very words were got by
rote. He was, strictly speaking, the Master of his school.
Where has the English Church any such head? Whom
does she acknowledge but Christ and His Apostles, and as
their witness the consent of Fathers ? What title has she,
but as an old Father speaks, " Christian for her name and
Catholic for her surname ?" If there is one thing more
than another which tends to make us a party, it is the
setting up the names of men as our symbols and watch-
words. Those who most decplv love their teachers, will
not magisterially bring them forward, and will rather
shun than denounce those who censure them.

At the same time if such expressions concerning Jewel
and others, as occur in the Volumes under consideration,
have been painful to any person, I wish to express my own
deep concern at it. With the prospect of such a contin-
gency, nothing but a plain sense of duty could justify their
publication ; and a duty it may have been with those who
considered that an historical name was at this day made

218 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

the sanction of serious religious errors. The least said
here on such a subject, the better; let it only be re-
collected, that what is said about Jewel, is supported by
passages quoted from his works. Shall we defend such
passages, or deny his trustworthiness ?

12.

And in like manner, if persons, aware that names are
things, conscientiously think that the name of Protestant-
ism is productive of serious mischief, — if it be the property
of heresy and schism as much as of orthodoxy, — if it be
but a negative word, such as almost forces on its professors
the idea of a vague indefinite creed, bringing before them
how much they may doubt, deny, ridicule, or resist, rather
than what they must believe, — if the religion it generates,
mainly consists in a mere attack upon Rome, and tends toj
be a mere instrument of state purposes, — if it tends tol
swallow up devotion in politics, and the Church in thei
executive, — if it damps, discourages, stifles that ancient
Catholic spirit, which, if true in the begiiming, is true at
all times, — and if on the other hand there be nothing in
our formularies obliging us to profess it, — and if external
circumstances have so changed, that what it was inexpe-
dient or impossible to do formerly, is both possible and
most expedient now, — these considerations, I conceive,
may form a reason for abandoning the word. But here it
will be sufficient to keep to the question of our obligatioi
to profess it, and with this view I quote the following
passage from one of the " Tracts for the Times."

" The English Church," it says, ^* as such, is no^\
Protestant, only politically ; that is, externally or so fai
as it has been made an establishment, and subjected
national and foreign influences," &c.'

2 [Vid. the passage supr. pp. 137 — 139.]

MAUGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINIIY. 219

13.

Another question, already touched on, as to which we
claim a liberty of opinion is, whether or not the Church of
Rome is " the mother of harlots," and the Pope St. PauFs
" man of sin." And as feeling it is fairly an open question,
I see no need of entering at length into it, even did the
limits of a Letter admit. How those divines who hold the
Apostolical Succession can maintain the affirmative, passes
my comprehension; for in holding the one and other
point at once, they are in fact proclaiming to the world
that they come from " the synagogue of Satan," and (if I
may so speak) have the devil's orders. I know that
highly revered persons have so thought ; perhaps they
considered that the fatal apostasy took place at Trent, that
is, since the date of our derivation from Rome ; yet if in
" the seven hills," in certain doctrines '' about the souls of
men," in what you consider "blasphemous titles,^' and in
" lying wonders," lies, as you maintain, the proper evidence
that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, then the great
Gregory, to whom we Saxons owe our conversion, was
Antichrist, for in him and in his times were those tokens
of apostasy fulfilled, and our Church and its Sees are in
no small measure the very work of the " Man of Sin."

And the dissenting bodies among us seem to understand
this well ; for they respond to our attack upon Rome, by
briskly returning it on ourselves. They know none of
those subtle distinctions by which we distinguish in this
matter between ourselves and our ancient Mother, but
they apply at once to our actual state what we confess of
our original descent. If Rome has "committed fornica-
tion with the kings of the earth," what must be said of
the Church of England with her temporal power, her
Bishops in the House of Lords, her dignified clergy, her
prerogatives, her pluralities, her buying and selling of

220 A I.ETIEH ADDHES.SKU TO THE

joreferraents, her patronage, her corrupt ions, and ber
abuses ? If Rome's teaching be a deadly heres}', what is
our Church's, which '' destroys more souls than it saves " ?
If Rome be " M3'stery " because it has mysterious doctrines,
what are we with our doctrine of the Sacraments and those
greater things which are ia lieaven? If "commanding to
abstain from meats " be a mark of Antichrist's communion,
why do we observe days of fasting and abstinence, and why
have our most revered teachers uf timt'S past been men of
mortified lives ? If Rome has put a yoke on the neck of
Christians, why have not we, with our prescrib^^^d forni of
praj'er, our S:iin*s' Days, our Ordinances, and our pro-
hibition of irregular preaching ? If Rome is accused of
assuming divine titles and powers, is not our own Church
vulnerable too, considering the Bishop ordains under the
words, '• Receive the Holy Gliost," and the priest has power
given him " to remit and retain sins."

No ; serious as are the corruptions of Rome, clear indeed
as are the differences between her communion and ours,
they do not lie in any prophetic criteria ; we cannot prove
her the enchantress of the Apocalyptic Vision, without
incurring our share in its application ; and our enemies
see this and make use of it. 1 am not inventing a parallel;
they see it, I say, and use it. They are now exulting, as]
they believe piously, in our Church's troubles, for they
consider, that while she is established, she is '' partaker ofl
the sins" of Rome, and they see in those tioubles tlio
fulfilment of the prophec}', t])at the " ten horns " should
*' hate " the woman, and " make her desolate and naked,
and eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." In the con-
fiscations going on in Spain and Portugal, and in the]
acts against us of our own government at home, they]
recognize one and the same Retributive Dispensation. And
they declare tliat we have not yet obeyed the exhortation
which ycu address to your readers, " Come out of her, !My

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 221

people, tliat ye receive not of her plagues ;" nor shall
have, till we give up our stalls, our incumbencies, and our
dignities, and are content to rest merely on our popularity,
our powers of preaching, our acceptableness to our people,
our efficiency, our industry, and our Christian perfection.
Nor is this most odious, '' offensive " view, as you will call
it, a modern one, nor has it been used against, us by ortho-
dox dissenters only. It was carried out to its last con-
sequences at the time of the Reformation. The followers
of Socinus then proclaimed, as some of us do now, that
Rome was Babylon, and then they went on to show that
those who so thought could not consistently stop their
reasoning till they were brought to the conclusion that
Socinianism is the Gospel. According to the well-known
Hues they said, —

Tola jacet Babylon ; destruxit tecta Lntherus,
Calvinus muros, sed fund amenta Socinus,

14.

I will say no more on this subject than this ; that the
17th and 18th chapters of the Apocalypse, on which the
supposed Scripture evidence against her principally rests,
must either be taken literally, or figuratively ; now they
do not apply to her unless they are taken partly in the one
way, partly in the other. Take the chapters literally, and
sure it is, Rome is spoken of; but then she must have literal
merchants, ships, and sailors ; therefore is not Papal Rome
but Pagan. Take them figuratively ; and then, sure it is,
merchants and merchandize, mat/ mean indulgences and
traffickers in them ; but then the word Rome perhaps is
figurative also, as well as her merchandize. Nay, I should
almost say, it must be ; for the city is called not only
Rome but Babylon ; and if Babylon is a figurative title,
why should not Rome be ? The interpretation then lies
between Pagan Rome which is past, and some city, or

222 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

power typified as a city, which is to come ; and probably
may be true both ways. But, if we insist on adapting the
prophecy to Papal Rome, then we are reduced to take half
of the one interpretation, half of the other ; and by the
same process, only taking in each case the other half, wc
may with equal success make it London, for London has
literally ships and sailors, merchants and merchandize,
and is a figurative Rome, as being an Imperial City.

And now I come to the main subject of discussion,
which is so much more arduous than any of the others,
that I fear it will occupy a long time ; and that is the
subject of the Holy Eucharist.

15.

Before entering upon it, I will notice three points in
your publication connected with it, which call for remark.

You write as follows : — " The term Altar, as synonymous
with the Lord's Table, does not appear to have been adopted
till about the end of the second century ; and then merely in
a figurative sense, and out of a spirit of accommodation, as
it should seem, to the prejudices of Jews and Pagans, who
habitually reproached the Christians as having neither
Altar nor Sacrifice,'^ pp. 18, 19. You are of opinion that
the word Altar was not used for the Lord's Table " till
about the end of the second century." On the contrary I
read it in as many as four out of the seven brief Epistles of
St. Ignatius, at the end of ihe first. If you are right,
even this glorious Saint and Martyr, the immediate com-
panion of Apostles, acted in a " spirit of accommodation "
to the '^ prejudices of Jews and Pagans." Do my eyes
play me false in reading Ignatius, or in reading your
" Revival of Popery " ?

First lie uses it in his Epistle to the Ephesi.ms : — *' For
if I in so short a season formed such an intimacy with
your Bishop, not a human but a spiritual, how much more

MAKGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 223

do I call you fortunate, who are so united to him, as the
Church to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Fatlier,
that all things may be concordant in unity ? Let no one
err ; xmless a man be within the Altar [ivro^ roO dvcriaaTr]-
pLov) he comes short of the bread of God. For if the
prayer of one and a second has such power, how much
more that of the Bishop and all the Church ? " §. 5.

Next, in that to the Magnesians : — " Let there be one
prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love, in
that joy which is irreprovable. There is one Jesus Christ
to whom nought is preferable; all of you then run toge-
ther as to one Temple, as for one Altar (eVt ev Ovcnaary)-
piov). as for One Jesus Christ, who is come forth from
One Father, and returned again to One." §. 7.

Thirdly, in that to the Trallians : — " Guard against
such [sectarians,] and this will be if we are not puffed up,
nor separated from Jesus Christ our God, and the Bishop,
and the ordinances of the Apostles. He who is within
the Altar (eVro? dvaiaa^Tjpiov) is clean ; that is, he who
does any thing without Bishop, and Presbytery, and
Deacons, such a one is not clean in conscience." §. 7.

Lastly, in that to the Philadelphians : — " Be careful to
use one Eucharist ; for the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ
is one, and one Cup for the uniting of His blood ; one
Altar {ep Ovaiaarripiov), as one Bishop, together with the
Presbytery, and Deacons my fellow-servants; that what-
ever ye do, ye may do after God. " §. 4.

And while the list of ecclesiastical witnesses to the use
of the word Altar for the Lord's Table begins as early as
it can after the Apostles and Evangelists, (who use it also
as I would contend, in Matt. v. 23. Heb. xiii. 10, but
who are not at present under review,) it proceeds down-
wards, not only in an uninterrupted series, but with a
eort of prerogative of usage ; for it is very remarkable
that, excepting one passage in a letter of St. Dionysius of

224 A LEITKR ADDllKSSED TO THE

Alexandria, no ecclesiastical writer at all is found to use
the word " Table " till St. Athanasius in the fourth century;
and what is also remarkable, when St. Athanasius uses it,
he does so with tlie explanation, " that is, the Holy Altar ;"
as if he were not using a w^ord commonly adopted. On
the contrary, the word Altar is used after St. Ignatius by
St. Irena^us, TertuUian, St. Cyprian, Origen, P'usebius,
St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory Nazlanzen, St,
Optatus, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and St. Austin.^

16.

The next point on which it is necessary to remark, is
your saying, that the Tracts for the Times " appeal " on
the subject of the Eucharist to the " half-converted German
Reformers,^' that is, to Luther, and MeLincthon, " and to
the strong and unguarded expressions which their works
supply ;" and this you call an " alarming fact." I am
very glad to find we are so well agreed in our judgments
as to the authority of Luther and Meluncthon in our
Church ; but I cannot allow that the Tracts do appeal to
them, as you assert, or wish to shelter themselves behind
them. Bp. Cosin, in the Tract you refer to, certainly does
quote the Lutherans, but he also quotes Calvin, Bucer,
and the French Protestants; and that, in order to show,
that " none of the Protestant Churches doubt of the real
(that is, true and not imaginary) presence of Cliris^tV
Body and Blood in the Sacrament ;" and he " begins with
the Church of England,^' quoting first our formuhirios,
then the words of Bilson and Andrewes. In what sense
then do you mean tfiat the writers of the Tracts appeal to
the Lutherans, when, not the writers, but only Bp. Cosin
in the Tracts, appeals, not to the Lutherans, but to t/ie
uhole Protestant world? Concerning the Real Pit scnce
itself something shall be said presently ; meanwhile I do
» Vid. Johnson, Uiibl. Sacr. vol. i. pp. 30G-9.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 225

not fear that any great number of readers will identify
or connect with Luther's the doctrine held by Hooker,
Andrewes, Bramhall, Cosin, Bull, Ken, and Leslie. It
may be well to quote the words of the last-mentioned
Divine concerning this work of Bp. Cosin, whose views
you consider do not " fall much, if at all, short of what
has been commonly termed Consubstantiation.'' " Bishop
Cosin's History of Transubstantiation/-* he says to a
Romanist, is " a little book, long printed both in English
and Latin, not yet auswered (that I hear), and I believe
tmansicerable, wherein you see a cloud of witnesses through
the first ages of the Church, and so downwards, in perfect
contradiction to this new article of your faith." {Rome
and England, vol. iii. pp. 130, 1.) This is not the language
of one who felt Cosines book to be " an alarming fact.''

17.

And thirdly, let me refer to two statements in Mr.
Froude's Volumes, on which you dwell, to the effect that our
present Communion Service is "a judgment on the Church,''
and that there would be advantage in " replacing it by a
good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter." The state of
the case is this ; the original Eucharistic form is with good
jeason assigned to the Apostles and Evangelists themselves.
It exists to this day under four different rites, which seem to
have come from four different Apostles and Evangelists.
These rites differ in some points, agree in others; among the
points in which they agree, are of course those in which the
Essence of the Sacrament consists. At the time of the Refor-
mation we in common with all the West possessed the rite of
the Roman Church, or St. Peter's Liturgy. This formulary
i*? called the Canon of the Mass, and except a very few
words, appears, even as now used in the Roman Church, to
be free from interpolation, and thus is distinguished from
the Ordinary of the Mass, which is the additional and

VOL. II. Q

226 A LEITER ADDRESSED TO THE

corrupt service prefixed to it, and peculiar to Rome/ This
sacred and most precious monument, then, of the Apostles,
our Reformers received whole and entire from their pre-
decessors ; and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years.
Well was it for us that they did not discard it, that they
did not touch any vital part ; for through God's good
providence, though they broke it up and cut away portions,
they did not touch life ; and thus we have it at this day, a
violently treated, but a holy and dear possession, more
dear perhaps and precious than if it were in its full vigour
and beauty, as sickness or infirmity endears to us our
friends and relatives. Now the first feeling which comes
upon an ardent mind, on mastering these facts, is one of
indignation and impatient grief ; the second, is the more
becoming thought, that, as he deserves nothing at all at
God's hand, and is blessed with Christian privileges only
at His mere bounty, it is nothing strange that he does not
enjoy every privilege which was given through the Apostles ;
and his third, that we are mysteriously bound up with our
forefathers and bear their sin, or in other words, that our
present condition is a judgment on us for what they did.

These, I conceive, to be the feelings which dictated to
Mr, Froude the sentences on which you animadvert ; the
earlier is more ardent, the latter is more subdued. In
the one he says of a friend, " I verily believe he would now
gladly consent to see our Communion Service replaced by
a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter, a name
which I advise you to substitute in your notes to Hooker
for the obnoxious phrase ' Mass Book.' '' vol. i. p. 287.
Lest any misconception of the author's meaning should
arise from the use of the word " replaced," I would observe,
that such " replacing " would not remove one prayer,
one portion of our present Service ; it would consist

* [What can this mean ? The Ordinary consists of Oloria in cxcclsis,
Collects, Epistle, Gospel, CreeJ, OflFertory.]

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 227

but of addition and re-arrangement, of a return to the
original Canon. The substance of this explanation is
contained in the second volume of the Remains, (Essay on
Liturgies/) and a reference to it would supersede it here.
The other passage runs as follows : " By-the-bye, the more
I think over that view of yours about regarding our present
Communion Service, &c., as a judgment on the Church, and
about taking it as crumbs from the Apostles' table, the
more I am struck with its fitness to be dwelt upon as tend-
ing to check the intrusion of irreverent thoughts without
in any way interfering with one's just indignation. If I
were a Roman Catholic Priest, I should look on the ad-
ministration of the Communion in one kind in the same
light." vol. i. p. 410.

You see, from this last sentence, he thought nothing
would be gained by going to Rome, unsatisfactory as
might be our present case. Nay that he was not in favour
even of changes in our own services, to meet the defects
he felt in them, appears from the following passages in
his Tract on the Daily Service, 1. "This, it will be said,
is an argument, not so much for retaining the present
form of the Prayer Book, as for reverting to what is older.
In my own mind, it is an argument for something different
from either, for diffidence. I very much doubt, whether
in these days the spirit of true devotion is at all under-
stood, and whether an attempt to go forward or backward
may not lead our innovations to the same result. * If the
blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall inta the
ditch?'" vol. ii. 382.

18.

And now at length let me proceed to the doctrine itself
to which these remarks relate, the doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist. Here I could have much wished that you had,
* Vid. also the Introduction of Tract, No. 81.
Q 2

228 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

at least in your N'otes, drawn out that view of it which you
consider to be Scriptural and An<j^lican. It would have been
a great satisfaction to know where we both are standing,
how far I can assent, how far I am obliged to dissent from
your opinion. But, excepting from one or two half-sen-
tences, I really can gather nothing to the purpose ; I only
see you do not hold, but rather condemn, a view which Bp.
Cosin declares to be that of all " the Protestant '^ or *♦ Re*
formed Churches.'' To this difficulty I must submit as
can ; and instead of letting the course of my remarks run
as a comment on your pages, shall be obliged against my
■will to answer you by a categorical view of my own."

As regards then this most sacred subject, three questions
offer themselves for consideration ; first, whether there is
a Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, next
what It is, and thirdly where. 1. On the Real Presence I
shall not use many words of my own, because on the on(
hand it is expressly recognized by the Catechism anc
Homilies, (not to mention the language of the Service
itself,) and on the other because you do not absolutel]
condemn such language, only you think it " highly ol

* [The Catholic doctrine is as follows; authorities for it shall be given
lower down.

Our Lord is in loco in heaven, not (in the same sense) in the Sacrament.
He is present in the Sacrament ouly in substance, substanlitie , and substance]
does not require or imply the occupation of place. But if place is excluded "
from the idea of the Sacramental Presence, therefore division or distanc
from heaven is excluded also, for distance iini)liesa measurable interval, an
such there cannot be except between places. Moreover, if the idea of diai
tance is excluded, therefore is the idea of motion. Our Lord then neithfl
dei^cends from heaven upon our altars, nor moves when carried in procession
The visible species change their position, but He does not move. He is
the H0I3' Eucharist after the manner of a .spirit. We do not know how]
we have no parallel to the " how " in our experience. We can ouly sa
that He is present, not according to the natural manner of bodies, bs
taoramentally. His Presence is substantial, spirit-wise, sacramental;
absolute mystery, not iigainst reason, however, but against imagination, an
must be received by laiih.J

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 229

jectionable and dangerous" when "systematically and
studiously adopted." I shall not therefore debate a point
which the formularies of our Church decide, when they
declare that " the Body and Blood of Christ " are " verily
and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's
Supper;" that "the Borly of Christ \b given, taken, and
eaten in the Supper;" and that " thus much we must be
sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain
ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent, but
as the Scripture saith, . . . the communion of the Body and
Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which by
the operation of the Holy Ghost, the very bond of our con-
junction with Christ, is throughfaith wrought in the souls of
the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life,
but they surely trust to win to their bodies a resurrection to
immortality." ^ These passages seem to determine that the
Bodv and Blood of Christ are not absent but present in the
Lord's Supper ; and if really, and in fact Christ's Body be
there, His Soul is there, and His Divinity ; for as the
Article says, the two natures are " never to be divided ;"
therefore He is there, " One Christ," whole and entire.
Nor does any one doubt of His Presence on our Altars as
God, for He is everywhere ; but the question is, whether
His human nature also is present in the Sacrament.

In corroboration of the view here taken of the state-
ments of our Church, I quote the following passage from
Hooker, who, we all know, was not in this, any more than
in other points, an extreme Divine. He argues that the
three Schools of opinion in his day, the Romanists, the
Lutherans, and the Sacramentaries, (the last, I need not
say, being one which nowhere exists as a body at this
day, but which originally was the school of Zuinglius and
Qj^colampadius,) might well waive the question among
themselves, how Christ is present, upon the common con-
1 Sermon of the Sacrament, Part I.

230 A LETIER ADDRESSED TO THE

fession that He is really present. And he defends the
tSacramentaries from the objection then urged against
them, and since fulfilled in their descendants, that they
admitted a Presence in words and explained it away ;
and, as believing they did not explain it away, he admits
them into this compact of charity, as it may be called.
^le BSi)'B, *' It is on all sides plainly confessed, . . . that this
Sacrament is a true and real participation of Christ, who
thereby imparteth Himself, ei'en His tc/wle entire Person,
as a mystical head unto every soul that receiveth Him,
and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or
unite himself unto Christ as a mystical member of Him,
yea of them also whom He acknowledgeth to be His own.
.... It seemeth therefore much amiss, that against
them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective
discourses are made, all running upon two points, that the
Eucharist is not a bare sign or figure only, and that the
efficacy of His Body and Blood is not all we receive in this
Sacrament. For no man, having read their books and
writings which are thus traduced, can be ignorant that
both these assertions they plainly con/ess to be most true. The}'
do not so interpret the ivords of Christ, as if the name of His
]5ody did import but the fiynre of His Body ; and to be were
only to signify His Blood. They grant that these Holy
Mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumentally both
make us partakers of the grace of that Body and Blood
which were given for the life of the world, and besides also
impart to us, even in true and real, though mystical manner,
the very Person of our Lord Himself, whole, perfect and entire,
as hath been showed.^' *

Elsewhere he says, " Doth any man doubt, but that

even from the flesh of Christ our very bodies do receive

that life which shall make them glorious at the latter day;

and for which they are already accounted parts of His

« Eccl. Pol. V. 67, § 7, 8.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 231

Blessed Body ? Our corruptible bodies could never live
the life they shall live, were it not that here they are
joined with His Body which is incorruptible, and that His
is in ours as a cause of immortality, a cause by removing
through the death and merit of His own Flesh that which
hindered th-e life of ours. Christ is therefore, both as
God and as man, that true Vine whereof we both spiritually'
and corporaih/ are branches. The mixture of His bodily
Substance with ours is a thing which the Ancient Fathers
disclaim. Yet the mixture of His Flesh with ours they
speak of, to signify what our very bodies, through mystical
conjunction, receive from that vital e&cdicy which we know
to be in His ; and from bodily mixtures they borrow
diverse similitudes, rather to declare the truth than the
manner of coherence between His Sacred, and the sanctified
bodies of saints." '

19.

2. So much on the testimony of our Church and of her
celebrated Divine to the doctrine of the Real Presence.
But here it is objected that such a Presence is impossible;
and this brings us to the question how Christ is present,
which stands next for consideration. The objection takes
this form, — if He is really here, He is locally here, but He
is locally in heaven not here, therefore He cannot really
be here, but is only said to be here. Now to take in hand
this question.

In answer, Bellarmine maintains that our Lord can be
locally here, though He is in heaven ; for he lays it down
as a certain truth that a body can be in two places at once.'

» Ibid. 56. § 9.

' [He does; however, St. Thomas says on the contrary that our Lord is
not under the species localiter, but to show how much this difference is a
more mutter of words, I will set down the chief points of the doctrine in
Btutements of Bellarmine ou the one hand, and of Billuart on the other, who

232 A LEri'ER ADDRESSED TO THE

Accordingly he would say, that in the Sacrament that
very Body, which died upon the Cross, and rose again
and ascended, is locally present under the accidents of
Bread.

Our Church, however, incidentally argues that a body
cannot be in two places at once ; ^ and that the Body of
Christ is not locally present, in the sense in which we speak

professes to write as a Thoinist, And I will begin with a passage from the
Council of Trent, as a sort of text.

Concil. Trid. Sess. 13, c. 1. — Nee lisec inter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator
noster semper ad dexteram Patris in ccelis assideat juxta modum cxistendi
naturalem, et in multis nihilomiuus aliis locis sac-ramentaliter prajsens 8u4
substantia nobis adsit.

Billuarl, pp. 356, 392, &c.— Corpus Christi est prajsens in speciebus,
non circumscriptive, nee definitive, sed saeramentaliter.

Ibid. p. 393, col. 1. — Corpus Christi est in £ucharisti& ad modum
substantia}, seu saeramentaliter.

Bellarm. col. 349, 350.— Totus Christns existit in Sacramento ad modum
substantise, non quantitatis.

BlUuart, p. 357, col. 1. — Qnantitas non est essentiaiis corpori, sed ejus
proprietas.

Bellarm. col. 390 — Substantia cujuelibet rei non est per se divisibilis.

Ibid. col. 350. — Per substantiam non occupat locum.

Billvart, p. 393, col. 1.— Christus non est in hoc Sacramento ut in loco.

Bellarm. col. 350. — Substantia secundum se neque ordinem habet ad
locum, neque ad corpora circumstantia.

Billuart, p 357, col. 1. — [Ut] Corpus Christi in coelo et altari [sit] k se
divisum, requiritur ut medium [qiioddam] sit contiguum extremis, seu ilia
secundum extremitates tangat, quod non fit respectu Corporis Christi.

Ibid. p. 393, col. 1. — Corpus Christi non se habet sub speciebus sicut qui
movetur in navi.

Bellarm. col. 580. — Corpus Christi [dicitur] videri, tangi, frangi, etteri,
mediantibus speciebus panis.

Billuart, p. 357, col. 1.— Non Corpus Cliristi propria manducatur, sed
species mandncantur.

Bellarm. col. 351. — Christus in Encharisti& modum exbtendi corporum
non habet, sed potius spirituum.

Billuart, p. 357, col. 1. — Ha;c transcendunt imaginationem, quia imagi-
natio non transcendit continuum. . . . Imaginatio corrigenda est per fidcni
et rationem.]

* Vid. Notice at the en J of the Commuaiou Service.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 233

of the Bread as being locally present. On the other hand
she determines, as I have already said, that the Body of
Christ is in some unknown way, though not locally yet
really present, so that we after some ineffable manner
partake of it. Whereas then the objection stands, Christ
is not really here, because He is not locally here, she
answers, He is really here, yet not locally.

20.

I will say directly what is meant by this ; before doing
so, however, let me briefly observe that there is nothing
(as far as I am aware) in Mr. Froude^s writings in
countenance of the local presence on earth, as it is com-
monly understood, though he certainly did not sympathize
with the Reformers at all in their mode of arguing on the
subject. When he speaks of " making the Body and
Blood of Christ,*' or indirectly adopts the phrase of " mak-
ing the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ/'
he does not go beyond the doctrine of the Beal Presence,
which, as we shall see, need not be local ; and in the use
of the one phrase he is borne out by Hooker, who speaks of
the Christian Ministry as having " power imparted " to it
by Christ, " both over that mystical body which is the
society of souls, and over that Natural, uliich is Himself,
for the knitting of both in one, a work which Antiquity
doth call the maJcing of Christ's Body;" while he brings
forward the other, not in his own words, but in the words
of Bishop Bull, who says, " We are not ignorant that the
ancient Fathers generally teach that the Bread and Wine
in the Eucharist, by or upon the consecration of them, do
become and are made the Body and Blood of Christ.''

Mr. Fronde's strong language, then, had the sanction
of our Divines ; how far, on the other hand, he was from
agreeing with the Roman doctrine will be clearly seen
from a passage of his writings, not yet published. In an

234 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

unfinished Essay on Rational ism, speaking of the inter-
pretation which supposes " This is My Body " to mean
" This is a sign of My Body," he says, " This mode of
speaking ... is true in one sense, and in every other
gratuitous and improper. If it is intended simply to
deny, that by the words * This is My Body ' our Lord
meant, * This is that very Body of Mine which you see
before you sitting at the Table/ then indeed the sentiment
is true, however awkward may be the expression of it."
But if the words ' Sign of My Body,' are understood to
convey any idea more definite and intelligible than that
which is conveyed in our Lord^'s own words, then moat cer-
tainly that idea is unscriptural, it is a mere human inven-
tion fabricated to set the mind at rest, wliere God has seen
Jit to leave it in uncertainty" Hence he says the very
thing which I conceive our Church holds, that Christ's
Body is present, but how it is present is a mystery] it
being hidden from us how Christ can be really here, yet
not locally. Both Protestant and Romanist attempt to
explain how ; Protestants by saying it is a mere figura-
tive or nominal presence, and as to Romanists, I will
quote Mr. Fronde's own words about them which occur
soon after : " Opposed to these errors, (the Protestant,)
but erroneous much for the same reason, is the Roman
Catholic dogma about Transubstantiation. Unlike the
Protestant glosses, this does not attempt to explain away
everything miraculous in the history of the Last Supper ;
but by explaining precisely tcherein the miracle consists
and how it is brought about, it aims like them at relieving
us from a confession of ignorance,* and so far must be

* [I do not understand this. If it i« beyond our power of conception
that our Lord's body should be in two places at once, at least it is against
the Christian faith that He should have two bodies.]

* [It is ilifficult for any one who really knows what the Catholic Church
teaches on this subject, to understand how that teaching can be accused of
•' relieving our ignorance."]

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 235

regarded as a contrivance of human scepticism, to elude the
claims of Faith, and to withdraw from the hidden Myste-
ries of religion the indistinctness in which God has thought
fit to envelope them."^^

21.

But now to return, what is the meaning of saying
that Christ is really present, yet not locally ? This was the
second point I had to consider, and I will make two
suggestions upon it, in both of which the Sacramental
Presence shall be viewed as real, yet in neither local.

First, as to material things, what do we mean, when we
speak of an object being present to us ? How do we
define and measure its presence ? To a blind and deaf
man that only is present which he touches. Give him
hearing, and the range of things present to him enlarges ;
everything is present to him which he hears. Give him
at length sight, and the sun may be said to be present to
him in the daytime, and myriads of stars by night.
Presence then is a relative word, depending on the chan-
nels of communication existing between the object and
the person to whom it is present. It is almost a correlative
of the senses. A fly may be as near an edifice as a man :
yet we do not call it present to the fly. be'cause he cannot
see it, and we do call it present to the man, because he can.

But we must add another element to the idea expressed
by the word in the case of matter. A thing may be said
to be present to us, which is so circumstanced as imme-
diately to act upon us and to influence us, whether we are
sensible of it or no. Perhaps then our Lord is present to
us in the Sacrament in this sense, that, far as He is off us.
He in it acts personally, bodily, and directly upon us,

' [He called the Roman view sceptical and rationalistic because, together
with men of his d ly, he really did not know what the Roman view was, nor
that he did not know it.]

236 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

though how He does so Is as simply beyond us, as the
results of eyesight are inconceivable to the blind. We
know but of five senses, — we know not whether human
nature is capable of more ; we know not whether the soul
possesses any instruments of knowledge and moral advan-
tage analogous to them ; but neither have we any reason
to deny that the soul may be capable of having Christ
present to it by the stimulus of dormant or the develop-
ment of possible energies. As sight for certain purposes
annihilates space, so other unknown conditions of our
being, bodily or spiritual, may practically annihilate it for
other purposes. Such may be the Sacramental Presence.
We kneel before the Heavenly Throne, and distance
vanishes ; it is as if that Throne were the Altar close to us.

22.

This is my first suggestion ; my second is as follows : —
Our Lord, not only "did rise again from death," as the
Article says, " and took again His Body with flesh, bones,
and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's
nature," but He rose with what St. Paul terms " a spiritual
body ;" so that now that He is in heaven, He is not
subject to the laws of matter, and has no necessary relations
to place, no dependence on its conditions ; and, for what
we know, His mode of making Himself present on earth,
of coming and going, is as different from the mode natural
to bodies by locomotion, — nearness being determined by
intervals and absence being synonymous with distance, — as
spirit is different from matter. He may be literally present
in the Holy Eucharist, yet, not havijig become present by a
movement and a transit. He may still be continuously on
God's right hand : so that, though He be present with us
in deed and in truth, it may be impossible, it may be untrue,
to determine that He is in or about the elements, or in the
soul of the communicant. These may be serviceable modes

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 237

of speech according to the occasion ; but the true result of
all such inquiries is no more than the assertion with which
we began, that He is piesent in the Holy Eucharist but
not locally present. We, to whom the idea of space is a
necessity, and who have no experience of spirits, are of
course unequal to the conception of such an idea, and can
only call a mystery what is as transporting and elevating
to the religious sense, as it is difficult to the intellect.

Let it be observed that I am not proving or determining
anything; I am only showing how it is that certain pro-
positions which at first sight seem contradictions in terms,
are not so ; I am but pointing out ways of reconciling
them. If even there is only one way assignable, the force
of any antecedent objection against the possibility of re-
conciling them is removed, and there may be other ways
supposable though not assignable.

23.

3. And now the way is clear to add a few words on the
third point, viz. the relation of the consecrated elements
to those Realities of which they are the outward signs.

The Roman Church, we know, considers that the ele-
ments of Bread and Wine depart or are taken away on
Consecration, and that the Body and Blood of Christ take
their place. This is the doctrine of Transubstantiation ;
and in consequence they hold that what is seen, felt, and
tasted, is not Bread and Wine but Christ's Flesh and
Blood, though the former look, feel, and taste remains."
This is what neither our Church, nor any of the late raain-
tainers of her doctrine on the subject, even dreams of hold-
ing. Again, the Lutherans say that, though the Bread
remains, the body of Christ is within [intra] the Bread ;
neither is this countenanced by any of the persons on whom
you animadvert. These hold a Spiritual Presence to be
* [This is not accurate, vid. supr. note, p. 232.]

238 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

such as not to allow of being strictly co-extensive witli
place, in the way in which a bodily substance is, in the way
in which the Bread is : therefore they cannot be said lo
countenance the Lutheran doctrine of Cousubstantiation.
What they do say is that Christ^s Body is really and lite-
rally present, but they do not know ]ww ; it being a ni3's-
ter}', as I have said already, how, as being spiritual it can
be really present, yet not locally or as bodies are.

Tt is true there is a passage in Mr. Froude's Letters iu
which he seems to assert that the Body of Christ is locally
in the Bread ; though this is, I apprehend, not really the
case on a candid judgment of it. He finds fault with an
expression in a Poem, which, speaking of the Lord's Supper,
says, " There present in the heart, not in the hands, &c."
He adds, " How can we possibly know that it is true to
s ly, * nof, in the hands ' ?" p. 404 ; that is» he much dis-
liked dogmatic decisions of any kind upon the subject. He
does not rule that it is in the hands, but, with Hookei-,
he wishes the question left open ; he disliked its being
determined that it was in the heart in a sense in which it
was not in the hands, seeing we know nothing of the matter.
To say it was in both did not interfere with the doctrine
of Christ's local presence in heaven ; but to say that Christ
is in the heart and not in the hands, did so fix His presence
here as to make it local, and in consequence might be
taken to interfere with that His one abiding presence at
God's right hand. I am certain, from what I know of his
opinions, that he did not mean, that the Body of Christ
which is on God's right hand, was literally in the Bread.

But, without limiting our Lord's presence to the conse-
crated elements, it seems nothing but the truth to say that
they are His immediate antecedents ; so that whoever
in faith receives them, at once and without assignable
medium, is gifted with His Presence who is on God's right
hand. As the breath is the immediate forerunner of the

J

MAUGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 239

voice, as the face is the image of the soul, as a garment
marks a bodily presence, so, I conceive, the elements are
the antecedents of His Body and Blood, or what our
Article calls, the " efficacious signs by the which He doth
work invisibly in us," or, as Hooker calls them. His *' instru-
ments/' And hence, whereas He is unseen, and His Pre-
sence ineflable, and known only by Its outward signs, we
say that, when we receive them, we receive the awful
Realities which follow on them ; when we touch the one,
with our spirit we touch the Other, when we eat the
one, we eat the Other, when we drink the one, we drink
the Other. And, whereas what is spiritual has no parts,
and what is spiritual cannot receive in part, therefore when
we speak of eating Christ's Body with our souls, the words
cannot be grossly or absurdly taken to mean a partial or
gradual communication of so Heavenly a Treasure, as
happens in carnal eating ; but in some unknown way
the soul becomes possessed at once of Christ according
to its nature, and as bodily contact is the mode in which
Bread nourishes our bodies, so the soul, and the motions
of the soul, and faith which is of the soul, as by an
inward contact, is the mean and instrument of receiving
Christ.

24

Now let it be considered whether the following extracts
from the Homilies and the Ecclesiastical Polity do not
bear out the main points which have been insisted on. In
consideration of the importance of the subject, I hope you
will pardon their length.

" The true understanding,^' says the first part of the
Sermon concerning the Sacrament, " of this fruition and
union, which is betwixt the body and the Head, betwixt
the true believers and Christ, and the Ancient Catholic
Fathers both perceiving themselves and commending to
their people, were not afraid to call this supper, some of

240 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

them the Salve of immortality and sovereign preservative
against death ; other, a deifical communion ; other, the
sweet dainties of our Saviour, the pledge of eternal health,
the defence of faith, the hope of the resurrection ; other,
the food of immortality, the healthful grace, and the con-
servatory to everlasting life. ... It is well known that
the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual food, the
nourishment of our soul, a heavenly refection, and not j
earthly ; an invisible meal, and not bodily ; a ghostly sub-
stance, and not carnal. . . . Take then this lesson, O thou
that are desirous of this Table, of Emissenus, a godly father,
that when thou goest up to the reverend Communion, to ;
be satisfied with spiritual meats, thou look up with faith
upon the Holy Bodi/ and Blood of thy God, thou marvel
with reverence, thou touch It with thy mind, thou receive
It with the hand of thy heart, and thou take It fully with
thy inward man."

Such is the language of the Homily, nor does Hooker
come short of it. " The Bread and Cup," he says, " are His ,
Body and Blood, because they are causes instrumental, upon
the receipt whereof the participation of His Body and
Blood ensueth. . . . Our souls and bodies quickened to
eternal life are effects, the cause whereof is the Person of
Christ : His Body and Blood are the true well-spring out
of which this life floweth. So that His Body and Blood
are in that very subject whereunto they minister life ; not
only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the
heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in everything which
they quicken ; but also by a far more divine and mystical
kind of union, which maketh us one with Him, even as
He and the Father are one. The Real Presence of Christ's
most Blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought
for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the
Sacrament." ^

7 Eccleg. Pol. V. 67. § 4, B.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 241

Soon after follows the well-known passage : " Such as
love piety, will, as much as in them lieth, know all things
that God commandeth, but especially the duties of service
which they owe to God. As for His dark and hidden
works, they prefer, as becometh them in such cases,
simplicity of faith before that knowledge, which, curiously
sifting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of
that which the wit of man cannot search, chilletli for the
most part all warmth of zeal, and bringeth soundness of
belief many times into great hazard. Let it therefore be
sufficient for me, presenting myself at the Lord's Table,
to know ichat there I receive from Him, without search-
ing or inquiring of the manner hoio Christ performeth His
promise. Let disputes and questions, enemies to piety,
abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause
but overpatiently heard, let them take their rest. Let
curious and sharp-witted men beat their heads about what
questions themselves will ; the very letter of the Word of
Christ giveth plain security, that these Mysteries do, as
nails, fasten us to His very Cross, that by them we draw out,
(as touching efficacy, force, and virtue,) even the blood of
His gored side ; in the wounds of our Redeemer we there
dip our tongues, we are dyed red both within and without ;
our hunger is so satisfied, and our thirst for ever quenched.
They are things wonderful which he feeleth, great which
he seeth, and unheard of which he uttereth, whose soul is
possessed of this Pascha Lamb, and made joyful in the
strength of this new wine. This bread hath in it more than
the substance which our eyes behold ; this Cup hallowed
with solemn benediction availeth to the endless life and
welfare both of soul and body ; in that it serveth as well
for a medicine to heal our infirmities and purge our sins,
as for a sacritice of thanksgiving. With touching it sanc-
tifieth, it enlighteneth with belief ; it truly comforteth us
unto the Image of Jesus Christ. What these elements are

VOL. II. R

242 A hETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

in themselves, it skilleth not ; it is enongh, that to me
which take them they are the Body and Blood of Christ. His
promise in witness hereof sufEceth ; His word lie kuoweth
which way to accomplish. Why should any cogitation
possess the mind of a faithful communicant but this, 0
my God, Thou art True — 0 my soul, thou art happy ?" *

25.

