^. ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ A <^ ^ 1.0 1.1 ■so ^^ ■■■ ?* 124 ■u m u 140 IL25 III 1.4 1.6 6" — Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WiST MAIN STMIT W»STIR,N.Y. U5W (716) •72-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notat tachniciuaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba Mbliographlcally unlqua. which may altar any of tha Imagaa In tha raproduction, or which may aignif Icantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. D D D D D Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur rn Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou palliculia Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua Colourad mapa/ Cartaa gAographiquat an coulaur Colourad inic (l.a. othar than biua or blacic)/ Encra da coulaur (l.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) |~~1 Colourad piataa and/or iiluatraticna/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ RalM avac d'autraa documanta Tight binding may causa shadow* or distortion along intarior margin/ La rsliura sarrAa paut causar da I'ombra ou da la diatortion la long da ia marga IntAriaura Blank laavas addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa ^.ava baan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanches aJoutAas lors d'una rastauration epparaissant dans la taxta. mais, lorsqua cala Atait poaaibia, cas pagas n'ont pas «t« fiim«ss. Additional comments:/ Commantairas supplAmantairas: L'Inatitut a microfilm* ia mailiaur axamplaira qu'll lui a At* poaaibia da aa procurer. Lea dAtaila da cat axemp'aire qui sent peut*Atrc uniques du point de vue bibllographlque, qui peuvent modifier une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dene ia mAthode norrnale de f ilmege aont indiquAa ci-daaaoua. r~n Coloured pagea/ Pages de couleur Peges demaged/ Pages endommagAes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAes et/ou peiliculAes |~~| Peges demaged/ pn Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages diacoloured, atained or foxed/ Pages dAcolorAes, tachatAea ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages dAtachAes 0ShO¥Vthrough/ Tranaparence □ Quality of print varies/ QualltA InAgaia de I'impression □ Includes supi*iem»ntary material/ Comprend du matAriei supplAmentaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Aditlon disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata sKps. tissues, etc., have been refiimed to ensure the best possible image/ Lea pages totalement ou partiellii.;ment obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont AtA filmAes A nouveau de fa9on A obtenir la meiiieure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio chacited below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de rAduction IndiquA ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X j_ 12X 16X aox 24X 2SX 32X The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: D.B.WtldonUbnry University of Wtitem Ontario L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grice i la g6n4rosit* de: D.B. Wtldon Library Univtraity of Wtttam Ontario The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustratad impres- sion, or the bac(( cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont tt€ reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de rexemplaire filmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplrires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sent filmis en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon (e cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^i en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une umpreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernkire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »• signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols y signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, cherts, etc.. may be filmed et different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tebleaux. etc., peuvent Atre filmds t des taux de riduction diff6renfs. Lorsque le document es* trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clishA, 11 est film* A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, t^^ gauche i droite. et de haut en bee, en prenant le nombre d'imeges ntcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 .'*is ?;: r;^ ^1 4 It " fK: ■ Tr©»snrc Raom Cb!Tec!rou UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO LIBRARY 3v5 mimmm ' ■'■v. '>>vV'''.'^T* '■'■*" '-■.\ " ;■?''':'■";■■ , ••>•■■■ . \ :) This Book may be used only within the Library. «/-Ni*"-. 1 - ^; i.if'- ■^'jSiiia ''-u'^X 'H U /.£< NO POPERY ^ ■• OR A DEFENCE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER THE N'*:- v> FALSE CHARGES OF THE SO-CALLED REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH EXAMINED AND FULLY REFUTED BY RQE HENRY FREDERICK MELLISH, Incumbent of St. PauVs Church, Caledonia^ Diocese of Niagara, Ont. Religion hath so great, an influence upon the felicity of man, that It ought to be upheld, not only out of a dread of divine vengeance In another world, but ought of regard to temporal prosperity.