What a contrast do glowing thoughts like these present
to such teaching as has been too much in esteem among
us of late years ! For instance, to glean from your pages
the few notices of your own opinion which are scattered
there ; what a difference there is between " visible sym-
bols " of " His absent Body and Blood,'' and " Mysteries
which, as nails, fasten us to His very Cross ;" — between
"the communion of the benefits of His sufferings and
death,''' and *'Holy Mysteries imparting not grace only,
but besides, even in true and real though mystical manner,
the Very Person of our Lord Himself, whole, perfect, ami
entire;" — between "signs attended by the blessings of
Christ " and " doth any man doubt but that even from the
flesh of Christ our very bodies do receive " everlasting
" life /'—between " the body and blood of Christ '' not
" spiritually included in the elements " but " spiritually
received by the faithful, '^ and " Bread which hath in it more
than the substance which our eyes behold," " a ghostly sub-
stance," '^ an invisible meal!" Alas! what a decrepiture
has come on us since Hooker's day ! " How has the fine
gold become dim \" How has the promise of the spring
played us false in the summer ! How have the lean kine
eaten up the fat kine, and the thin ears choked the full
ones ! What a spiritual famine, or rather what locusts
and cankerworms are our portion ! the olive-tree can be
content with its own fatness, and the fig-tree with its
» Ibid. p. G7. § 5.

i

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 243

sweetness, and the vine reckons it much " to cheer god
and man ;^^ but the thin and empty ears of Zurich and
Geneva think it scorn unless they devour and make a
clean end of the pleasant and fair pastures of Catholic
doctrine, which are our heritage :

Interque nitentia culta
Infelix lolirnn et steriles dominantur avenas.

Indeed, the change, which the tone of our theology has
undergone in the last two centuries, is almost too much
for belief. Then, on the one hand, we find Hooker, earnest
in vindicating even the Zuinglians from the charge of
denying that Christ's Person as well as His grace, His
Person whole and entire, is in the l^ord's Supper, and
Cosin confident in the agreement of all Protestants in the
same doctrine ; and now on the other hand we witness,
not Zuinglians merely and Calvinists abjuring it, but even
the iMargaret Professor of Divinity in Oxford unablie even
in thought to distinguish it from Consubstantiation, con-
sidering it *' highly objectionable and dangerous/' and in
spite of Hooker and Cosin, denying that individuals hold-
ing it, are " safe and consistent members of the Church
of England/'' However, it is out of place to lament over
these things, at a time when one trusts that they are (as
it were) at low water mark and that the tide is turning.
It is more to the purpose to remove every obstacle, how-
ever small, to its natural return ; and under this feeling
I proceed to notice the only argument you use against the
Real Presence, which has any plausibility.

26.
You state it thus : ** The case of the profane Corinthians
is a sufficient proof that they had never heard of Transub-
stantiation. Had St. Paul inculcated upon them that
doctrine or any other modification of the Real Presence of
Christ's Body and Blood in the elements of Bread and

R 2

241 A LETrER ADDRESSED TO THE

Wine, tlieir conduct would have been not simply in-
credible, but morally impossible." p. 18. Let us then
consider the state of the case.

Whether it was possible for men, believing that in
drinking of "the Cup of blessing" they communicated in
Clirist's blood, to drink of that Cup to intoxication, I need
not determine, for I do not think the Corinthians were
guilty of this crime. At the same time, if I must answer,
it is enough to say, that, in truth, as no assignable limits
can be put to the self-delusion and perverseness of the
human heart, it would not surprise me if they were. The
sins of the Israelites, such as the golden calf, murmuring
at the manna, or looking into the ark ; the dreadful
history of Balaam, and the waywardness of Jonah ; exliibit
far stronger instances of inconsistency, than could have
been anticipated beforehand as possible : and if human
nature can go so far beyond our anticipations, I do not see
why it should not go further. There is nothing to show
that the intoxication in question had occurred before, or
that it was intentional ; and I think many persons will
recollect particular occasions, when their own conduct
before and after the Holy Communion has been such as
to fill them with astonishment, as well as dismay, ever
since. I do not then see any reason for deciding, that,
had any very sacred idea been connected with the Eucliarist
in the minds of the Corinthians, they must of necessity
have abstained from profaning it. A man must be verj
good and innocent to have a right to imagine, that such
excess as theirs in spite of their knowledge was impossible ;
and since the majority of men are not such, I. think that,
plausible as the objection in question is at first siglit, yet,
even when made the most of, it will not weigh with that
majority.

Have we never beard in our own times of the most
shocking sins committed in prayer-meetings ? Cannot

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 245

persons possibly be betrayed, while the name of Christ is
on their lips, into deeds of darkness ?

Again, is there anything more terrible than instances
of persons, while they lie^ calling on God to strike them
dead if they are lying ? Yet are not instances recorded
of the sin and the infliction ? A monument is set up at
Devizes in memory of sucha dreadful occurrence. If we can-
not help acknowledging that the one enormity has occurred,
I see no reason for deciding that the other cannot occur.
I do not say which is the greater sin ; but it does seem as
if one might more easily be seduced into fancying sensual
indulgence to be a part of religion, and the excitement
arising from excess to be devotional feeling, than into
taking a false oath, and calling on Almighty God to curse
and smite us for it.

The profession, then, that the Cup of blessing is really
the communication of the Lord's Blood is no infallible
safeguard against very heinous acts of sacrilege towards it ;
nor the circumstance of their profaning it, a proof that
they did not believe in it. Indeed, does not the punish-
ment inflicted on the offending Corinthians imply some
dreadful profanation of something very sacred ? Ananias
and Sapphira were struck dead for lying to the Holy
Ghost ; the unworthy communicant is "weak and sickly,*
or " sleeps," that is, is visited by death. If we suppose
that he does profane the Lord's Body and Blood, the
punishment is intelligible ; it is not intelligible, if it be
but a want of self-restraint after a commemoration or an
appropriation of Christ's merits. Death seems like the
punishment of blasphemy; there is no blasphemy, what-
ever sin there be, in turning religious feasting into excess.
Again, the phrases "eating and drinking judgment unto
himself,^^ as not " discerning the Lord's body," and being
** guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,'' certainly do
seem to imply some special act of blasphemy, of which

2-16 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

the doctrine of tlie Real Presence does, and the doctrine
of a mere appropriation does not, supply a sufficient
explanation.

27.

So much taking the offence at the worst ; but in matter
of fact there does not seem any good reason for supposing
that, strictly speaking, the excess in question was occa-
sioned by the consecrated Cup ; nor is such the interpre-
tation given to the passage by St. Chrysostom, and other
ancient commentators. In those early times it would
appear, that the celebration of the Eucharist was often the
first act of that social meal which Christians partook when
they met together. Men under every dispensation, have,
in their religious meetings, taken the firstfruits of their
substance, and have solemnly ofi'ered them to God, in
grateful acknowledgment of His bounty to them, and with
l)rayer that they might be blessed to them, not only for
bodily nourishment, but as a means of gaining His favour.
Such were the sacrifices of thanksgiving among the Jews ;
and Christ retained the ordinance in His Church, only
annexing to it a higher meaning, and more varied purposes,
and more sacred benefits. The feast of God's visible srood
gifts was continued ; but it was held chiefly for the poorer
members of the Church, and furnished by the more wealthy,
in accordance with the Divine command, " When thou
niakest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy
brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours,
lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made
thee. Eut when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the
maimed, the lame, the blind ; and thou shalt be blessed,
for they cannot recompense thee, for thou shalt be
recompensed at the resurrection of the jusf And,
whereas the choicest produce, whether of the earth, or of
flocks or herds, had been selected for the sacred rite in the

MARGAKET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 247

former sacrifices, the appointed materials of the Christian
offering are Bread and Wine, the chief stays of bodily life ;
and whereas the old sacrifice had been both an acknowledg-
ment to God, and a pledge of favour from Him^ these holy
elements were this and much more, at once a thankful re-
membrance, and also a symbolical pleading before Him of
that all-sufficient Sacrifice which had once been offered on
the Cross, and next,tlie actual means by which that Sacrifice
is brought home in spirit and in truth to each believer.

28.

When then the Corinthians are said to have committed
excess, there is no reason for supposing that the conse-
crated elements were the materials of it ; rather the meal,
which followed, which ought to have been a frugal repast,
not to satisfy hunger so much as to be an opportunity of
mutual friendliness, nor for the rich but for the poor, was
made a mere animal refreshment or carnal indulgence,
altogether out of character with a religious meeting.
Hence he says, " What, have ye not houses to eat and
drink in ? or despise ye the Church of God, and shame
them that have not," i.e. that are poor ? Moreover, it is
not certain that the word translated "is drunken'' has
strictly that meaning. It is the word in the Septuagint
version in Gen. xliii. 34, which our Translation renders
" they drank and were merry with him.'' Joseph's
brethren ate and drank freely, indulged themselves as men
who had met with unexpected good ; which need not imply
gross intemperance. And such seems to have been the sin
of the Corinthians ; they turned a religious meeting into a
mere festivity, and thus evidenced a state of mind which
could not have seriously and reverently taken part in the
High Mystery with which it commenced. They who
could end a religious rite by freely indulging in wine
which had been offered up to God, and in part consecrated

248 A LEITEB ADDRESSED TO THE

and given back to them as His blood, could not have
really come in faith to that offering, consecration, and
oommuuion.

29.

The feast I have been describing seems <o have been that
which was called Agape, or the feast of charity^ and is
alluded to by St. Jude in a passage which corroborates
what has been said. He mentions certain heretics who
among their other sins committed in their love-feasts the
same kind of fault as the Corinthians. " These are spots in
your feasts of charity, when they feast with yon feed hig them-
selves icithout fear ;" words which are parallel to St. Peter's,
concerning those who " shall receive the reward of unrigh-
teousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day-
time. Sj)ots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves
with their own deceivings, while they feast with you.''

Such abuses as these, whether from the intrusion of
heretics or the frailness of Christians, led to a speedy
suppression of the Agape, as far as the Church could do
80. But the practice lingered on in one shape or other for
some centuries. The growth of the Christian body brought
it into contact in various ways with heathenism ; and those
excesses, which had been in favour with a gross populace
before their conversion were introduced into it by means of
the Agape. Even at the end of tlie fourth century, St. Austin
had to defend the Church against Faustus the Manichee,
who maintained, on the ground of such irregularities, that
the practice itself had had a heathen origin. In his reply
he allows that the feast was abu.sed, but he traces it to its
original source, the Apostolic feast of charity, the real
object of which was to provide a meal for the poor.'
Shortly before, St. Ambrose had succeeded in suppressing
it at Milan ; but in Greece it continued even as late as the
• Vid. August, in Faust, xx. 21.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 249

seventh centurj^ as we learn from the Council in Trullo,
which renewed against it a Canon passtd at Laodicea in
the fourth,

30.

However, though such was the perversion and conse-
quent inexpedience of this primitive feast, and such the
earnestness with which the Church even in the Apostles'
days set herself against it, yet it must not be supposed that
it was never anything but a scandal. In some of the
descriptions left us of it by Antiquity, it appears as an
innocent, or rather a beautiful and impressive ordinance,
St. Chrysostom's account of it is very near the same as
what I have been drawing out. He observes that the first
Christians had all things in common ; and that when the
distinction of property came to be observed, which took
place even in the Apostles' time, then this usage remained
as a sort of shadow and symbol of it ; that on certain days,
after Sermon, Prayers, and Holy Communion, they did not
break up at once, but took part rich and poor in a common
feast, the rich supplying provisions, the poor feasting.' St.
Chrysostom seems to speak of the earliest times ; for shortly
after or in other parts of the Church the feast seems to
have been delayed till the evening. Pliny in his celebrated
Letter to Trajan speaks of Christians as first " meeting on
a certain stated day before it was light,'' and " addressing
Christ in prayer as some God," and '* binding themselves
with a solemn oath " to keep the commandments, and next
as "separating and then re-assembling and eating in
common a harmless meal." TertuUian says the same
thing in his Apology, and an extract from him will serve
to show how suitable a sequel to the Eucharist the feast
might be made.

» De Bapt. Christi, c. 4. (ii. 374. A.) vid. ct in Nativ. c. 7. (3G4. E.) de
S. PhilofTon. c. 4. (i. 449. E.et seqq.) in 1 Cor. H. 27. c. 3. (x. 245.) et c.5.
(247, 218.) in Kom. xvi. Horn. 30. (ix. 739. E.)

250 A LEI IE 11 ADDRESSED TO THE

"Our feast," he says, "admits nothing indecorous,
nothing' iudeceiit. We sit not down to eat, until prayer
to God be made, as it were, the first morsel. We eat as
much as will satisfy hunger, and drink as much as is
useful for the temperate. We commit no excess, for we
remember that even during the night we are to make our
prayers to God. Our conversation is that of men who are
conscious that the Lord hears them. After water is
brought for the hands, and lights, we are invited to sing
to God, according as each one can propose a subject from
the Holy Scriptures, or of his own composing. This is the
proof in what manner we have drunk. Prayer in like
manner concludes the feast. Thence we depart, not to
join a crowd of disturbers of the peace, nor to follow a
troop of brawlers, nor to break out in any excess of
wanton riot : but to maintain the same staid and modest
demeanour, as if we were departing, not from a supper,
but from a lecture." '

31.

And now enough has been said concerning the primitive
Agape or Feast of Charity, a sacred rite yet a social
meal, — so far a bodily refreshment as to become an occa-
sion of excess, and so far under the shadow of the Sacra-
mental feast as to make that iexcess sacrilege. Such an
excess is spoken of by St. Jude and St. Peter and in both
Aposths stands connected with divine judgments ; why
then should it not be the sin of the Corinthians ? and if

2 Apolopf. 39. Mr. Chevallier's Translation has been borrowed, who adds
the following beautiful passage from St Cyprian. Et quouiara feriata jam
quies, ac tempus est otiosum, quicquid incliuuto jam sole in vesperam diei
superest, ducamus hunc diem la)ti ; nee sit vel hora convivii gratia' eoelestis
immunis. Sonet psiilmos convivium sobrium ; et nt tibi tenax niemoria est,
vox canora, aggredere hoc niunus ex more. Magis carrissimos pasces, si sit
nobis spiritalis auditio ; prolectat aares religiosH mulccdo. Ad Don. fin.

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 251

SO, what is there more heinous, than unhappily we wit-
ness in other times and places, in persons first partaking
the Lord's Supper, and afterwards proceeding to excess,
and thus showing that they had partaken in a light and
thoughtless spirit because they proceed to excess ?

32.

I regret I cannot close this Letter without something
like a protest respecting one matter. There is nothing
unhecoming in any one, who has means of judging, inter-
posing when he sees an ordinance of the Church dis-
paraged, and I think your tone as regards mortification
and penance, is such as to discourage persons from obey-
ing certain rules of the Church respecting them. I much
regret that, while censuring "rigid mortifications and
painful penances,^^ you have not given us to understand
whether you mean "rigid mortifications and 'painful pe-
nances" or "^ mortifications and penances," as such; whether
you object to them in toto, or only in excess. I wish,
when speaking of " self-abasement " as Papistical, and of
"gloomy views of sin after Baptism," you had said what
views of it are at once appropriate to backsliders and
yet not gloomy ; whether you consider repentance itself
cheerful or gloomy ; whether every feeling must be called
gloomy which is mixed with fear ; whether every purpose
is gloomy which leads to self-chastisement ; whether every
self-abasement savours of Popery, or what those are
which do not so savour; whether any self-abasements are
pleasant ; whether the " indignation, fear, and revenge,"
of the Corinthians was pleasant or " gloomy ;" or whether
St. Paul's "bruising his body'^ was a mortification;
whether (to come to our Church's words and rules) to con-
fess an " intolerable burden of sins " is " gloomy ;" whether
it is pleasant to be " tied and bound with the chain of our

252 A LETTER ADDRESSll) lo 1 1 1 K

sins/' or to be " (jria-ed and wen ritd with, their burden;"
whether "to beirail our own sinfuhiess" is a cheerful exer-
cise ; whether absolution does not imply a previous bond ;
whether "days of fasting or abstinence" are pleasant or
*' painful ;" whether the " godly discipline," the restora-
tion of which, as we yearly protest, is much to be wished,
would not be " rigid " and " painful," and likely to " call
us back at once to the darkest period of Roman super-
stition ;" whether " turning to God with weeping, fasting,
and praying," and " subduing by abstinence the flesh to
the Spirit," is or is not likely " hopelessly to alarm and
repel those abettors of low and rationalistic views of the
Sacramental Ordinances, whom it is our especial object to
win and persuade to a saving faith in their genuine and
inestimable importance/'

33.

Nor is this all ; what the Church has enjoined, her
most distinguished sons, of whatever school of thought,
have practised. Let me then lay out some additional
matter, besides her authorized documents, the details of
which I wish duly adjusted with those vague and
frightful words, "rigour," and "gloom," and "pain,"
and " Popery," to which otherwise the untaught may
improperly refer them.

(1.) I begin with Jewel, because you have a zeal for
him : — " being forewarned to leave the hold of his body
... he did not after the custom of most men seek by all
means violently to keep possession ... to surfeit thel
senses, and stop all the passages of the soul. No ; but byi
fasting, labour, and watchimj, he openeth them wider."|
Life, c. 32 fin.

(2.) B. Gilpin says to a friend, " As for the arguments]
touching fading, God forbid that either I or any onol

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 253

should deny, yea rather we exhort all persons to the prac-
tice of it, only we desire to have the superstition and
wicked opinions removed/^ Wordsworth's Feci. Biog. iv.
148.

(3.) Ilooker. "There might be many more and just
occasions taken to speak of his books, which none ever did
or can commend too much ; but I decline them, and hasten
to an account of his Christian behaviour and death at
Borne ; in which place he continued his customary rules
of mortification and self-denial ; was xnuch in fasting, fre-
quent in meditation and prayers, enjoying those blessed
returns, which only men of strict lives feel and know, and
of which men of loose and godless lives cannot be made
sensible; for spiritual things are spiritually discerned.''
Life, ed, Keble, vol. i. p. 94.

(4.) Herbert. "Mr. Herbert took occasion to say,
' One cure for these distempers would be, for the Clergy
themselves to keep the Ember-weeks strictly, and beg of
their parishioners to join with them in fasting and prayers
for a more religious Clergy.' " Wordsw. E. B. vol. iv. p.
538.

Again : " This Lent I am forbid utterly to eat any fish,
so that 1 am fain to diet in my chamber at my own cost ;
for in our public halls, you know, is nothing hut fish and whit'
meats : out of Lent also, ticice a week, on Fridays and
Saturdays, I must do so, which yet sometimes I fast."
Uid. p. 560.

(5.) Hammond. "He both admitted and solemnly
invited all sober persons to his familiarity and converse ;
and beside that, received them to his weekly office of
Fasting and Humiliation." Life by Fell, p. 50.

" And now, though his physicians had earnestly for-
bidden his accustomed Fastings, and his own weaknesses
gave forcible suffrages to their advice ; yet he resumed his
rigours, esteeming this calamity such a one as admitted

254 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

no exception, which should not be outlived, but that it
became men to be martyrs too, and deprecate even in
death." Ihicl p. 73.

(6.) Bull. " Now Mr. Bull did not satisfy himself only
with giving notice to his parishioners, which he could not
well omit without neglecting his duty, but he led them
to the observation of such holy institutions by his own
example. For he had so far a regard to these holydays,
as to cause all his family to repair to the church at such
times ; and on the days of fasting and abstinence, the
necessary refreshments of life were adjourned from the usual
hours till towards the evening. He was too well acquainted
with the practice of the primitive Christians, to neglect
such observances as they made instrumental to piety and
devotion, and had too great a value for the injunctions of
his mother the Church of England, to disobey where she re-
quired a compliance ; but above all, he was too intent
upon making advances in the Christian life, to omit a duty
all along observed by devout men and acceptable to God under
the Old and New Testament, both as it was helpful to
their devotion, and became a part of it." Life by Nelson,
ed. Burton, p. 54.

(7.) Leighton. " He had no regard to his person, unless
it was to mortify it by a constant loic diet, that was like a
perpetual fast." Burnet's Lives, p. 282. ed. Jebb.

(8.) Kettlewell too "observed likewise the days of fast-
ing and humilidflon, both those appointed by the Church,
and those which were enjoined by the civil authorities.
Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent he abstained from flesh
and drank small beer, according to the Canon." Life, part
ii. p. 24.

(9.) Lastly, Ken, in his Sermon on Daniel, thus speaks :
" I do not exhort you to follow them [the ancients] any
further than either our climate or our constitutions will
bear ; but we may easily follow Daniel, in abstaining from

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 255

icine, and from the more pleasurable meats^ and such an
abstinence as this, with siuh a mourning for our own sins,
and the sins of others, and the proper exercise of a primi-
tive spirit during all the iceeks of Lent. For what is Lent,
in its original institution, but a spiritual conflict, to subdue
the flesh to the Spirit, to beat down our bodies and to
bring them into subjection ? What is it, but a penitential
martyrdom for so many weeks together which we suffer
for our own and others^ sins ! A devout soul, that is able
duly to observe it, fastens himself to the Cross on Ash
Wednesday, and hangs crucified by contrition all the Lent
long ; that having felt in his closet the burthen and the
anguish, the naila and the thorns, and tasted the full of his
own sins, he may by his own crucifixion be better disposed
to be crucified with Christ on Good Friday, and most ten-
derly sympathize with all the dolours, and pressures, and
anguish, and torments, and desertion, infinite, unknown,
and unspeakable, which God incarnate endured, when He
bled upon the Cross for the sins of the world ; that being
purified by repentance, and made conformable to Christ
crucified, he may offer up a pure oblation at Easter, and
feel the power, and the joys, and the triumph of his
Saviour's resurrection." Sermon on Daniel.

34.

I think then, if I may say so with due respect, that those
who wish to obey their Church in the matter of fasting
and abstinence, yet fear that " revival of Popish error " to
which these practices tend, have a claim on you to draw
some broad lines of distinction, or, in your own phrase, to
" devise some limits," which may enable them safely to do
the one yet not encourage the other; lest they be saved
from the "na ural consequence " of such practices only by
what you call elsewhere " a happy inconsistency," and

256 A LETIER ABDRIiSSED TO THE

*' for the present;" and lest "their crerlulows flocks'* at
length fall under " the yoke of spiritual bondage/* from
which we have been set free by the Reformation.

35.

O that we knew our own strength as a Church ! 0 that
instead of keeping on the defensive, and thinking it much
not to lose our niggardly portion of Christian light and
holiness, which is getting less and less, the less we use it,
instead of being timid, and cowardly, and suspicious, and
jealous, and panic-struck, and grudging, and unbelieving,
we had the heart to rise, as a Church, in the attitude of
the Spouse of Christ and the Treasure-House of His grace ;
to throw ourselves into that system of truth which our
fathers have handed down even through the worst times,
and to use it like a great and understanding people ! 0
that we had the courage and the generous faith to aim
at perfection, to demand the attention, to claim the sub-
mission of the world ! Thousands of hungry souls in all
classes of life stand around us ; we do not give them what
they want, the image of a true Christian people, living
in that Apostolic awe and strictness which carries with it
an evidence that they are the Church ot Christ. This is
the way to withstand and repel Roman Catholics ; not
by cries of alarm, and rumours of plots, and dispute, and
denunciation, but by living up to the creeds, the services,
the ordinances, the usages of our own Church without fear
of consequences, withour fear of being called Papists ; to
let matters take their course freely, and to trust to God's
good Providence for the issue.

88.

And now to conclude. I am quite aware that some of

MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 257

the subjects I have treated might be treated more fully
and clearly. But neither the limits of a pamphlet, nor
the time allotted me, admitted it. Yours did not appear
till yesterday, and the Term ends in a very few days.

I am. Reverend Sir,

Your faithful Servant,

JOHN H. NEWMAN.

Oriel College,- June 22, 1838.

VOL. n.

VII.

EEMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF
THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

{Being No. 90 of the Tracts for the Times.)
1841.

8 2

NOTICE,

1. This Tract was written under the conviction that
the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, of which it
treated, were, when taken in their letter, so loosely worded,
so incomplete in statement, and so ambiguous in their
meaning, as to need an authoritative interpretation ; and
that neither those who drew them up, nor those who im-
posed them were sufficiently agreed among themselves, or
clear and consistent in their theological views individually
to be able to supply it.

2. There was but one authority to whom recourse could
be had for such interpretation — the Church Catholic.
She had been taught the revealed truth by Christ and
His Apostles in the beginning, and had in turn taught it
in every age to her faithful children, and would teach it
on to the end. And what she taught, all her branches
taught ; and this the Anglican Church did teach, must
teach, if it was a branch of the Church Catholic, otherwise
it was not a branch ; but a branch it certainly was, for,
if it was not a branch, what had we to do with it ? and

262 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

it being a branch, it was the duty of all its members,
priests and people, ever to profess what the Universal
Church had from the beginning professed, and nothing
else, and nothing short of it, that is, what had been held
semper et uhique et ah omnibus. Accordingly, it was their
plain duty to interpret the Thirty-nine Articles in this one
distinct Catholic sense, the sense of the Holy Fathers, of
Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, and of all Doctors and
Saints ; it being impossible that in any important matters
those Articles should diverge from that sense, or resist the
interpretation which that sense required, inasmuch as the
Divine Lord of the Church watched over all her portions,
and would not suffer the Anglican or any portion to com-
mit itself to statements which could not fairly and honestly
be made to give forth a Catholic meaning.

3. And the circumstances under which the Thirty -nine
Articles came into existence, favoured this view. Its
compilers were not likely knowingly to exclude the possi-
bility of a Catholic interpretation of them. Doubtless they
wished to introduce the new doctrine, but it did not follow
from that that they wished to exclude those who still held
the old. The ambiguity above spoken of, in the instance
of men so acute and learned as they were, could only bo
accounted for by great differences of opinions among
themselves, and a wish by means of compromise to include

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 263

among the subscriptions to their formulary a great variety
of the then circulating opinions, of which a moderate
quasi-Catholicity was one. This would lead them to the
use of words, which in the long-run, as they would consider,
would tell in favour of Protestantism, while in the letter
and in their first effect they did not enforce it.

4. It must be added, in corroboration, that, as is well
known, the very Convocation which received and passed
the Thirty-nine Articles, also enjoined that " preachers
should be careful, that they should never teach aught in a
sermon, to be religiously held and believed by the people,
except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old
and New Testaments, and which the Catholic Fathers and
ancient Bishops have collected from that very doctrine."
Could they mean their Thirty-nine Articles to be incon-
sistent with that patristical literature, which at the same
time they made the rule even for the interpretation of
inspired Scripture ?

5. Thh prima facie view of the Thirty-nine Articles as
not excluding a moderate Catholicism (that is, Homan
doctrine, as far as it was Catholic) became more cogent,
when it was considered that one of these Articles re-
cognized, approved, and appealed to the two Books of
" Homilies," as " containing a godly and wholesome doc-
trine," and by this appeal determined the animus and

264 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

drift of the Articles to be Catholic. It was evidence of
this in two ways, positively and negatively : — positively,
inasmuch as the Homilies, though hitherto claimed by the
Evangelical party as one of their special weapons against
the High Church (for instance, in their controversy with
Bishop Marsh, andsupr. pp. 153,4 byone of their Magazines)
were found on a closer inspection to take a view more or
less favourable to Rome as regards the number of the
Sacraments, the Canon of Scripture, the efficacy of penance,
and other points ; and negatively, because the Homilies
for the most part struck, not at certain Roman doctrines
and practices, but at their abuse, and therefore, when,
once these Homilies were taken as a legitimate comment
on the Articles, they suggested that the repudiations of
Roman teaching in the Articles were repudiations of it so
far as it was abused, not as it was in itself.

6. Indeed, it may be further asked, if the Articles were
not aimed at the abuses, doctrinal and practical, as drawn
out in the Homilies, the abuses of times and places, of
particular dioceses, schools, preachers, and people, against
what could they be directed ? Certainly not against any
formal doctrines of Rome, call them Catholic or not, for
the Tridentine Decrees were not promulgated till 1564,
and the Thirty-nine Articles were agreed on in Convocation
in 1562.

For these reasons it appeared likely, that when the

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 265

Articles were carefully handled, little in them would
interfere with the liberty of teaching in the Church of
England the sempery ubique, et ah omnibus of the Catholic
Eeligion, the unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers, the
present teaching, as far as concordant, of the East and West.

The all-important question followed, whether the
Articles, when examined, actually fulfilled this expectation
for which there were several good reasons ; whether,
one by one, they were (as was said at the time) " patient,
though not ambitious, of a Catholic interpretation." The
Tract which follows made that experiment.

I ought to add, that, in this edition (1877), I have not
thought it necessary to insert at full length the passages of
the Homilies, as they were inserted originally in the Tract.
This omission weakens indeed the Author's argument, but it
is better than the alternative of their lavish exhibition. It is
penance enough to reprint one's own bad language, without
burdening it with the blatterant abuse of the Homilies.

Oct. nth, 1883.— In Sir W. Palmer's " Narrative," just
published, it is asserted that I was unwilling to submit my
Tracts to revision before publication. Certainly, if he is
speaking of revision on his part. But No. 90 was seen
by Mr. Keble before publication, though not by Mr.
Palmer ; so, I believe, were . the earlier ones ; and when
Mr. Palmer was strongly for the series being stopped,
Mr. Keble was strong for its continuing.

CONTENTS.

t§ 1-

§

2.

§

3.

§

4

§

5.

§

6.

§

7.

§

8.

i

9.

§

10.

§

11.

§

12

Introduction ....•.*.

Articles vi. & xx. — Holif Scripture, and the Authority
of the Church

Article xi. — Justification hy Faith only

Articles xii. andxiii. — Works before and after Justifi-
cation

Article xix. — The Visible Church

Article xxi. — General Councils .

Article xxii. — Purgatory, Pardons,
Invocation of Saints

Article XXV. — The Sacraments

Article xxviii. — Transubstantiation

Article xxxi. — Masses .

Article xxxii. — Marriage of Clergy

Article xxxv. — The Homilies

Article xxxvii. — The Bishop of Rome

Conclusion . . • • .

Images, Relics,

269

273

281

284
288
291

294
310
315
323
327
330
340
344

Introduction.

It is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that
there are in the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent
with the Catholic faith ; or, at least, when persons do not
go so far as to feel the objection as of force, they are
perplexed how best to reply to it, or how most simply to
explain the passages on which it is made to rest. The
following Tract is drawn up with the view of showing how
groundless the objection is, and further of approximating
towards the argumentative answer to it, of which most
men have an implicit apprehension, though they may have
nothing more. That there are real difficulties to a
Catholic Christian in the Ecclesiastical position of our
Church at this day, no one can deny ; but the statements
of the Articles are not in the number ; and it may be
right at the present moment to insist upon this. If in any
quarter it is supposed that persons who profess to be disciples
of the early Church will silently concur with those of very
opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation of subscrip-
tions, which, it is imagined, are galling to both parties,
though for different reasons, and that they will do this
against the wish of the great body of the Church, the writer
of the following pages would raise one voice, at least, in
protest against any such anticipation. Even in such points
as he may think the English Church deficient, never can
he be party without a great alteration of sentiment to
forcing the opinion or project of one school upon another.
Religious changes, to be beneficial, should be the act of the

270 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES 01<"

whole body ; they are worth little if they are the mere act
of a majority.' No good can come of any change which is
not heartfelt, a development of feelings springing up
freely and calmly within the bosom of the whole body
itself. Moreover, a change in theological teaching in-
volves either the commission or the confession of sin ; it
is eitheic the profession or the renunciation of erroneous
doctrine, and if it does not succeed in proving the fact of
past guiltj it, ipso facto, implies present. In other words,
every change in religion carries with it its own condem-
nation, which is not attended by deep repentance. Even
supposing then that any changes in contemplation, what-
ever they were, were good in themselves, they would cease
to be good to a Church, in which they were the fruits not
of the quiet conviction of all, but of the agitation, or
tyranny, or intrigue of a few ; nurtured not in mutual
love, but in strife and envying ; perfected not in humilia-
tion and grief, but in pride, elation, and triumph. More-
over it is a very serious truth, that persons and bodies,
who put themselves into a disadvantageous state, cannot
at their pleasure extricate themselves from it. They are
unworthy of release; they are in prison, and Christ is
its keeper. There is but one way for them towards a real
reformation — a return to Him in heart and spirit, whose
sacred truth they have betrayed ; all other methods, how-
ever fair they may promise, will prove to be but shadows
and failures.

On these grounds, were there no others, the present
writer, for one, will be no party to the ordinary political
methods by which professed reforms are carried or com-
passed in this day. We can do nothing well till we act
" with one accord ;" we can have no accord in action till

' This is not meant to hinder acts of Ciitbolic consent, such as occurred
anciently, when the Catholic body aids one portion of a particular Church
against another portion.

THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES. 271

we agree together in heart ; we cannot agree without a
supernatural influence ; we cannot have a supernatural
influence imless we pray for it ; we cannot pray acceptably
without repentance and confession. Our Church's strength
would be irresistible, humanly speaking, were it but at
unity with itself : if it remains divided, part against part,
we shall see the energy which was meant to subdue the
world preying upon itself, according to our Saviour's
express assurance that such a house " cannot stand." Till
we feel this, till we seek one another as brethren, not
lightly throwing aside our private opinions, which we
seem to feel we have received from above, from an ill-
regulated, untrue desire of unity, but returning to each
other in heart, and coming together to God to do for us
what we cannot do for ourselves, no change can be for the
better. Till we, her children, are stirred up to this re-
ligious course, let the Church, our Mother, sit still ; let
her children be content to be in bondage ; let us work in
chains ; let us submit to our imperfections as a punish-
ment ; let us go on teaching with the stammering lips of
ambiguous formularies, and inconsistent precedents, and
principles but partially developed. We are not better
than our fathers ; let us bear to be what Hammond was,
or Andrewes, or Hooker ; let us not faint under that body
of death, which they bore about in patience ; nor shrink
from the penalty of sins, which they inherited from the
age before them.*

But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which
is merely to show that^ while our Prayer Book is acknow-
ledged on all hands to be of Catholic origin, our Articles
also, the offspring of an uncatholic age, are, through God's

* " We, thy sinful creatures," says the Service for King Charles the
Martyr, " here assembled before Thee, do, in behalf of all the people of this
land, humbly confess, that they were the crying sins of this nation, which
brought down this judgment upon us," i.e. King Charles's murder.

272 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

good providence, to say the least, not uncatholic, and may-
be subscribed by those who aim at being catholic in heart
and doctrine. In entering upon the proposed examina-
tion, it is only necessary to add, that in several places the
writer has found it convenient to express himself in
language recently used,^ which he is willing altogether to
make his own. He has distinguished the passages thus
introduced by quotation marks.

' £That is, by himself, in former Tracts, Lectxires, &c.]

J

THE THIKTY-NI^E ARTICLES. 273

§ 1. — Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church.

Articles vi. & xx, — " Holy Scripture contain eth all
things necessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever 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 the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salva-
tion The Church hath [power to decree (statuendi)

rites and ceremonies, and] authority in controversies of
faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to [ordain
(instituere) anything that is contrary to God^s word written,
neither may it] so expound one place of Scripture, that it
be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church
be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet [as it ought
not to decree (decernere) anything against the same, so]
besides the same, ought it not to enforce (obtrudere) any-
thing to be believed for necessity of salvation.'^ ^

Two instruments of Christian teaching are spoken of in
these Articles, Holy Scripture and the Church.

Here then we have to inquire, first, what is meant by
Holy Scripture ; next, what is meant by the Church ; and
then, what their respective olBces are in teaching revealed
truth, and how these are adjusted with one another in their
actual exercise.

1. Now what the Church is, will be considered below in
Section 4.

2. And the Books of Holy Scripture are enumerated in
the latter part of the 6th Article, so as to preclude question.
Still, two points deserve notice here.

First, the Scriptures or Canonical Books are said to be
those " of whose authority was never any doubt in the
Church.'^ Here it is not meant that there never was any

^ These passages in brackets relate to rites and ceremonies which are not
here in question.

VOL. II. T

274 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OK

doubt in portions of the Church or particular Churches
concerning certain books, which the Article includes in
the Canon ; for some of them, — as, for instance, the
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse — have been
the subject of much doubt in the West or East, as the case
may be. But the Article asserts that there has been no
doubt about them in the Church Catholic ; that is, at the
very first time that the Catholic or whole Church had the
opportunity of forming a judgment on the subject, it pro-
nounced in favour of the Canonical Books. The Epistle to
the Hebrews was doubted by the West, and the Apocalypse
by the East, only while those portions of the Church investi-
gated the matter separately from each other, only till they
compared notes, interchanged sentiments, and formed a
united judgment. The phrase must mean this, because,
from the nature of the case, it can mean notliing else.

And next, be it observed, that the books which are
commonly called Apocrypha, are not asserted in this
Article to be destitute of inspiration or to be simply
human, but to be not canonical ; in other words, to differ
from Canonical Scripture, specially in this respect, viz.
that they are not adducible in proof of doctrine. " The
other books (as Hierome saiih) the Church doth read for
example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth
not apply them to establish any doctrine ^ That this is the
limit to which our disparagement of them extends, is
plain, not only because the Article mentions nothing
beyond it, but also from the reverential manner in which
the Homilies speak of them, as shall be incidentally shown
in Section 11. The compatibility of such reverence with
such disparagement is also shown from the feeling towards
them of St. Jerome, who is quoted in the Article, who
implies more or less their inferiority to Canonical Scrip-
ture, yet uses them freely and continually, as if Scripture.
He distinctly names many of the books which he con-

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 275

aiders not canonical^ and virtually names them all by
naming what are canonical. For instance, he says, speak-
ing of ^^'^isdom and Ecclesiasticus, " As the Church reads
Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, without receiving them
among the Canonical Scriptures, so she reads these two
books for the edification of the people, not for the con-
firmation of the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines."
[Prcef. in Lihr. Salom.) Again, " The Wisdom, as it is
commonly styled, of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, son
of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not
in the Canon.'' {Preef. ad Reges.) Such is the language
of a writer who nevertheless is, to say the least, not want-
ing in reverence towards the books he thus disparages.

A further question may be asked, concerning our re-
ceived version of the Scriptures, whether it is in any sense
imposed on us as a true comment on the original text ; as
the Vulgate is upon the Roman Catholics. It would
appear not. It was made and authorized by royal com-
mand, which cannot be supposed to have any claim upon
our interior assent. At the same time every one who
reads it in the Services of the Church, does, of course,
thereby imply that he considers that it contains no deadly
heresy or dangerous mistake. And about its simplicity,
majesty, gravity, harmony, and venerableness, there can
be but one opinion.

3. Next we come to the main point, the adjustment
which this Article efiects between the respective offices of
Scripture and the Church ; which seems to be as follows.