— 2't{fof<07i. --, li - 1 C AL EDON I A: WM. T. SAWLE, MACHINE PRINTER, " SACHEM " OFFICE. 1878. / H ^k m. > 1, > * H fi u K :'■' - - ih- W Iit3b5-; '• '■ '4 I. < /' t *■ .'i INTRODUCTION. .«, f"f k I. My object in placing this work before the public, is, to furnish the members of the Church of England, and all other persons who really value truth and order, and are desirous of upholding the same, with some necessary information whereby they may obtain a correct knowledge of the things contained in our Book of Common Prayer and other foimularies, that in times past have been objected unto. And why, notwithstanding all these objections made and persisted in, by dissatisfied persons, for some hundreds of years, the general order thereof has been cctotinued without change. And further; why we of the present time, ought still to retain these things, and maintain them in all their integrity. Seeing also that these same objections are now renewed, and urged upon us as reasons why some changes ought to be made : before yielding to popular clamour, it would be as well to ascertain whether such changes can be made with safety or not. By what objections I have considered and here present, it will be seen that there are certain principles involved in the statements we make, and the foims we use : essential to truth, oi-der, and profit : that we are asked to give up. Some particulars having been yielded on former occasions to satisfy tha scrupulous, this is now urged as a reason for the like being done again. But, if, as I believe, and am prepared to shew, our Book of Common Prayer — as it is — is an embodiment of the necessary doctrines and practices of the Christian religion and nothing more ; then there can be no real necesHity for such changes being made as those asked ibr, unless to satisfy the mere whim and caprice of the fastidious ; who would not even be pleased when the changes were made. By the evidence that I shall adduce and the remarks I purpose to make, I intend to shew, that the charges brought against the Book of Common Prayer are not only false, and all v/ho maintain them in the wrong : but, also, that we ourselves are neither deceived nor obstinate ; but only hold fast with faithfulness, the form of sound words committed to our trust Being pledged to teach these doctrines and use these forms, and none other ; and seeing that tliey were prepared as a means for the edification of true Christians, that they might be built up in the true faith of Jesus ; and guided and guarded in the way of obtaining eternal life through Him; this subject becomes of so much importance, our interest in the decision of the matter so great, we cannot permit it to remain even liable to suspicion, much less to be charged with error, but must try and make it manifest that we have the truth. So, the object I desire to attain, is, to be useful, by giving the truth ; and by plain statements of facts, to be understood. , , . It may be, that some persons will consider it a great assumption on my part to engage in such a work without being authorized to do so. Or that it would have been better to have come from some one of higher position in the Church. Perhaps so. But as I am not aware that we have any one in the Church set apkrt for such work, whose peculiar duty it is to meet and reply to objections. And believing it to be a duty ep.ch Clergyman owes to the Church, to defend her doctrines and order, in the way I now do : therefore free to all : I neither usurp the place of another, nor prevent any one else, feeling so disposed, from engaging in \hci work. I . 't'"'-.. . '■ ■ ' V. 'ii' ■('.■•■ivt ' ; >' I . I:. i My remarks therefore must be considered as " expository ; " as giving advice or instiniotion tha^: may be acted upon or rejected, as found to be true or not. I shall not pi-eaume to give an authoritative deciHion of these matters, and say they can 1.^ "none other or otherwise." I only desire to perform the work I have undertaken in a proi)er spii'it, not refusing to bo con-ected if in error. I am not conscious of being swayed by any feeling of prejudice. Neither am I actuated or influenced by any other motive than tliat which should influence or actuate a Christian teacher, viz : a sincere desire to be guided and governed by the truth only. So that, whatever words of censure may be found on the following pages, are intended to apply to the erroneous things actually said and done, and thought worthy of record and attention by the objectors themselves. I have no desire to give unnecessary pain to any one by what I say or write. Still, I fear that it will be difficult to expose erroi-s and ibfute false statements so big with mischief, as these I now treat of, unless I write with a certain degree of earnestness and zeal. Be it therefore remembered ; that I by no means wish to censure those persons who thought it necessary to engage in the work of depraving our Book of Common Prayer, and striving to counteract its influence ; or determine whether they be good and honest men or not. But to shew that they were mistaken in the opinions they had formed and publicly expressed with respect to its contents. Fearing the evil consequences likely to ensue from such false charges, and misrepresentations, unless met and refuted : I have assumed the duty and responsibility of rei)lying to them. Many reasons have combined to urge upon me the necessity of the work being done by some one, some of which I will hei*e name. 1. Truth is an essential part of the Christian religion, without which, it is wortliless. Therefore, truth requires that these charges brought against our Formularies be looked into. 2. I could not keep silence, and let that pass for tinith, without contradiction, which I know to be false. 3. Seeing that very few persons are well acquainted with the thills upon which these objections are grounded ; information 6 must be given by some one, or, error would prevail, and deceive, by means of such one-sided statements. It may be said, records exist whereby these matters may be fully known, at least by the Clergy. True ; but few have facilities for investigation ; and fewer still, an inclination ; so that the great majority would accept these things as represented to them. 4. Anything in religion that can be cleared and explained, ought not to be suffered to remain in doubt and obscurity : teachers wore given to the Church for that purpose : therefore, accurate information on the subjects disputed being obtainable, it is hereby offered. 5. To refuse to i*eply to these objections, would afford a presumption that the objector's representation of the subject was a correct one. Although it does not necessarily follow that it is so : yet silence is generally considered as giving consent, or, a tacit confession of weakness : of wliich those interested do not fail to take advantage, 6. The unfairness of the manner in which these objections are preferred. Being by an appeal to those who have not any correct knowledge of the matters in dispute, and a refusal to abide by the decision of others who are able to determine them. Based upon what is only supposed, or inferred ; garbled quotations, so wrought up, as to make believe, and pass for facts. As this mode of procedure involves a state of things that cannot by any means be profitable, being the very opposite of what is just and true, it ought to be exposed. 7. Mere denunciation would not suifice. It would provoke more opposition, and tend to confirm the error. 8. To effect any good purpose, these objections, whether wise or foolish, true or false, must be examined and dealt with on their own merits. To say they are beneath criticism, or express pity for such weakness and ignorance, might pass the matter over, but would fail to satisfy. • o I do not see why such a manifestation of presumptions ignorance, should be allowed to assort itself and pass unreproved, when it becomes, as in this case, aggressive and delusive. The vanity and ignorance of pretenders, muat be dealt with in the way laid down by St. Paul — by sound doctrine, both to convince and exhort the gainsayers. I puqwse, then, to follow them in the way of their own choice. To deal with the things they have selected as objectionable, and shew, that their objections have no other foundation to rest upon, than the vanity and conceit of their own minds. In consequence of the members of the Christian Church being divided into so many separate parties, works of this nature are frequently viewed with suspicion ; many supposing, that at best, it can be no more than an attempt to make gain for one party by depressing another. I will here state, that I am persuaded no one can bo more deeply impressed with a sense of the numerous evils, caused by these divisions, than I am myself ; nor can any one regret them more. So that I shall be very far from assisting any party, as a party, to make gain. But I will do my best to remove some causes of strife; and so serve the whole body of Christ, by true statements of facts and honest expositions. I ask, therefore, that my work may be impartially considered by those that read it. And that God may be pleased to give it influence, only so far as its contents may be found to be truth, and in agreement with His own Resign for the peace and welfare of His Church, ••>• II. »V' Tho Chuich in aj^aiii troublod by a rosuucitation of a iiunib^n* of objections, that were UHcd by uisaiTected pei'souH in England fioine two or three hundi'od yoai's ago. And although they were fully met and answered at tho time, and ought to liave been considered as dead and buried ; yet