It is laid down that, 1. Scripture contains all necessary
articles of the faith ; 2. either in its text, or by inference ;
3. The Church is the keeper of Scripture ; 4. and a wit-
ness of it ; 5. and has authority in controversies of faith ;
6. but may not expound one passage of Scripture to contra-
dict another ; 7. nor enforce as an article of faith any
point not contained in Scripture.

T 2

276 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and
enforces the faith ; for it is forbidden to expound in a
particular way, or so to enforce as to obtrude ; next, that
it derives the faith tcholly from Scripture ; thirdly, that
its office is to educe an harmonious interpretation of Scrip-
ture. Thus much the Article settles.

Two important questions, however, it does not settle,
viz. whether the Church judges, first, at her sole discretion,
next, on her sole responsibility ; i.e. first, what the media
are by which the Church interprets Scripture, whether by
a direct divine gift, or by catholic tradition, or by critical
exegesis of the text, or in any other way ; and next, who is
to decide whether it interprets Scripture rightly or not ; —
first, what is her method, if any; and next, who is her judge,
if any. In other words, not a word is said, on the one
hand, in favour of there being no external rule or method
to fix the interpretation of Scripture by, or, as it is com-
monly expressed, of Scripture being the sole rule of faith;
nor on the other, of the private judgment of the individual
being the ultimate standard of interpretation. So much
has been said lately on both these points, and indeed on
the whole subject of these two Articles, that it is unneces-
sary to enlarge upon them; but since it is often sup-
posed to be almost a first principle of our Church, that
Scripture is " the rule of faith," it may be well, before
passing on, to make an extract ' from a p iper, published
some years since, which shows, by instances from our
divines, that the application of the phrase to Scripture is
but of recent adoption. The other question, about the
ultimate judge of the interpretation of Scripture, shall not
be entered upon.

" We may dispense with the phrase * Rule of Faith,' a
applied to Scripture, on the ground of its being ambigu-
ous ; and, again, because it is then used in a novel sense ;
2 [British Critic, Oct 1836, pp. 386—388.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 277

for the ancient Churcli made the Apostolic Tradition, as
summed up in the Creed, and not the Bible, the Regula
Fidei, or Rule. Moreover its use as a technical phrase
seems to be of late introduction in the Church, that is,
since the days of King William the Third. Our great
divines use it without any fixed sense, sometimes for
Scripture, sometimes for the whole and perfectly adjusted
Christian doctrine, sometimes for the Creed ; and, at the
risk of being tedious, we will prove this, by quotations,
that the point may be put beyond dispute.

" Ussher, after St. Austin, identifies it with the Creed ;
— when speaking of the Article of our Lord's Descent to
Hell, he says, —

" ' It having here likewise "been further manifested, what different
opinions have been entertained by the ancient Doctors of the Church
concerning the determinate place wherein our Saviour's soul did
remain during the time of the separation of it from the body, I leave
it to be considered by the learned, whether any such controverted
matter may be fitly brought in to expound the Rule of Faith, which,
being common both to the great and small ones of the Church,
must contain such varieties only as are generally agreed upon by the
common consent of all true Christians.' — Answer to a Jesuit, p. 362.

" Taylor speaks to the same purpose : ' Let us see
with what constancy that and the following ages of the
Church did adhere to the Apostles' Creed, as the sufl&cient
and perfect Rule of Faith.' — Dissuasive, part 2, i. 4, p.
470. Elsewhere he calls Scripture the Rule : ' That the
Scripture is a full and sufficient Rule to Christians in faith
and manners, a full and perfect declaration of the Will of
God, is therefore certain, because we have no other.' —
Ihid. part 2, i. 2, p. 384. Elsewhere, Scripture and the
Creed : ' He hath, by His wise Providence, preserved the
plain places of Scripture and the Apostles' Creed, in all
Churches, to be the Rule and Measure of Faith, by which
all Churches are saved.' — Ihid. part 2, i. 1, p. 346. Else-

278 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

where he identifies it with Scripture, the Creeds, and the
first four Councils : ' We also [after Scripture] do believe
the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of
Constantinople, and that which is commonly called the
symbol of St. Athanasius ; and the four first General
Councils are so entirely admitted by us, that they, together
with the plain words of Scripture, are made the Rule and
Measure of judging heresies among us.* — Ibid, part 1, i.
p. 131.

" Laud calls the Creed, or rather the Creed with Scrip-
ture, the Rule : " Since the Fathers make the Creed the
Rule of Faith ; since the agreeing sense of Scripture with
those Articles are the Two Regular Precepts, by which a
divine is governed about his faith,' &c. — Conference tcith
Fisher, p. 42.

" Bramhall also : ' The Scriptures and the Creed are
not two different Rulesof Faith, but o»<? and the same Rule,
dilated in Scripture, contracted in the Creed.' — Works, p.
402. Stillingfleet says the same {Grounds, i. 4. 3.) ; as
does Thorndike {De Rat. Jin. Controv. p. 144, &c.). Else-
where, Stillingfleet calls Scripture the Rule {Ibid. i. 6. 2.) ;
as does Jackson (vol. i. p. 226). But the most complete
and decisive statement on the subject is contained in
Field's work on the Church, from which shall follow a
long extract.

"'It retnainethto show,' he says, 'what is the Rule of that judgment
whereby the Church discerneth between truth and falsehood, the faith
and heresy, and to whom it properly pertaineth to interpret thoa
things which, touching this Rule, are doubtful. The Rule of oui
Faith in general, whereby we know it to be true, is the infinite exceW
lency of God .... It being pre-supposed in the generality that thfl
doctrine of the Christian Faith is of God, and containeth nothing but
heavenly truth, in the next place, we are to inquire by what Rule we
are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of it.

" ' This Rule is, 1. The summary comprehension of such principal
articles of this divine knowledge, as are the principles whence i

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 279

other things are concluded and inferred. These are contained in
the Creed of the Apostles.

" ' 2. All such things as every Christian is bound expressly to
believe, by the light and direction whereof he judgeth of other
things, which are not absolutely necessary so particularly to be
known. These are rightly said to be the Eule of our Faith, because
the principles of every science are the Hule whereby we judge of
the truth of all things, as being better and more generally known
than any other thing, and the cause of knowing them.

" ' 3. The analogy, due proportion, and correspondence, that one
thing in this divine knowledge hath with another, so that men
cannot err in one of them without erring in another ; nor rightly
understand one, but they mnst likewise rightly conceive the rest.

" ' 4. Whatsoever Books were delivered unto us, as written by
them, to whom the first and immediate revelation of the divine
truth was made.

" ' 5. Whatsoever hath been delivered by all the saints with one
consent, which have left their judgment and opinion in writing.

" ' 6. Whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly
delivered, as a matter of faith, no one contradicting, though many
other ecclesiastical writers be silent, and say nothing of it.

" ' 7. That which the most, and most famous in every age, con-
stantly delivered as a matter of faith, and as received of them that
went before them, in such sort that the contradictors and gain-
sayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity, novelty and
division, and afterwards, in process of time, if they persisted in
such contradiction, charged with heresy.

" ' These three latter Eules of our Faith we admit, not because they
are equal with the former, and originally in themselves contain the
direction of our Faith, but because nothing can be delivered, with
such and so full consent of the people of God, as in them is ex-
pressed, but it must need be from those first authors and founders
of our Christian profession. The Romanists add nnto these the
decrees of Councils and determinations of Popes, making these
also to be the Rules of Faith ; but because we have no proof of
their infallibility, we number them not with the rest.

'"Thus we see how many things, in several degrees and sort, are
said to be Rules of our Faith. The infinite excellency of God, as that
whereby the truth of the heavenly doctrine is proved. The Articles
of Faith and other verities ever expressly known in the Church as
the first principles, are the Canon by which we judge of conclusions

230 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

from thence inferred. The Scripture, as containing in it all that
doctrine of Faith which Christ the Son of God delivered. The uni-
form practice and couseatiug judgment of them that went before ua,
as a certain and undoubted explication of the things contained in
the Scripture. . . . So, then, we do not make Scripture the Rule of
our Faith, hut that other things in their kind are Rules likewise ; in
such sort that it is not safe, without respect had unfo them, tojudge
things by the Scripture alone,' &c. — iv. 14. pp. 364, 365.

"These extracts show not only what the Anglican
doctrine is, but, in particular, that the phrase ' Kule of
Faith ' is no symbolical expression with us, appropriated
to some one sense ; certainly not as a definition or attri-
bute of Holy Scripture. And it is important to insist
upon this, from the very great misconceptions to which
the phrase gives rise. Perhaps its use had better be
avoided altogether. In the sense in which it is commonly
understood at this day, Scripture, it is plain, is not, on
Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith.**

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 281

§ 2. — Justification hy Faith only.

Article xi — " That we are justified by Faith only, is a
most wholesome doctrine/'

The Homilies add that Faith Is the sole means, the sole
instrument of justification. Now, to show briefly what such
statements imply, and what they do not.

1. They do not imply a denial of Baptism as a means
and an instrument of justification ; which the Homilies
elsewhere affirm, as will be shown incidentally in a later
Section.

" The instrumental power of Faith cannot interfere with
the instrumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is
the sole justifier, not in contrast to all means and agencies
whatever, (for it is not surely in contrast to our Lord's
merits, or God's mercy,) but to all other graces. When,
then, Faith is called the sole instrument, this means the
sole internal instrument, not the sole instrument of any
kind.

" There is nothing inconsistent, then, in Faith being
the sole instrument of justification, and yet Baptism also
the sole instrument, and that at the same time, because in
distinct senses ; an inward instrument in no way interfer-
ing with an outward instrument. Baptism may be the
hand of the giver, and Faith the hand of the receiver.'*

Nor does the sole instrumentality of Faith interfere
with the doctrine of Works being a mean also. And that
it is a mean, the Homily of Alms-deeds declares in the
strongest language, as will also be quoted in Section 11.

" An assent to the doctrine that Faith alone justifies,
does not at all preclude the doctrine of Works justifying
also. If, indeed, it were said that Works justify in the
same sense as Faith only justifies, this would be a contra-

282 REMARKS ON CEIITAIN PASSAGES OF

diction in terms ; but Faith only may justify in one sense
— Good AVorks in another : — and this is all that is here
maintained. After all, does not Christ only justify ?
How is it that the doctrine of Faith justifying does not
interfere with our Lord's being the sole justifier? It
will, of course, be replied, that our Lord is the meritorious
cause, and Faith the means ; that Faith justifies in a diffe-
rent and subordinate sense. As then, Christ only justifies
in the seme in which He justifies, yet Faith also justifies
in its own sense ; so Works, whether moral or ritual, may
justify us in their own respective senses, though in the
sense in which Faith justifies, it alone justifies. The only
question is. What is that sense in which Works justify, so
as not to interfere with Faith only justifying ? It may,
indeed, turn out on inquiry, that the sense alleged will
not hold, either as being unscriptural, or for any other
reason ; but, whether so or not, at any rate the apparent
inconsistency of language should not startle men; nor
should they so promptly condemn those who, though
they do not use their language, at least use St. James's.
Indeed, is not this argument the very weapon of the Arians,
in their warfare against the Son of God? They said,
Christ is not God, because the Father is called the

2. Next we have to inquire in ichat sense Faith only does
justify. In a number of ways, of which here two only
shall be mentioned.

First, it is the pleading or impetrating principle, or
constitutes our title to justification ; being analogous among
the graces to Moses' lifting up his hands on the Mount, or
the Israelites eyeing the Brazen Serpent, — actions which
did not merit God's mercy, but asked for it. A number
of means go to eflect our justification. We are justified by

• [Lectures on Justification, x.,xii., pp. 226, 276, ed. 1874.]

THE THLIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 283

Christ alone, in that He has purchased the gift ; by Faith
alone, in that Faith asks for it; by Baptism alone, for
Baptism conveys it ; and by newness of heart alone, for
newness of heart is the sine qua non life of it.

And secondly, Faith, as being the beginning of perfect
or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends
towards, or ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation
to be that which it promises ; just as one might pay a
labourer his hire before he began his work. Faith working
by love is the seed of divine graces, which in due time will
be brought forth and flourish — partly in this world, fully
in the next.

284 KLMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

§ 3. — Works be/ore and after Justification.

Articles xii. & xiii. — '* Works done before the grace of
Chris r, and the inspiration of His Spirit, [' before justi-
fication/ title of the Article,'] are not pleasant to God
(minime Deo grata sunt) ; forasmuch as they spring not
of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make man meet
to receive giace, or (as the school authors say) deserve
grace of congruity (merentur gratiam de congruo) ; yea,
rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and
commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have
the nature of sin. Albeit good works, which are the fruits
of faith, and follow after justification (justificatos sequun-
tur), cannot put away (expiare) our sins, and endure the
severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and
acceptable (grata et accepta) to God in Christ, and do
spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith."

Two sorts of works are here mentioned — works before
justification, and works after ; and they are most strongly
contrasted with each other.

1. Works before j ustification, are done " before the grace
of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit."

2. Works before, " do not spring of Faith in Jesus
Christ ;" works after are " the fruits of Faith."

3. Works before " have the nature of sin ;" works after
are " good works."

4. Works before " are not pleasant (grata) to God ;"
works after " are pleasing and acceptable (grata et accepta)
to God."

Two propositions, mentioned in these Articles, remain,
and deserve consideration : First, that works i^ore justifica-
tion do not make or dispose men to receive grace, or, as
the school writers say, deserve grace of congruity ; secondly.

i

THE THIKTY-KINE ARTICLES. 285

that works after " cannot put away our sins, and endure the
severity of God's judgment.'^

1. As to the former statement, to deserve cfe eongruo, or
of congruity, is to move the Divine regard, not from any
claim upon it, but from a certain fitness or suitableness :
as, for instance, it might be said that dry wood had a
certain disposition or fitness towards heat which green
wood had not. Now, the Article denies that works done
before the grace of Christ, or in a mere state of nature,
in this way dispose towards grace, or move God to grant
grace. And it asserts, with or without reason, (for it is a
question oi historical fact, which need not specially concern
us,) that certain schoolmen maintained the affirmative.

Now, that this is what it means, is plain from the
following passages of the Homilies, which in no respect
have greater claims upon us than as comments upon the
Articles : —

" Therefore they that tench repentance without a lively faith in our
Saviour Jesus Christ, do teach none other but Judas's repentance,
as all the schoolmen do which do only allow these three parts of
repentance, — the contrition of the heart, the confession of the mouth,
and the satisfaction of the work. But all these thingrs we find in
Judas's repentance, which, in outward appearance, did far exceed
and pass the repentance of Peter. . . . This was commonly the
penance which Christ enjoined sinners, ' Go thy way, and sin no
more ;' which penance we shall never be able to fulfil, without the
special grace of Him that doth say, 'Without Me, ye can do no-
thing.' " — On Bepentance, p. 460.

To take a passage which is still more clear : —
"As these examples are not brought in to the end that we should
thereby take a boldness to sin, presuming on the mercy and goodness
of God, but to the end that, if, through the fi-ailness of our own flesh,
and the temptation of the devil, we fall into the like sins, we should in
no wise despair of the mercy and goodness of God : even so must we
beware and take heed, that we do in no wise think in our hearts,
imagine, or believe that we are able to repent aright, or to turn effectu-
ally unto the Lord by our own might and strength." — Ibid., part i. fin.

286 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

The Article contemplates these two states, — one of
justifying grace, and one of the utter destitution of grace ;
and it saj's, that those who are in utter destitution cannot
do anything to gain justification ; and, indeed, to assert
the contrar}' would be Pelagianism. However, there is an
intermediate state, of which the Article says nothing, but
which must not be forgotten, as being an actually existing
one. Men are not always either in light or in darkness,
but are sometimes between the two ; they are sometimes
not in a state of Christian justification, yet not utterly
deserted by God, but in a state something like that of Jews
or of Heathen, turning to the thought of religion. They
are not gifted with /labitiial grace, but they still are visited
by Divine influences, or by actual grace, or rather aid ; and
these influences are the first-fruits of the grace of justifica-
tion going before it, and are intended to lead on to it, and
to be perfected in it, as twilight leads to day. And since
it is a Scripture maxim, that " he that is faithful in that
which is least, is faithful also in much -," and " to whomso-
ever hath, to him shall be given ;" therefore it is quite
true that works done with divine aid, and in faith before
justification, do dispose men to receive the grace of justifica-
tion ; — such were Cornelius's alms, fastings, and prayers,
which led to his baptism. At the same time it must
be borne in mind that, even in such cases, it is not
the works themselves which make them meet, as some
schoolmen seem to have said, but the secret aid of God,
vouchsafed, equally with the " grace and Spirit," which is
the portion of the baptized, for the merits of Christ's
sacrifice.

But it may be objected, that the silence observed in the
Article as to there being an incomplete state between that
of both ju^tifi cation and divine grace together, and that of
neither, (viz. a state in which a soul has the influences of
grace, but is not yet justified,) is a proof that there is no

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 287

such half state. This argument, however, would prove
too much ; for in like manner there is a silence in the
Sixth Article about a judge of the scripturalness of doc-
trine, yet a judge there must be. And again, few, it is
supposed, would deny that Cornelius, before the Angel
came to him, was in a more hopeful state, than Simon
Magus or Felix. The difficulty then, if there be one, is
common to persons of whatever school of opinion.

2. If works even before justification, when done by the
influence of divine aid, gain grace, as we see in the instance
of Cornelius, much more do works after justification.
They are, according to the Article, " grata," '^ pleasing to
God ;^' and they are accepted, " accepta '" which means
that God rewards them, and that of course according to
their degree of excellence. At the same time, as works
before justification may nevertheless be done under a divine
influence, so works after justification are still liable to the
infection of original sin ; and, as not being perfect,
"cannot expiate our sins,'^ or *' endure- the severity of
God's judgment."

288 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

§ 4.—ne Visible Church.

Art. xix. — " The visible Church of Christ is a congrega-
tion of faithful men (cffitus fideliuni), in the which the
pure Word of Gou is preached, and the Sacraments be duly
ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those
things that of necessity are requisite to the same/'

This is not an abstract definition of a Church, but a
description of ilie actually existing One Holy Catholic
Church diffused throughout the world ; as if it were read,
" The Church is a certain existing society of the faithful,"
&c. This is evident from the mode of describing the Ca-
tholic Church i'aiiiiliar to all writers from the first ages down
to the age of this Article. For instance, ISt. Clement of
Alexandria says, " I mean by the Church, not a place, but
the congregation of the elect." Origen : "Tiie Church, the
assetubly of all the faithfal.'^ St. Ambrose : " One congrega-
tion, one Church." St. Isidore : " The Church is a con-
gregation of saints, collected on a certain faith, and the best
conduct of life." St. Augustin : " The Church is ihe people
of God through all ages." Again : " The Church is the
multitude which is spread over the whole earth." St Cyril :
" When we speak of the Church, we denote the most holy
multitude qftJiepiouH." Theodorct : " The Apostle calls the
Church the OHHembly of the faithful." Pope Gregory :
" The Churcli, a multitude of the faithful collected of both
sexes." Bede : "The Church is the congregation of all
saints." Alcuin : " The Holy Catholic Churcii, — in Latin,
the congregation 0/ the faithful." Amalaiius : '• The Church
is the people called together by the Church's ministers."
Pope Nicholas I. : " The Church, that is, the congregation of
Catholics." St. Bernard : " What is the Spouse, but the con-
gregation of the just ? " Peter the Venerable: " The Church

THE THIRTY-NINE AKTICLES. 289

is called a congregation, but not of all things, not of cattle,
but of men ^faithful, good, just. Though bad among these
good, and just among the unjust, are revealed or concealed,
yet it is called a Church.'' Hugo Victorians : " The Holy
Church, that is, the univerdty of the faithful^ Arnulphus :
" The Church is called the congregation of the faithful."
Albertus Magnus : " The Greek word Church means in
Latin convocation ; and whereas works and callings belong
to rational animals, and reason in man is inward faith,
therefore it is called the congregation of the faithful."
Durandus : " The Church is in one sense material, in which
divers offices are celebrated ; in another spiritual, which
is the collection of the faithful.^* Al varus : " The Church is
the multitude of the faithful, or the university of Chris-
tians." Pope Pius II. : " The Church is the multitude of
the faithful dispersed through all nations." Estius,
Chancellor of Douay : " There is a controversy between
Catholics and heretics as to what the word ' Church '
means. John Huss and the heretics of our day who
follow him, define the Church to be the university of the
2)redestinate ; Catholics define it to be the Society of those
who are joined to each other by a right faith and the Sacra-
ments." '

These illustrations of the phraseology of the Article maybe
multiplied in any number. And they plainly show that it
is not lajdng down any logical definition what a Church is,
but is describing, and, as it were, pointing to the Catholic
Church difi'used throughout the world ; which, being but
one, cannot possibly be mistaken, and requires no other
account of it beyond this single and majestic one. The
ministration of the Word and Sacraments is mentioned as
a further note of it. As to the question of its limits,
whether Episcopal Succession or whether intercommunion
with the whole be necessary to each part of it, — these are

' These instaooes are from Launojr.
VOL. II. U

290 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OE

questions, most important indeed, but of detail, and are not

expressly treated of in the Articles.

This view is further illustrated by the following passage
from the Homily for Whitsunday : —

" Our Savionr Christ departing out of the world unto feia Father,
promised His Disciples to send down another Comforter, that
should continue with them for ever, and direct them into all truth.
Which thing, to be faithfully and truly performed, the Scriptures
do sufficiently bear witness. Neither must we think that this
Comforter was either promised, or else given, only to the Apostles,
but also to the univet'sal Church of Christ, dispersed through the
whole world. . . , The titte Church is an universal congregation or
felloicship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the founda-
tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
head corner-stone. And it hath always three notes or marks,
whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments
ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right
use of ecclesiastical discipline," &c.

This passage is quoted in that respect in which it claims
attention, viz. as far as it is an illustration of the Article.
It is speaking of the one Catholic Church, not of an ab-
stract Church which may have concrete fulfilments many
or few ; and it uses the same terms of it which the Article
does of "the visible Church.^' It says that " the true
Church is an ttmrersa/ congregation or fellowship of God's
faithful and elect people,'' &c., which as closely corresponds
to the ccetus fideUum, or " congregation of faithful men " of
the Article, as the above descriptions from Fathers or
Divines do. Therefore, the ccetus fideUiim spoken of in th(^
Article is not a definition, which kirk, or connexion, or
other communion may, successfully or not, be made to
fall under, but the enunciation and pointing out of a fact.

\

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 291

§ 5. — General Councils.

Article xxl. — " General councils may not be gathered
together without the commandment and will of princes.
And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they
be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with
the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and some-
times have erred, in things pertaining to God. Wherefore
things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have
neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared
that they are taken out ot Holy Scripture."

That great bodies of men, of different countries, may
not meet together without the sanction of their rulers, is
plain from the principles of civil obedience and from
primitive practice. That, when met together, though
Christians, they will not be all ruled by the Spirit or
Word of God, is plain from our Lord's parable of the net,
and from melancholy experience. That bodies of men,
deficient in this respect, may err, is a self-evident truth, —
unless, indeed, they be favoured with some divine super-
intendence, which has to be proved, before it can be
admitted.

General Councils then may err, as such ; — may err,
unless in any case it is promised, as a matter of express
supernaturul privilege, that they shall not err; a case
which lies beyond the scope of this Article, or at any rate
beside its determination.

Such a promise, however, does exist, in cases when
general councils are not only gathered together according
to ** the commandment and will of princes," but in the
Name of Christ, according to our Lord's promise. The
Article merely contemplates the human prince, not the
King of Saints. While Councils are a thing of earth,

u 2

292 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

their infallibility of course is not guaranteed ; when they
are a thing of heaven, their deliberations are overruled,
and their decrees authoritative. In such cases they are
Catholic councils ; and it would seem, from passages which
will be quoted in Section 11, that the Homilies recognize
four, or even six, as bearing this character. Thus
Catholic or Ecumenical Councils are General Councils, and
something more. Some general councils are Catholic, and
others are not.' Nay, as even Romanists grant, the same
councils may be partly Catholic, partly not.

If Catholicity be thus a quality, found at times in
general councils, rather than the differentia belonging to a
certain class of them, it is still less surprising that the
Article should be silent on the subject.

"What those conditions are, which fulfil the notion of a
gathering "in the Name of Christ," in the case of a
particular council, it is not necessary here to determine.
Some have included among these conditions, the subse-
quent reception of its decrees by the universal Church ;
others a ratification by the Pope.

Another of these conditions, however, the Article goes
on to mention, viz. that in points necessary to salvation, a
Council should prove its decrees by Scripture.

St. Gregory Nazianzen well illustrates the consistency
of this Article with a belief in the infallibility of
Ecumenical Councils, by his own language on the subject
on different occasions.

' [Bellarmine makes this distinction between " General " and " Ecumeni-
cal," and, as being a contemporary of the compilers of the Articles, he may 1
fairly taken to interpret their word " General." This reference to Bellarmiiii
liiugunge is no after-thcnght of the writer of the Tract to shelter a distinc-
tion which was, at tlie time of publication accused of being subtle and
sophistical, for he had HoUarmine in mind when he made it. Bellarmine
says, " Concilia generaUa approbata numerantur hucusque decern et octo."
Tht'ij ho speaks of " Ccncilia generalia reprohata," Ac, &c. De Concil.
I. 5. 6.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 293

In the following passage lie anticipates the Article : —

" My mind is, if I mtist write the truth, to keep clear of every
conference of bishops, for of conference never saw I good come,
or a remedy so much as an increase of evils. For there is strife
and ambition, and these have the upper hand of reason." — Ep. 65.

Yet, on the other hand, he speaks elsewhere of " the
Holy Council in Nicaea, and that hand of chosen men
whom the Holy Ghost brought together." — Orat. 21.

294 HEM ARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

§ 6. — Purgatory, Pardons, Images^ Relics, Invocation of

Saints}

Article xxil. — " The Romish doctrine concerning pur-
gatory, pardons (de indulgentiis), worshipping (de vene-
ratione) and aaoration, as well of images as of relics, and
also invocation of saints, is a fond thing (res est fufilis)
vainly (inaniter) invented, and grounded upon no warranty
of Scripture, but rather repugnant (contradicit) to the
Word of God."

Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this
Article is, that the doctrine objected to is " the Romish
doctrine." For instance, no one would suppose that the
Calvinistic doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, and
image-worship, is spoken against. Not every doctrine on
these matters is a fond thing, but the Romish doctrine.
Accordingly, the Primitive doctrine is not condemned in
it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the Romish,
which must not be supposed. Now there was a primitive
doctrine on all these points, — how far Catholic or universal,
is a further question, — but still so widely received and so
respectably supported, that it may well be entertained as
a matter of opinion by a theologian now ; this, then,
whatever be its merits, is not condemned by this Article.

This is clear without proof on the face of the matter, at
least as regards Pardons. Of course, the Article never
meant to make light of etrry doctrine about pardons, but a
certain doctrine, the Romish doctrine, as indeed the plural
form itself shows.

And such an understanding of the Article is supported by
some sentences in the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, in
which, as fur as regards Relics, a certain " veneration " is

1 [Vid. in/r. Note 1, p. 319, at the end of this Tract.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 295

sanctioned by its tone in speaking of them, thougli not of
course the Romish veneration.

The sentences referred to run as follows : —

" In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book, and
Forty-eighth Chapter, is testified, that 'Epiphanius, being yet alive,
did work miracles : and that after his death, devils, being expelled
at hu grave or iomh, did roar.' Thus you see what authority St.
Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that most ancient his-
tory give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius."

Again : —

" St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the
Emperor, saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it. She
worshipped the King, and not the wood, surely (for that is an
heathenish error and the vanity of the wicked), but she worshipped
Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name was written on
the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's fact, and
St. Ambrose's judgment at once; they thought it had been an
heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have worshipped the
Cross itselfy tohich was emhrued with our Saviour Christ's own
pi'ecious blood." — Peril of Idolatry, part 2, circ. init.

In these passages the writer does not positively commit
himself to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the dis-
covery of the true Cross, but he evidently wishes the
hearer to think he believes in both. This he would not
do, if he thought all honour paid to relics wrong.

If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doc-
trine concerning veneration of Relics is condemned in the
Article before us, but a certain toleration of them is com-
patible with its wording ; neither is all doctrine concerning
purgatory, pardons, images, and saints, condemned by
the Article, but only " the Romish."

And further by " the Romish doctrine," is not meant
the Tridentine doctrine, because this Article was drawn up
before the decree of the Council of Trent. What is
opposed is the received doctrine of that day, and unhappily
of this day too, or the doctrine of the Roman Catholic

296 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

schools; a conclusion which is still more clear, by con-
sidering that there are portions in the Tridentine doctrine
on these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning,
does by anticipation approve, as far as they go. For in-
stance, the Decree of Trent enjoins concerning Purgatory
thus: — "Among the uneducated vulgar let rf/^CM//fl)i(/sM6^/e
questions, which make not for edification, and seldom con-
tribute aught towards piety, be kept back from popular
discourses. Neither let them suffer the public mention
and treatment of uncertain points, or such as look like false-
hood." Session 25. Again, about Images : " Due honour
and veneration is to be paid unto them, not that we believe
that any dirinity or virtue is in them, for which they should
be worshipped (colendse), or that we should ask anything of
them, or that trust should be reposed in images, as for-
merly was done by the Gentiles, which used to place their
hope on idols." — Ibid.

If, then, the doctrine condemned in this Article con-
cerning Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, and Saints,
be not the Primitive doctrine, nor the Catholic doctrine,
nor the Tridentine doctrine, but the Romish, doctrina
Romanensium, let us next consider wJiat in matter of fact
this Romish doctrine is. And

1. As to the doctrine of the Romanists concerning
Purgatory.

Now here there was a primitive doctrine, whatever its
merits, concerning the fire of judgment, which is a possible
or a probable opinion, and is not condemned. That doc-
trine is this : that the conflagration of the world, or the
flames which attend the Judge, will be an ordeal through
which all men will pass ; that great saints, such as St.
Mary, will pass it unharmed ; that others will suffer loss j
but none will fail under it who are built upon the right
foundation. Ilere is one purgatorian doctrine not
" Romish."

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 297

Another doctrine, purgatorian, but not Romish, is that
said to be maintained by the Greeks at Florence, in which
the cleansing, though a punishment, was but a poena damni,
not B, poena sensus ; not a positive sensible infliction, much
less the torment of fire, but the absence of God's presence.
And another purgatory is that in which the cleansing is
but a progressive sanctifi cation, and has no pain at all.

None of these doctrines does the Article condemn ; any
of them may be held by the Anglo-Catholic as a matter of
private belief; not that they are here advocated, one or
other, but they are adduced as an illustration of what
the Article does not mean, and to vindicate our Christian
liberty in a matter where the Church has not confined it.

On the other hand, what the doctrine is which is repro-
bated, is plain from the following passage of the Homilies.

'* Now doth St. Augustine say, that those men which are cast into
prison after this life, on that condition, may in no wise be holpen,
thongh we would help them never so much. And why ? Because the
sentence of God is unchangeable, and cannot be revoked again.
Therefore let us not deceive ourselves, thinking that either we may
help others, or others may help us, by their good and charitable
prayers in time to come. For, as the preacher saith, ' When the tree
falleth, whether it be toward the south, or toward the north, in what
place soever the tree falleth, there it lieth ;' meaning thereby, that
every mortal man dieth either in the state of salvation or damnation,
. . . where is then the third place, Avhich they call purgatory ? Or
where shall our prayers help and profit the dead ? . . . Chrysostom
likewise is of this mind, that, unless we wash away our fins in this
present world, we shall find no comfort afterward. And St. Cyprian
saith, that, after death, repentance and sorrow of pain shall be
without fruit, weeping also shall be in vain, and prayer shall be
to no purpose. Therefore he counselleth all men to make provision
for themselves while they may, because, when they are once departed
out of this life, there is no place for repentance, nor yet for satis-
faction."— Homily concerning Prayer^ pp. 282, 283.

Now it is plain from this passage, that the Purgatory
contemplated by the Homily, was one for which no one

298 REMAKKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

will for an insfanfc pretend to adduce even those Fathers
who most favour Rome, viz. one in tc/iich our state would be
changed, in which God's sentence could be reversed.
" The sentence of God," says the writer, " is unchangeable,
and cannot be revoked again ; there is no place for
repentance." On the other hand, the Decrees of the
Council of Trent, after Augustine and Cvprian, (so far
as those Fathers express or imply any opinion approxi-
mating to that of the Council,) teach that Purgatory is a
place for believers, not unbelievers, not where men who
have lived and died in sin, may gain pardon, but where
those who have already been pardoned in this life, may be
cleansed and purified for beholding the face of God. The
Homily, then, and therefore the Article, does not speak of
the Tridentine Purgatorj'.

The mention of Prayers for the dead in the above pas-
sage, affords an additional illustration of the limited and
conditional sense of the terms of the Article now under
consideration. For such prayers are obviously not con-
demned in it in the abstract, or in every shape, but as offered
icitha view to rescue the lost from eternal fire.

Hooker, in his Sermon on Pride, gives us a second view
of the " Romish doctrine of Purgatory," from the school-
men. After speaking of the ^;as>ia damni, he says, —

"The other punishment, which hath in it not only loss of joy,
but also sense of grief, vexation, and woe, is that whereunto they
give the name of purgatory pains, in nothing different from those
very infernal torments which the souls of castatoays, together tcith
(Jdmned spirits do endure, save only in this, there is an appointed
term to the one, to the other none ; but for the time they last they
are equal." — Vol. iii. p. 798.

Such doctrine, too, as the following may well be in-
cluded in that which the Article condemns under the name
of " Romish :" —

" Iq the ' Speculum Exeraplorum' it is said, that a certain priest, ill

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 299

an ecstasy, saw the soul of Constantius Turritanus in the eaves of his
house, tormented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards climbing
up to heaven upon a shining pillar. And a certain monk saw some
souls roasted upon spits like pigs, and some devils basting them with
scalding lard; but a while after, they were carried to a cool place, and
so proved purgatory. But Bishop Theobald, standing upon a piece of
ice to cool his feet, was nenrer purgatory than he was aware, and was
convinced of it, when he heard a poor soul telling him, that under
that ice he was tormented; and that he should be delivered, if for
thirty days continual, he would say for him thirty masses. And some
guch thing was seen by Conrade and Udalric in a pool of water ;
for the place of purgatory was not yet resolved on, till St. Patrick
had the key of it delivered to him, which when one Nicholas bor-
rowed of him, he saw as strange and true things there, as ever
Virgil dreamed of in his purgatory, or Cicero in his dream of Scipio,
or Plato in his Gorgias, or Phaedo, who indeed are the surest authors
to prove purgatory." — Jer. Taylor, "Works, vol. x. pp. 151, 152.

Another specimen of doctrine, whicli no one will attempt
to prove from Scripture, is the following : —

" Returning to the first Church, there they found St. Michael the
Archangel and the Apostles Peter and Paul. St. Michael caused
all the white souls to pass through the flames, unharmed, to the
mount of joy ; and those that had black and white spots, St. Peter
led into purgatory to be purified.

" In one part sate St. Paul, and the devil opposite to him with
his guards, with a pair of scales between them, weighing all such
souls as were all over black ; when upon turning a soul, the scale
turned towards St. Paul, he sent it to purgatory, there to expiate
its sins ; when towards the devil, his crew, with great triumph,
plunged it into the flaming pit

" The rustic likewise saw near the entrance of the town-hall, as it
were, four streets; the first was full of innumerable furnaces and
cauldrons filled with flaming pitch and other liquids, and boiling of
souls, whose heads were like those of black fishes in the seething
liquor. The second had its cauldrons stored with snow and ice, to
torment souls with horrid cold. The third had thereof boiling sul-
phur and other materials, afibrding the worst of stinks, for the
vexing of souls that had wallowed in the filth of lust. The fourth
had cauldrons of a most horrid salt and black water. Now singers

300 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

of all soi-ts were alternately tormented in these cauldrons." — Pur-
gatory proved by Miracle, by S. Johnson, pp. 8 — 10.

2. Pardons, or Indulgences.
Burnet says, —

" The virtue of indulgences is the applying the treasure of the
Church upon such terms as Popes shall think fit to prescribe, in order
to the redeeming souls from purgatory, and from all other temporal
punishments, and that for such a number of years as shall be specified
in the bulls ; some of which have gone to thousands of years ; one I
have seen to ten hundred thousand : and as these indulgences are
sometimes granted by special tickets, like tallies struck on that
treasure ; so sometimes they are affixed to particular churches and
altars, to particular times, or days, chiefly to the year of jubilee ; they
are also affixed to such things as may be carried about, to Agnus
Dei's, to medals, to rosaries, and scapularies ; they are also affixed
to some prayers, the devout saying of them being a mean to pro-
cure great indulgences. The granting these is left to the Pope's dis-
cretion, who ought to distribute them as he thinks may tend most to
the honour of GrOD and the good of the Church ; and he ought not
to be too profuse, much less to be too scanty in dispensing them.

" This has been the received doctrine and practice of the Church
of Rome since the twelfth century : and the Council of Trent, in a
hurry, in its last session, did, in very general words, approve of
the practice of the Church in this matter, and decreed that in-
dulgences should be continued ; only they restrained some alnises.
in particular that of sellir^ them." — Burnet on Article XXII.
p. 305 ; also on Art. XIV. p. 190.

If it be necessary to say more on the subject, let usj
attend to the following passage from Jeremy Taylor :-

" 1. That a most scandalous and unchristian dissolution and deat
of all ecclesiastical discipline, is consequent to the making all sin
cheap and trivial a thing; that the horrible demerits and exemplai
punishment audremotionof scandal and satisfactions to the Churcl
are indeed reduced to trifling and mock penances. He that shall senij
a servant with a candle to attend the holy Sacrament, when it sha
be carried to sick people, or shall go himself; or, if he can neither
nor send, if he say a 'Pater Noster' and an 'Ave,' he shall have
hundred years of true pardon. This is fair and easy. But then,-

" 2. It would be considered what is meant by so many years

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 301

pardon, and so many years of true pardon. I know but of one
natural interpretation of it ; and that it can mean nothing, but
that some of the pardons are but fantastical, and not true ; and in
this I find no fault, save only that it ought to have been said, that
all of them are fantastical.

"3. It were fit we learned how to compute four thousand and eight
hundred years of quarantines, and a remission of a third part of all
their sins ; for so much is given to every brother and sister of this
fraternity, upon Easter-day, and eight days after. Now if a brother
needs not thus many, it would be considered whether it did not
encourage a brother or a frail sister to use all their medicine, and
sin more freely, lest so great a gift become useless.

" 4. And this is so much the more considerable because the gift is
vast beyond all imagination. The first four days in Lent they may
Ijurchase thirty-three thousand years of pardon, besides a plenary re-
mission of all their sins over and above. The first week of Lent a
hundred and three-and- thirty thousand years of pardon, besides five
plenary remissions of all their sins, and two third parts besides, and
the delivery of one soul out of purgatory. The second week in Lent a
hundred and eight-and-fifty thousand years of pardon, besides the
remission of all their sins, and a third part besides; and the delivery
of one soul. The third week in Lent, eight thousand years, besides a
plenaiy remission, and the delivery of one soul out of purgatory. The
fourth week in Lent, threescore thousand years of pardon, besides a
remission of two-thirds of all their sins, and one plenary remission,
and one soul delivered. The fifth week, seventy-nine thousand years
of pardon, and the deliverance of two souls ; only the two thousand
seven hundred years thatare given for the Sunday, maybe had twice
that day, if they will visit the altar twice, and as many quarantines.
Thesixthweek, two hundred and five thousand years, besides quaran-
tines, and four plenary pardons. Only on Palm Sunday, whose por-
tion is twenty-five thousand years, it may be had twice that day.
And all this is the price of him that shall, upon these days, visit
the altar in the church of St. Hilary. And this runs on to the
Fridays, and many Festivals, and other solemn days in the other
parts of the year." — Jer. Taylor, vol. xi. pp. 63 — 56.