these modern Puntans — the self styled Refonned Episcopal Church — ha < i laid claim to them, and think they still possess sufficient force to serve once more, the same evil pui'pose of schism that they formerly served. And nothing more suitable presenting itself, they have placed them as a foundation upon which to build up, and gather in, an assembly of the disaffected in the present day. Being desirous to give what help I can to remove, or silence objections raised against the sei*vices of our Church j in order to employ my time usefully, I shall only deal with such as have a permanent foim. Because being piinted, they fumisli me with something more substantial and reliable than mere hearsay, or floating rumour. I therefore ask your attention to a review of matters of this nature contained in a pamphlet by the Rev. M. Gallagher; and entitled " Revision a Duty and Necessity." The Rev. Mason Gallagher, who styles himself a " Presbyter of the Reformed Episcopal Church," some time ago, delivered a counse of Lectui'es at different places in Canada, viz : — Ottawa, Toronto, Brantford, dtc. The substance of which he gives in a pamphlet as named above. I saw a brief report of these Lectures in the l^ewspapers at the time, and gave a general reply thereto, which was iuserted in tlie Brantford "Courier." I promised, and propai-ed, a more particular refutation ; but before publishing what I had then prepared, I met with a copy of the work now being noticed and reviewed, which caused me to withhold it for a time. I saw that the entire substance of his Lectures was formed from a gross misconception of the subject spoken against That it was wrought into specific charges of erroneous doctrines and sui)erstitious practices being taught and done, by means of the Book of Common Prayer. Also, that the characters and motives of the compilers of it, were misrepresented and maligned So I concluded the best course to adopt in repelling and refuting the same, would be by preparing specific answers thereto, in the most accurate manner possible. That there was great need for some one to undertake this, will be seen by the quotations shortly to follow. A request that the Lecturer would permit his Lectures to be published, and a notice of the support given to the schism by certain persons in Brantford. For when persons supposed to be well informed and observant in such matters, can be imposed upon with such trashy stuff as the garbled statements the Lecturer sets forth, and unable to detect its fallacy ; but rather give their support and encouragement, commending it as " information of the most valuable nature," wc may conclude the power for evil is much more wide-spread than at first would be 8upi)0sed. It is high time some one who knows better should give a true account of such things, or, what is to become of the "general public," who are supposed not to know 1 " To the Rev. Mason Gallagher : Dear Sir: — We, the undersigned, having listened with the greatest interest to the able and exhaustive lectures delivered by you on the 12th and 19th instant, concerning the " Revision" and " Unprotestantizing " of the Book of Common Prayer, do most earnestly request that you will, at a very early day, have the same published in pamphlet form for general distribution and perusal. We do feel that the said lectures contain much information of the most valuable natui'e, which is practically hidden from the general 2 Iii * 10 public, and their publication, therefore, cannot but serve a good purpose. , ., :, .Ottawa, 20th April, 1874. Alexander Burritt, \ ^, , -itt i A. RowE, I *^*"'"='' Wardens. Thomas H. Kirby and nine other Yestiymen. The Hon. D. Ciihistie, President o^ the Senate, Dominion of Canada. The Hon. K B. Dickey, I s » t • The Hon. Alexander Vjdal, j ^ ^ "^ James Johnson, Assistant Commissioner of Customs." In the " Brant Union," October 1st, 1874, with the report of a lecture by the same jierson, entitled " Various Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer," will be found as follows : " The Rev. Mr. McCall, a Congregational Minister, proposed a vote of thanks to the lecturer for his veiy able exposition of the principles of the " Reformed Episcopal Churcii," and in a very neat and intelligent speech, ai)proved of their })rinciples. The Rev. Mr. John Alexander, Pastor of the Second Baj)tist Church, in a short speech, seconded the resolution. "The Chaii-man (The Rev. Mi*. Porter, Pastor of the First Baptist Church,) in a few well-timed remarks, put the resolution to the meeting, and it was caiTied unanimously." mL :o: n Having diligently examined and compared each statement contained in these lectures, said to be " information of the most valuable nature," with authenticated copies of the original documents : truth rciquires me to declare the " information," the ^•everse of " valuable " : — worthless. And not only so, but being filse — dangerous