The pardons then, spoken of in the Article, are large
and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained
on money payments.

3. Veneration and worshipping of Images and E.elics. ,

302 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

That the Homilies do not altogether discard reverence
towards relics, has already been shown. Now let us sec
what they do discard.

" What meaneth it that Christian men, afterthe useof the Gentiles
idolaters, cap and kneel before images? which, if they had any sense
and gratitude, wouldkneel before men, carpenters, masons, plasterers,
founders, and goldsmiths, their makers and framers, by whose means
they have attained this honour, which else should have been evil-
favoured, and rude lumps of clay or plaster, pieces of timber, stone,
or metal, without shape or fashion, aud so without all estimation and
honour, as that idol in the Pagan poet confeeseth, saying, ' I was
once a vile block, but now I am become a god,' &c. What a fond
thing is it for man, who hath life and reason, to bow himself to a
dead and insensible image, the work of his own hand ! Is not this
stooping and kneeling before them, which is forbidden so earnestly
by God's word P Let such as so fall down before images of saints,
know and confess that they exhibit that honour to dead stocks aud
stones, which the saints themselves, Peter, Paul, and Barnaba'^,
would not to be given to them, being alive ; which the angel of God
forbiddeth to be given to him. And if they say they exhibit such
honour not to the image, but to the saint whom it representeth,
they are convicted of folly, to believe that they please saints with
that honour, which they abhor as a spoil of God's honour." — Homily
on Peril of Idolatry, p. 191.

Again : —

" Because B/clics were so gainful, few places were there but they
had Relics provided for them. And for more plenty of Relics, some
one saint had many heads, one in one place, and another in another
place. Some had six arms, and twenty-six fingers. And where our
Lord bare His cross alone, if all the pieces of the relics thereof were
gathered together, the greatest ship in England would scarcely
bear them ; aud yet the greatest part of it, they say, doth yet re-
main in the hands of the Infidels ; for the which they pray in their
beads-bidding, that they may get it also into their hands, for such
godly use and purpose. And not only the bones of the saints, but
everything appertaining to them, was a holy relic. In some place
they offer a sword, in some the scabbard, in some a shoe, in some
a saddle that had been set upon some holy horse, in some the
coals wherewith St. Laurence was roasted, in some place the tail
•of the ass which our LoiiD Jesus Christ sat on, to be kissed and

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 303

offered iinfo for a relic. For rather tlian they would lack a relic, they
would offer you a liorse-hone instead of a virgin's arm, or the tail of
the ass to be kissed and offered unto for relics. O wicked, impu-
dent, and most shameless men, the devisers of these things ! O
silly, foolish, and dastardly daws, aud more beastly than the ass
whose tail they kissed, that believe such things ! " — Ibid. pp. 193-97.

In another place the Homilies speak as follows : —

"Our churches stand full of such great puppets, tcondrously
decJced and adorned ; garlands and coronets be set on their heads,
precious pearls hanging about their necks ; their fingers shine with
rings, set with precious stones ; their dead and stiff bodies are
clothed with garments stiff with gold. You would believe that the
images of our men-saints were some princes of Persia land with
their proud apparel ; and the idols of our women- saints were nice
and well-trimmed harlots, tempting their paramours to wantonness :
whereby the saints of God are not honoured, but most dishonoured,
and their godliness, soberness, chastity, contempt of riches, and of
the vanity of the world, defaced and brought in doubt by such mon-
strous decking, most differing from their sober and godly lives.
And because the whole pageant must thoroughly be played, it is not
enough thus to deck idols, but at last come in the priests themselves,
likewise decked with gold and pearl, that they may be meet servants
for such lords and ladies, and fit worshippers of such gods and
goddesses. And with a solemn pace they pass forth before these
golden puppets, and/a/Z doton to the ground on their marrow-bones

before these honourable idols." " O books and scriptures, in

the which the devilish schoolmaster, Satan, hath penned the lewd
lessons of wicked idolatry, for his dastardly disciples and scholars to
behold, read, and learn, to God's most high dishonour, and their most
horrible damnation ! " — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, pp. 219 — 222.

Again : —

" Sects and feigned religions were neither the fortieth part so
many among the Jews, nor more superstitionsly and ungodly abused,
than of late years they have been among us : which sects and
religions had so many hypocii tic al and feigned works in their state
of religion, as they arrogantly named it, that their lamps, as they
said, ran always over able to satisfy not only for their own sins, but
also for all other their benefactors, brothers, and sisters of religion,
as most ungodly and craftily they had persuaded the multitude of

304 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

ignorant people; keeping in divers places, as it were, marts or
markets of merits, being full of their holy relics, images, shrines, and
works of overflowing abundance, ready to be sold ; and all things
which they had were called holy — holy cowls, holy girdles, holy
pardons, holy beads, holy shoes, holy rules, and all full of holiness.
And what thing can be more foolish, more superstitious, or ungodly,
than that men, women, and children, should wear a friar's coat to
deliver them from agues or pestilence ; or when they die, or when
they be buried, cause it to be cast upon them, in hope thereby to be
saved ? " — Somily on Good Works, pp. 45, 46, also p. 223.

Now the veneration and worship condemned in these
and other passages are observances such as these : kneel-
ing before images, lighting candles to them, offering
them incense, going on pilgrimage to them, hanging up
crutches, &c,, before them, lying legends about them, belief
in miracles as if wrought by them through illusion of the
devil, decking them up immodestly, and providing incen-
tives by them to bad passions ; and, in like manner, merry
music and minstrelsy and licentious practices in honour
of relics, counterfeit relics, multiplication of them, absurd
pretences about them. This is what the Article means by
'' the Romish doctrine,^' which, in agreement to one of the
above extracts, it calls "a fond thing," res futilis ; for
who can ever hope, except the grossest and most blinded
minds, to be gaining the favour of the blessed saints, while
they come with unchaste thoughts and eyes, that cannot
cease from sin ; and to be profited by " pilgrimage-going,"
in which '* Lady Venus and her son Cupid were rather
worshipped wantonly in the flesh, than God the Father,
and our Saviour Christ His Son, truly worshipped in the
Spirit?"

Here again it is remarkable that, urged by the truth of
the allegation, the Council of Trent is obliged, both to
confess the above-mentioned enormities in the veneration
of relics and images, and to forbid them : — •

" Into these holy and salutaiy observances should any abuses have

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 305

crept, of these the Holy Council strongly [vehementer] desires the
utter extinction ; so that no images of a false doctrine, and supply-
ing to the uninstructed opportunity of perilous error, should be set

up All superstition also in invocation of saints, veneration

of relics, and religious use of images, be put away ; 'aXl filthy lucre
be cast out of doors ; and all toantonness be avoided ; so that images
be not painted or adorned with an immodest beauty; or the cele-
bration of Saints and attendance on Relics be abused to revelries
and drunlcennesses ; as though festival days were kept in honour
of saints by luxury and lasciviousness." — Sess. 25.

4. Invocation of Saints.

By " invocation '^ here is not meant the mere circum-
stance of addressing beings out of sight, because we use
the Psalms in our daily service, which are frequent in
invocations of Angels to praise and bless God. In the
Benedicite too we address " the spirits and souls of the
righteous."

Nor is it a " fond " invocation to pray that unseen
beings may bless us; for this Bishop Ken does in his
Evening Hymn :

0 may my Guardian, while I sleep.
Close to my bed his vigils keep,
His love angelical instil,
Stop all the avenues of ill, &c.

Indeed, it is not unnatural, if " the seven spirits before
the Throne " have sent us through St. John the Evange-
list, " grace and peace," that we, in turn, should send up
our thoughts and desires to them.

On the other hand, judging from the example set us in
the Homilies themselves, invocations are not censurable
if we mean nothing definite by them, addressing them to
beings which we know cannot hear, and using them as inter-
jections. The Honaily seems to avail itself of this proviso
in a passage, which will serve to begin our extracts in illus-
tration of the superstitious use of invocations : —

"We have left Him neither heaven, nor earth, nor water, n >r

VOT.. II. X

306 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

country, nor city, peace nor war to rule and govern, neither men,
nor beasts, nor their diseases to cure ; that a godly man might
justly, for zealous indignation, cry out, O heaven, O earth, and
seas,^ what madness and wickedness against God Jire men fallen
into ! What dishonour do the creatures to their Creator and
Maker! " — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 189.

Again, just before : —

" Terentius Varro sheweth, that there were three hundred Jupiters
in his time : there were no fewer Veneres and Dianas : we had no
fewer Chi-istophers, Ladies, and Mary Magdalens, and other saints.
QEnomaus and Hesiodus show, that in their time there were thirty
thousand gods. I think we had no fewer saints, to whom we gave
the honour due to God. And they have not only spoiled the true
living God of his due honour in temples, cities, countries, and lands,
by such devices and inventions as the Gentiles idolaters have done
before them : but the sea and waters have as well special saints with
them, as they had gods with the Gentiles, Neptune, Triton, Nereus,
Castor and Pollux, Venus, and sucb other: in whose places become
St. Christopher, St. Clement, and divers others, and specially our
Lady, to whom shipmen sing, ' Ave, maris stella.' Neither hath the
fire escaped their idolatrous inventions. For, instead of Vulcan and
Vesta, the Gentiles' gods of the fire, our men have placed St. Agatha,
and make litters on her day for to quench fire with. Eveiy artificer
and profession hath his special saint, as a peculiar god. As for exam-
ple, scholars have St. Nicholas and St. Gregory: painters, St. Luke ;
neither lack soldiers their Mars, nor lovers their Venus, amongst
Christiana. All diseases have their special saints, as gods the curera

of them ; the falling-evil St. Cornelio, the tooth-ache St. Apollin,

&c. Neither do beasts nor cattle lack their gods with us ; for St. Loy
is the horse-leech, and St. Anthony the swineherd." — Ibid. p. 188.

The same subject is introduced in connexion with a
lament over the falling off of attendance on religious
worship consequent upon the Reformation : —

" God's vengeance hath been and is daily provoked, because much
wicked people pass nothing to resort to the Church, either for that
they are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God and
godliness, and care not with devilish example to offend their neigh-
bours; or else for that they see the Church altogether scoured of such
y ay gazing sights, as their gross fantasy was greatly delighted with,
' 0 coeluii), 0 terra, o maria Neptuni. — Terent. Adelph. v. 3.

1

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 307

because they see the false religion abandoned, and tbe true restored^
which seemeth an unsavoury thing to their unsavoury taste ; as may
appear by this, that a woman said to her neighbour, ' Alas, gossip
what shall we now do at Church, since all the saints are taken
away, since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone,
since we cannot hear the like piping, singing, chanting, and playing
upon the organs, that we could before ? ' But, dearly beloved, we
ought greatly to rejoice, and give God thanks, that our churches
are delivered of all those things which displeased God so sore, and
filthily defiled His house and His place of prayer." — On the Plaee
and Time of Prayer, pp. 293, 294.

Again : —

" Christ, sitting in heaven, hath an everlasting priesthood, and
always prayeth to His Father for them that be penitent, obtaining,
by virtue of His wounds, which are evermore in the sight of God,
not only perfect remission of oar sins, but also all other necessaries
that we lack in this world ; so that this Holy Mediator is sufficient
in heaven, and ntedeth no others to help Him.

" Invocation is a thing proper unto God, which if we attribute
unto the saints, it soundeth unto their reproach, neither can they
well bear it at our hands. When Paul healed a certain lame man,
which was impotent in his feet, at Lystra, the people would have
done sacrifice unto him and Barnabas ; who, rending their clothes,
refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true God. Likewise
in the Revelation, when St. John fell before the angel's feet to
worship him, the angel would not permit him to do it, but com-
manded him that he should worship God. Which examples declare
unto us, that the saints and angels in heaven will not have us to
do any honour unto them, that is due and proper unto GoD." —
Homily on Prayer, pp. 2?2 — 277.

Whereas, then, it has already been shown that not all
invocation is wrong, this last passage plainly tells us what
kindoi invocation is not allowable^ or what is meant by invo-
cation in its exceptionable sense : viz. " a thing proper to
God,'' as being part of the " honour that is due and proper
unto God." And two instances are specially given of such
calling and invocating, viz. sacrificing, and falling down
in worship. Besides thisj the Homily adds, that it is
wrong to pray to them for " necessaries in this world,*'

X 2

308 KEMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

and to accompany their services with " piping, singing,
chanting, and playing'" on the organ, and of invoking
saints as patrons of particular elements, countries, arts,
or remedies.

Here, again, as before, the Article gains a witness and
concurrence from the Council of Trent. ** Though," say
the divines there assembled, " the Church has been accus-
tomed sometimes to celebrate a few masses to the honour
and remembrance of saints, yet she doth not teach that
sacrifice is offered to them, but to God alone, who crowned
them ; wherefore neither is the priest wont to say, / offer
sacrifice to thee, 0 Peter, or 0 Paul, but to Qfon." (Sess.
22.)

Or, to know what is meant b)' fond invocations, we may
refer to the following passage of Bishop Andrewes's answer
to Cardinal Perron : —

" This one point is needful to be observed throughout all tibe
Cardinal's answer, that he hath framed, to himself five distinc-
tions : — (1.) Prayer direct, and prayer oblique, or indirect. (2.)
Prayer absolute, and prayer relative. (S.f Prayer sovereign, and
prayer subaltern. (4.) Prayer final, and prayer transitory. (5.)
Prayer sacrificial, and prayer out of, or from the sacrifice. Prayer
direct, absolute, final, sovereign, sacrificial, that must not be mail
to the saints, but to God only : but as ior prayer oblique, relativt .
transitory, subaltern, from, or out of the sacrifice, that (saith he)
we may make to the saints. . . .

" Yet it is sure, that in these distinctions is the whole substance
of his answer." — Andrewes's Answer to FerrorCs Reply, c. 20i
pp. 57—62.

BeWarmine's admissions quite bear out the principles
laid down by Bishop Andrewes and the Homily : —

" It is not lawful," he says, " to ask of the saints to grant to us,
as if they were the authors of divine benefits, glory or grace, or the
other means of blessedness. . . . This is proved, first, from Scrip-
ture, ' The Lord will give grace and glory.' (Psal. Ixxxiv.) . . .
Secondly, from the usage of the Church ; for in the masB-prayers,

THE THIRTY-NIXE ARTICLES. 309

and the saints' ofEces, we never aslc anything else, "but that, at
their prayers, benefits may be granted to us by God. Thirdly,
from reason : for what ice need surpasses the powers of the crea-
ture, and therefore even of saints ; therefore we ought to ask no-
thing of saints beyond their impetrating from God what is pro-
fitable for us. Fourthly, from Augustine and Theodoret, who
expressly teach that saints are not to be invoked as gods, but as
able to gain from God what they wish. However, it must be
observed, when we say that nothing should be asked of saints
but their prayers for us, the question is not about the words, but
the setise of the words. Tor, as far as the words go, it is lawful
to say : ' St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of
heaven ;' also, ' give me health of body, patience, fortitude,' &c.,
provided that we mean 'save and pity me by praying for me;'
■ grant me this or that % thy prayers and merits' For so speaks
Giegory Nazianzen, and many others of the ancients, &c. — Ds
Sanct. Beat. i. 17.

310 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

§ 7. — The Sacraments.

Art. XXV. — " Those five, commonly called Sacraments,
that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony,
and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments
of the Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the
corrupt following (prava imitations) of the Apostles,
partly from states of life allowed in the Scriptures ; but
yet have not like nature of sacraments, (sacramentorum
oandem rationem,) with Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony
ordained of God."

This Article does not deny the five rites in question to
be sacraments, but to be sacraments in the sense in which
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments ; " sacra-
ments of the Gospel/' sacraments with an outward sign or-
dained o/" God.

They are not sacraments in any sense, unless the Church
has the power of dispensing grace through rites of its own
appointing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and
hallowing the " rites or ceremonies " which, according to
the twentieth article, it '' hath power to decree." But we
may well believe that the Church has this gift.

If, then, a sacrament be merely an outicard sign of an
invisible grace given under it, the five rites may be sacra-
ments ; but if it must be an outward sign ordained by
God or Christ, then only Baptism and the Lord's Supper
are sacraments.

Our Church acknowledges both definitions ; — in the
Article before us, the stricter ; and again in the Catechism,
where a sacrament is defined to be " an outward visible
sign of an inward spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained
by Christ himself." And this, it should be remarked, is a

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 311

characteristic of our formularies in various places, not to
deny the truth or obligation of certain doctrines or ordi-
nances, but simply to deny, (what no Eoman opponent
now can successfully maintain,) that Christ for certain
directly ordained them. For instance, in regard to the
visible Church it is sufficient that the ministration of the
sacraments should be " according to Christ's ordinance."
Art. xix. — And it is added, "■ in all those things that of
necessity are requisite to the same." The question enter-
tained is, what is the least that God requires of us. Again,
" the baptism of young children is to be retained, as most
agreeable to the institution of Christ." Art. xxvii. —
Again, " the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by
Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or
worshipped." Art. xxviii. — Who will maintain the paradox
that what the Apostles " set in order when they came "
had been already done by Christ ? Again, '' both parts of
the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and command-
ment, ought to be administered to all Christian men alike."
Art. XXX.' — Again, " bishops, priests, and deacons, are not
commanded by God's late either to vow the estate of single
life or to abstain from marriage." Art. xxxii. — In making
this distinction, however, it is not here insinuated, (though
the question is not entered on in these particular articles,)
that every one of these points, of which it is only said that
they are not ordained by Christ, is justifiable on grounds
short of His appointment.

On the other hand, our Church takes the wider sense of
the meaning of the word Sacrament in the Homilies ;
observing, —

" In the second Book against the Adversary of the Law and the
Prophets, he [St. Augustine] calleth sacraments holy signs. And
writing to Bonifacius of the baptism of infanta, he saith, ' If sacra-
ments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they
be sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all. And of this

312 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

similitude they do for the most parts receive the names of the self-
same things they signify.' By these words of St. Augustine it
appeareth, that he allovveth the common description of a sacra-
ment, which is, that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace ; that
is to say, that setteth out to the eyes and other outward senses
the inward working of God's free mercy, and doth, as it were, seal
in our hearts the promises of God." — Homily on Common Prayer
and Sao^aments, pp. 296, 297.

Accordingly, starting with this definition of St. Augus-
tine's, the writer is necessarily carried on as follows : —

"You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were insti-
tuted by our Savioue Christ, and are to be continued, and received
of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as
our Saviouk Christ willed them to be received. And as for the
number of them, if they should be considered according to the
exact signitication of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs ex-
pressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed
the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and
joining in Christ, there be but two ; namely. Baptism, and the
Supper of the Lord. For although absolution hath the promise of
forgiveness of sin ; yet by the express word of the New Testament,
it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, whicli
is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on
of hands) is not exjrressly commanded in the New Testament to be
used in absolution, as the visible signs in Ba^Dtism and the Lobd's
Supper are : and therefore absolution is no such sacrament as
Baptism and the Communion are. And though the ordering of
ministers hath this visible sign and promise ; yet it lacks the pro-
mise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two
above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any ot/ier sacrament,
be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But
in a general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed
to anything, whereby an holy thing is signified. In whicli
iinderetanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this
name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken
and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments ; but
also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of
feet, and such like ; not meaning thereby to repute them as
sacraments, in the same signijiration that the two forenameil
sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing the true

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 313

signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius,
and also in the third Book of Christian Doctrine, affirmeth, that
the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in
signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places
maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of Baptism, and
the Slipper of the Lokd. And although there are retained by
order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other
rites and ceremonies, about the institution of ministers in the
the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of Children, by examining
them of their knowledge in their Articles of the Faith, and
joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise
for the Visitation of the Sick; yet no man ought to take these
for sacraments, in such signification and meaning as the sacra-
ments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : but either for
godly states of life, necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore
worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity, by the
ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances
as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of
Christ's Church." — Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments,
pp. 298—300.

Another definition of the word Sacrament, which equally
succeeds in limiting it to the two principal rites of the
Christian Church, is also contained in the Catechism, as
well as implied in the above passage : — '^ Two only, as
genernlly necessary to salvation, Baptism and the Supper of
the Lord.'' On this subject the following remark has
been made : —

" The Roman Catholic considers that there are seven
[sacraments] ; we do not strictly determine the number.
We define the word generally to be an * outward sign of
an inward grace/ without saying to how many ordinances
this applies. However, what we do determine is, that Christ
has ordained two special sacraments, as generally necessary
to salvation. This, then, is the characteristic mark of those
two, separating them from all other whatever ; and this
is nothing else but saying in other words that they are the
only justifying rites, or instruments of communicating the

'Sli: REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

Atonement, winch is the one thing necessary to us. Or-
dination, for instance, ^'wes power, yet without making the
60u\accepfable to God; Confirmation gives lif/hi and strength,
yet is the mere cow/?/e/?o» of Baptism ; and Absolution may
be viewed as a negative ordinance removing the harrier
which sin has raised between us and that grace, which by
inheritance is ours. But the two sacraments ' of the Gospel^'
as they may be emphatically styled, are the instruments of
inward life, according to our Lord's declaration, that Bap-
tism is a new birth, and that in the Eucharist we eat the
limng bread/' ^

* [Lect. on Justificution vi., fin.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 315

§ 8. — Transuhstantiation.

Article xxviii. — *' Transubstantiation, or the change of
the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the
Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant
to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature
of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super-
stitions/'

What is here opposed as " Transuhstantiation,'' is the
shocking doctrine that " the body of Christ, as the Article
goes on to express it, is not "given, taken, and eaten,
after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally
pressed with the teeth ;" that It is a body or substance
of a certain extension and bulk in space, and a certain
figure and due disposition of parts, whereas we hold that
the only substance such, is the bread which we see.

This is plain from Article xxix., which quotes St.
Augustine as speaking of the wicked as " carnally and
visibly pressing with their teeth the sacrament of the body
and blood of Christ," not the real substance, a statement
which even the Breviary introduces into the service for
Corpus Christi Asiy.

This is plain also from the words of the Homily : —
" Saith Cyprian, * When we do these things, we need not
n-Jict our teeth, but with sincere faith we break and divide
that holy bread. It is well known that the meat we seek
in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of the
soul, a heavenly refection, fl'^^ not earthly; an invisible
meat, and not a bodily : a ghostly substance, and not
carnal.' "

An extract may be quoted to the same effect from Bishop
Taylor. Speaking of what has been believed in the Church
of Rome, he says, —

316 REMAUKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

" They tliat deny the spiritual sense, and affirm the natural, are
to remember that Chuist reproved all senses of these words that
were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the
expressions of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude
and crass, that it will he impossible to excuse them from the under-
standing the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum ; for, as
they understood Christ to mean His ' true flesh natural and
proper,' so do they : as they thought Christ intended they should
tear Him with their teeth and suck His blood, for which they
were offended; bo do these men not only think so, but say so, and
are not offended. So said Alanus, ' Assertissime loquimur, corpus
Chris ti vere a nobis contrectari, manducari, circumgestari, deriti-
hus teri [^ground by the teeth'], sensibiliter sacrifcari [sensibly
sacrificed'], non minus quam ante consecrationem panis,' [not less
than the bread before consecration] .... I thought that the
Romanists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the
carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended disciples
.... but I find that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their
rude circumstances, for he affirms that ' Christ corrected them not
fm- supposing so, but reproved them ^or not believing it to be so.'
And indeed himself says as much : ' The body of Christ is truly
and properly manducated or chewed with the bread in the Eucha-
rist ;' and to take off the foulness of the expression, by avoiding
a worse, he is pleased to speak nonsense : ' A thing may be
manducated or chewed, though it be not attrite or broken.' . . .
But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, then
he grants it in plain terms, that Christ's body is chewed, is attrite,
or broken with the teeth, and that not tropically, but properly ....
How ? under the species of bread, and invisibly." ^—Taylor, Real
Presence, iii. 5 ; also Dedic. x. 8, xi. 18.

Take again the statement of Ussher : —

" Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first setters forward
of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this
point, wherein he telleth us, that Christ in the sacrament did
show himself 'oftentimes in a visible shape, either in the form of
a lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood; so that while tho

> [This is not fair to Bellarmine. He says, in explanation, " Non dicimus
corpus Christi ahsoluth manducari, sed manducari *«6 sjoecie panis; qrse
sententia significat ipsas species manducari visihiliter ac sensibiliter, ac
proindc ipxas dentibus atteri, ted sub illis invisibiliter suniitur et trang-
mittitur in stomacham corpus Christi." — Euch. i. 11, col. 390.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 317

host was a breaking or an offering, a lamb in tbe priest's bands,
and blood in tbe cbalice sbould be seen as it were flowing from tbe
sacrifice, that what lay bid in a mystery migbt to them that yet
doubted be made manifest in a miracle.' "^ — Ussher's Answer to a
Jesuit, pp. 62—64. Johnsons Miracles, pp. 27,28.

The same doctrine was imposed by Nicholas the Second
on Berengarius, as the confession of the latter shows,
which runs thus : —

" I, Berengarins .... anathematize every heresy, and more par-
ticularly that of whicb I have hitherto been accused .... I agree
with the Roman Church .... that the bread and wine which are
2)laced on the altar are, after consecration, not only a sacrament,
but even the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and
that these are sensibly, and not merely sacramentally, but in truth,
handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and ground by the
teeth of the faitbful." ' — Bowden's Life of Gregory VII., vol. ii.
p. 243.

Another illustration of the sort of doctrine opposed in
the Article, may be given from Bellarmine, whose contro-
versial statements have already been introduced in the
course of the above extracts. He thus opposes the doc-
trine of introsusception, which the spiritual view of the Real
Presence naturally suggests : —

He observes that there are ** two particular opinions,
false and erroneous, excogitated in the schools : that of
Durandus, who thought it probable that the substance of
the body of Christ in the Eucharist was without magnitude;
and that of certain ancients, which Occam seems afterwards
to have followed, that though it has magnitude, (which they
think not really separable from substance,) yet every part
is so penetrated by every other, that the body of Christ is

' [Such appearances were apparitions or visions, vouchsafed in order to
impress the hidden truth upon the mind.]

[Afterwards " sacramentally " was the received word ; vid. siipr. p. 224,
no e, '* in multis aliis locis sacramentaliler prsesens." The modern term
" Sacramentalists," as the title of the Zwinglians, illustrates how Beren-
i'"rins used the word.]

318 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

without figure, without distinction and order of parts."
With this he contrasts the doctrine which, he maintains,
is that of the Church of Rome as well as the general
doctrine of the schools, that " in the Eucharist whole
Christ exists icith magnitude and all accidents, except that
relation to a heavenly location which He has as He is in
heaven, and those things which are concomitants on His
existence in that location ; and that the parts and members
of Christ's body do not penetrate each other, but are so
distinguished and arranged one with another, as to have a
figure and order suitable to a human body." — De Euchar.
iii. 5.

We see then, that, by transubstantiation, our Article
does not confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at
any definition of the word substance, nor in rejecting it,
rejects a word, nor in denying a "mutatio panis et vini,"
is denying every kind of change, but opposes itself to a cer-
tain plain and unambiguous statement, not of this or that
Council, but one generally received or taught both in the
schools and in the multitude, that the material elements
are changed into an earthly, fleshly, and organized body,
extended in size, distinct in its parts, which is there where
the outward appearances of bread and wine are, and only
does not meet the senses, nor even withdrawn from the
senses always.

Objections against " substance," " nature," " change,"
" accidents," and the like, seem more or less questions of
words, and ijiadequate expressions of the great offence
which we find in the received Roman view of this sacred
doctrine.^

In this connexion it may be suitable to quote and ob-
serve upon the Explanation appended to the Communion
Service, of our practice of kneeling at tlie Lord's Supper,

* [On this siibject, vid. mpr. p. 228, note, and p. 231, note.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 319

whicli requires explanation itself, more perhaps than any
part of our formularies. It runs as follows : —

'' Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Adminis-
tration of the LoRD^s Supper, that the communicants should
receive the same kneeling : (which order is well meant,
for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledg-
ment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy-
receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and
disorder in the holy communion, as might otherwise
ensue ;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons,
either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and
obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved, — It is hereby
declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought
to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine
there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of
Christ's natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental
bread and wine remain still in their very natural
substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that
were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians) ;
and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ
are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth
of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places .
than one."

Now it may be admitted without difficulty, — I. That
"no adoration ouffht to be done unto the sacramental bread
and wine there bodily received." 2. Nor "unto any corporal
{i.e. carnal) presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood."
3. That " the sacramental bread and wine remain still in
their very natural substances." 4. That to adore i/iem " were
idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ;" and
6. That " the natural body and blood of our Saviour
Christ are in heaven."

But " to heaven " is added, " and not here." Now,
though it be allowed that there is no " corporal presence,"
i.e. carnal, of " Christ's natural flesh and blood " here,

320 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

it is a further point to allow that " Christ's natural body
and blood ^' are "not here." And the question is, how
can there be any presence at all of Ilis Body and Blood,
yet a presence such, as not to be here ? That is, in other
words, how can there be any presence, yet not local ?

Yet that this is the meaning of the paragraph in ques-
tion is plain, from what it goes on to say in proof of its
position : " It being against the truth of Christ's natural
body to be at one time in more places than one/' It is
here asserted then, 1 . Generally, " no natural body can be
in more places than one ;" therefore, 2. Christ's natural
body cannot be in the bread and wine, or there where the
bread and wine are seen. In other words, there is nolocjd
presence in the Sacrament. Yet, that there is a presence
is asserted in the Homilies, as quoted above, and the ques-
tion is, as just stated, " How can there be a presence, yet
not a local one ? "

Now, first, let it be observed that the question to be
solved is the truth of a certain philosophical deduction,
not of a certain doctrine of Scripture. That there is
a real presence. Scripture asserts, and the Homilies,
Catechism, and Communion Service confess ; but the ex-
planation before us adds, that it is philosophically impos-
sible that it should be a particular kind of presence, viz. a
presence of which one can say " it is here," or which is
" local." It states then a philosophical deduction ; but to
such deduction none of us have subscribed. We have
professed in the words of the Canon : " That the Book of
Prayer, &c., containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of
God." Now, a position like this may not be, and is not,
''contrary to the word of God," and yet need not be true.
E.g. we may accept St. Clement's Epistle to the Corin-
thians, as containing nothing contrary to Scripture, nay,
as altogether most scriptural, and yet this would not hinder
us from rejecting his account of the Phoenix — as contrary.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 321

not to God's word, but to matter of fact. Even the
infallibility of the Roman see is not considered to extend
to matters of fact or points of philosophy. Nay, we com-
monly do not consider that we need take the words of
Scripture itself literally about the sun's standing still, or
the earth being fixed, or the firmament being above.
Those at least who distinguish between what is theological
in Scripture and what is scientific, and yet admit that
Scripture is true, have no ground for wondering at such
persons as subscribe to a paragraph, of which at the same
time they disallow the philosophy ; especially considering
they expressly subscribe it only as not " contrary to the
word of God." This then is what must be said first
of all.

However, the philosophical position is itself capable of
a very specious defence. The truth is, we do not at all know
what is meant by distance or intervals absolutely, any more
than we know what is meant by absolute time. Late dis-
coveries in geology have tended to make it probable that
time may under circumstances go indefinitely faster or
slower than it does at present ; or, in other words, that
indefinitely more may be accomplished in a given portion
of it. What Moses calls a day, geologists wish to prove
to be thousands of years, if we measure time by the opera-
tions at present effected in it. It is equally difiicult to
determine what we mean by distance, or why we should
not be at this moment close to the throne of God, though
we seem far from it. Our measure of distance is our hand
or our foot ; but as an object a foot off is not called dis-
tant, though the interval is indefinitely divisible, neither
need it be distant, even after it has been multiplied in-
definitely. Why should any conventional measure of
ours — why should the perception of our eyes or our ears,
be the standard of presence or distance ? Christ may
really be close to us, though in heaven, and Ilis presence

V0I-. II. Y

322 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

in the Sacrament may be but a realizing to the wor-
shipper of that nearness, not a change of place, which may
be unnecessary. But on this subject some extracts may
be suitably made from a pamphlet published several years
since, and admitting of some verbal corrections, which, as
in the case of other similar quotations above, shall here be
made without scruple : ^ —

" It may be asked, "What is the meaning of saying that
Christ is really present, yet not locally ? I will make two
suggestions on the subject," &c., &c.

There is nothing, then, in the Explanatory Paragraph
which has given rise to these remarks, to interfere with
the doctrine, elsewhere taught in our formularies, of a real
super-local Presence in the Holy Sacrament.

• [Vid. for the whole passage, supr. pp. 235—237, where other "correc-
tions " in addition (bearing on its perspicuity, not its sense) have been
ma^3«

THE THIKTY-NIXE AlliiCLES. 323

§ 9. — Masses}

Article xxxi. — " The sacrifice (sacrificia) of Masses, in
which it was commonly said, that the priests did offer
Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of
pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous
deceits (perniciosae imposturae)."

Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that
the Articles are not written against the creed of the
Roman Church, but against aetual existing errors in it,
whether taken into its system or not. Here the sacrifice
of the Mass is not spoken of^ in which the special question
of doctrine would be introduced ; but " the sacrifice of
Masses," certain observances, for the most part private and
solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew to have
been in force in time past, and saw before their eyes, and
which involved certain opinions and a certain teaching.
Accordingly the passage proceeds, " in which it was com-
monly said ;" which surely is a strictly historical mode of
speaking.

If any testimony is necessary in aid of what is so plain
jfrom the wording of the Article itself, it is found in the
[drift of the following passage from Burnet : —

" It were easy from all the rituals of the ancients to show, that
iihej had none of those ideas that are now in the Roman Church.
iThey had but one altar in a Church, and probably but one in a
icity : they had but one communion in a day at that altar : so far
Iwere they from the many altars in every church, and the many
\masses at every altar, that are now in the Roman Church. They
idid not know what solitary masses were, without a communion.
lAll the liturgies and all the writings of ancients are as express in
Ithis matter as is possible. The whole constitution of their worship
fcnd discipline shows it. Their worship always concluded with tho
lucharist : such as were not capable of it, as the catechumens, and

> [Vid. infr., Note 2, p. 351 at the end of this Tract.]
Y 2

324 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

those who were doing public penance for their sins, assisted at the
more general parts of the worship ; and so much of it was called
their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it.
When that was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of
the Eucharist ; and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dis-
missed, from whence it came to be called the mass of the faithful."
— Burnet on the XXXIst Article, p. 482.

These sacrifices (Missae) are said to be "blasphemous
fables and pernicious impostures. Now the " blasphemous
fable " is the teaching that there are sacrifices for sin other
than Christ's death, and that masses are those other
sacrifices. And the " pernicious impostiu-e " is the turning
this belief into a means of filthy lucre.

1. That the " blasphemous fable " is the teaching that
masses are sacrifices for sin distinct from the sacrifice of
Christ's death, is plain from the first sentence of the
Article. *' The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect
redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins
of the whole world, both original and actual. And there is
none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore
the sacrifice of masses, &c." It is observable too that the
heading of the Article runs, "Of the one oblation of
Christ finished upon the Cross," which interprets the
drift of the statement contained in it about masses.

Our Communion Service shows it also, in which the
prayer of consecration commences pointedly with a de-
claration, which has the force of a protest, that Christ
made on the cross " by His one oblation of Himself once
oflered, a. full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and
natiff action for the sins of the whole world."

And again in the offering of the sacrifice : " We entirely
desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept our
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseech-
ing Thee to grant that hy the merits and death of Thy Son
Jksus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 325

Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and
all other benefits of His passion."

But the popular charge still urged against the Roman
system as introducing in the Mass a second or rather
continually recurring atonement, is a sufficient illustra-
tion, without further quotations, of this part of the
Article."

2. That the " blasphemous and pernicious imposture "
is the turning the Mass into a gain is plain from such
passages as the following : —

" With what earnestness, with what vehement zeal, did oui*
Saviour Christ drive the buyers and sellers out of tlie temple of
God, and hurled down the tables of the chancers of money, and the
seats of the dove-sellers, and could not abide that a man should
carry a vessel through the temple. He told them, that they made
His Father's house a den of thieves, partly through their super-
stition, hypocrisy, false worship, false doctrine, and insatiable
covetousness, and partly through contempt, abusing that place
with walking and talking, with worldly matters, without all fear
of God, and due reverence to that place. What dens of thieves the
Churches of England have been made by the blasphemous buying
and st-lUng the most precious body and blood q/" Christ in the Mass,
as the world was made to believe, at dirges, at month's minds, at
trentalls, in abbeys and chantries, besides other horrible abuses,
(God's holy name be blessed for ever,) which we now see and under-
stand. All these abominations they that supply the room of Christ
have cleansed and purged the Churches of England of, taking away
all such fulsomeness and tilthiness, as through blind devotion and
ignorance hath crept into the Church these many hundred years."
— On repairing and keeping clean of Churches, pp. 229, 230. Place
and Time of Prayer, p. 293. Sacrament, pp. 377, 378. BulVs
Sermons, p. 10. Burnet, Article XXII., pp. 303, 304.

The truth of representations such as these cannot be
better shown than by extracting the following passage
from the Session 22 of the Council of Trent : —

3 [But we say that the charge is a calumny, and ask for proof.]

326 IIE.MAUKS ON CKiiTAIN TASSAGKS OF

"Whereas many things appear to have crept in heretofore,
whether by the fault of the times or by the neglect and wicked-
ness of men, foreign to the dignity of so great a sacrifice, in order
that it may regain its due honour and observance, to the glory of
God and the edification of His faithful people, the Holy Council
decrees, that the bishops, ordinaries of each place, diligently take
care and be bound, to forbid and put an end to all those things,
which either avarice, which is idolatry, or irreverence, which is
scarcely separable from impiety, or superstition, the pretence of
true piety, has introduced. And, to say much in a few words,
first of all, as to avarice, let them altogether forbid agreements,
and bargains oi payment of whatever kind, and whatever is givenfor
celebrating neio masses; moreover importunate and mean extortion,
rather than petition of alms, and such like practices, which border
on simoniacal sin, certainly on filthy lucre. . . . And let them
banish from the churches those musical performances, when with
the organ or with the chant anything lascivious or impure is
mingled ; also all secular practices, idle and therefore profane con-
versations, promeaadings, bustle, clamour ; so that the house of
God may truly seem and be called the house of prayer. Lastly,
lest any opening be given to superstition, let them forbid by edict
and punishments appointed, the priests to celebrate at any other
than the due hours, or to use rites or ceremonies and prayers in the
celebration of masses, other than those which have been approved
by the Church, and received on frequent and laudable use. And
let them altogetlier remove from the Church a set number oj^certain
masses and candles, which has proceeded rather from superstitious
observance than from true religion, and teach the people in what
consists, and from whom, above all, proceeds the so precious and
heavenly fruit of this most holy sacrifice. And let them admonish
the same people to come frequently to their parish Churches, at
least on Sundays and the greater feasts," &c.

On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article
before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor
against its being an offering for the quick and the dead
for the remission of sin ; but against its being viewed, on
the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the
Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy, and, on the
other, its being directed to the emolument of those to whom
it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in addition.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. • '627

§ 10. — Marriage of Clergy.

Article xxxii. — "Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not
commanded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single
life, or to abstain from marriage."

There is lite rally no subject for controversy in these
words, since even the most determined advocates of the
celibacy of the clergy admit their truth. Clerical celibacy, as
a duty, is grounded not on God's law, but on the Church's
rule, or on vow. No one, for instance, can question the
vehement zeal of St. Jerome in behalf of this observance,
yet he makes the following admission in his attack upon
Jovinian : —

" Jovinian says, ' Yon speak in vain, since the Apostle appointed
Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons, the husbands of one wife,
and having children.' But, as the Apostle says, that he has not a
precept concerning virgins, yet gives a counsel, as having received
mercy of the Lord, and urges throughout that discourse a preference
of virginity to marriage, and advises what he does not command,
lest he seem to cast a snare, and to impose a burden too great for
man's nature ; so also, in ecclesiastical order, seeing that an infant
Church was then forming out of the Gentiles, he gives the lighter
precepts to recent converts, lest they should fail under them through
fear." — Adv. Jovinian, i. 34.

And the Council of Trent merely lays down : —

" If any shall say that clerks in holy orders, or regulars, who
have solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and
that the contract is vaUd in spite of ecclesiastical law or vow, let
him be anathema." — Sess. 24, Can. 9.

Here the observance is placed simply upon rule of the
Church or upon vow, neither of which exists in the
English Church ; " there/ore," as the Article logically
proceeds, " it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian
men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge

328 REMARKS O^ CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

the same to serve better to godliness." Our Church
leaves the discretion, with the clergy ; and most persons
will allow that, under our circumstances, she acts wisely in
doing so. That she has power, did she so choose, to take
from thera this discretion, and to oblige them either to
marriage (as is said to be the case as regards the parish
priests of the Greek Church) or to celibacy, would seem
to be involved in the doctrine of the following extract
from the Homilies ; though, whether an enforcement
either of the one or the other rule would be expedient and
pious, is another matter. Speaking of fasting, the Homily
says,—

" God's Cbtircli ought not, neither may it be so tied to that or
any other order now made, or hereafter to be made and devised by
the authority of man, but that it may lawfully, for just causes,
alter, change, or mitigate those ecclesiastical decrees and orders,
yea, recede wholly from them, and break them, when they tend
either to superstition or to impiety ; when they draw the people from
God rather than work any edification in them. This authority
Christ Himself used, and left it to His Church. He used it, I
say, for the order or decree made by the elders for washing oft-
times, which was diligently observed of the Jews ; yet tending to
superstition, our Saviour Christ altered and changed the same in
His Church into a profitable sacrament, the sacrament of our re-
generation, or new birth. This authority to mitigate laws and de-
crees ecclesiastical, the Apostles practised, when they, writing from
Jerusalem unto the congregation that was at Antioch, signified uuto
them, that they would not lay any further burden upon them, but
these necessaries : that is, ' that they should abstain from things
offered unto idols, from blood, from that which is strangled, and
from fornication ;' notwithstanding that Moses's law required
many other observances. This authority to change the orders,
decrees, and constitutions of the Church, was, after the Apostles'
time, used of the fathers about the manner of fasting, as it ap-
peareth in the Tripartite History. . . Thus ye have heard, good
people, first, that Christian subjects are bound even in conscience
to obey princes' laws, which are not repugnant to the laws of God.
Ye have also heard that Christ's Church is not so bound to ob-
serve any order, law, or decree made by man, to prescribe a form in

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 329

I'eligion, bnt that the Church hath full power and authority from
God to change and alter the same, when need shall require ; which
hath been showed you by the example of our Saviour Christ, by
the practice of the Apostles, and of the Fathers since that time."
Somily on Fasting, p. 242 — 244.

To the same effect the Thirty-fourth Article declares,
that—

" It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies oe m all
places one, and utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers,
and may be changed according to diversities of countries, times,
and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's
Word. Whosoever, throvgh his private judgment, willingly and
purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the
Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be
ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked
openly."

330 BEMAKKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OP

§ 11. — The Homilies.

Article xxxv. — "The second Book of Homilies dotli
contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary
for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies."

This Article has been treated of in No. 82 of these
Tracts,^ in the course of an answer given to an opponent,
who accused its author of not fairly receiving the Homilies,
because he dissented from their doctrine, that the Bishop
of Rome is Antichrist, and that regeneration was vouch-
safed under the law. Some portions of the passage in the
Tract shall here be inserted.

" I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed the Homilies,
nor was it ever intended that any member of the English
Church should be subjected to what, if considered as an
extended confession, would indeed be a yoke of bondage.
Roman isn surely is innocent, compared with that system
which should impose upon the conscience a thick octavo
volume, written flowingly and freely by fallible men, to
be received exactly, sentence for sentence ; I cannot con-
ceive any grosser instance of a pharisaical tradition than
this would be, &c.

" How then are we bound to the Homilies ? By the
Thirty-fifth Article, which speuks as follows: — 'The
second Book of Homilies . . . doth contain a godly and
wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth
the former Book of Homilies* Now, observe, this Article
does not speak of every statement made in them, but of
the ' doctrine.' It speaks of the view or cast, or body of
doctrine contnined in them. In spite of ten thousand
incidental propositions, as in any large book, there is, it is

» [Vid. tupr. pp. 17 -185.]

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 331

obvious, a certain line of doctrine, which may be contem-
plated continuously in its shape and direction/'' &c. . . .
This illustration of the subject may be thought enough ;
yet it may be allowable to add from the Homilies a
number of propositions or statements of more or less
importance, which are too much forgotten at this day,
and are decidedly opposed to the views of certain schools
of religion, which at the present moment are so eager in
claiming the Homilies for themselves. This is not done,
as the extract already read will show, with the intention
of maintaining that they are one and all binding on the
conscience of those who subscribe the Thirty- fifth Article ;
but, since the strong language of the Homilies against the
Bishop of Rome is often quoted, as if it were thus proved
to be the doctrine of our Church, it may be as well to
show that, following the same rule, we shall be also
introducing Catholic doctrines, which indeed it far more
belongs to a Church to profess than a certain view of
prophecy, but which do not approve themselves to those
who hold that view. For instance, we read as follows : —

1. "The great clerk and godly preacher, St. John
Chrysostom." — I B. i. 1. And, in like manner, mention is
made elsewhere of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary,
St. Basil, St. Cyprian, St. Hierome, St. Martin, Origen,
Prosper, Ecumenius, Photius, Bernardus, Anselra, Didy-
mus, Theophylactus, TertuUian, Athanasius, Lactantius,
Cyrillus, Epiphanius, Gregory, Irenaeus, Clemens, Raba-
nus, Isidorus, Eusebius, Justinua Martyr, Optatus, Euse-
bius Emissenus, and Bede.

2. " Infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy,
are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins . . . and they
which in act or deed do sin after this baptism, when they
turn to God, unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this
Sacrifice," &c. — 1 B. iii. 1. iiiif.

3. "Our office is, not to pass the time of this present

332 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OP

life unfruil fully and idly, after that we are baptized or
Justified," &c. — 1 B. iii. 3.

4. " By holy promises, we be made lively members of
Christ, receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. By like
holy promises the sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man
and wife in perpetual love." — 1 B. vii. 1.

5. " Let us learn also here [in the Book of Wisdom] by
the infallible and undeceirable Word of God, that," &c. —

1 B. X. 1.

6. *' The due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood,
tinder the form of bread and wine." — Note at end o/Book i.

7. *• In the Primitive Church, tchich was most holy and
godly . . . open offenders were not suffered once to enter
into the house of the Lord . . . until they had done open
penance . . . but this was practised, not only upon mean
persons, but also upon the rich, noble, and mighty jjcrsons,
yea, upon Theodosius, that puissant and mighty Emperor,
whom . . St. Ambrose . . did . . excommunicate." —

2 B. i. 2.

8. " Open offenders were not . . admitted to common
prayer, and the use of the holy sacraments." — Ibid.

9. " Let us amend this our negligence and contempt in
coming to the house of the Lord; and resorting thither
diligently together, let us there . . . celebrating also re-
verently the Lord's holy sacraments, serve the Lord in
His holy house." — Ibid. 5.

10. " Contrary to the . . . most manifest doctrine of the
Scriptures, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive
Church, which was most pure and uncorrupt, and contrary
to the sentences and judgments of the most ancient, learned,
and godly doctors of the Church."— 2 B. ii. 1. init.

11. '* This truth . . . was believed and taught by the
old holy fathers, and mostancient learned doctors, oxid received
by the old Primitive Church, which was most uncorrupt and
pure.'* — 2 B. ii. 2. init.

THE THIKTY-NINE ARTICLES. 333

12. " Athanasius, a very ancient^ holy, and learned
bishop and doctor." — Ibid.

13. "Cyrillus, an old and holy doctor." — Ibid.

14. " Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamine, in Cyprus, a very
holy and learned man." — Ibid.

15. "To whose (Epiphanius's) judgment you hare . . .
all the learned and godly bishops and clerks, yea, and the
whole Church of that age " [the Nicene] " and so upward
to our Saviour Christ's time, by the space of about four
hundred years, consenting and agreeing.'^ — Ibid.

16. " Epiphanius, a bishop and doctor of such antiquity,
holiness, and authority." — Ibid.

17. " St. Augustin, the best learned of all ancient doc-
tors."—ii?flf.

18. " That ye may know why and when, and by whom
images were first used privately, and afterwards not only
received into Christian churches and temples, but, in con-
clusion, worshipped also ; and how the same was gainsaid,
resisted and forbidden, as well by godly bishops and learned
doctors, as also by sundry Christian princes, I v/ill briefly
collect," &c. The bishops and doctors which follow are :
" St. Jerome, Serenus, Gregory, the Fathers of the Coun-
cil of Eliberis."

19. " Constantino, Bishop of Rome, assembled a Council
of bishops of the West, and did condemn Philippicus, the
Emperor, and John, Bishop of Constantinople, oithe heresy
of the Monothelites, not without a cause indeed, but very
justly." — Ibid.

20. '* Those six Councils, which were allowed and received
of all men." — Ibid.

21. "There were no images publicly by the space of
almost seven hundred years. And there is no doubt but the
Primitive Church, next the Apostles' times, was most
pure." — Ibid.

22. " Let us beseech God that we, being warned by His

334 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

holy Word . . . and by the writings of old godly dodoi
and ecclesiastical histories/' &c. — Ibid.

23. " It sliall be declared, both by God's Word, and the
sentences of the ancient doctors, and judgment of the
Primitive Church," &c.— 2 B. ii. 3.

24. " Saints, whose soxAs reign in joy with God." — Ibid.

25. " That the law of God is likewise to be understood
against all our images . . . appeareth further by the
judgment of the old doctors and the Primitive Church." —
Ibid.

26. " The Primitive Church, which is specially to he
followed, as most incorrupt and pure." — Ibid.

27. " Thus it is declared by God's Word, the sentences
of the doctors, and the judgment of the Primitive Church."
—Ibid.

28. " The rude people, who specially as the Scripture
teacheth, are in danger of superstition and idolatry ; viz.
Wisdom xiii. xiv." — Ibid.

29. " They [the * learned and holy bishops and doctors
of the Church' of the eight first centuries] were the
preaching bishops. . . . And as they were most zealous
and diligent, so were they of excellent learning and godli-
ness of life, and by both of great authority and credit with
the people." — Ibid.

30. " The most virtuous and best learned, the most dili-
gent also, and in number almost infinite, ancient fathers,
bishops, and doctors . . . could do nothing against images
and idolatry." — Ibid.

31. "As the Word of God testifieth, Wisdom xiv."—
Ibid

32. " The saints, now reigning in heaven with God." —
Ibid.

33. *' The fountain of our regeneration is there [in God's
house] presented unto us." — 2 B. iii.

36. " Somewhat shall now be spok3n of one particular

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 335

good work, whose commendation is both in the law and in
the Gospel [fasting]/'— 2 B. iv. 1.

37. " If any man shall say ... we are not now under
the yoke of the law, we are set at liberty by the freedom
of the Gospel ; therefore these rites and customs of the
old law biad not us, except it can be showed by the
Scriptures of the New Testament, or by examples out of
the same, that fasting, now under the Gospel, is ^restraint
of meat, drink, and all bodily food and pleasures from the
body, as before : first, that we ought to fast, is a truth more
manifest, than it should here need to he proved. . . . Fasting,
even by Christ's assent, is a withholding meat, drink,
and all natural food from the body,'' &c. — Ibid.

38. "That it [fasting] was used in the Primitive
Church, appeareth most evidently by the Chalcedon
Council, one of i\ie four first general councils. The fathers
assembled there . . . decreed in that council that every
person, as well in his private as public fast, should con-
tinue all the day without meat and drink, till after the
evening prayer. . . This Canon teacheth how fasting was
used in the Primitive Church." — Ibid. [This Council was
A.D. 451.]

39. " Fasting then, by the decree of those 630 fathers,
grounding their determinations in this matter upon the
sacred Scriptures ... is a withholding of meat, drink,
and all natural food from the body, from the determined
time of fasting." — Ibid.

40. " The order or decree made by the elders for wash-
ing ofttimes, tending to superstition, our Saviour Christ
altered and changed the same in His Church, into a pro-
fitable sacrament, the sacrament of our regeneration or neio
birth."— 2 B. iv. 2.

41. "Fasting thus used with prayer is oi great efficacy
and weigheth much with God, so the angel Raphael told
Tobias."— /6?Vf.

336 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

42. " As he " [St. Augustine] " witnesseth in another
place, the martyrs and holy men in times past, were wont
after their death to be remembered and named of the priest
at divine service; but never to be invocated or called
upon/'— 2 B. vii. 2.

43. " Thus you see that the authority both of Scripture
and also of Augustine, doth not permit that we should pray
to them.'' — Ibid.

44. " To temples have the Christians customably used to
resort from time to time as to most meet places, where they
might . . . receive His holy sacraments ministered unto
them duly and purely." — 2 B. viii. 1.

45. " The which thing both Christ and His apostles,
with all the rest of the holy fathers, do sufficiently declare
sor—Ibid.

46. " Our godly predecessors, and the ancient fathers of
the Primitive Church, spared not their goods to build
Churches." — Ibid.

" If we will show ourselves true Christians, if we will
be followers of Christ our Master, and of those godly
fathers who have lived before us, and now have received
the reward of true and faithful Christians," &c. — Ibid.

48. " We must . . . come unto the material churches
and temples to pray . . . whereby we may reconcile our-
selves to God, be partakers of His holy sacraments, and be
devout hearers of His holy Word," &c. — Ibid.

49. '' It [ordination] lacks the promise of remission of
sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named
do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be
such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are." —
2 Ilom. ix.

50. " Thus we are taught, both by the Scriptures and
ancient doctors, that," &c. — Ibid.

51. " The holy apostles and disciples of Christ . . . the
godly fathers also, that were both before and since Christ,

THE THIKTY-^"I^E AlllICLES. 66 i

endued tcilhout doubt with the Holy Ghost, . . . they both
do most earnestly exhort us, &c. . . that we should re-
member the poor . . St. Paul crieth unto us after this
sort . . Isaiah the Prophet teacheth us on this wise . .
And the holy father Tohit giveth this counsel. And tJie
learned and godly doctor Chrysosfom giveth this admonition.
. . But what mean these often admonitions and earnest
exhortations of the prophets, apostles, fathers, and holy
doctors?''— 2 B. xi. 1.

52. " The holy fathers, Job and Tohit."— Ibid.

53. " Christ, whose especial /oro?//* we may be assured
by this means to obtain," [viz. by almsgiving] — 2 B. xi. 2.

54. " Now will I . . . show unto you how profitahle it
is for us to exercise them [alms-deeds] . . . [Christ's
saying] serveth to . . . prick us forwards ... to learn . . .
hoto we may recover our health, if it be lost or impaired,
and how it may be defended and maintained if we have it.
Yea, He teaclieth us also therefore to esteem that as a
precious medicine and an inestimable jewel, that hath such
strength and virtue \w it, that can either ja/'ocwr^ or preserve
so incomparable a treasure." — Ibid.

55. ''Then He and His disciples were grievously accused
of the Pharisees, . . . because they went to meat and
washed not their hands before, . . . Christ, answering
their superstitious complaint, teaching them an especial
retnedy how to keep clean their souls, . . . Give alms," &c.
—Ibid.

5G. " Merciful alms-dealing is profitable iopurgc the soul
from the infection and filthy spots of sin." — Ibid.

57. " The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in
sundry places of the Scripture, saying, ' Mercifulness and
alms-giving,' &c. [Tobit iv.] . . . The wise preacher, the
son of Sirach, conHrmeth the same, when he says, that *as
water quencheth burning fire,' " &c. — Ibid.

58. " A great confidence may they have be/ore the high
VOL. n. z

.*338 llEMAUKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

God, that show mercy and compassion to them that are
afflicted."— J6/d

59. "If ye have by any infirmity or weakness been
touched and annoyed with them . . . straightway shall
mercifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and remedies
to heal their sores and grievous diseases." — Ibid.

60. *^And therefore that holy father Cyprian admonisheth
to consider how wholesome and profitable it is to relieve the
needy, &c. ... by the which we may purge our sins and
heal our tvounded souls." — Ibid.

61. " We be therefore washed in our baptism from the
filthiness of sin, that we should live afterwards in the pure-
ness of life.^' — 2 B. xiii. 1.

62. " By these means [by love, compassion, &c.] shall
we move God to be merciful to our sins." — Ibid.

63. " 'He was dead,' saith St. Paul, 'for our sins, and
rose again for onr Justification* ... He died to destroy the
rule of the devil in us, and He rose again to send down
His Holy Spirit to rule in our hearts, to endue us with
jjerfect righteousness." — 2 B. xiv.

64. "The ancient Catholic fathers," (in marg.) Irenaeus,
Ignatius, Dionysius, Origen, Optatus, Cyprian, Athanasius,
. . . . " were not afraid to call this supper, some of them,
the salve of immortality and sovereign preservative against
death ; other, the sweet dainties of our Saviour, the pledge
of eternal health, the defence of faith, the hope of the
resurrection ; other, i\ie food of immortality, the healthful
grace, and the conservatory to everlasting life.'' — 2B.xv. 1.

65. " The meat we seek in this supper is spiritual food,
the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly refection, and not
earthly ; an invisible meat, and not bodily ; a ghostly sub-
stance, and not carnal." — Ibid.-

66. "Take this lesson . . . of Emissenus, a godly father
that .... thou look up with faith upon the holy body and
blood of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLE. 339

with thy mind, thou receive it with the hand of thy heart,
and thou take it fully with thy inward man/^ — Ibid.

67. "The saying of the holy martyr of God, St.
Cyprian."— 2 B. xx. 3.

Thus we see the authority of the Fathers, of the six
first councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally,
the holiness of the Primitive Church, the inspiration of the
Apocrypha, the sacramental character of Marriage and
other ordinances, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the
Churches power of excommunicating kings, the profitable-
ness of fasting, the propitiatory virtue of good works, the
Eucharistic commemoration, and justification by inherent
righteousness, are taught in the Homilies. Let it be said
again, it is not here asserted that a subscription to all and
every of these quotations is involved in the subscription of
an Article which does but generally approve the Ilomilies ;
but they who insist so strongly on our Church's holding
that the Bishop of Pome is Antichrist because the Homilies
declare it, should recollect that there are other doctrines
contained in them beside it, which they should be under-
stood to hold, before their argument has the force of con-
sistency.

z 2

340 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

§ 12.— The Bishop of Rome.

Article xxxviii. — " The Bishop of Rome hath no juris-
diction in this realm of England."

By " hath " is meant " ought to have," as the Article
in the 36th Canon and the Oath of Supremacy show, in
which the same doctrine is drawn out more at length.
" No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate,
hath, or ought io have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within
this realm.''

This is the profession which every one must in consis-
tency make, who does not join the Roman Church. If the
Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction and authority here, why
do we not acknowledge it, and submit to him ? To use
then the above wprds, is nothing more or less than to say
" I am not a Roman Catholic ;" and whatever reasons
there are against using them, are so far reasons against
remaining in the English Church. They are a mere
enunciation of the principle of Anglicanism.

Anglicans maintain that the supremacy of the Pope is
not directly from revelation, but an event in Providence.
All things may be undone by the agents and causes by
which they are done. What revelation gives, revelation
takes away ; what Providence gives. Providence takes
away. God ordained by miracle. He reversed by miracle
the Jewish election ; He promoted in the way of Provi
dence, and He cast down by the same way, the Roman
empire. "The powers that be, are ordained of God,'
while they be, and thereby have a claim on our obedience
When they cease to be, they cease to have a claim
They cease to be, when God removes them. He may
be considered to remove them when He undoes what

TIIK THIKI'Y-KINE ARTICLES. 341

He had done. The Jewish election did not cease to be,
when the Jews went into captivity : this was an event in
Providence ; and what miracle had ordained, it was miracle
that annulled. But the Roman power ceased to be when
the barbarians overthrew it ; for it rose by the sword, and
it therefore perished by the sword. The Gospel Ministry
began in Christ and His Apostles ; and what they began
they only can end. The Papacy began in the exertions
and passions of man ; and what man can make, man can
destroy. Its jurisdiction, while it lasted, was *' ordained
of God ;" when it ceased to be, it ceased to claim our
obedience ; and it ceased to be at the Reformation. The
Reformers, who could not destroy a Ministry, which the
Apostles began, could destroy a Dominion which the Popes
founded.

Perhaps the following passage will throw additionallight
upon this point : —

'' The Anglican view of the Church has ever been this :
that its portions need not otherwise have been united
together for their essential completeness, than as being
descended from one original. They are like a number of

colonies sent out from a mother-country Each

Church is independent of all the rest, and is to act on the
principle of what may be called Episcopal independence,
except, indeed, so far as the civil power unites any number
of them together Each diocese is a perfect indepen-
dent Church, is sufficient for itself ; and the communion
of Christians one with another, and the unity of them
altogether, lie, not in a mutual understanding, intercourse,
and combination, not in what they do in common, but in
what they are and have in common, in their possession of
the Succession, their Episcopal form, their Apostolical
faith, and the use of the Sacraments Mutual inter-
course is but an accident of the Church, not of its essence.
.... Intercommunion is a duty, as other duties, but is

'342 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

not the tenure of instrument of the communion between
the unseen world and this ; and much more the confederacy
of sees and churches, the metropolitan, patriarchal, and
papal systems, are matters of expedience or of natural duty
from long custom, or of propriety from gratitude and
reverence, or of necessity from voluntary oaths and en-
gagements, or of ecclesiastical force from the canons of
Councils, but not necessary in order to the conveyance of
grace, or for fulfilment of the ceremonial law, as it may be
called, of unity. Bishop is superior to bishop only in rauk,
not in real power ; and the Bishop of Rome, the head of
the Catholic world, is not the centre of unity, except as
having a primacy of order. Accordingly, even granting,
for argument's sake, that the English Church violated a
duty in the 16th century, in releasing itself from the
Roman supremacy, still it did not thereby commit that
special sin, which cuts off from it the fountains of grace,
and is called schism. It was essentially complete without
Rome, and naturally independent of it ; it had, in the
course of years, whether by usurpation or not, come under
the supremacy of Rome ; and now, whether by rebellion
or not, it is free from it : and as it did not enter into the
Church invisible by joining Rome, so it was not cast out of
it by breaking from Rome. These were accidents in its
history, involving, indeed, sin in individuals, but not
affecting the Church as a Church.

" Accordingly, the Oath of Supremacy declares ' that no
foreign prelate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction,
power, pre-eminence, or authority within this realm.* In
other words, there is nothing in the Apostolic system
which gives an authority to the Pope over the Church, such
as it does not give to a Bishop. It is altogether an
ecclesiastical arrangement; not a point de fide, but of ex-
pedience, custom, or pietj^ which cannot be claimed as if
the Pope ought to have it, any more than, on the other

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 343

hand, the King could of Divine right claim the supremacy ;
the claim of both one and the other resting, not on duty of
revelation, but on specific engagement. We find ourselves,
as a Church, under the King now, and we obey him; we were
under the Pope formerly, and we obeyed him. ' Ought *
does not, in any degree, come into the question." ^

» British Critic, Jan. 1840, pp. 54—58 : [Essays, vol. ii. ix. 4.]

344 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

Conclusion.

One remark may be made in conclusion. It may be
objected that the tenor of the above explanations is anti-
Protestant, whereas it is notorious that the Articles were
drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establish-
ment of Protestantism ; accordingly, that it is an evasion
of their meaning to give them any other than a Protestant
drift, possible as it may be to do so grammatically, or in
each separate part.

But the answer is simple : —

1. In the first place, it is a duiy which we owe both to
the Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed
confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit ; we
have no duties towards their framers. Nor do we receive
the Articles from their original framers, but from several
successive Convocations after their time; in the last in-
stance, from that of 1662.

2. In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we
bring them into harmony with the Book of Common
Prayer, an object of the most serious moment for those
who have given their assent to both formularies.

3. Whatever be the authority of the Declaration prefixed
to the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, it sanc-
tions the mode of interpreting them above given. For its
enjoining the " literal and grammatical sense,'^ relieves us
from the necessity of making the known opinions of their
framers, a comment upon their text ; and its forbidding
any person to " affix any neic sense to any Article," was
promulgated at a time when the leading men of our
Church were especially noted for those Catholic views
which have been here advocated.

4. It may be remarked, moreover, that such an interpre-
tation is in accordance with the well-known general leaning

THE TIIIRTY-XINE ARTICLES. 345

of Melanchthon, from whose writings our Articles are
principally drawn, and whose Catholic tendencies gained
for him that same reproach of popery, which has ever been
80 freely bestowed upon members of our own reformed
Church.

" Melanchtlion. was of opinion," says Moslieim, " that for the sake
of peace and concord many things might be given np and tolerated in
the Church of Rome, which Luther considered could by no means be
endured. ... In the class of matters indifferent, this great man and
his associates placed many things which had appeared of the highest
importance to Luther, and could not of consequence be considered as
indifferent by his trae disciples. For he regarded as such, the doc-
trine of justification by faith alone ; the necessity of good works to
eternal salvation ; the number of the sacraments ; the jurisdiction
claimed by the Pope and the Bishops ; extreme unction ; the ob-
servation of cei'tain religious festivals, and several superstitious
rites and ceremonies." — Cent. XVI. § 3. part 2. 27, 28.

5, Further : the Articles are evidently framed on the
principle of leaving open large questions, on which the
controversy hinges. They state broadly extreme truths,
and are silent about their adjustment. For instance, they
say that all necessary faith must be proved from Scripture,
but do not say irho is to prove it. They say that the
Church has authority in controversies, they do not say
what authority. They say that it may enforce nothing
beyond Scripture, but do not say where the remedy lies
when it does. They say that works before grace anf/ justi-
fication are worthless and worse, and that works after grace
«wo? justification are acceptable, but they do not speak at
all of works ivith God's grace, before justification. They say
that men are lawfully called and sent to minister and preach
whoarechosen and called by men who have public authority
given them in the congregation to call and send ; but they
do not add by whom the authoritj^ is to be given. They say
that Councils called by princes may err ; they do not deter-
mine whether Councils called in the name of Christ will err.

346 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

6. The variety of doctrinal views contained in the Homi-
lies, as above shown, views which cannot be brought under
Protestantism itself, in its greatest comprehension of
opinions, is an additional proof, considering the connexion
of the Articles with the Homilies, that the Articles are not
framed on the principle of excluding those who prefer the
theology of the early ages to that of the Reformation ; or
rather let it be considered whether, considering both Homi-
lies and Articles appeal to the Fathers and Catholic Anti-
quity, in interpreting them by these witnesses, we are not
going to the very authority to which they profess to submit.

7. Lastl}', their framers constructed them in such a way
as best to compreliend those who did not go so far in
Protestantism as tliemselves. Anglo-Catholics then are
but the successors and representatives of those moderate
reformers; and their case has been directly anticipated in
the wording of the Articles. It follows that they are not
perverting, they are using them for an express purpose
for which among others their authors framed them. The
interpretation Anglo-Catholics take was intended to be ad-
missible ; though not that which those authors took them-
selves. Had it not been provided for, possibly the Articles
never would have been accepted by our Church at all. If,
then, their framers have gained their side of the compact in
effecting the reception of the Articles,let Catholics have theirs
too in retaining their own Catholic interpretation of them.

An illustration of this occurs in the history of the 28th
Article. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign a para-
graph formed part of it, much like that which is now
appended to the Communion Service, but in which the
Real Presence was denied in words. It was adopted by the
clergy at the first Convocation, but not published. Burnet
observes on it thus : —

" When these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation
in Queen Elizabeth's reign, this paragraph was made a part of

THE TIIIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 347

them ; for tlie original subscription by bott houses of Convocation,
yet extant, shows this. But the design of the government vrnn at
that time much turned to the drawing over the body of the nation to
the Reformation, in whom the old leaven had gone deep ; and no
part of it deeper than the belief of the corporeal presence of Christ
in the Sacrament ; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend
them by so particular a definition in this matter ; in which the
very word Real Presence was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also
suggested, that here a definition wcs made that went too much
upon the principles of natm-al philosophy ; which how true soever,
they might not be the proper subject of an article of religion.
Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this paragraph ; though
it was a part of the Article that was subscribed, yet it was not
published, but the paragraph that follows, ' The Body of Christ,'
&c., was put in its stead, and was received and published by the
next Convocation ; which upon the matter was a full explanation
of the way of Christ's presence in this Sacrament ; that ' He is
present in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the
mean by which he is received.' This seemed to be more theological ;
and it does indeed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we
see what was the sense of the first Convocation in Queen Eliza-
beth's reign ; it differed in nothing from that in King Edward's
time : and therefore though this paragraph is now no part of our
Articles, yet we are certain that the clergy at that time did not at
all doubt of the truth of it ; we are sure it was their opinion ; since
they subscribed it, though they did not thinJcfit to publish it at
first ; and though it was afterwards changed for another, that was
the same in sense." — Burnet on Article XXVIIL, p. 416.

What has lately taken place in the political world will
afford an illustration in point. A French minister, desirous
of war, nevertheless, as a matter of policy, draws up his
state papers in such moderate language, that his successor
who is for peace, can act up to them, without compromising
his own principles. The world, observing this, has con-
sidered it a circumstance for congratulation ; as if the
former minister, who acted a double part, had been caught
in his own snare. It is neither decorous, nor necessary,
nor altogether fair, to urge the parallel rigidly ; but it will
explain what it is here meant to convey. The Protestant

348 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES Ol''

Confession was drawn up with the purpose of including
Catholics; and Catholics now will not be excluded. What
was an economy in the Reformers, is a protection to us.
What would have been a perplexity to us then, is a per-
plexity to Protestants now. We could not then have
found fault with their words ; they cannot now repudiate
our meaning.

Oxford.
The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.
1841.

THE TlilRlY-MXE ARTICLES. 3i9

NOTB 1 ON Section 6, p. 294 of the above Tract.

[May 26, 1877. — Section 6th of tlie above Tract, on its first publication
was selected as an object for the remonstrance of Four College Tutors,
which will be found infra, p. 359, and towards which I feel very much as I
did when I first read it.

The Tutors speak of the " painful character of the impression " which
" the contents of the Tract had produced on their minds/' inasmuch as "it
has to their apprehension a highly dangerous tendency from its suggesting
that certain very important errors are not condemned by the Articles of
the Church of England as they are taught authoritatively by the Church
of Rome, but only certain practices and opinions which intelligent Romanists
repudiate as much as we do."

The best answer to this representation is, that (in 1868) at the end of
twenty-seven years, the lamented Dr. Forbes, the Anglican Bishop of
Brechin, was suffered to repeat the very same statements without protest,
which were considered so disingenuous and disgraceful in Tract 90. Prseva-
lebit Veritas. It may be interesting to place his statements and those of
the Tract in juxtaposition.

1. •' The Romish doctrine :" —

The Tract. — " By the Romish doctrine is not meant the Tridentine,
because this Article was drawn up before the Decree of the Council of
Trent," supr. p. 287.

Dr. Forbes. — " The qnestions of Purgatory and Pardons were not dis-
cussed [in the Tridentine Council] for many months after the publication
of the Article . . . and we must come to the conviction that it was not the
formularized doctrine, but a current and corrupt practice in the Latin or
Western Church, which is here declared to be 'fond' and 'vainly' invented.'"
— On the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 302.

2. Purgatory : —

The Tract. — "There was a primitive doctrine, concerning the fire of
judgment . . . through which all men will pass. . . . Here is one purgatorial
doctrine, not ' Romish.' Another, said to be maintained by the Greeks at
Florence, in which the cleansing, though a punishment, was but pcena
damni, not a poena sensus. . . . And another is that in which the cleansing
is but progressive sanctification, and has no pain at all. None of these
doctrines does the Article condemn." — pp. 288-9.

Dr. Forbes. — " There are . . . two sets of statements, both founded on
Holy Scripture. The one, . . St. Paul's description of that fire which shall
try every man's work . . . the other, our Blessed Lord's words of that prison
into which they who shall be cast shall not come forth, till they have paid

350 REMARKS OM CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

the uttermost farthing, ... (p. 328). "While our Church has justly
stigmatized popular practices which had become gainful supci-stitions, she
has not coudemned eitlier the devotions of the Primitive Cimrch, or the
deep truths on which those devotions are grounded. . . . With regard to
the imperfect Christian ... we may rejoice in the thought that, . . . through
the fire of suffering and the water of affliction, [God] is bringing him into
a wealthy place." — p. 346.

3. Pardons : —

The Tract. — " The Pardons, spoken of in the Article, are large and
reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on monjy payments,"
p. 293.

Dr. Forbes. — " It was the shameless traffic in indulgences which burst
the barrier, &c. ... A doctrine, which had its roots in primitive Antiquity
was preached in a way to destroy all Christian morality. ... To call this
a ' fond thing,' &c, , is a mild censure," p. 352. ** When the Articles were
promulgated, they were all in their abomination. . . . The Council of Trent,
while it maintained the practice as being the exercise of a power given to
the Church by God, arid used in the most ancient times also, set itself to
check the abuses which it acknowledged." — p. 356.

4. Imiijjfes :—

The Tract. — " The veneration and worship condemned . . . are such as
these ; kneeling before images, lighting candles to them, offering them
incense, going on pilgrimage to them, hanging up crutches, &c., before
them, lying tales about them, belief in miracles . • . decking them up
immodestly," &c., &c. — p. 296.

Dr. Forbes. — " There is always a danger of religion among the unlettered
becoming superstitious. ... As a matter of fact, a cidtus of images had
grown up which required to be checked and all its coarser manifestations
to be condemned," p. 361. " Of the having images or pictures nothing ia
said in the Article, only of worshipping them," p. 367. " The Homilies
illustrate what it was, in regard to the veneration or worship of images,
which the framcrs of the Articles had before their eyes. The Council of
Trent reformed in the direction which our writers wished." — p. 369.

5. Relics : —

The Tract. — " In some sentences in the Homily on Peril of Idolatry,
... as far as regards Relics, a certain veneration is sanctioned by its tone
in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish veneration." —
p. 286.

Dr. Forbes. — " People kiss the picture or some relic of one whom they
deeply love, as if it were the person," p. 369. " The principle that lay at
the bottom of the sentiment was not in itself vicious, and had early esta-
blished itself in the Church," p. 370. " The coarse attack of the innkeeper
Vigilantius was not of a nature to gain him followers, or to disturb the
tide of pious feeling," p. 373. " But where will not the idolatry of gain
creep in ? Even St. Augustine had to complain of the sale of relics, pro-

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 351

bably fictitious. . . . The Article relates, not to the reverence of the relics
. . . but to ' superstitious in their veneration,' which the Council of Trent
had to forbid."-p. 376.

6. Images : —

The Tract. — " By * invocation,' here, is not meant the mere circumstance
of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms in our Daily
Service, which are frequent in invocations of Angels to praise and bless
God. In the Benedicite, too, we address ' the spirits and souls of the
righteous.* Nor is it a ' fond ' invocation to pray that unseen beiugs may
bless us, for this Bishop Ken does in his Evening Hymn," p. 297. " This
last passage plainly tells us . . . what is meant by invocation in its excep-
tionable sense . . . sacrificing and falling down in worship." — p. 299.

Dr. Forbes. — " In principle there is no questiou herein between us and
any other portion of the Catholic Church. . . . Prayer to the Saints in
heaven is explained again and again to be the same in kind as the prayers
to the Saints on earth. . . . Had this been all, the Article never could have
been written. . . . The Church of Rome has not stated the practice to be
necessai-y to salvation, nor required it of any, so that he deny not that, as
above explained, it is in itself good and useful. . . . We shall be disposed to
accept the conclusion of a pious divine. . . . Let not that most ancient
custom, common in the Universal Church, as well Greek as Latin, of
addressing Angels and Saints in the way we have said, be condemned or
rejected as impious, or as vain and foolish," &c. — p. 422.]

Note 2 on Section 9, p. 323 of the above Tract.

[June 14, 1883. — The reasoning in this Section is not satisfactory. The
Tract, as a whole, I have been able to defend, but not this portion of it. It
argues that what the Article condemns is not the authoritative teaching of
Home, but only the common belief and practice of Catholics, as regards
Purgatory and private Masses. But the words in which the Article con-
demns the so-called abuse are ipso facto a condemnation also of the ordinance
itself which is abused. This will be seen at once by comparing the lan-
guage of the Article with the language of Pope Pius IV. and the Council
of Trent. What the Article abjures as a lie, is just that which Pope and
Council declare to be a divine truth. The Pope says in his Creed, " I
profess that in the Mass there is oifii'ed to God a true, proper, and propi-
tiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead." And the Cauucil, " In this
divine sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, that same Christ is
contained and immolated bloodlessly who did once offer Himself in blood."
" And it is offered not only for the sins, pains, &c., of the living, but for the
dead in Christ," &c. . . . On the other hand, the Article says " The sacri-

352 REMARKS OX CERTAIN PASSAGES OF

fices of Masses in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer
Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." There is no denying then
that these audacious words apply to the doctrinal teaching as well as to
the popular belief of Catholics. What was " commonly mhl," was also
formally enunciated by the Ecumenical Hierarchy in Council assembled.

This distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pf)pular being
untenable here, nothing ciin come of the suggested distinction between Mass
and Masses, as if " the Mass " was the aboriginal divine Rite, which the
Article left alone, and " the Masses " were those private superstitions
which the Article denounced. However, this suggestion in aid is as un-
founded as the original thesis. " Mass " and " Masses " do but respectively
denote abstract and concrete, as can easily be shown.

Thus, in the Rubrics of the Missal we find "de Missis votivis S. Maria"
followed by "dicitur Missa de S. Maria;" and " Vigiliis qiiando Missa
dicenda est," by " Vigilias quse habent Missas proprias," and " Benedictio
semper data in Missa, pra>terquam in Missis defnnctorum." Moreover the
Council of Trent has distinctly sanctioned private Masses, on which it is
attempted to throw the foul language of the Article, in these words : " Nee
Missas illas, in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter coramunicat, ut
privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat, Sacrosaneta Synodus."

What then the 31st Article repudiates is undeniably the central and
most sacred doctrine of the Catholic Religion ; and so its wording has ever
been read since it was drawn up. And conformable to it has been the doc-
trine of Auglican divines, even of those who hold that there was a sacrifice
in the Eucharist. They might not like the outrageous language of the
Article, but, as far as I know and believe, none of these have maintained
with the Church that Christ is really offered up in sacrifice in the Eucha>
ristic Rite. As this appears lately to have been questioned, 1 think it well
here to enlarge upon it.