and destructive. Opposed to the religious welfare of all persons influenced by it. The statements made, are contraiy to facts. The inferences, false, and unwarranted. The lectures furnish abundant evidence themselves, that they were " got up to serve . n occasion," That they are the work of some one half -read '^ I u hasty in asserting, rasli in concluding. Whoever compiled them must have had more boldness than judgment ; more conceit than sound learning. « With respect to those persons who conmiended and SMj)ported them, there may ))e no re?,son to doubt, that thtjy thought "they were doing God service." But their zeal was not tempered with discretion, neither was their work according to knowledge. It is veiy much to be regreted, that su(;h pei'sons, who are in eveiy way worthy of our esteem ; and qualilied to do good service for Christ's Church, under i)roper guidance ; should suffer themselves to be so deceived by vain talkers. We find a veiy large class of pious men and women, keenly desirous to do something for the spiritual good of their fellow creatures ; but who are impatient of control, and irregulai* in their doings. Wlio want to take the lead in matters where they ought to follow. Who are very ready at devising plans for the guidance of othei's ; ])ut, " thinking of themselves more highly than they ought to think," will follow nothing but the devices and desiies of their own heaits. If such persons would be persuaded to exercise a little more care and prudence in such matters ; and first obtain the requisite knowledge to form a correct idea of the nature of the work they undertake to do, and the manner in which it should be done ; they would meet with more real success. Too frequently their labour is bestowed in vain ; they are disapj)ointed in their expectations ; which brings discouragement, and ends by the work being given up altogether. I have not written these stiictures with any design to hinder any one from engaging in a good work ; but to desti-oy fanciful absurd theories, and to stimulate enquiry ; so as to urge objectors generally, to the obtainment of more accurate knowledge of these subjects, which they — not we — think necessary to be brought before " the general public." 12 But if by means of these things, the truth is brought to lighti the mouth of the ignorant oaviller, or presumptuous objector, stopped ; and the good purpose served, which they profess to desire : although in a diflferent way from what is expected : there will be nothing for any good man to regret, but much to rejoice over. Because the way will be found so much smoother for those, who, with honest purpose and truthful words, seek to advance the cause of trua^eligion. I 18 CHAP. I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS. Before I examine, and classify, the particular objections these people have made a;/ainst the different services of the Church of England, I intend first to notice, and remark upon, some general statements, made in reply to the " address ;" as also some things contained in the preface. Because, in them, we find the professed cause of their discontent, and the purpose they seek to accomplish by their separation. I shall give the statements they make, in their own words. Objection 1. " The issue to-day is not between the Ritualists and the Reformed Episcopalians, but it is between the Romanizing tendencies of the present Prayer Book and the Reformers. The crushing out of a few prominent Ritualists would be as effective in removing the spreading evil as lopping off some of the taller stalks would successfully rid a field of Canada thistles." Answer. The objector here boldly asserts, that the Book of Common Prayer is the sole cause of offence, and the reason for their new schism being begun ; which will biing the controversy within certain definite limits. I accept the "issue," and will examine the specified charges of " Romanizing tendencies " to see whether they be true or false. Objection 2. "The roots of error are in the Prayer Book, and Ritualism and kindred errors are the legitimate and necessary outgrowth. These roots must be grubbed up,, and that work the Reform Episcopal Church has attempted. " The present crop of Puseyism, Ritualism, Sacerdotalism, and Sftcramentarianism, which has startled the Protestant Episcopal Cl^urqh, is ^he ^atiu^l, legitimate, a^d n^oessaiy re^\^t of theiju^vpf 1 I i \ lii Hj! I I I 14 a Liturgy and offices intentionally Romanized ; and the crop will flourish as long as the seed is sown, even by professedly Protestant hands." Answer. The Book of Common Prayer is made up of words, which, from good authority, may be called "seed." Now every seed has ITS OWN body, gei-m, and roots. And this book of " seeds," like other books, is a definite and fixed fonn — which gives the substance, and rule, of what is to be said and done in the Church of England. Like the Bible, it must be one