1. The Tracts of the Times are no exception to their rule. Dr. Pusey
is considered to be the author of Tnic 81, an what<ver he may have
bold at a later date, which I do not know, his antagonism in it to the
Catholic dogma is unequivocal. He distinctly denies that our Lord is
literally offered up in the Mass. According to him the real Presence lies,
not in the oblation but in the communion. He recognizes this distinction
as constituting the cardinal difference between the Roman and the Anglican
belief. lu the Introduction to the Tract he says, p. 13, " The fulie doc-
trine was that ordinary persuasion, that in the Mass the Priest did offer
Christ for the quick and dead." And this " false doctrine " was fo.inded,
he saj's, on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so much so that, when there
was no Transubstantiation, there was no real and literal oU'ering of Christ;
for he says, p. 7, " By combining the doctrine of Transubstantiation with
that of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, the laity were persuaded thiit not only
a commemorative Sacrifice but that Christ was olfered." Accordingly at

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 353

p. 47 lie puts into capital letters these word?, " The doctrine of the Sacrifice
cannot be the same where Transubstantiation is held and where it is not."
This, I suppose, was my own view also ; and it explains a passage in my
Apologia in which I say, " I claimed " [as an Anglican] " in behalf of who
would, the right of holding the Mass all but Transubstantiation, with
Andrewes ;" but without Transubstantiation, says Dr. Pusey, Christ was not
literally oft'ered.

The process then of sacrificing, that is, of offering and of communicating
according to the Tractarian doctrine was this : The first solemn act was
oblation, the formal oblation of Bread and Wine in their proper nature ;
thus the material elements went up to God, This was a human act ; the
second was divine, it was the return of the elements from the Heavenly
Throne for communion, permeated and laden with Divine Grace so abundant
and special, that it was, or at least might be truly called, the Very Body
and Blood of the Redeemer, and His Personal Presence ; but fi-om first
to last there was no real offering up of Christ, because there was no Tran-
substantiation. He was really present, but as our spiritual food, and as
the Lamb that had been offered once, but not as then being ofiered ; not as
the Lamb of the Mass.

This is the categorical teaching of the Tracts. " The early Christians,"
says Dr. Pusey, p. 5, 6, "presented to the Almighty Father the symbols and
memorials of the meritorious Death and Passion, &c., . . . \h&y first offered
to God His gifts, and placed them on His Altar here . . . and then
trusted to receive them back, conveying to them the life-giving Botly and
Blood."

According then to Tract 81, there was no Christ present in the Eucharist
till after the offering, oblation, or sacrifice, which sacrifice consisted in
bread and wine in their natural substances; and thus there was not even
the slightest approximation to that doctrine of Christ offered in the Mass
for the quick and dead, which was condemned in the 31st Article.

2. The party of Non-jurors and others at the end of the 17th century
arc considered to have followed the doctrine of the early Church more closely
than other Anglicans ; but they, as to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,
though they sometimes used moi'e emphatic words, did not rise much higher
in doctrine than the Tractarians. The latter held that in the Eucharistic
Rite there was an oblation of Bread and Wine, which was representative and
commemorative of the sacrifice of our Lord's Body and Blood upon the
Cross. And the Non-jurors too held that there was no literal offering
of our Lord in the Eucharist, as on the Cross; the rite indeed was more
than a type and symbol of that sacrifice; but not more than a commemo-
ration and a pleading of it ; still, though in its nature merely Bread and
Wine, it was endued with the power of a propitiatory and expiatory
Sacrifice.

Johnson, who, though not a Non-juror himself, was of their school, writes
as follows : —

VOL. II. A a

354 REMARKS ON CEUTAIN PASSAGES OF

" If the Holy Enchnrist, as it is nn obliition of Bread and Winp, and a.»
that Bread and Wine are types and symbols of Christ's death, do not
expiate and atone for sin, yet ... it does this as it is a full and perfect
representation of the sacrifice of Christ's HoJy and Bio .d. . . . I rather
choose the word " representation " as being known to denote in our language
not only that which resembles and puts us in mind of something else, but
what is deputed or substituted in the stead of another, and is to us what
the principal tcotdd be, ij" it were present. They are instituted by Christ,
not only to call Him and His sufferings to remembrance, but to be to us all
that His natural Body and Blood, crucified and poured out for us, could be
if we had them actually lying on our altars. . . . When St. Panl says that
ignorant and profane communicants " do not discern the Lord's body " iu
the holy Eucharist, he surely takes it for granted that the Body and Blood
are actually * there, whether they discern it or not. . . . Such a represen-
tation we now see of that which God " set in the clouds," in the time of
Noah ... so, though the evangelical Covenant was effectually confirmed
by Ciirist's death on the Cross, yet God has thought fit, for the sui^portiug
our faith and hope, to have the representative Sacrifice of His Body and
Blood often repeated, and the Gospel Covenant by this means renewed. . .. .
I have alreadtf declared against the Personal Presence or Sacrifice of
Christ in the Kucharisticnl element'?. Nor do I suppose that the Bread
and Wine represent His Whole Person, as He is God and man, but only
His sacrificed Body and His effused Blood. . . . Since they are represen-
tatives of the only truly propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice of the Cross, I
suppose it clearly follows that they also are a propitiatory and expiatory
sacrifice. . . . The Bread and Wine are divinely authorized substitutes for
the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, and therefore may justly have the
names and titles of their principals," p. 305-8.

This is his positive doctrine, and to make still clearer its agreement with
Article 31, we may, on the other hand, add to it his direct repudiation of
the Keinan doctrine, as being irreconcilable with his own.

1. The Papists hold that in the sacrifice of the Mass the whole Christ,
God and man, is offered up hypostatically to the Father in the Eucharist,
and is to be worshipped there by men under the species of Bread and Wine.
This doctrine is utterly renounced by all Protestants, by those who assert
the Eucharistic Oblation as well as those who deny it.

2. The Papists do maintain that the Sacrifice of the Mass is availablo
for remission of sins to the dead as well as to the living. And as this is
not asserted by any of our Church, so it is heartily detested by the author
of this Treatise.

" The Papists have private Masses, in which the Priest pretends
to make the oblation without distributing either the Body or Blood to

' I print this as I find it in Tract 81. The author presently says,
'" The Brtud and Wine may justly have the names of their principals."

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 3-35

the people. . . . All this is condemned by those who defend the Eucharis-
tical Oblation here in England," ibid. pp. 299, 300.

And to the same effect the Non-juring Bishop Hickes, —

*' According to the Ancient Church the Bread and Wine were . . . the
matter which the Bishop solemnly offered up to God by consecration for the
heavenly banquet of the Lord's Supper, and which, as they were in the
literal sense a proper, external, material offering for sacrifice, which suc-
ceeded in the place of the legal sacrifices, so in the sacramental or mystical
they were the Body and Blood of Christ, of which they were the represent
tatives" ibid. p. 264.

*' The Bread and Wine ... are the symbols of His natural Body and
Blood, and by His appointment are to be deemed, reputed, and received as
His natural Flesh and Blood," p. 270.

" The ancient notion of this holy Sacrament's being a commemorative
Sacrifice, in which we represent before God the Sacrifice of Christ upon the
Cross, perfectly secures the holy mystery from that corrupt and absurd
notion" [Popish], "it being impossible that a solemn commemoration of a
fact or thing should be the fact or thing itself," p. 272.

" Mystical and real differ as much as the substance and its shadow, the
verity and its type, or a thing . , . from its image," p. 282.

I will add some sentences from Brett, another Non-juring divine, which
give the same view of the Eucharlstic Sacrifice.

" It is evident from the Scriptures that it is not the Christ, body, sonl,
and divinity hypostatically united, as the Papists also blasphemously teach,
and from thence as blasphemously infer that it is to be worshipped. That
which is represented in the Eucharist is neither the divinity nor the human
soul of Christ, but only His Body and Blood separated from both and on©
another. . . . The Bread and Wine ... are so full and perfect repi-esenta-
tives thereof, that our Lord Himself thought fit to give to the Bread and
Wine the name of His Body and Blood," ibid. p. 376.

3. If the Non-juring and Tractarian divinity mny not be taken, as regards
the Eucharist, as the measure of the nearest approximation of Anglicans
to Rome, I do not know where to look for it ; however, that the inquiry
into it may be taken out of my hands, I will refer the decision to the
exact Waterland. This writer, in a question of fact, surely may be
trusted, and the mors so, if, as I believe, he has been contradicted by no
later authority. He writes thus : —

" That the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in whole or in part, in a sense
proper or improper, is a Sacrifice of the Christian Church, is a point
agreed upon among all knowing and sober divines ; but the Romanists have
so often and so grievously abused the once innocent names of oblation,
sacrijice, propitiation . . . that the Protestants have been justly jealous, &c.
. . . The general way, among both Lutheran and Reformed, has been to
reject any proper propitiation or proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, admitting
however of some kind of propitiation in a qualified sense, and of sacrifice

A a 2

356 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES, ETC.

also, but of a spiritual kind, and therefore styled improper or meta*
phorical. Nevertheless Mr. Mede, a very learned and judicious divine and
Protestant, scrupled not to assert a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist (as
he termed it), a material sacrifice, the sacrifice of Bread and Wine, analo*
gous to the Mincha of the Old Law. This doctrine he delivered in the
College Chapel, A.D. 1635, which was afterwards published with improve*
uients, under the title of ' The Christian Sacrifice.'

" In the year 1642, the no less learned Dr. Cudworth printed his well-
known treatise on the same subject, wherein he as plainly denies any
proper, or any material sacrifice in the Eucharist, but admits of a sym-
bolical feast upon a sacrifice, that is to say, upon the Grand Sacrifice
itself, commemorated under certain symbols. This appears to have been
the prevailing doctrine of our divines, both before and since. There can
te no doubt of the current doctrine down to Mr. Mede; and as to what
has most prevailed since " [i.e. from 1635 to 1737] " I need only refer to
three eminent divines, A^ho wrote in the years 1685, 1686, and 1688.

" In the year 1702, the very pious and learned Dr. Grabe published his
Irenseus, and in his notes upon the author fell in with the sentiments of
Mr. Mede, so far as concerns a proper and material sacrifice in the Eucha-
rist; and after him our incomparably learned and judicious Bishop Bull,
in an English treatise, gave great countenance to the same." — Vol. vii.
pp. 341—343.

4. I will conclude with a passage from Mr. William Palmer's " Notes of
a Visit to the Russian Church," in which he gives an account of Dr. Routh's
virtual interpretation of the Slst Article, on occasion of his reading a com-
ment of Mr. Palmer's on the xxxix., written in the same spirit as No. 90.
This brings up the teaching of the Church of England upon it up to the
year 1840.

" He had marked a passage," says Mr. Palmer, " in which I said of
the Anglican Liturgy that in it, notwithstanding these changes, by which
it now differs from the Roman, ' the Mystical Lamb is still truly immo-
lated, and a sacrifice is offered propitiatory for the quick and for the dead.'
Turning to his mark at this page, and pointing with his finger to the
passage, he asked, ' What do you say to the Article, sir ? ' I replied, ' Since
this is certainly the doctrine of the Fathers, with which the English canon
of 1571 required all preachers to agree,' &c., &c. . . . He repeated, • I
say nothing about the doctrine, sir, but what do you say to the Article ? ' "
p. 45.

P.S. — Johnson, I should observe, brings out his theory of " offering "
most clearly and completely at Unbl. Sacr, ch. ii. § 1, p. 214, where, as in
other places, he insists on (what by itself utterly separates him from
Catholics) that " the offering of the Body and Blood " is not only not " the
substantial Body and Blood of Christ," but " much less His divinity."]

VIII

DOCUMENTAEY MATTER

CONSEQTJEin! rPOlT THE

FOREGOING REMARKS ON THE THIRTY-
NINE ARTICLES.

DOCUMENTARY MATTER,

8fc.

LETTER OF FOUR COLLEGE TUTORS.

To the Editor of the TuACiS foe the Times,

Sir, — Our attention having been called to No. 90 in
the Series of *' Tracts for the Times by Members of the
Universit)' of Oxford/* of which you are the Editor, the
impression produced on our minds by its contents is of so
painful a character, that we feel it our duty to intrude
ourselves briefly on your attention.

This publication is entitled " Remarks on certain Pas-
sages in the Thirty-nine Articles ;" and, as these Articles
are appointed by the Statutes of the University to be the
text-book for Tutors in their theological teaching, we hope
that the situations we hold in our respective Colleges will
secure us from the charge of presumption in thus coming
forward to address you.

The Tract has in our apprehension a highly dangerous
tendency from its suggesting that certain very important
errors of the Church of Rome are not condemned by the
Articles of the Church of England ; for instance, that those
Articles do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines,
1, of Purgatory ; 2, of Pardons ; 3, of the worship and
adoration of Images and Relics ; 4, of the Invocation of
Saints ; 5, of the Mass, as they are taught authoritatively
by the Church of Rome, but only of certain absurd prac-
tices and opinions which intelligent Romanists repudiate
as much as we do.

It is intimated, moreover, that the Declaration prefixed
to the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, sanctions
this mode of interpreting them ; as it is one which takes
them in their " literal and grammatical sense,*' and does
not " affix any new sense *' to them.

The Tract would thus appear to us to have a tendency

3G0 DOCUMENTARY MATTER

io mitigate, beyond what charity requires, and to the pre-
judice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the very serious
differences which separate the Church of Rome from our
own ; and to shake the conBdence of the less learned
members of the Church of England in the spiritual
character of her formularies and teaching.

"We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty
in interpreting the formularies of our Church, which has
been advocated by many of its most learned Bishops and
other eminent divines ; but this Tract puts forward new
and startling views as to the extent to which that liberty
may be carried. For if we are right in our apprehension
of the Author^s meaning, we are at a loss to see what
security would remain, were his principles generally
recognized, that the most plainly erroneous doctrines and
practices of the Church of Rome might not be inculcated
in the lecture-rooms of the University and from the pulpits
of our Churches.

In conclusion we venture to call your attention to the
impropriety of such questions being treated in an anony-
mous publication, and to express an earnest hope that you
may be authorized to make known the writer's name.
Considering how very grave and solemn the whole subject
is, we cannot help thinking, that both the Church and the
University are entitled to ask that some person, besides
the printer and publisher of the Tract, should acknow-
ledge himself as responsible for its contents. We are, Sir,
your obedient, humble servants,

T. T. Churton, M.A.,

Vice-Principal and Tutor of Brasen-Nose College.

H. B. Wilson, B.D.,

Senior Tutor of St. John's College.

John Griffiths, M.A.,

Suhwarden and Tutor of Wadham College.

A. C. Tait,

Fellow and Senior I'utor of Balliol College.
OxFOED, March 8, 1841,

CONSEQUENT UPON TRACT NO. 90. 361

Answer ly the Author of Trad No. 90
to the above Letter.

The Editor of the Tracts for the Times begs to acknow-
ledge the receipt of the very courteous communication of
Mr. Churton, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Griffiths, and Mr. Tait,
and receives it as expressing the opinion of persons for
whom he has much respect, and whose names carry great
weight.

To the Rev. T. T. Churton, &c.

March 8, 1841.

362 DOCUMENTARY MATTER

At a meeting of the Vice- Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and
Proctors, in the Delegates* Room, March 15, 1841.

Considering that it is enjoined in the Statutes of this
University, (Tit. iii. Sect. 2. Tit. ix. Sect. ii. § 3. Sect. v.
§ 3), that every student shall be instructed and examined
in the Thirty-nine Articles, and shall subscribe to them ;
considering also that a Tract has recently appeared, dated
from Oxford, and entitled " Remarks on certain Passages
in the Thirty-nine Articles," being No. 90 of the Tracts
for the Times, a series of Anonymous Publications pur-
porting to be written by members of the University, but
which are in no way sanctioned by the University itself;

Resolved, That modes of interpretation such as are
suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explain-
ing the sense of the Thirty -nine Articles, and reconciling
subscription to them with the adoption of errors, which
they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and
are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-
mentioned Statutes.

P. Wynter,

Vice- Chancellor.

[Promulgated March 16, 1841.]

CONSEQL'ENT UPON TIUCT NO. 90. 363

Letter of the Author of Tract No. 90
to the Vice- Chancellor.

Mr. Vice- Chancellor. — I write this to inform you
respectfully, that I am the author, and have the sole
responsibility of the Tract, on which the Hebdomadal
Board has just now expressed an opinion ; and that I have
not given my name hitherto, under the belief that it was
desired I should not do so.

I hope it will not surprise you if I say, that my opinion
remains unchanged of the truth and honesty of the princi-
ple maintained in the Tract, and of the necessity of putting
it forth.

At the same time I am prompted by my feelings to express
my deep consciousness, that everything I attempt might be
done in a better spirit, and in a better way ; and, while I
am sincerely sorry for the trouble and anxiety I have
given to the members of the Board, I beg to return my
thanks to them for an act, which, even though founded on
misapprehension, may be made as profitable to myself, as
it is religiously and charitably intended.

I say all this with great sincerity, and am,
Mr. Vice-Chancellor,

Your obedient servant,

John Henry Newman.
Oriel College, March 16, 1841.

IX

A LETTER ADDKESSED TO
THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D.,

CANON OP CHRIST CHURCH,

IN EXPLANATION OF THE NINETIETH TRACT

IN THB SEBIES CALLED

THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMEa

1841.

A LETTER,
8fc.

My dear Dr. Jelf,

I have known you so many years that I trust
I may fitly address the present pages to you, on the
subject of my recent Tract, without seeming to imply that
one like yourself, who from circumstances has taken no
share whatever in any of the recent controversies in our
Church, is implicated in any approval or sanction of it.
It is merely as a friend that I write to you, through whom
I may convey to others some explanations which seem
necessary at this moment.

Four Gentlemen, Tutors of their respective Colleges,
have published a protest against the Tract in question. I
have no cause at all to complain of their so doing, though
as I shall directly say, I consider that they have misunder-
stood me. They do not, I trust, suppose that I feel any
offence or soreness at their proceeding ; of course I naturally
think that I am right and they are wrong ; but this per-
suasion is quite consistent both with my honouring their
zeal for Christian truth and their anxiety for the welfare
of our younger members, and with my very great con-
sciousness that, even though I be right in my principle,
I may have advocated truth in a wrong way. Such acts
as theirs when done honestly, as they have done them.

368 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

must benefit all parties, and draw them nearer to each,
other in good will, if not in opinion. But to proceed to
the subject of this letter.

I propose to offer some explanation of the Tract in two
respects, — as to the hypothesis on which it is written and
as to its object.

2.

I. These Four Gentlemen, whom I have mentioned,
have misunderstood me in so material a point, that it
certainly is necessary to enter into the subject at some
length. They consider that the Tract asserts that the
Thirty-nine Articles

" do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines of Purgatory,
of Pardons, of the Worship and Adoration of Images and Relics,
of Invocation of Saints, of tlie Mass, as they are taught authori-
tatively by the Church of Rome, but only of certain absurd prac-
tices and opinions, which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much
as we do."

On the contrary I consider that the Articles do contain a
condemnation of the authoritative teaching of the Church
of Rome on these points ; I only say that, whereas they
were written before the decrees of Trent, they were not
directed against those decrees. The Church of Rome
taught authoritatively before those decrees as well as
since. Those decrees expressed her authoritative teaching,
and they will continue to express it, while she so teaches.
The simple question is, whether, taken by themselves in
their mere letter, they express it ; whether in fact other
senses, short of the sense conveyed in the present authori-
tative teaching of the Roman Church will not fulfil their
letter, and may not even now in point of fact be held in
that Church.

As to the present authoritative teaching of the Church
of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in public, I think

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 369

it goes very far indeed to substitute another Gospel for tlie
true one. Instead of setting before the soul the Holy
Trinity, and heaven and hell ; it does seem to me, as a
popular system, to preach the Blessed Virgin and the
Saints, and Purgatory.^ If there ever was a sj'stem which
required reformation, it is that of Rome at this day, or in
other words (as I should call it) Romanism or Popery.
Or, to use words in which I have only a year ago expressed
myself, when contrasting Romanism with the teaching of
the ancient Church, —

" In Antiquity, tlie main aspect in the economy of redemption
contains Christ, the Son of God, the Author and Dispenser of all
grace and pardon, the Church His living representative, the Sacra-
ments her instruments. Bishops her rulers, their collective decisions
her voice, and Scripture her standard of truth. In the Roman
Schools we find St. Mary and the Saints the prominent objects
of regard and dispensers of mercy. Purgatory or Indulgences the
means of obtaining it, the Pope the ruler and teacher of the Church,
and miracles the warrant of doctrine.^ As to the doctrines of
Christ's merits and eternal life and death, these are points not
denied (God forbid), but taken for granted and passed by, in order
to make way for others of more present, pressing, and lively in-
terest. That a certain change then in objective and external
religion has come over the Latin, nay, and in a measure over the
Greek Church, we consider to be a plain historical fact ; a change

* [" 1 had a great and growing dislike, after the suimuer of 1839, to speak
against tlie Roman Church herself or her formal doctrines. I was very
averse to speaking against doctrines, which might possibly turn out to be
true, though at the time I had no reason for thinking they were ; or against
the Church, which had preserved them. . , . However, on occasions which
demanded it, I felt it a duty to give out plainly all that I thought, though
I did not like to do so. One such instance occurred, when I had to publish
a Letter about Tract 90. In that Letter I said, • Instead of setting before
the soul,' &c." (as in the text). " On this occasion I recollect expressing to
a friend the distress it gave me thus to speak ; but I said, ' How can I help
saying it, if I think it ? and I do think it ; my Bishop calls on me to say
oat what I think; and that is the long and the short of it.'" — Apolog.
pp. 121—123.]

* [ Vid. Note at the end of this Letter, p. 392, and on the whole subject
of this Letter, vid. the answer given aupr. in Preface to vol. i.]

VOL. 11. B b

.'i70 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

.... sufficiently startling to recall to our minds, with very un-
pleasant sensations, the awful words, ' Though we, or an Angel
from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye
have received, let him be accursed.' "

3.

1. On the doctrine of Purgatory the received Roman-
ism goes beyond the Decrees of Trent thus : the Council
of Trent says, —

" There is a Purgatory, and the souls there detained are helped
by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable
sacrifice of the Altar."

This definition does not explain the meaning of the
word Purgatory — and it is not incompatible with the
doctrine of the Greeks ; — but the Catechism of Trent,
which expresses the existing Roman doctrine says, —

" There is a Purgatorial _;?re, in which the souls of the pious are
tormented for a certain time, and expiated (expiantur) in order
that an entrance may lie open to them into their eternal home,
into which nothing defiled enters."

And the popular notions go very far beyond this, as
the extracts from the Homilies, Jeremy Taylor, &c., in the
Tract show.

2. Again, the doctrine of Pardons, is conveyed by the
Divines of Trent in these words : —

" The use of Indulgences, which is most salatary to the Chris'
tian people, and approved by the authority of Councils, is to bo
retained in the Church ;"

it does not explain what the word Indulgence means : —
it is necessary to obiserve how very definite and how
monstrous is the doctrine which Luther assailed.

3. Again, the Divines at Trent say that " to Images are
to be paid duo honour and veneration ;" and to those
who honour the sacred volume, pictures of friends and the
like, as we all do, I do not see that these very words can
of themselves aflFord matter of objection. Far other-

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 371

wise when we see the comment which the Church of
Rome has put on them in teaching and practice. I con-
sider its existing creed and popular worship to be as near
idolatry as any portion of that Church can be, from which
it is said that " the idols " shall be " utterly abolished/'

4. Again, the Divines of Treat say that "it is good
and useful suppliantly to invoke the saints ;" it does not
even command the practice. But the actual honours
paid to them in Roman Catholic countries are in my
judgment, as I have already said, a substitution of a wrong
object of worship for a right one.

5. Again, the Divines at Trent say that the Mass is
"a sacrifice truly propitiatory :'' words which (considering
they add, " The fruits of the Bloody Oblation are through
the Mass most abundantly obtained, — so far is the latter
from derogating in any way from the former,") to my
mind have no strength at all compared with the comment
contained in the actual teaching and practice of the
Church, as regards private masses.

This distinction between the words of the Tridentine
divines and the aivthoritative teaching of the present
Church, is made in the Tract itself, and would have been
made in far stronger terms, had I not often before spoken
against the actual state of the Church of Rome, or could
I have anticipated the sensation which the appearance of
the Tract has excited. I say there, —

'* By ' the Romish doctrine ' is not irveant the Trrdentine doc-
trine, because this article was drawn np before the decree of the
Council of Trent. What is opposed is the received doctrine of
ihat day, and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine of the
Roman Schools." — § 6.

This doctrine of the Schools is at present, on the whole,
the established creed of the Roman Church, and this I
call Romanism or Popery, and against this I think the
Thirty-nine Articles speak. I think they speak, not of

B b 2

372 A LElTJiR ADDRESSED TO

certain accidental practices, but of a body and auhsiance of
divinity, and that traditionary, an existing ruling spirit
and view in the Church ; which, whereas it is a corruption
and perversion of the truth, is also a very active and
energetic principle, and, whatever holier manifestations
there may be in the same Church, manifests itself in
ctmbition, insincerity, craft, cruelty, and all such other
grave evils as are connected with these.

Further, I believe that the decrees of Trent, though
not necessarily in themselves tending to the corruptions
which we see, yet considering these corruptions exist, will
ever tend to foster and produce them, as if principles and
elements of them — that is, while these decrees remain
unexplained in any truer and more Catholic way.

The distinction I have been making, is familiar with
our controversialists. Dr. Lloyd, the late Bishop of
Oxford, whose memory both you and myself hold in af-
fection and veneration, brings it out strongly in a review
which he wrote in the British Critic in 1825. Nay he
goes further than anything I have said on one point, for
he thinks the Roman Catholics are not what they once
were, at least among ourselves. I pronounce no opinion
on this point ; nor do I feel able to follow his revered
guidance in some other things which he says, but I quote
him in proof that the Reformers did not aim at decrees or
abstract dogmas, but against a living system, and a system
which it is quite possible to separate from the formal state-
ments which have served to represent it.

" Happy was it," he says, " for the Protestant controversialist,
when his own eyes and ears could bear witness to the doctrine of
Papal satisfactions and meritorious works, when he could point to
the benighted wanderer, working his way to the shrine of our Lady
of Walsingham or Ipswich, and hear him confess with his own

THE REV. R. ■W..JELF, D.D. 373

montli that he trusted to such works for the expiation of his sins ;
or when every eye could behold ' our churches full of images,
wondrously decked and adorned, garlands and coronets set on
their heads, precious pearls hanging about their necks, their fin-
gers shining with rings, set with precious stones ; their dead and
still bodies, clothed with garments stifi' with gold,' Mom. 3, ag.
Idol."— -p. 97.

On the other hand he says, —

" Our full belief is that the Eoman Catholics of the United
Kingdom, from their long residence among Protestants, their dis-
use of processions and other Romish ceremonies, have been brought
gradually and almost unknowingly to a more spiritual religion and
a purer faith, — that they themselves see with sorrow the disgrace-
ful tenets and principles that were professed and carried into
practice by their forefathers, — and are too fond of removing this
disgrace from them, by denying the former existence of theso
tenets, and ascribing the imputation of them to the calumnies of
the Protestants. This we cannot allow ; and while we cherish the
hope that they are now gone for ever, we still assert boldly and
fearlessly, that they did once exist." — p. 148.

Again, —

" That latria is due only to the Trinity, is continually asserted
in the Councils; but the terms of dulia and hyperdulia, have nut
been adopted or achnotcledged by them in their public documents;
they are, however, employed unanimously by all the best writers
of the Romish Church, and their use is maintained and defended
by them."— p. 101.

I conceive that what "all the best writers" say is
authoritative teaching, and a sufficient object for the
censures conveyed in the Articles, though the decrees of
Trent, taken by themselves, remain untouched.

" This part of the inquiry," [to define exactly the acts peculiar to
the different species of worship] " however, is more theoretical than
useful; and, as everything that can be said on it must be derived,
not from Councils, but from Doctors of the Eomish Church, whose
authority would be called in question, it is not worth while to
enter upon it now. And therefore, observing only that the
Catechism of Trent still retains the term of adoratio angclorum,
we pass on," &c. — p. 102.

374 A LETl'ER ADDRESSED TO

Again : —

" On the question whether the Invocation of Saints, professed and
practised by the Church of Rome, is idolatrous or not, our opinion
is this ; that in the public formularies of their Church, and even in
the belief and practice of the best informed among them, there is
nothing of idolatry, although, as we liave said, we deem that prac-
tice altogether unscriptural and unwarranted ; but we do consider
the principles relating to the worship of the Virgin, calculated to
lead in the end to positive idolatry ; and we are well convinced,
and we have strong grounds for our conviction, that a large por-
tion of the lower classes are in this point guilty of it. Whether
the Invocation of Angels or of Saints has produced the same effect,
we are not able to decide." — p. 113.

I accept this statement entirely with a single explana-
tion. By " principles '^ relating to the worship of the
Blessed Virgin, I understand either the received principles
as distinct from those laid down in the Tridentine state-
ments; or the principles contained in those statements,
viewed as practically operating on the existing feelings of
the Church.

Again : —

" She [the Church of England] is unwilling to fix upon the jort«-
riples of the Romish Church the charge of positive idolatry ; and
contents herself with declaring that ' the Romish doctrine concern-
ing the Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, is a fond thing,'
&c. &c. But in regard to the universal practice of the Romish
Church, she adheres to the declaration of her Homilies ; and pro-
fesses her conviction that this fond and unwaTranted and unscriptural
doctrine has at all times produced, and will hereafter, as long as
it is suffered to prevail, produce the sin oi practical idolatry." —
p. 121.

I will add my belief that the only thing which can stop
this tendency in the decrees of Rome, as things are, is its
making some formal declaration the other way.

Once more : —

" We reject the second [Indulgences] not only because they are

THE HEX. R. ^\'. J ELF, D.I). '676

altogether unwarranted by any word of Holy Writ, and contrary
to every principle of reason, but because we conceive the founda-
tions on which they rest to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous
and absurd. These principles are, 1. That the power of the Pope,
great as it is, does not properly extend beyond the limits of this
present world. 2. That the power which he possesses of releasing
souls from Purgatory arises out of the treasure committed to his
care, a treasure consisting of the supererogatory merits of o-ur

blessed Saviour, the Virgin, and the Saints This is the

treasure of which Pope Leo, in his Bull of the present year, 1825,
speaks in the following terms : ' We have resolved, in virtue of the
authority given to us by Heaven, fully to unlock that sacred trea-
sure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our
Lord, and of His Virgin Mother, and of all the Saints, which the
Author of human salvation, has entrusted to our dispensation.' ''
—p. 143.

This is what our Article means by Pardons ; but it is
more than is said in the Council of Trent.

5.

Dr. Lloyd is not the only writer who distinguishes
between the doctrine and the practical teaching of Rome.
Bramhall says, —

" A comprecation [with the Saints] both the Grecians and we
do allow ; an ultimate invocation both the Grecians and we detest ;
so do the Church of Rome in tJieir doctrine, but they vary from
it in their practice." — Works, p. 418.

And Bull :—

" This Article [the Tridentine] of a Purgatory after this life, as
it is understood and taught by the Roman Church {that is, to be a
place and state of miseiy and torment, whereimto many faithful
souls go presently after death, and there remain till they are
thoroughly purged from their dross, or delivered thence hy Masses,
Indulgences, &c.) is contrary to Scripture, and the sense of the
Catholic Church for at least the first four Centuries, &c." — Cor-
rnpt. of Rom. § 3.

And Wake : —

" The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this point [of
Merits] as plainly shows that they in this did not know themselves,

376 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

what they would establish, or were unwilling that others should."
— Def. of Expos. 5.

I have now said enough on the point of distinction
between the existing creed, or what the Gentlemen who
signed the protest call the '^ authoritative teaching " of the
Church of Home, and its decrees on the matters in ques-
tion. And while this distinction seems acknowledged by our
controversialists, it is iifact ever to be insisted on, that our
Articles were written J'^/lre those decrees, and therefore are
levelled not against them, but against the authoritative
teaching.

6.

I will put the subject in another way, which will lead
us to the same point. If there is one doctrine more than
another which characterizes the present Church of Rome,
and on which all its obnoxious tenets depend, it is the
doctrine of its irifaUibilUy. Now I am not aware that this
doctrine is anywhere embodied in its formal decrees.
Here then is a critical difference between its decrees and
its received and established creed. Any one who believed
that the Pope and Church of Rome are the seat of the
infallibility of the Catholic Church, ought to join their
communion. If a person remains in our Church, he
thereby disowns the infallibility of Rome — and is its
infallibility a slight characteristic of the Romish, or
Romanistic, or Papal system, by whatever name we call
it ? is it not, I repeat, that on which all the other errors
of its received teaching depend ?

The Four Gentlemen

" ai*e at a loss to see what security would remain, were his [the
Tract-writer's] principles generally recognized, that the most
plainly erroneous doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome
might not be inculcated in the lecture-rooms of the University and
from the pulpits of our Churches."

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 377

Here is a doctrine, which could not enter our lecture-
rooms and pulpits — Eome's infallibility — and if this is
excluded, then also are excluded those doctrines which
depend, I may say, solely on it, not on Scripture, not on
reason, not on Antiquity, not on Catholicity. For who is
it that gives the doctrine of Pardons their existing mean-
ing which our Article condemns ? The Pope ; as in the
words of Leo in 1825, as above quoted from Bishop Lloyd.
Who is it that has exalted the honour of the Blessed
Virgin into worship of an idolatrous character? The
Pope ; as when he sanctioned Bonaventura's Psalter.^ In
a word, who is the recognized interpreter of all the
Councils but the Pope ?

On this whole subject I will quote from a work, in
which, with some little variation of wording, I said the
very same thing four years ago without offence.

"There are in fact two elements in operation within the system.
As far as it is Catholic and Spiritual, it appeals to the Fathers ; as far
as it is a corruption, it finds it necessary to supersede them. Viewed in
itsfarmal principles and authoritative statements, it professes to be
the champion of past times; viewed as an active and political power,
as a ruling, grasping, and ambitious principle, in a word, what is
expressively calledPopery,itexalts the will and pleasure of the exist-
ing Church above all authority, whether of Scripture or Antiquity,
interpreting the one and disposing of the other by its absolute and
arbitrary decree. . . . We must deal with her as we would towards a
friend who is visited by derangement . . . she is her real self only in
name. . . . Viewed as a practical system, its main tenet, which gives a
colour to all its parts, is the Church's infallibility, as on the other
hand the principle of that genuine theology out of which it has arisen
is the authority of Catbolic antiquity." — On Romanism, pp. 102-4.

' [This Psalter is not generally received as genuine. In the Biograpliie
Univ. we are told " II est douteux que ce dernier ouvrage {le Psaiitier de la
Vierge) soit de S. Bonaventure." t. 5. p.89. The Venice Edition, 1751, speaks
out, " Nemo sit qui nobis persuadeat, absurdura hoc Psalterium, quod vocant
Majus, Bonaventuvae raanu compositum fuisse," t. i. p. 131. Cauisius,
taking its genuineness for granted, mak8S a common-sense defence of it.
De Deip. p. 592-3.1

ti78 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

Nothing more then is maintained in the Tract than that
Rome is capable of a reformation ; its corrupt system
indeed cannot be reformed ; it can only be destroyed ; and
that destruction is its reformation. I do not think that
there is anything very erroneous or very blameable in
such a belief; and it seems to be a very satisfactory omen
in its favour, that at the Council of Trent, sucli protests, as
are quoted in the Tract, were entered against so many of
the very errors and corruptions which our Articles and
Homilies also condemn. I do not think it is any great
excess of charity towards the largest portion of Christen-
dom, to rejoice to detect such a point of agreement between
them and us, as a joint protest against some of their
greatest corruptions, though they in practice cherish them,
and though there are still other points in which tliey differ
from us. That I have not always consistently kept to this
view in all that I have written, I am well aware ; yet I
have made very partial deviations from it.

I should not be honest if I did not add, that I consider
our own Church, on the other hand, to have in it a tradi-
tionary system, as well as the Roman, beyond and beside
the letter of its formularies, and to be ruled by a spirit far
inferior to its own nature. And this traditionary system,
not only inculcates what I cannot receive, but would
exclude any difference of belief from itself. To this ex-
clusive modern system, I desire to oppose mystdf ; and it
is as doing this, doubtless, that I am incurring the censure
of the Four Gentlemen who have come before the public.
I want certain points to be left open which they would
close. I am not here speaking for myself in one way or
another ; I am not examining the scripturalness, safety,
propriety, or expedience of the points in question ; but I
desire that it may not be supposed as utterly unlawful for

THE REV. R. W. JELF^ D.D. 379

such private Christians as feel they can do it with a clear
conscience, to allow a comprecation with the Saints as
Bramhall does, or to hold with Andrewes that, taking
away the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the Mass,
we shall have no dispute about the Sacrifice ; or with
Hooker to treat even Transubstantiation as an opinion
which by itself need not cause separation ; or to hold with
Hammond that no General Council, truly such, ever did,
or shall err in any matter of faith ; or with Bull, that
man was in a supernatural state of grace before the fall,
by which he could attain to immortality, and that he has
recovered it in Christ; or with Thorndike, that works of
humiliation and penance are requisite to render God
again propitious to those who fall from the grace of
Baptism ; or with Pearson that the Name of Jesus is
no otherwise given under Heaven than in the Catholic
Church.

8.

In thus maintaining that we have open questions, or as
I have expressed it in the Tract " ambiguous formularies,^'
I observe, first, that I am introducing no novelty. For
instance, it is commonly said that the Articles admit both
Arminians and Calvinists ; the principle then is admitted,
as indeed the Four Gentlemen, whose remonstrance I am
meeting, themselves observe. I do not think it a greater
latitude than this, to admit those who hold, and those who
do not hold, the points of doctrine on which I have been
dwelling.

Nor, secondly, can it be said that such an interpretation
throws any uncertainty upon the primary and most sacred
doctrines of our religion. These are consigned to the
Creed ; the Articles did not define them ; they existed
before the Articles ; they are referred to in the Articles
as existing facts, just as the broad Roman errors are re-

380 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

ferred to ; but the decrees of Trent were drawn up after
the Articles.

On these two points I may be allowed to quote what I
said four years ago in a former Tract.

" The meaning of the Creed ... is known ; there is no opportunity
for doubt here ; it means but one thing, and he who does not hold that
one meaning.does not hold it at all. But the case is different (to take
an illustration) in the drawing up of aPolitical Declaration ora Peti-
tion to Parliament. It is composed by persons, differing in matters of
detail, agreeing together to a certain point and for a certain end.
Each narrowly watches that nothing is inserted to prejudice his owq
particular opinion, or stipulates for the insertion of what may rescue
it. Hence general words are used.orparticular words inserted, which
by superficial inquirers afterwards are criticized as vague and inde-
terminate on the one hand, or inconsistent on the other; but in fact,
they all have a meaning and a history, could we ascertain it. And if
the parties concerned in such a document are legislating and deter-
mining for posterity, they are respective representatives of corre-
sponding parties in the generations after them. Now the Thirty-
nine Articles lie between these two, between a Creed and a mere
joint Declaration ; to a certain point they have one meaning, be-
yond that they have no one meaning. They have one meaning so
far as they embody the doctrine of the Creed ; they have different
meanings, so far as they are drawn up by men influenced by the
discordant opinions of the day." — Tract 82.*

9.

These two points — that our Church allows (1) a great
diversity in doctrine, (2) except as to the Creed, — are
abundantly confirmed by the following testimonies of
Bramhall, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bull, and Stillingfleet,
which indeed go far beyond anything I have said.

For instance, Bull : —

" What next he [a Roman Catholic objector] saith concerning our
notorious prevarication from the Articles of our Church, I do not
perfectly un<lerstand. He very well knows, that all our Clergy doth
still subscribe them : and if any man hath dared openly to oppose the

< [Vid. eupr. pp. 187-8.]

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 381

declared sense of the Cliurcli of England in any one of those Articles
he is liable to ecclesiastical censure, which would be more duly passed
and executed, did not the divisions and fanatic disturbances, first
raised and still fomented by the blessed emissaries of the Apostolic
See, hinder and blunt the edge of our discipline. But possibly he
intends that latitude of sense, which our Church, as an indulgent
mother, allows her sons in some abstruser points, (such as Predes-
tination, &c.) not particularly and precisely defined in her Articles,
but in general words capable of an indifferent construction. If thisbe
his meaning, this is so far from being a fault, that it is the singular
praise and commendation of our Church. As for our being concluded
by the Articles of our Church, if he means our being obliged to give
our internal assent to everything delivered in them upon peril of
damnation, it is confessed that few, yea none of us, that are well
advised, will acknowledge ourselves so concluded by them, nor did
our Church ever intend we should. For she professeth not to deliver
all her Articles (all I say, for some of them are coincident with the
fundamental points of Christianity) as essentials of faith, without
the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them
as a body of safe and pious principles, /or the preservation of peace
to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And
therefore she requires subscription to them only from the Clergy,
and not from the laity, who yet are obliged to acknowledge and pro-
fess all the fundamental Articles of the Christian faith, no less than
the most learned Doctors. This hath often been told the Papists by
many learned writers of our Church. I shall content myself (at pre-
sent) only with two ilhistrious testimonies of two famous prelates.
The late terror of the Romanists, Dr. Usher [BramhaUP], the most
learned and reverend Primate of Ireland, thus expresseth the sense
of the Church of England, as to the subscription required to the
Thirty-nine Articles : ' We do not suffer any man to reject the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet
neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies
of Christ and His Apostles ; but in a mean, as pious o-pimous, Jitted
for t/ie preservation of peace and unity ; neither do ive oblige any
man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.'

" So the excellent Bishop Hall, in his Catholic Propositions^ (truly
80 called,) denieth, in general, that any Church can lawfully pro-
pose any Articles to her sons, besides those contained in the common
rule of faith, to be believed under pain of damnation. His third
proposition is this : ' The sum of the Christian faith are those

382 A LETTER ADDRKSSED TO

principles of the Christian religion, and fundamental grounds and
points of faith, which are undoubtedly contained and laid down in
the canonical Scriptures, whether in express terms or by necessary
consequence, and in the ancient Creeds universally received and
allowed by the whole Church of God.' And then in the seventh
and eighth Propositions, he speaks fully to our purpose : — Prop. 7:
* There are and may be many theological points, which are wont to
be believed and maintained, and so may lawfully be, of this or that
particular Church, or the Doctors thereof, or their followers, as
godly doctrines and profitable truths, besides those other essential
and main matters of faith, without any prejudice at all of the
common peace of the Church.' Prop. 8 : ' Howsoever it may be
lawful for learned meu and particular Churches to believe and
maintain those probable or (as they may think) certain points of
theological verities, yet it is not lawful for them to impose and ob-
trude the same doctrines upon any Church or person, to be believed
and held, as upon the necessity of salvation ; or to anathema-
tize or eject out of the Church any person or company of men that
think otherwise.'

" As for the fundamental principles of the Christian religion,
undoubtedly delivered in the Scriptures, and allowed (except the
Romanists, who have so affected singularity, as to frame to them-
selves a new Christianity) by the whole Church of God, they are
by the consent of all Christians acknowledged to be contained in
that called the Creed, or rule of faith.

" This rule of faith, and that also as it is more fully explained
by the first General Councils, our Church heartily embraceth, and
hath made a part of her Liturgy, and so hath obliged all her sons
to make solemn profession thereof. To declare tliis more distinctly
to your ladyship, our Church receiveth that which is called the
Apostles' Creed, and enjoins the public profession thereof to all her
sons in her daily Service. And if this Creed be not thought ex-
press enough fully to declare the sense of the Catholic Church in
points of necessary belief, and to obviate the perverse interpreta-
tions of heretics, she receiveth also that admirable summary of the
Christian faith, which is called the Nicene Creed, (but is indeed the
entire ancient creed of the Oriental Churches, together with the
necessary additional explications thereof, made by Fathers both of
the Council of Nice against Arius, and the Council of Constanti-
nople against Macedonius,) the public profession whereof she also
enjoins all \ er sons (without any exception) to make in the Morn-
ing Service of every Sunday and holy day. This creed she \>vo-

THE llEV, K. W. JELF, D D. 383

fesseth (consentaneously to her own principles) to receive npon
this ground primarily, because she finds that the articles thereof
may be proved by most evident testimonies of Scripture ; although
she deny not, that she is confirmed in her belief of this creed, be-
cause she finds all the articles thereof, in all ages, received by the
Catholic Church." — Vindication of the Church of England, 27.

And Stillingfleet : — ■

" The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but such
as have the testimony and approbation of the whole Christian world
of all ages, and are acknowledged to be such by Rome itself, and
in other things she requires subscription to them not as Articles of
Faith, but as inferior Truths which she expects a submission to, in
order toher Peace and Tranquillity. So the late learned L. Piimate of
Ireland [Bramhall] often expresseth the sense of the Church of Eng-
land, as to her Thirty-nine Articles. ' Neither doth the Church of
England,' saith he, 'define any of these questions, as necessary to be
believed, either necessitate medii, or necessitate prtecepti, which is
muchless; hutonlt/hindethher sons for peace sake,not toopposethem.'
And in another place morefully. 'We do not sulfer any man to reject
the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure ;
yet neither do we look upon them as Essentials of saving Faith, or
Legacies of Christ and His Apostles : but in a mean, as piotcs
Opinions fitted for the preservation of Unity ; neither do we oblige
any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.' By
which we see, what a vast difference there is between those things
which are required by the Church of England, in order to Peace ;
and those which are imposed by the Church of Rome, as part of
that Faith, extra quam non est salus, without the belief of which
there is no salvation. In which she hath as much violated the
Unity of the Catholic Church, as the Church of England by her
Prudence and Moderation hath studied to preserve it." — Grounds
of Protestant Mel. part i. chap. 11.

And Laud : —

" A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew, and such a
Shrew. For in her Book of Canons she excommunicates every man,
who shall hold anything contrary to any part of tbe said Articles.
So A. C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon nor
perhaps the sense. Not the words ; for they are : Whosoever shall
affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous,
&c. And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man to
hold an opinion privately xvithin himself, and another thing boldly

384 A LETIER ADDRESSED TO

and ptihlicly to affirm it. And again, 'tis one thing to hold contrary
to some part of an Article, which perhaps may be but in the manner of
Expressiou, and another thing positively to affirm, that the Articles
in any partof them are supeistitious, and erroneous. — On Tradition,
xiv. 2.

And Taylor : —

" I will not pretend to believe tha.t those doctors who first framed
the article, did all of them mean as I mean ; I am not sure they
did, or that they did not; but this I am sure, tha& they framed the
words withmuch caution and prudeuce, and so as might al)stain from
grieving the contrary minds of diflfering men It is not un-
usual for Churches, in matters of difficulty, to frame their articles
so as to serve the ends of peace, and yet not to endanger truth, or to
destroy liberty of improving truth, or a further reformation. And
f?ince there are so very many questions and opinions in this point,
either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the article and
their opinion, or must refuse her communion ; which whosoever shall
enforce, is a great schismatic and an uncharitable man. This only
is certain, that to tie the article and our doctrine together, is an ex-
cellent art of peace, and a certain signification of obedience ; and yet
is a security of truth, and that just liberty of understanding, which,
because it is only God's subject, is then sufficiently submitted to men,
when we consent in the same form of words." — Further Explic.
Orig. Sin. § 6.

The view of the Articles conveyed in these extracts
evidently allows, as I have said above, of much greater
freedom in the private opinions of individuals, subscribing
them, than I have contended for.

10.

"While I am on this subject, I will make this remark in
addition : — That though I consider that the wording of
the Articles is wide enough to admit persons of very-
different sentiments from each other in detail, provided
they agree in some broad general sense of them — (for
instance, as differing from each other whetlier or not there
is any state of purification alter death, or whether or not any
addresses are allowable to Saints deoarted, provided they

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 385

one and all condemn the Roman doctrine of Purgaton'
and of Invocation as actually taught and carried into
effect) nevertheless I do not leave the Articles without
their one legitimate sense in preference to all other senses.
The only peculiarity of the view I advocate, if I must so
call it, is this, that whereas it is usual at this day to
make the particular belief of their writers their true inter-
pretation, I would make the belief of the Catholic Church
such. That is, as it is often said that infants are re-
generated in Baptism, not on the faith of their parents,
but of the Church, so in like manner I would say the
Articles are received, not in the sense of their framers,
but (as far as the wording will admit, or any ambiguity
requires it,) in the one Catholic sense. For instance as to
Purgatory, I consider (with the Homily) that the Article
opposes the main idea really encouraged by Rome, that
temporary punishment is a substitute for hell in the case of
the unholy, and all the superstitions consequent thereupon.
As to Invocation, that the Article opposes, not every sort
of calling on beings short of God, (for certain passages in
the Psalms do this) but all that trenches on xcorship, (as
the Homily puts it,) the question whether ora pro nobis be
such, being open — open, not indifferent, but a most grave
and serious one for any individual who feels drawn to it,
but still undecided by the Article. As to Images, the
Article condemns all approach to idolatrous regard, such
as Rome does in point of fact epcourage. As to the Mass,
all that impairs or obscures the doctrine of the one Atone-
ment, once offered, which Masses, as observed in the
Church of Rome, actually have done.

11.

II. And now, if you will permit me to add a few words
more, I will briefly state why I am anxious about securing
this liberty for us.

VOL II. CO

3SG A LETTEll ADDRESSED TO

Every one sees his own portion of society ; and, judging
of a measure by its effect upon that portion, comes to a
conclusion different from that of others about its utility,
expedience, and propriety. That the Tract in question
has been very inexpedient as addressed to one class of per-
sons is quite certain ; but it was meant for another, and I
sincerely think is necessary for them. And in giving the
reason, I earnestly wish even those who do not admit or
feel it, yet to observe that I had a reason.

In truth there is at this moment a great progress of
the religious mind of our Church to something deeper
and truer than satisfied the last century. I always have
contended, and will contend, that it is not satisfactorily
accounted for by any particular movements of individuals
on a particular spot. The poets and philosophers of the
age have borne witness to it for many years. Those
great names in our literature. Sir Walter Scott, Mr.
Wordsworth, Mr. Coleridge, though in different ways
and with essential differences one from another, and
perhaps from any Church system, still all bear witness to
it. Mr. Alexander Knox in Ireland bears a most sur-
prising witness to it. The system of Mr. Irving is another
witness to it. The age is moving towards something,
and most unhappily the one religious communion among
us which has of late years been practically in possession of
this something, is the Church of Rome. She alone, amid
all the errors and evils of her practical system,, has given
free scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness,
reverence, devotedness, and other feelings which may be
especially called Catholic. The question then is, whether
we shall give them up to the Roman Church or claim
them for ourselves, as we well may, by reverting to that
older system, which has of late years indeed been super-
seded, but which has been, and is, quite congenial (to say
the least), I should rather say proper and natural, or even

THK REV. E,. W. JELF, D.D. 387

necessary to our Church. But if we do give them up,
then we must give up the men who cherish them. We
must consent either to give up the men, or to admit their
principles.

12.

Now, I say, I speak of what especially comes under my
eye, when I express my conviction that this is a very
serious question at this time. It is not a theoretical
question at all. I may be wrong in my conviction, I may
be wrong in the mode I adopt to meet it, but still the
Tract is grounded on the belief that the Articles need not
be so closed as the received method of teaching closes them,
and ought not to be for the sake of many persons. If we
will close them, we run the risk of subjecting persons
whom we should least like to lose or distress, to the tempta-
tion of joining the Church of Rome, or to the necessity of
withdrawing from the Church as established, or to the
misery of subscribing with doubt and hesitation. And, as
to myself, I was led especially to exert myself with refer-
ence to this difficulty, from having had it earnestly set
before me by parties I revere, to do all I could to keep
members of our Church from straggling in the direction
of Home ; and, as not being able to pursue the methods
commonly adopted, and as being persuaded that the view
of the Articles I have taken is true and honest, I was
anxious to set it before them. I thought it would be
useful to them without hurting any one else.

I have no wish or thought to do more than to claim an
admission for these persons to the right of subscription.
Of course I should rejoice if the members of our Church
were all of one mind ; but they are not ; and till they are,
one can but submit to what is at present the will, or
rather the chastisement of Providence. And let me now

c c 2

388 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

implore my brethren to submit, and not to force an agree-
ment at the risk of a schism.

In conclusion, I will but express my great sorrow that
I have at all startled or oflfended those for whom I have
nothing but respectful and kind feelings. That I am
startled myself in turn, that persons, who have in years
past and present borne patiently disclaimers of the Atha-
nasian Creed, or of the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration,
or of belief in many of the Scripture miracles, should now
be alarmed so much, when a private Member of the Uni-
versity, without his name, makes statements in an opposite
direction, I must also avow. Nor can I repent of what I
have published. Still, whatever has been said, or is to be
done in consequence, is, I am sure, to be ascribed to the most
conscientious feelings ; and though it may grieve me, I
trust it will not vex me, or make me less contented and
peaceful in myself.

Ever yours most sincerely,
J. H. N.

Saturday, March IZth, 1841.

P.S. — Since the above was in type, it has been told me
that the Hebdomadal Board has already recorded its
opinion about the Tract.

THE REV. B. W. JELF, D.D. 389

POSTSCRIPT.

I am led by circumstances, in order to explain the Tract
more fully, to add, —

1. That I have most honestly stated in the above Letter
what was intended, though not expressed in the Tract,
about the actual dominant errors of the Church of Rome.
The Tract was na feeler, as it is called, put forth to see how
far one might go without notice, nor is the Letter a retracta-
tion. Those who are immediately about me, know that in
the interval between the printing and publication of the
Tract, I was engaged in writing some Letters about
Romanism in which I spoke of the impossibility of any
approach of the English towards the Roman Church,
arising out of the present state of the latter, as strongly as
I did a year ago, or as I do now in my Letter.

2. Again as to the object of my Pamphlet. I can declare
most honestly that my reason for writing and publishing
it, without which I should not have done it, and which
was before my mind from first to last, was, as I have
stated it in my Letter, the quieting the consciences of
persons who considered (falsely as I think) that the
Articles prevent them from holding views found in the
Primitive Church. That while I was writing it, I was
not unwilling to show that the Decrees of Trent were
but partially, if at all, committed to certain popular
errors, I fully grant ; but even this I did with reference to
others.

In explanation of the sensation which the Tract has
caused (as far as it arises from the Tract itself), I
observe, —

390 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

1 . The Tract was addressed to one set of persons, and
has been used and commented on by another.

2. As its Author had very frequently and lately entered
his protest against many things in the Roman system, he
did not see that it was necessary to repeat them, when that
system did not form the direct object of the Tract ; and
the consciousness how strongly he had pledged himself
against Rome, as it is, made him, as persons about him
know full well, quite unsuspicious of the possibility of any
sort of misunderstanding arising out of his statements in it.

3. Those who had happened to read his former pub-
lications, understanding him to identify rather than
connect the Decrees of Trent with the peculiar Roman
errors, were led perhaps to think, that in speaking
charitably of those decrees he was speaking tenderly of
those errors. And it must be confessed that, though he
has uniformly maintained the existence of the errors in
the Church of Rome both before and after the Trideutine
Council, yet he has sometimes spoken of the decrees rather
as the essential development, than the existing symbol
and index of the errors.

4. There was, confessedly, a vagueness and deficiency
in some places as to the conclusions he would draw from
the premisses stated, and a consequent opening to the charge
of a disingenuous understatement of the contrariety be-
tween the Articles and the actual Roman system. This
arose in great measure from his being more bent on laying
down his principle than defining its results.

5. It arose also from the circumstance that, the main
drift of the Tract being that of illustrating the Articles
from the Homilies, the doctrines of the Articles are some-
times brought out only so far as the Homilies explain them,
which is in some cases an inadequate representation.
I will add, moreover, 1. That in the expression "ambi-
guous Formvdaries,'* I did not think of referring to the

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 391

Prayer Book. And I suppose all persons will grant, that
if the Articles treat of Predestination, and yet can be
signed by Arminians and Calvinists, they are not clear on
all points. But I gladly withdraw the phrase. And I
express now, as I often have done before^ my great vene-
ration for those ancient forms of worship which, by God's
good providence, are preserved to us.

2. That I did not mean at all to assert that persons
called High Churchmen have a diflBculty in holding
Catholic principles consistently with a subscription to
the Articles ; on the contrary, I observe in the Tract, that
**the objection" on this score "is groundless;*' yet that
there are many who have felt it, however causelessly, I
know, and certainly have saii

3. That I had no intention whatever of implying that
there are not many persons of Catholic views in our Church,
and those more worthy of consideration than myself, who
deny that the Reformers were uncatholic. I consider the
question quite an open one.

4. That, in implying that certain modified kinds of
Invocation, veneration of Relics, &c., might be Catholic, I
did not mean to rule it, that they were so ; but considered
it an open question, whether they were or not, which I
did not wish decided one way or the other, and which I
considered the Articles left open. At the same time it is
quite certain, that such practices as the Invocation of
Saints, cannot justly be called Catholic in the same sense
in which the doctrine of the Incarnation is, or the Episcopal
principle.

5. That my mode of interpreting the Articles is not of a
lax and indefinite character, but one which goes upon a
plain and intelligible principle, viz., that of the Catholic
sense ; or, in the words of the Tract, " in the most Catholic
fiense they will admit."

392 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

Note on p. 369 ot Lxtteb to Db. Jklp.

[As to the theological contrast presented to as on a compnrison of the
external aspect of primitive with that of modern Catholicity, I do not deny
that, primd facie, it exists, that is, in the eyes of a superficiHl observer, who
passes through foreign countries on a tour, and learns about Antiquity, as
for the most part he must learn about it, from patristical treatises. It is
unfair to put side by side an every-day religion and a religion of books.
Compare St. Augustine or St. Chrysostom with Bossuet or Lambertini, and
Antioch or Carthage with Bruges or Naples, compare doctrine with doctrine
and devotions with devotions, and, though a contrast between old times and
modern times undoubtedly will remain, it will have lost much of its sharp-
ne6s.

As to this day's Catholicity, it is strange that in the charges made in the
foregoing Letter no notice is taken of the Sacraments, as one of the chief
features of the modern as of the old Religion ; and with the Sacraments, the
sole channels of spiritual life, the Blessed Virgin has no concern whatever.
Our Lord is the first and the last in these appointed means of grace.
Surely Confessionals, not Images of Saints, are in a CHtholic Church the
" prominent dispensers of mercy;" and neither " Purgatory nor Indulgences"
are within the Priest's jurisdiction. And, while every altar has in its
crucifix the " prominent object of regard," so again in the perpetual Mass, in
the abiding Sacramental Presence, and in Its Exposition and Benediction
our Lord vindicates and exercises His prerogative of Sovereignty and
loving Providence. It is true that there are additions to these primary
elements in the popular Religion, but they are not more than additions; and
though it is fair to object that they are dangerous additions, it is not true
to say that they are substitutes.

So much on the popular Religion in the Catholic Church of this day j if
we would have a view of that of the early times, we should turn to a paper
of Cardinal Wiseman's, a review of a publication entitled " A Voice from
Rome." Some paragraphs from it shall here be given : ' —

" We may imagine, if we please, some Persian gentleman of ancient days,
going on his travels through Christian countries," [in the fourth or fifth
century] " with that instinctive horror of idolatry and of worship through
visible symbols, which becomes one accustomed to feed his piety only on the
ethereal subtlety of the solar rays; most anxious to collect all possible
evidence why he shonld not be a Christian. It is true, he understands very
little of the langunges of the countries through which he passes, and cannot
be supposed to enter much into the habits, the ideas, and the feelings of their
inhabitants, but, with the help of a dictionary, and a valet de place, he can
make his way ; and, at any rate, he can see what the people do, and read
their books and inscriptions.

' Vid. Dublin Review, Dec. 1843, and Wiseman's Essays, voL i. pp.
545-563.

THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D. 393

" What place does Christ hold in their worship ? How does God appear
in relation to man ? Surely, we could easily imagine him struck with the
prominent place which the Martyrs occupy in all the worship, in the thoughts,
and words and feelings of Christians ; whether clergy or laity, learned or
simple. Not a town does he come to, but he finds the Church, most fre-
quented, nay, crowded by worshippers, to be that of some Martyr : while
smaller oratories, in every direction, are favourite places of prayer, because
they commemorate some other Saint, or contain a portion of his ashes. Not an
altar does he see anywhere, which is not consecrated by their relics. Before
them hang lamps, garlands, and votive oflferings ; around them are palls of
silk and richer stuffs ; their shrines are radiant with gold and jewels ; the
pavement of the temple is covered with prostrate suppliants, with the sick
and afflicted, come to ask health and consolation from Christ's servant.
The pilgrim from afar scrapes with simple faith some of the dust from the
floor or from the tomb ; the preacher, ay, a Basil or a Gregory, or a
Chrysostom, or an Ambrose, instead of cooling their fervour, adds confidence,
earnestness and warmth to it by a glowing and impassioned discourse in its
favour. And if he afterwards goes and interrogates these holy men he
receives some such answer as this : ' What ! will you not reverence, but
rather contemn those by whom evil spirits are expelled, and diseases cared ;
who ai)pe!ir in visions and foretell in prophecy ; whose very bodies, if touched
&c., the drops of whose blood,' &c., (Greg. Naz. Orat. t. 1. p. 76) .....
Again, he looks about him. At Antioch, he finds the Church of
St. Barlaam richly decorated with paintings; but all representing the life
and death of a Saint ; Christ is introduced, but as if in illustration or
by chance into the picture. At Nola he finds a magnificent basilica, literally
covered with mosaics and inscriptions, full of the praises of Saints, and
especially Martyrs. At Rome he sees the basilicas of the Apostles, of
St. Laurence and others, adorned with similar encomiastic vei*ses .... If
he descends into the catacombs, the favourite retreat of devout Christians,
what does he find ? Martyrs everywhere, their tombs hallo^v each maze of
those sacred labyrinths and form the altar of every chapel. Their efiigies
and praises cover the walls, prayers for their intercession are inscribed on
their tablets. He goes into the houses of believers; memorials of the Saints
everywhere. Their cups and goblets are adorned with their pictures ; for
one representation of Our Saviour, be finds twenty of the Blessed Virgin,
or of St. Agnes, or St. Laurence, or the Apostles Peter and Paul ....

" Let any one take the trouble to read any of the miracles recorded by
St. Augustine, &c. . . . Take for instance, the history which he gives of a
certain poor tailor at Hippo, &c. ..." There was a man at Calama of high
rank, named Martial, advanced in years, &c., &c.

" On entering the convent, Gregory Nyssen found his sister very ill in
her cell ; instead of a bed, she lay upon a plank upon the ground, with
another for her pillow," &c.]

X.

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO

THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,

RICHARD, LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,
ON OCCASION OF THE NINETIETH TRACT

IN THE SEBIES CALLED

THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
1841.

A LETTEE,

8fc.

My dear Lord,

It may seem strange that, on receipt of a message
from your Lordship, I should proceed at once, instead of
silently obeying it, to put on paper some remarks of my
own on the subject of it ; yet, as you kindly permit me to
take such a course with the expectation that I may there-
by succeed in explaining to yourself and others my own
feelings and intentions in the occurrence which has given
rise to your interposition, I trust to your Lordship's indul-
gence to pardon me any discursiveness in my style of writ-
ing, or appearance of familiarity, or prominent introduc-
tion of myself, which may be incidental to the attempt.

Your Lordship's message is as follows : That you con-
sider that the Tract No. 90 in the Series called the Tracts
for the Times, is " objectionable, and may tend to disturb
the peace and tranquillity of the Church,^' and that it is
your Lordship's " advice that the Tracts for the Times
should be discontinued."

Your Lordship has, I trust, long known quite enough
of my feelings towards any such expression of your Lord-
ship's wishes to be sure I should at once obey it, though it
were ever so painful tome, or contrary to the course I should
have taken if left to myself. And I do most readily and

398 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

cheerfully obey you in this instance ; and at the same time I
express my great sorrow that any writing of mine should be
judged objectionable by your Lordship, and of a disturbing
tendency, and my hope that in what I write in future I shall
be more successful in approving mj'^self to your Lordship.

I have reminded your Lordship of my willingness on a
former occasion to submit myself to any wishes of your
Lordship, had you thought it advisable at that time to
signify them. In your Charge in 1838, an allusion was
made to the Tracts for the Times. Some opponents of the
Tracts said that your Lordship treated them with undue
indulgence. I will not imply that your Lordship can act
otherwise than indulgently to any one, but certainly I did
feel at the time, that in the midst of the kindness j'ou
showed to me personally, you were exercising an anxious
vigilance over my publication, which reminded me of my
responsibility to j'our Lordship. I wrote to the Arch-
deacon on the subject, submitting the Tracts entirely to
your Lordship's disposal. What I thought about your
Charge will appear from the words I then used to him.
I said, " A Bishop's lightest word ex Cathedrii, is heavy.
His judgment on a book cannot be light. It is a rare
occurrence." And I offered to withdraw any of the Tracts
over which I had control, if I was informed which were
those to which your Lordship had objections. I afterwards
wrote to your Lordship to this effect : that " I trusted I
might say sincerely, that I should feel a more lively pleasure
in knowing that I was submitting myself to your Lord-
ship's expressed judgment in a matter of that kind, than I
could have even in the widest circulation of the volumes in
question." Your Lordship did not think it necessary to
proceed to such a measure, but I felt and always have felt,
that, if ever you determined on it, I was bound to obey.

Accordingly on the late occasion, as soon as I heard
that you had expressed an unfavourable opinion of Tract

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 399

90, 1 again placed myself at your disposal, and now readily
submit to the course on which your Lordship has finally
decided in consequence of it. I am quite sure that in so
doing I am not only fulfilling a duty I owe to your Lord-
ship, but consulting for the well-being of the Church and
benefiting myself.

And now, in proceeding to make some explanations in
addition, which your Lordship desires of me, I hope
I shall not say a word which will seem like introducing
discussion before your Lordship. It would ill become me
to be stating private views of my own, and defending them,
on an occasion like this. If I allude to what has been
maintained in the Tracts, it will not be at all by way of
maintaining it in these pages, but in illustration of the
impressions and the drift with which they have been
written. I need scarcely say they are thought by many
to betray a leaning towards Roman Catholic error, and a
deficient appreciation of our own truth ; and your Lordship
wishes me to show that these apprehensions have no founda-
tion in fact. This I propose to do, and that by extracts
from what I have before now written on the subject, which,
while they can be open to no suspicion of having been
provided to serve an occasion, will, by being now cited,
be made a second time my own.

2.

II. First, however, I hope to be allowed to make one
or two remarks by way of explaining some peculiarities in
the Tracts which at first sight might appear, if not to tend
toward Romanism, at least to alienate their readers from
that favoured communion in which God's good providence
has placed us.

I know it is a prevalent idea, and entertained by per-
sons of such consideration that it cannot be lightly treated,
that many of the Tracts are the writing of persons who

400 A LETTER ADDRESSIID TO THE

either are ignorant of what goes on in the world, and are
gratifying their love of antiquarian research or of intel-
lectual exercise at any risk ; or, who are culpably reckless
of consequences, or even find a satisfaction in the sensation
or disturbance which may result from such novelties or
paradoxes as they may find themselves in a condition to put
forward. It is thought, that the writers in question often
have had no aim at all in what they have hazarded, that they
did not mean what they said, that they did not know the
strength of their own words, and that they were putting
forth the first crude notions which came into their minds ;
or that they were pursuing principles to their consequences
as a sort of pastime, and developing their own theories in
grave practical matters, in which no one should move with-
out a deep sense of responsibility. In fact, that whatever
incidental or intrinsic excellence there maybe in the Tracts,
and whatever direct or indirect benefits have attended them,
there is much in them which is nothing more or less than
mischievous, and convicts its authors of a wanton incon-
siderateness towards the feelings of others.

I am very far from saying that there is any one evil
temper or motive which may not have its share in any-
thing that I write myself; and it does not become me to
deny the charge as far as it is brought against me, though
I am not conscious of its justice. But still I would direct
attention to this circumstance, that what persons who are
not in the position of the writers of the Tracts set down to
wantonness, may have its definite objects, though those
objects be not manifest to those who are in other positions.
I am not maintaining that those objects are real, or
important, or defensible, or pursued wisely or seasonably ;
but if they exist in the mind of the writers, I trust they
will serve so far as to relieve them from the odious charge
of scattering firebrands about without caring for or
apprehending consequences.

BISHOP OF OXFOKD. 401

May I then, without (as I have said) at all assuming
the soundness of the doctrines to be mentioned, or by
mentioning them seeking indirectly a sanction for them
fiom your Lordship, be allowed to allude to one or two
Tracts, merely in illustration of what I have said ?

One of the latest Tracts is written upon " The IMysticism
attributed to the Early Fathers of the Church/' It dis-
cusses the subject of the mystical interpretation of nature
and Scripture with a learning and seriousness which no
one will wish to deny ; but the question arises, and has
actually been asked, why discuss it at all ? why startle
and unsettle the Christian of this age by modes of thought
which are now unusual and strange ; and which being
thus fixed upon the Fathers, serve but to burden with an
additional unpopularity an authority which the Church
of England has ever revered, ever used in due measure in
behalf of her own claims upon the loyalty of her chil-
dren ? But the state of the case has been this. For
some yeais the argument in favour of our Church drawn
from Antiquity has been met by the assertion, that that
same Antiquity held also other opinions which no one now
would think of maintaining ; that if it were mistaken in
one set of opinions, it might be in the other ; that its
mistakes were of a nature which argued feebleness of
intellect, or unsoundness of judgment, or want of logical
acumen in those who held them, which would avail
against its authority in the instances in which it was used,
as well as in those in which it had been passed over.
Moreover it was said that those who used it in defence of
tlie Church knew this well, but were not honest enough
to confess it. They were challenged to confess or deny
the charges thus brought against the Fathers ; and, since
to deny the fact was supposed impossible, they were bid to

VOL. II. D d

402 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

draw out a case, such, as either would admit of a defence of
the fact on grounds of reason, or of its surrender without
surrendering the authority of the Fathers altogether.

Such challenges, and they have not been unfrequent,
afford, I conceive, a sufficient reason for any one who con-
siders that the Church of England derives essential
assistance from Christian Antiquity in her interpretation
of Scripture, to enter upon the examination of the par-
ticular objections by which certain authors have assailed
its authority. Yet it is plain that by those who had
not heard of the writings of these persons, such an exami-
nation would be considered a wanton mooting of points
which no one had called in question.

Again, much animadversion has been expressed, and
in quarters which claim the highest deference, upon the
Tract upon " Reserve in Communicating Religious Know-
ledge." Yet I do not think it will be called a wanton
exercise of ingenuity. Not only does it bear marks,
which no reader can mistake, of deep earnestness, but it
in fact originated in a conviction in the mind of the writer
of certain actual moral evils at present resulting from the
defective appreciation which the mass of even religious
men have of the mysteries and privileges of the
Gospel.

And another Tract, which has experienced a great deal
of censure, is that which is made up of Selections from the
Koman Breviary. I will not here take upon me to say a
word in its defence, except to rescue its author from the
charge of wantonness. He had observed what a very
powerful source of attraction the Church of Rome
possessed in her devotional Services, and he wished,
judiciously or not, to remove it by claiming it for our-
selves. He was desirous of showing, that such Devotions

BISHOP- OF OXFORD. 403^

would be but a continuation in private of those public Ser-
vices which we use in Church ; and that they might be
used by individuals with a sort of fitness, (removing suclx
portions as were inconsistent with the Anglican creed or
practice,) because they were a continuation. He said, in the
opening of the Tract, —

" It will be attempted to wixst a weapon out of our adversaries'
hands ; who have in this, as in many other instances, appropriated .
to themselves a treasure which was ours as much as theirs. . . .
It may suggest .... character and matter for our private devo-
tions, over and above what our Reformers have thought fit to
adopt into our public Services ; a use of it which will be but
carrying out and completing what they have begun." — Tract 75.

I repeat it, that I have no intention here of defending the
proceeding except from the charge of wantonness ; and
with that view I would add, that though there is a
difference not to be mistaken between a book published by
authority and an anonymous Tract, yet, as far as its object
is concerned, it is not very unlike Bishop Cosines Hours
of Prayer, of which I hope I may be permitted to remind
your Lordship in the words of the recent Editor.

" At the first coming of the Queen Henrietta into England, she
and her French ladies, it appears, were equally surprised and dis-
satisfied at the disregard of the hours of Prayer, and the want of
Breviaries. Their remarks, and perhaps the strength of their
arguments, and the beauty of many of their books, induced the
Protestant ladies of the household to apply to King Charles. The
King consulted Bishop White as to the best plan of supplying them
with Forms of Prayer, collected out of already approved Forms.
The Bishop assured him of the ease and the great necessity of such
a work, and chose Cosin as the fittest person to frame the Manual.
He at once undertook it, and in three months finished it and
bi-ought it to the King. The Bishop of London (Mountain), who
was commanded to read it over and make his report, is said to have
liked it so well, that instead of employing a Chaplain as was usnal,
he gave it an " imprimatur " under his own hand. There were at
first only two hundred copies printed. There was, as Evelyn tells

D d 2

404 A LETTEK ADDRESSED TO THE

US, nothing of Cosin's own composure, nor any name set as author
to it, but those necessary prefaces, &c., touching the times and
seasons of Prayer, all the rest being entirely ti-anshited and col-
lected out of an Office published by authority of Queen Elizabeth
and out of our own Liturgy. ' This,' adds Evelyn, ' I rather men-
tion to justify that industrious and pious Dean, who had exceed-
ingly suffered by it, as if he had done it of his own head to intro-
duce Popery, from which no man was more averse, and who was
one who, in this time of temptation and apostasy, held and coh-
firmed many to our Church.'

"The book soon grew into esteem, and justified the judgment
which had been passed upon it, so that many who were at first
startled at the title, ' found in the body of it so much piety, such
regular forms of divine worship, such necessary consolations in
special exigencies, that they reserved it by them as a jewel of great
price and value.' ' Not one book,' it was said, ' was in more
esteem with the Church of England, next to the Office of tho
Liturgy itself.' It appears, in fact, to have become exceedingly
popular, and ran through ten editions, the last of which was pub-
lished in 1719." Preface to Cosin's Devotions, p. xi — xiii.

6.

111. There has been another, and more serious pecu
liarity in the line of discussion adopted in the Tracts,
which, whatever its merits or demerits, has led to their
being charged, I earnestly hope groundlessly, with wanton
innovation on things established. I mean the circumstance
that they have attempted to defend our Ecclesiastical sys-
tem upon almost first principles. The immediate argu-
ment for acquiescing in what is established is that it is
established : but when what has been established is in
course of alteration, (and this evil was partly realized, and
feared still more, eight years since,) the argument ceases,
and then one is driven to considerations which are less safe
because less investigated, which it is impossible at once to
survey in all their bearings, or to use with a sure con-
fidence that they will not do a disservice to the cause for
which thevare adducedrather than abenefit. Itseemed safe

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 405

at the period in question, ■when the immediate and usual
arguments failed, to recur to those which were used by our
divines in the seventeenth century, and by the most
esteemed writers in the century which followed, and down
to this day. But every existing establishment, whatever
be its nature, is Sifact, a thing sui simile, which cannot be
resolved into any one principle, nor can be defended and
built up upon o;ie idea. Its position is the result of a long
historvj which has moulded it and stationed it in the form
and place which characterize it. It has grown into what
it is by the influence of a number of concurrent causes in
time past, and in consequence no one fundamental truth
can be urged in its defence, but what in some other respect
or measure may also possibly admit of being urged against
it. This applies, I conceive, as to other social institutions,
so to the case of our religious establishment and system at
this day. It is a matter of extreme difficulty and delicacy,
to say the least, so to defend them in an argumentative
discussion in one respect as not to tend to unsettle them in
another. And none but minds of the greatest powers, or
even genius, will find it possible, if they do attempt it, to
do more than to strike a balance between gain and loss,
and to aim at the most good on the whole.

6.

I must not be misunderstood, in thus speaking, as if I
meant to justify to your Lordship certain consequences
which have followed under the circumstances from the
attempts of the Tracts for the Times in defence of the
Church. I do but wish to show that, even if evil has re-
sulted, it need not have been wanton evil. Nor am I at
all insinuating, that our established system is necessarily
in fault, because it was exposed to this inconvenience ;
rather, as I have said, the cause lies in the nature of
things, abstract principles being no sufficient measure oC

40G A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

matters of fact. There cannot be a clearer proof of this
than will be found in a reference to that antagonist system,
which it has been the object of the Tracts in so great a
measure to oppose. The case of Rome and her defenders
is not parallel to that between the Tracts and our own
Church, of course ; it would be preposterous so to consider
it ; but it may avail as an a fortiori argument, considering
how systematic and complete the Roman system is, and
what transcendent ability is universally allowed to Bossiiet.
Yet even Bossuet, so great a controversialist, could not
defend Romanism, so perfect a S3'stem, without doing a
harm while he did a service. At least we may fairly con-
cludCj that what the authorities of the Chui^ch of Rome
thought to bi a disservice to il, really was so at the time,
though in the event it might prove a benefit. Dr.
Maclaine in a note on his translation of Mosheim, observes
of Bossuet's Exposition : " It is remarkable that nine
years passed before this book could obtain the Pope's
approbation. Clement X. refused it positively. Xay,
several Roman Catholic Priests were rigorously treated
and severely persecuted for preaching the doctrine con-
Ijined in the Exposition of Bossuet, which was moreover
Ibrmally condemned by the University of Louvain in the
year 1685, and declared to be scandalous and pernicious.
The Sorbonne also disavowed the doctrine contained in
that book." (Vol. v. p. 126.)'
' I am not presuming to draw an illustration from the
history of Bossuet, except as regards his intention and its
result. No one can accuse him of wantonness. What
happened to him in spite of great abilities, may happen to
others in defect of them.

' [These statements of Maclaine's like others which lie makes will not bear
examination ; vid. supr. p. llfi note, and also the Catholic Institute's editioa
of Bossuet's Exposition, in the Introduction to which Maclaiue is refuted
point by point.]

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 407

7.

Several obvious illustrations may be given from the con-
troversies to which the Tracts for the Times have given
rise. Much attention, for instance, has of late years been
paid by learned men to the question of the origin of our
public Services. The Tracts have made use of the results
of their investigations with a view of exalting our ideas of
the sacredness of our Eucharistic Rite ; but in proportioTi
as they have brought to view what may be truly called an
awful light resting on its component parts, they have re-
vealed also that those parts have experienced some change
in their disposition and circumstances by the hand of
time; and accordingly, the higher is the appreciation which
those Tracts tend to create in the minds of their readers
of the substance of the Service, the greater regret do they
also incidentally inspire of necessity, were it ever so far
from their aim, that any external causes should have had
a part in determining the shape in which we at this day
receive it. The effect then has been greatly to raise our
reverence towards the whole, yet to fling around that
reverence somewhat of a melancholy feeling. I am not
defending either process or result, but showing how good
and evil have gone together.

Again, as regards the doctrine of Purgatory, that the
present Roman doctrine was not Catholically received in
the first ages, is as clear as any fact of history. But there
is an argument which Roman controversialists use in its
favour, founded on a fact of very early Antiquity, the
practice of praying for the faithful departed. To meet
this objection, the Tracts gave a reprint of Archbishop
Ussher's chapter on the subject in his Answer to a Jesuit,
in which he shows that the objects of those prayers were
very different from those which the Roman doctrine of
Purgatory requires. Thus the argument against us is

408 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

effectually overthrown, but at the expense of incidentally
bringing to light a primitive practice confessedly uncon-
genial to our present views of religion. In other words,
if the Churchman is by the result of the discussion con-
firmed against Romanism, he has also been incidentally, and
for the moment, (I cannot deny it,) unsettled in some of
his existing opinions.

Or again, the charge brought against the defenders of
Baptismal Regeneration has commonly been, that such a
doctrine explained away regeneration, and made a mere
name and a shadow of that gift of which Scripture speaks
so awfully. We answer, " So far from it, every one is in
a worse condition for being regenerate, if he is not in a
better. If he resist the grace he has received, it is a
burden to him, not a blessing. He cannot take it for
granted, that all is right with his soul, and think no more
about it ; for the gift involves responsibilities as well as
privileges.'' And thus, while engaged in maintaining
the truth, that all Christians are in a covenant of grace,
we incidentally elicit the further truth, that sin after Bap-
tism is a heavier matter than sin before it; or, in main-
taining the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, we intro-
duce the doctrine of formal Repentance. We fortify our
brethren in one direction ; and may be charged with
unsettling them in another.

Or again, in defending such doctrines and practices of
the Church as Infant Baptism or the Episcopal Succession,
the Tracts have argued that thej^ rested on substantially
the same basis as the Canon of Scripture, viz. the testi-
mony of ancient Christendom. But to those who think
this basis weak, the argument becomes a disparagement
of the Canon, not a recommendation of the Creed.

My Lord, I liave not said a word to imply that this
disturbing and unsettling process is indissolubly connected
with argumentative efforts in defence of our own system.

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 409

I only say that the good naturally runs into the evil; and so,
without entering into the question whether or how they
might have been kept apart in the Tracts, I am account-
ing for what looks like wantonness, yet I trust is not.

8.

And perhaps I may be permitted to add, that our diffi-
culties are much increased in a place like this, where there
are a number of persons of practised intellects, who with
or without unfriendly motives are ever drawing out the
ultimate conclusions in which our principles result, and
forcing us to affirm or deny what we would fain not con-
sider or not pronounce upon. I am not complaining of
this as unfair to us at all, but am showing that we may
at times have said extreme things, and yet not from any
wanton disregard of the feelings and opinions of others.
The appeal is made to reason, and reason has its own laws,
and does not depend on our will to take the more or less ;
and this is not less the case as regards the result, even
though it be false reason which we follow, and our con-
clusions be wrong from our failing to detect the counter-
acting considerations which would avert the principles we
hold from the direction in which we pursue them. And a
conscientious feeling sometimes operates to keep men from
concealing a conclusion which they think they see involved
in their principles, and which others see not ; and more-
over a dread of appearing disingenuous to others, who
are directing their minds to the same subjects.

An instance lias occurred in point quite lately as regards
a subject introduced into Tract 90, which I am very glad
to have an opportunity of mentioning to your Lordship.
I have said in the Postscript of a Letter which I have lately
addressed to Dr. Jelf, that the " vagueness and deficiency "
of some parts of the Tract, in the conclusions drawn from
the premisses stated, arose in great measure from the

410 A LETfER ADDRESSED TO IHE

author's being " more bent on laying down his principle
than defining its results." In truth I was very unwilling
to commit the view of the Articles which I was taking, to
any precise statement of the ultimate approaches towards
the Homan system allowed by our own. To say how far
a person may go, is almost to tempt him to go up to the
boundary- line. I am far from denying that an evil arose
from the vagueness which ensued, but the vagueness arose
mainly from this feeling. Accordingly I left, for instance,
the portion which treated of the Invocation of Saints
without any definite conclusion at all, after bringing to-
gether various passages in illustration. However, friends
and ojjponents discovered that my premisses required, what
I was very unwilling to state categorically, for various
reasons, that the ora pro nobis was not on my showing
necessarily included in the Invocation of Saints which the
Article condemns. And in my Letter to Dr. Jelf, I have
been obliged to declare this (viz., that the lawfulness of
this invocation was an open question,) under a representa-
tion made to me that to pass it over would be considered
disingenuous. I avail myself, however, of the opportunity
which this Letter to your Lordship afibids me, without
any suggestion, as your Lordship knows, from yourself, or
from any one else, to state as plainly as I can, lest my
brethren should mistake me, my great apprehension con-
cerning the use even of such modified invocation's.' Every
feeling which interferes with God's sovereignty in our
hearts, is of an idolatrous nature ; and, as men are tempted
to idolize their rank and substance, or their talent, or
their children, or themselves, so may they easily be led to
substitute the thought of Saints and Angels for the one

2 [I have said in a private letter of 1845, Apolog., p. 231, " Invocations
are not required in the Church of Rome; somehow, I do not like using
them except under the sanction of the Church, and this makes me un-
willing to admit them in members of our Church."]

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 411

supreme idea of their Creator and Redeemer, which should
fill them. It is nothing to the purpose to urge the
example of such men as St. Bernard in defence of such
invocations. The holier the man, the less likely are they
to be injurious to him; but it is another matter entirely
when ordinary persons do the same. There is much less
of awe and severity in the devotion which rests upon
created excellence as its object, and worldly minds will
gladly have recourse to it, to be saved the necessity of
lifting up their eyes to their Sanctifier and Judge. And
the multitude of men are incapable of many ideas ; one is
enough for them, and if the image of a Saint is admitted
into their heart, he occupies it, and there is no room for
Almighty God. And moreover there is the additional
danger of presumptuoiisness in addressing Saints and
Angels ; by which I mean cases when men do so from a
sort" of curiosity, as the heathen might feel towards strange
and exciting rites of worship, not with a clear conscience
and spontaneously, but rather with certain doubts and
misgivings about its propriety, and a secret feeling that it
does not become them, and a certain forcing of themselves
in consequence.

9.

IV. Unless your Lordship had ordered me to speak
my mind on these subjects, I should feel that in these
reflections I was adopting a tone very unlike that
which becomes a private Clergyman addressing his Dio-
cesan ; but, encouraged by the notion that I am obey-
ing your wishes, I will proceed in what I feel it very
strange to allow myself in, though I do so. And, since
I have been naturally led into the subject of Romanism,
I will continue it, and explain the misapprehension
wliich has been widely entertained of my views concern-
ins: it.

412 A LETIER ADDRESSED TO THE

I do not wonder that persons who happen to fall upon
certain portions of my writings and them only, and who
in consequence do not understand the sense in which I
use certain words and phrases, should think that I explain
away the differences between the Roman system and our
own, which I hope I do not. They find in what I have
written, no abuse, at least I trust not, of the individual
Roman Catholic, nor of the Church of Rome, viewed
abstractedly as a Church. I cannot speak against the
Church of Rome, viewed in her formal character as a true
Church, since she is " built upon the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
chief Corner-stone.^^ Nor can I speak against her private
members, numbers of whom, I trust, are God's people, in
the way to Heaven, and one with us in heart, though
n<jt in profession. But what I have spoken, and do strongly
speak against is, that energetic system and engrossing
influence in the Church, through which she acts towards
us, and meets our eyes, like a cloud filling her extent,
to the eclipse of all that is holy, whether in her ordinances
or her members. This system I have called in what I
have written, Romanism or Popery, and by Romanists
or Papists I mean all her members, so far as they are
under the power of these principles ; and, while and so far
as this system exists, and it does exist now as fully as
heretofore, I say that we can have no peace with that
Church, however we may secretly love her particular
members. I cannot speak against her private members ;
I should be doing violence to every feeling of my nature
if I did, and your Lordship would not require it of me.
I wish from my heart we and they were one ; but we
cannot, without a sin, sacrifice truth to peace ; and, in
the words of Archbishop Laud, " till Rome be other than
it is," we must be estranged from her.

This view which, not inconsistently, I hope, with our

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 413

chief divineSj I would maintain against the Roman errors,
seems to me to allow at once of zeal for the truth, and
charity towards individuals and towards the Church of
Rome herself. It presents her under a twofold aspect,
and while recognizing her as an appointment of God on
the one hand, it leads us practically to shun her, as beset
with heinous and dangerous influences on the other. It
is drawn out in the following extracts, under which I have
thought it best to set it before j'our Lordship, rather than
in statements made for the occasion, for the reason I have
given above. I think they will serve to show, consistently
with those which I made in my Letter to Dr. Jelf, both
the real and practical stand I would make against Ro-
manism, yet the natural opening there is for an unfounded
suspicion that I feel more favourably towards it than I
do.

10.

I have said in my Lectures on the Prophetical Office of
the Church, —

" Our controversy with Romanists turns more upon facts than
upon first principles ; with Protestant sectaries it is more about
principles than about facts. This general contrast between the two
religions, which I would not seem to extend beyond what the sober
truth warrants, for the sake of an antithesis, is paralleled iu the com-
mon remark of our most learned controversialists, that Romanism
holds the foundation, or is the truth overlaid with corruptions,'*
&c. &c.'

Again, —

" I have been speaking of Romanism, not as an existing political
sect among us, but considered in itself, in its abstract system, and
in a state of quiescence. Viewed indeed in action, and as realized
in its present partisans, it is but one out of the many denomina-
tions which are the disgrace of our age and country. In temper
and conduct it does but resemble that unruly Protestantism which
lies on our other side," &c. &,c.*

' Vid. the passage, supr. in vol. i. pp. 40 — 43.
* Supr. vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

414 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

And again, —

" They profess to appeal to primitive Christianity ; we honestly
take their ground, as holding it ourselves ; but when the con-
troversy grows animated, and descends into details, they suddenly
leave it, and desire to finish the dispute on some other field. In
like manner in their teaching and acting, they begin as if m the
name of all the Fathers at once, but will be found in the sequel to
prove, instruct, and enjoin, simply in their own name," &c. &c.*

In the following passage the Anglican and Roman
systems are contrasted with each other.

"Both we and Romanists hold that the Church Catholic is nn-
erring in its declarations of Faith, or saving doctrine; but we difiPer
from each other as to what is the faith, and what is the Church
Catholic. They maintain that faith depends on the Church, we
that the Church is built on the faith. By Church Catholic, we
mean the Church Universal, as descended from the Apostles ; they
those branches of it which are in communion with Rome," &c. &c.^

And I show, in one of the Tracts, the unfairness of de-
taching the Canons of Trent from the actual conduct of
the Roman Church for any practical purposes, while things
are as they are, as follows : —

" An equally important question remains to be discussed ; viz.
What the sources are, whence we are to gather our opinions of
Popery," &c. &c."

And in the following passage in an Article in the British
Critic written in the course of last year, the contrariety
between the Primitive and Roman systems is pointed
out.

" Allowing the Church Catholic ever so much power over the
faith, allowing that it may add what it will, so that it does not
contradict what has been determined in former times, yet let us
come to the plain question, Does the Church, according to Roman-
ists, know more now than the Apostles knew ? " &c. «fec.*

It is commonly urged by Romanists, that the Notes

* Supr. vol. i. pp. 47, 48. • Supr. vol. i. pp. 212-3.

7 Supr. p. lo5. * ^id. Essnys, vol. ii. pp. 12 — 14.

BISHOP OF OXFOKD. 415

of their Churcli are sufficiently clear to enable the private
Christian to dispense with argument in joining their
Communion in preference to any other. Now in the fol-
lowing passage it is observed, that that Communion has
Notes of error upon it, serving in practice quite as truly
as a guide from it, as the Notes which it brings forward
can be made to tell in its favour.

" Our Lord said of false prophets, ' By their fruits shall ye know
them ;' and, however the mind may be entangled theoretically, yet
surely it will fall upon certain marks in Rome which seem in-
tended to convey to the simple and honest enquirer a solemn
warning to keep clear of her, while she carries them about her.
Such are her denying the Cup to the laity, her idolatrous worship
of the Blessed Virgin, her Image-worship, her recklessness in ana-
thematizing, and her schismatical and overbearing spirit," &c. &c.^

And in one of the Tracts for the Times, speaking of
certain Invocations in the Breviary, I say, —

" These portions of the Breviary carry with them their own plain
condemnation, in the judgment of an English Christian. No com-
mendation of the general structure and matter of the Breviary itself
will have any tendency to reconcile him to them ; and it has been
the strong feeling that this is really the case, that has led the
writer of these pages fearlessly and securely to admit the real ex-
cellencies, and to dwell upon the antiquity of the Roman Ritual.
He has felt that, since the Romanists required an unqualified
assent to the ivhole of the Breviary, and that there wei'e passages
which no Anglican ever could admit, praise the true Catholic portion
of it as much as he might, he did not in the slightest degree ap-
proximate to a recommendation of Romanism." — Tract 75, pp. 9, 10.

" They " [the Antiphons to the Blessed Virgin] " shall be here
given in order to show clearly, as a simple inspection of them will
suffice to do, the utter contrariety between the Roman system, as
actually existing, and our own ; which, however similar in cei-taiu
respects, are in others so at variance, as to make any attempt to
reconcile t'lem together in their present state, perfectly nugatory.
Till Rome moves towards us, it is quite impossible that we should

» Vol. i. p. 265.

416 A LEITER AUDllESSED TO THE

move towarls Rome ; however closely we may approximate to her
in particulai- doctrines, principles, or views." — Tract 7b, p. 23.

In the foregoing passages, protests will be found against
the Roman worship of St. Mary, Invocation of Saints,
Worship of Images, Purgatory, Denial of the Cup, In-
dulgences, and Infallibility; besides those which are
entered against the fundamental theory out of which these
errors arise.

11.

V. And now having said, I trust, as much as your
Lordship requires on the subject of Romanism, I will add
a few words, to complete my explanation, in acknowledg-
ment of the inestimable privilege I feel in being a member
of that Church over which your Lordship, with others,
presides. Indeed, did I not feel it to be a privilege which
I am able to seek nowhere else on earth, why should I
be at this nioraent writing to your Lordship? What
motive have I for an unreserved and joyful submission to
your authority, but the feeling that the Church which you
rule is a divinely-ordained channel of supernatural grace
to the souls of her members ? Why should I not prefer
my own opinion, and my own wa}' of acting, to that of
the Bishop^s, except that I know full well that in matters
indifferent I should be acting lightly towards the Spouse
of Christ and the Awful Presence which dwells in her, if
I hesitated a moment to put your Lordship's will before
my own ? I know full well that your kindness to me
personally, would be in itself quite enough to win any but
the most insensible heart, and, did a clear matter of con-
science occur in which I felt bound to act for myself,' my
personal feelings towards your Lordship would become a
most severe trial to me, independently of the higher con-
siderations to which I have referred ; but I trust I have

> [This was intended as a hint that that day mi^hl come.]

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 417

given token of my dutifulness to you apart from the in-
fluence of such personal motives, and I have done so
because I think that to belong to the Catholic Church is
the first of all privileges here below, as involving in it
heavenly privileges, and because 1 consider the Church
over which you preside to be the Catholic Church in this
country. Surely then I have no need to profess in words,
I will not say my attachment, but my deep reverence to-
wards the Mother of Saints, when I am showing it in action;
yet that words may not be altogether wanting, I beg to
lay before your Lordship the following extract from the
Article already mentioned, which I wrote in defence of the
English Church against a Roman controversialist in the
course of the last year.

" The Church is emphatically a living body, and there can be no
greater proof of a particular communion being part of the Church,
than the appearance in it of a continued and abiding energy, nor
a more melancholy proof of its being a corpse than torpidity. We
say an energy continued and abiding, for accident will cause the
activity of a moment, and an external principle give the semblance
of self-motion. On the other hand, even a living body may for a
while be asleep. And here we have an illustration of what we just
now urged about the varying cogency of the Notes of the Church
according to times and circumstances. No one can deny that at times
the Roman Church itself, restless as it is at most times, has been in
a state of sleep or disease, so great as to resemble death, &c. &c." -

12.

VI. This extract may be sufficient to show my feelings
towards my Church, as far as statements on paper can
show them. I have already, however, referred to what is
much more conclusive, viz. a practical evidence of them ;
and I think I can show your Lordship besides without
difficulty that my present conduct is no solitary instance
of such obedience, but that I have in times past observed
an habitual submission to things as they are, and have
2 [ Vid. Essays, vol. ii. pp. 53—59 for the whole passage.]

VOL. II. EC

418 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

avoided in practice, as far as might be, any indulgence of
private tastes and opinions, which left to myself perhaps
I should have allowed.

And first, as regards my public teaching ; though every
one has his peculiarities, and I of course in the number,
yet I do hope that it has not on the whole transgressed
that liberty of opinion which is allowed on all hands to
the Anglican Clergyman. Nay, I might perhaps insist
upon it, that in the general run of my Sermons, fainter
and fewer traces will be found than might have been ex-
pected of those characteristics of doctrine, with which my
name is commonly associated. I migkt without offence
have introduced what is technically called High-Church
doctrine in much greater fulness ; since there are many
who do not hold it to my own extent, or with my own
eagerness, whose public teaching is more prominently
coloured by it. My Sermons have been far more practical
than doctrinal ; and this, from a dislike of introducing a
character and tone of preaching very different from that
which is generally to be found among us. And I hope
this circumstance my serve as my reply to an apprehen-
sion which has been felt, as if what I say in Tract 90
concerning a cast of opinions which is not irreconcileable
with our Articles, involves an introduction of those opinions
into the pulpit. But who indeed will go so far as to
maintain, that what merely happens not, to be forbidden
or denied in the Articles, may at once be made the subject
of teaching or observance ? There is nothing concerning
the Inspiration of Scripture in the Articles ; yet would a
Bishop allow a Clergyman openly to deny it in the pulpit ?
May the Scripture Miracles be explained away, because
the Articles say nothing about them ? Would your Lord-
ship allow me to preach in favour of duelling, gaming, or
simony ? or to revile persons by name from the pulpit ^
or be grossly and violently political ? Every one will

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 419

surely appreciate the importance and sacrednesa of Pulpit
instruction ; and will allow, that though the holding cer-
tain opinions may be compatible with subscription to the
Articles, the publishing and teaching them may be incon-
sistent with ecclesiastical station.

Those who frequent St. Mary's, know that the case is
the same as regards the mode in which worship is con-
ducted there. I have altered nothing I found established ;
when I have increased the number of the Services, and
had to determine points connected with the manner of per-
forming them for myself, if there was no danger of offend-
ing others, then indeed 1 have followed my own judgment,
but not otherwise. I have left many things, which I did
not like, and which most other persons would have altered.
And here, with your Lordship's leave, I will make allusion
to one mistake concerning me which I believe has reached
your Lordship's ears, and which I only care to explain to my
Bishop. The explanation, I trust, will be an additional
proof of my adherence to the principle of acquiescing in the
state of things in which I find myself. It has been said,
I believe, that in the Communion Service I am in the prac-
tice of mixing water with the wine, and that of course on a
religious or ecclesiastical ground. This is not the case.
We are in the custom at St. Mary's of celebrating the Holy
Communion every Sunday, and most weeks early in the
morning. When I began the early celebration, communi-
cants represented to me that the wine was so strong as to
distress them at that early hour. Accordingly I mixed
it with water in the bottle. However, it did not keep. On
this I mixed it at the time. I speak honestly when I say
that this has been my only motive. I have not mixed it
when the Service has been in the middle of the day.'

3 [When this letter was published, it was at once circulated in reply, that
in Littlemore Chapel I had on one occasion in the middle of the day mixed
water with the wine in Communion. It was true : writing as I was to the

E e 2

420 A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE

13.

If I were not writing to my Bishop, I should feel much
shame at writing so much about myself; but confession,
cannot be called egotism. Friend and stranger have from
time to time asked for my co-operation in the attempt to
gain additional power for the Church. I have been ac-
customed to answer that it was my duty to acquiesce in
the state of things under which I found myself, and to
serve God, if so be, in it. New precedents indeed, con-
firming or aggravating our present Ecclesiastical defects,
I have ever desired to oppose ; but as regards changes,
persons to whom I defer very much, know that, rightly or
wrongly, I have discountenanced, for instance, any move-
ment tending to the repeal even of the Statutes of Trce-
munire, which has been frequently agitated, under the
notion that such matters were not our business, and that
we had better " remain in the calling wherein we wer^
called." Of course I cannot be blind to the fact that
" time is the great innovator ;" and that the course of
events may of itself put the Church in possession of greater
liberty of action, as in time past it has abridged it. This
would be the act of a higher power ; and then I shoidd

Bishop about St. Mary's and my doings there, and what had been told him
about them there, I forgot what had once accidentally happened at
Littlemore several years before ; but the pitiless eyes, which during those
years were upon me almost from daybreak to nightfall, had noted the
occurrence and had taken care to record it. And now the fact was cir-
culated through Oxford to destroy the ed'ect of this Letter. It had taken
place at our Anniversary Feast; 1 had had no intention at all myself
of using water, but the clergyman assisting me in the service, at the time
I placed the wine on the Table, put into my hand a water-cruet, and I, taken
by surprise, knowingly but indeliberately poured some into the cup. As to
the disadvantage under which this Letter was written, I will quote my words
in a Letter to a friend, as they stand in my Apologia : — "The Bishop sent
me word on Sunday to write a Letter to him instanter. So I wrote it on
Monday, on Tuesday it passed through the Press ; on Wednesday it was
out ; and to-day," Thursday, " it is in London."]

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 421

think it a duty to act according to that new state in which
the Church found itself. Knowledge and virtue certainly
are power. "When the Church's gifts were doubled, its
influence would be multiplied a hundred- fold ; and in-
fluence tends to become constituted authority. This is the
nature of things, which I do not attempt to oppose ; but I
have no wish at all to take part in any measures which aim
at changes.

And in like manner I have set my face altogether
against suggestions which zealous and warm-hearted per-
sons sometimes have made of reviving the project of Arch-
bishop Wake, for considering the difierences between
ourselves and the foreign Churches with a view to their
adjustment. Our business is with ourselves — to make our-
selves more holy, more self-denying, more primitive, more
worthy our high calling. Let the Church of Rome do
the same, and it will come nearer to us, and will cease to
be what we one and all mean, when we speak of Rome.
To be anxious for a composition of difierences, is to begin
at the end. Did God visit us with large measures of His
grace, and the Roman Catholics also, they would be
drawn to us, and would acknowledge our Church as the
Catholic Church in this country, and would give up what-
ever offended and grieved us in their doctrine and worship,
and would unite themselves to us. This would be a true
union ; but political reconciliations are but outward and
hollow, and fallacious. And till they on their part re-
nounce political efforts, and manifest in their public
measures the light of holiness and truth, perpetual warfare
is our only prospect. It was the prophetic announcement
concerning the Elijah of the first Advent, that he should
"turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the
heart of the children to th§ir fathers." This is the only
change which promises good or is worth an effort.

422 A LETXEll AUDKESSKU TO THE

14.

What I have been saying as regards Roman Catholics,
I trust I have kept steadily before me in ecclesiastical
matters generally. While I have considered that we
ought to be content with the outward circumstances in
which Providence has placed us, I have tried to feel that
the great business of one and all of us is, to endeavour to
raise the moral tone of the Church. It is sanctity of heart
and conduct which commends us to God. If we be holy,
all will go well with us. External things are compara-
tively nothing ; whatever be a religious body's relations to
the State — whatever its regimen — whatever its doctrines
— whatever its worship^if it has but the life of holiness
within it, this inward gift will, if I may so speak, take
care of itself. It will turn all accidents into good, it will
supply defects, and it will gain for itself from above what
is wanting. I desire to look at this first, in all persons
and all communities. Where Almighty God stirs the
heart, there His other gifts follow in time ; sanctity is the
great Note of the Church. If the Established Church of
Scotland has this Note, I will hope all good things of it ;
if the Roman Church in Ireland has it not, I can hope no
good of it. And in like manner, in our own Church, I
will unite with all persons as brethren, who have this Note,
without any distinction of party. Persons who know me
can testify that I have endeavoured to co-operate with
those who did not agree with me, and that again and
again I have been put aside by them, not put them aside.
I have never concealed my own opinions, nor wished them
to conceal theirs; but I have found that I could bear
them better than they me. And I have long insisted
upon it, that the only way in which the members of our
Church, 80 widely differing in opinion at this time, can be
brought together in one, is by a "turning of heart''

BISHOP OF OXFORD. 42'3

to one another. Argumentative efforts are most useful for
this end under this sacred feeling ; but till we try to love
each other, and what is holy in each other, and wish to be
all one, and mourn that we are not so, and pray that we
may be so, I do not see what good can come of argument.

15.

VII. Before concluding, there is one more subject on
which I wish briefly to address your Lordship, though it
is one which I have neither direct claim nor encouragement
to introduce to your Lordship's notice. Yet our Colleges
here being situated in your Lordship's diocese, it is natural
for me to allude to the lately expressed opinion of the
Heads of Houses upon the Tract which has given rise to
this Letter. I shall only do so, however, for the purpose
of assuring your Lordship of the great sorrow it gives me
to have incurred their disapprobation, and of the anxiety
I have felt for some time past from the apprehension that
I was incurring it. I reverence their position in the
country too highly to be indifferent to their good opinion.
I never can be indifferent to the opinion of those who hold
in their hands the education of the classes on which our
national well-being, spiritual and temporal, depends ; who
preside over the foundations of " famous men " of old,
whose " name liveth for evermore ;" and from whom are
from time to time selected the members of the sacred
order to which your Lordship belongs. Considering my
own peculiar position in the University, so much have
these considerations pressed upon me for a long while,
that, as various persons know, I seriously contemplated,
some time since, the resignation of my Living, and was
only kept from it by the advice of a friend to whom I felt
I ought to submit myself. I say this, moreover, in ex-
planation of a Letter I lately addressed to the Vice-Chan-

424 A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF OXFORD.

cellor, lest it should seem dictated either by a mere per-
ception of what was becoming in my situation, or from
some sudden softening of feeling under an unexpected
event. It expressed my habitual deference to persons in
station.

16.

And now, my Lord, suffer me to thank your Lordship
for your most abundant and extraordinary kindness to-
wards me, in the midst of the exercise of your authority.
I have nothing to be sorry for, except having made your
Lordship anxious, and others whom I am bound to revere.
I have nothing to be sorry for, but everything to rejoice
in and be thankful for. I have never taken pleasure in
seeming to be able to move a party, and whatever in-
fluence I have had has been found not sought after. I
have acted because others did not act, and have sacrificed
a quiet which I prized. May God be with me in time to
come, as He has been hitherto ! and He will be, if I can
but keep my hand clean and my heart pure. I think I
can bear, or at least will try to bear, any personal humilia-
tion, so that I am preserved from betraying sacred in-
terests, which the Lord of grace and power has given into
my charge.

I am, my dear Lord,
Your Lordship's faithful and affectionate Servant,

John Henry Newman.
Obiel College, March 29, 1841.

XL

RETRACTATION
OF ANTI-CATHOLIC STATEMENTS.

1845.

RETRACTATION
OF ANTI-CATHOLIC STATEMENTS.

LiTTIiEMORE,

October 6, 1845.»

It is now above eleven years since the writer of the
following pages, in one of the early numbers of the Tracts
for the Times, expressed himself thus : —

" Considering the liigli gifts, and the strong claims of the Church of
Eome and its dependencies on our admiration, reverence, love, and
gratitude, how could we withstand it,as we do ; how could we refrain
from being melted into tenderness, and rushing into communion
with it, but for the words of Truth itself, which bid us prefer it to the
whole world ? 'He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is
not worthy of Me.' How could we learn to be severe, and execute
judgment, but for the warning of Moses against even a divinely-
gifted teacher who should preach new gods, and the anathema of
St. Paul even against Angels and Apostles who should bring in a
new doctrine ?" '

He little thought, when he so wrote, that the time
would ever come, when he should feel the obstacle, which
he spoke of as lying in the way of communion with the
Church of Rome, to be destitute of solid foundation.

1 [This Article is taken from the Advertisement of the " Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine," published by the Author on his
joining the Catholic Church.]

2 Records of the Church, in the Tracts for the Times, xxiv. p. 7.

428 RETRACTATION OF ANTI-CATHOLTC STATEMENTS.

Having in former Publications directed attention to the
supposed difficulties, he considers himself bound to avow
his present belief that they were imaginary.

What he conceived them to be will be seen by referring
to his Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church/
published in the beginning of 1837. In these Lectures
there are various statements which he could wish unsaid ;
but there is one statement in them, about which he has
never seen any reason at all for changing his opinion. It.
is this : —

" In England the Church co-operates with the State in exacting-
subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles as a test, and that not
only of the Clergy, but also of the governing body in our Univer-
sities, a test against Romanism." *

Such a statement is quite consistent with a wish, on
which he has before now acted, to correct popular misap-
prehensions both of the Roman Catholic doctrines,, and of
the meaning of the Thirty-nine Articles.

Several years since * a Retractation of his appeared in
the public prints which he is desirous of formally acknow-
ledging here, and of preserving. It is as follows : —

It is true that I have at various times, in writing against the
Roman system, used, not merely arguments, about which I am not
here speaking, but what reads like declamation.

1. For instance, in 1833, in the Lyra Apostolica, I called it a
" lost Church."

2. Also, in 1833, I spoke of " the Papal Apostasy " in a work
upon the Arians.

8 \^Vid. Via Media, vol. i.]
< ISupr. vol. i. ix. 17, p. 235.]
* [In February, 1843.]

RETRACTATION OF AXTl-CATHOLIC STATEMENTS. 429

3. In the same year, in No. 15 of the series called the " Tracts
for the Times," in which Tract the words are often mine, though
I cannot claim it as a whole, I say, —

" True, Eome is heretical now — nay, grant she has thereby forfeited
her orders ; yet, at least, she was not heretical in the primitive ages.
If she has apostatized, it was at the time of the Council of Trent.
Then, indeed, it is to be feared the whole Eoman Communion bound
itself, by a perpetual bond and covenant, to the cause of Antichrist."

Of this and other Tracts a friend,^ with whom I was on very
famiHar terms, observed, in a letter some time afterwards, though
not of this particular part of it — " It is very encouraging about
the Tracts — but I wish I could prevail on you when the second
edition comes out, to cancel or materially alter several. The other
day accidentally put in my way the Tract on the Apostolical
Succession in the English Church ; and it really does seem so very
unfair, that I wonder you could, even in the extremity of oiKovojiia
and (pevaKia-fjios, have consented to be a party to it."

On the passage above quoted, I observe myself, in a pamphlet
published in 1838,'—

" I confess I wish this passage were not cast in so declamatory
a form ; but the substance of it expresses just what I mean."

4. Also, in 1833, I said,—

"Their communion is infected with heresy; we are bound to
flee it as a pestilence. They have established a lie in the place of
God's truth, and, by their claim of immutability in doctrine, cannot
undo the sin they have committed." — Tract 20.

5. In 1834, I said, in a Magazine, —

" The spirit of old Rome has risen again in its former place, and
has evidenced its identity by its works. It has possessed the Church
there planted, as an evil spirit might seize the demoniacs of primitive
times, and make her speak words which are not her own. In the
corrupt Papal system we have the very cruelty, the craft, and the
ambition of the Republic ; its cruelty in its unsparing sacrifice of
the happiness and virtue of individuals to a phantom of public
expediency, in its forced celibacy within, and its persecutions with-
out ; its craft in its falsehoods, its deceitful deeds and lying wonders;

« [The Rev. R. Hurrell Froude, Fellow of Oriel.]
' [Letter to the Margaret Professor, supr. p. 207 ]

480 RETRACTATION OF ANTl-CATIfOLTC STATEMKNfS.

and its grasping ambition in the very structure of its polity, in its
assumption of universal dominion : old Rome is still alive; nowhere
has its eagles lighted, but it still claims the sovereignty under another
pretence. The Roman Church I will not blame, but pity — she is, as
I have said, spell-bound, as if by an evil spii'it ; she is in thraldom."

I say, ia the same paper, —

" In the Book of Revelations, the sorceress upon the seven hills
is not the Church of Rome, as is often taken for granted, but
Rome itself, that bad spirit which, in its former shape, was the
animating principle of the fourth monarchy. In St. Paul's pro-
phecy, it is not the Temple or Church of God, but the man of sin
in the Temple, the old maa or evil principle of the flesh which ex-
alteth itself against God. Certainly it is a mystery of iniquity, and
one which may well excite our dismay and horror, that in the very
heart of the Church, in her highest dignity, in the seat of St. Peter,
the evil principle has throned itself, and rules. It seems as if that
spirit had gained subtlety by years : Popish Rome has succeeded to
Rome Pagan : and would that we had no reason to expect still more
crafty developments of Antichrist amid the wreck of institutions and

establishments which will attend the fall of the Papacy !

I deny that the distinction is unmeaning. Is it nothing to be able
to look on our mother, to whom we owe the blessing of Christianity,
with affection instead of hatred, with pity indeed, nay and fear,
but not with horror ? Is it nothing to rescue her from the hard names
which interpreters of prophecy have put on her, as an idolatress and
an enemy of God, when she is deceived rather than a deceiver?"

I also say, —

" She virtually substitutes an external ritual for moral obe-
dience ; penance for penitence, confession for sorrow, profession for
faith, the lips for the heart : such at least is her system as under-
stood by the many."

Also I say, in the same paper,—-

" Rome has robbed us of high principles which she has retained
herself, though in a corrupt state. When we left her, she suffered
us not to go in the beauty of holiness ; we left our garments and
tied."

Against these and other passages of this paper the same friend,
before it was published, made the following protest: — " I only except
from this general approbation your second and most superfluous hit
at the poor Romanists. You have first set them down as demoniac-

RETRACTATION OF ANTI-CATHOLIC STATEMENTS. 431

ally possessed by the evil genius of Pagan Eome, but notwithstanding
are able to find something to admire in their spirit, particularly
because they apply ornament to its proper purposes : and then you
talk of their churches : and all that is very well, and one hopes one
has heard the end of name-calling, when all at once you relapse into
your Protestantism, and deal in what I take leave to call slang."

Then after a remark which is not to the purpose of these ex-
tracts, he adds — " I do not believe that any Koman Catholic of
education would tell you that he identified penitence and penance.
In fact I know that they often preach against this very error as
well as you could do."

6. In 1834 I also used, of certain doctrines of the Church of
Rome, the epithets " unscriptural," " profane," " impious," " bold,"
"unwarranted," "blasphemous," "gross," "monstrous," "cruel,"
" administering deceitful comfort," and " unauthorized," in Tract 38.
I do not mean to say that I had not a definite meaning in every one
of these epithets, or that I did not weigh them before I used them.

With reference to this passage the same monitor had said — " I
must enter another protest against your cursing and swearing at the
endofthe first Feailferfia as you do. (Tract 38.) What good can
it do ? I call it uncharitable to an excess. How mistaken we may
ourselves be on many points that are only gradually opening to us ! "

I withdrew the whole passage several years ago.

7. I said in 1837 of the Church of Eome, —

" In truth she is a Church beside herself ; abounding in noble
gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use them religiously ; crafty,
obstinate, wilful, malicious, cruel, unnatural, as madmen are. Or
rather, she may be said to resemble a demoniac ; possessed with
principles, thoughts, and tendencies not her own ; in outward form
and in natural powers what God has made her, but ruled within
by an inexorable spirit, who is sovereign in his management over
her, and most subtle and most successful in the use of her gifts.
Thus she is her real self only in name ; and, till God vouchsafe to
restore her, we must treat her as if she were that evil one which
governs her. And, in saying this, I must not be supposed to deny
that there is any real excellence in Romanism even as it is, or that
any really excellent men are its adherents."^

* [As to this extravagant passage, I will but say, 1. That it was not in
the writer's mind to use such language of the Catholic Church, but of what he

432 RETRACTATION OF ANTI-CATHOLIC STATEMEX1"S.

8. In 1837, I also said in a review, —

" The Second and Third Gregories appealed to the people against
the Emperor for a most unjustifiable object, and in, apparently, a
most unjustifiable way. They became rebels to establish image
worship. However, even in this transaction, we trace the original
principle of Church power, though miserably defaced and pre-
vented, whose form —

' Had yet not lost
All her original brightness, nor appeared
Less than Archangel ruined and the excess
Of glory obscured.'

Upon the same basis, as is notorious, was built the Ecclesiastical
Monarchy. It was not the breath of princes, or the smiles of a
court, which fostered the stern and lofty spirit of Hildebrand and
Innocent. It was the neglect of self, the renunciation of worldly
pomp and ease, the appeal to the people."

I must observe, however, upon this passage, that no reference is
made in it to the subject of Milton's lines, who ill answers to the idea
expressed in them of purity and virtue merely defaced. An application
of them is made to a power which I considered, when I so wrote, to
befit such language better, viz. to the Koman Church as viewed in a
certain exercise of her pretensions in the person of those two Popes.

Perhaps I have made other statements in a similar tone, and that,
again, when the statements themselves were unexceptionable and
true. If you ask me how an individual could venture not simply
to hold, but to publish such views of a communion so ancient, so
wide-spreading, so fruitful in Saints, I answer that I said to my-
self, " I am not speaking my own words, I am but following

considered to be a portion of it, a branch or local church, the Koman branch,
as another branch was the widely-spread Anglican communion. 2. That ho
considered all these branch churclus, the Anglican inclusive, inhabited and
possessed by spirits of a middle nature, neither good angels nor bad ; as
he quotes himself in Apologia, p. 29, " Daniel speaks as if each nation
had its guardian angel. I cannot bat think that there arc beings with a
great deal of good in thcni, yet with great defects, who are the animating
principles of certain institutions, &c. Has not the Christian Church, in its
parts, surrendered itself to one or other of these simulations of the Truth ? "
3. Though he had very vague ideas of what Catholic divines hold on pos-
Kession and obsession, he might urge that obsession, and even possession, by
evil spirits, may befall the saintly and elect servants of God as well as bad
or ordinary men,]

KETRACTATION OF ANTI-CATHOLIC STATEMENTS. 433

almost a consensus of the divines of my Charch. They have ever
used the strongest language against Home, even the most able and
learned of them. I wish to throw myself into their system.
While I say what they say, I am safe. Such views, too, are .
necessary for our position." Yet I have reason to fear still, that
such language is to be ascribed, in no small measure, to an im-
petuous temper, a hope of approving myself to persons I respect,
and a wish to repel the charge of Romanism.

Admissions such as these involve no retractation of what I
have written in defence of Anglican doctrine. And as I make it
for personal reasons, I make it without consulting others. I am
as fully convinced as ever, indeed I doubt not Roman Catholics
themselves would confess, that the Anglican doctrine is ttie
strongest, nay the only possible antagonist of their system. If
Rome is to be vdthstood, this can be done in no other way.

Of course the Author now withdraws the arguments
referred to, as far as they reflect upon the Church of Rome,
as well as the language in which they were conveyed

[Oct. 11, 1883. — Sir "William Palmer, in his republica-
tion of his " Narrative/' &c., in spite of using words of
me, of which I feel the kindness, ventures to say that
" Newman and Froude had consulted [Dr. "Wiseman] at
Rome upon the feasibility of being received as English
Churchmen into the Papal communion, retaining their
doctrines.^' If this means that Hurrell Froude and I
thought of being received into the Catholic Church while
we still remained outwardly professing the doctrine and the
communion of the Church of England, I utterly deny and
protest against so calumnious a statement. Such an idea
never entered into our heads. I can speak for myself,
and, as far as one man can speak for another, I can answer
for my dear friend also.]

THE END,
VOL. II. F f

LONDOK !
PWMTBD BV GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LD.,

ST. John's house, clbrkenwell road, b.c«

M"^^)

m^^i

KS^

^f^)mi

i^yggu-j^

>>.

;V:^^^V,

;i^^

-^^^si^l'

Ogggg#^

U\ ^Kjx

fcjS'vsJH!;

.V^iS.'