and the same thing to each and every one professing to be governed by it. Therefore, if honestly and intelligently used, would make all men of one mind. The doctrine of the Church, is strictly confined to what has been gathered from the Canonical Scriptures, and nothing else urged as necessaiy to salvation. Bishop Pilkington, in reply to the Romish assailants of 1559, says: "our Service hath nothing in it but what is wiitten in God's book, the Holy Bible (where no lie can be found), saving Te Deum, and a few collects and prayers ; which, although they be not contained in the Scriptures, yet, differing in words, they agree in sense and meaning with the Articles of the Faith, and the whole body of the Scriptures." In addition, we have certain Rites and Ceremonies to be observed, which are simple in their nature, and necessary for decency, and order, in conducting Public Worship. But, we believe that our mode of worship and service, is, in every thing agreeable to the order of Christ's Church, and in nothing, contraiy to God's word written. Each particular office has certain selected Sentences, Prayers, etc., to be said ; certain fixed Rites and Ceremonies, to be observed and done ; so that what is said and done, may be done properly, I. E. in accordance with truth, order, and decency. Now each of these offices, has its limit of word and action ><5arefully defined : to be " none other, or otherwise." Therefore, so 15 To? long as nothing but the teaching of the Scriptures, is allowed to be said ; and nothing contrary to the order of Christ's Church, required to be done ; these " germs — roots — and seeds of eiTor," must be brought into the Cliui-ch, (if such tliere be) by some other means than the Book of Common Prayer. It is not improbable, men are not infallible, but that these very persons who say, " the roots of error " are in the Prayer Book, may find them in their own hearts. And by their tongues may be planting roots of error, and sowing the seeds of strife and division themselves. I expect to be able to prove, even to their own satisfaction, that such is the case, before I complete my work. That diverse practices and opinions^ have been, and may still be found in our Church, we do not deny. But they were not CAUSED by anything contained in the Book of Common Prayer. Tliey spring from the wilfulness, or ignorance, of individuals, who mistake the sense of the words and jjurpose of the Book, and give, or serve their own instead. Who leave undone and unsaid, things that ouglit to be said and done ; and who do and say things that ought not to b(i said and done. Our Church has ever been harassed with " foreign opinions ;" and these "germs — roots — and seeds — " causing dissension, and diveise practices, ai'e the " foreign opinions " imported from Rome, Geneva, and elsewhere. They have been sown, or planted by such as have been influenced by them, with the " good seed " of the word. And successive " crops " will spring up, and flourish — until all persons entrusted with the Ministry, honestly discharge their " dut) •'! that state of life in which it has pleased God to call them," viz : in the Church of England. And not in that of Rome, Geneva, or any other. The use of such ambiguous terms as, Puseyism, Ritualism, Hierarcliical pressure, Romanizing tendencies, etc., which always piore or less abound in such charges, can only be intended tq >i ill 't 16 iiifluence those who are more easily caught by sound than sensa To utilise a remark of Jerome's, " they weave a web, which can catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats, but is broken by stronger ones." In addition to these charges, will be found some complimentary remarks on the " intelligence and earnestness " of his admirers ; who had the wisdom, grace, and courage to engage in the work. Some " railing accusations " against " three ungodly Monarchs and a degenerate Clergy." The conduct of Queen ^Elizabeth, with respect to the Book of Common Prayer, specially censured. A SUPPOSITION, that few of the Clergy and Laity are aware that the Catechism of Edward VI. has been practically suppressed in the Church of England. An assertion, that the Book of Common Prayer, has "a history that will not bear investigation." I venture to hope, that should they possess the "intelligence and wisdom " ascribed to them ; after reading this work, their "earnestness and courage" will impel them to say — we were greatly mistaken and deceived. It will readily be perceived from the foregoing remarks, that the whole work of defence and clearance from these charges, vnll turn upon the truth or falsity of the assertion, that our Prayer Book contains within it, some of the erroneous practices and doctrines of the Church of Home. But I must take another and a shorter way, than that of following the objector in all his vagaries ; because it would be both tedious and endless, and serve no good purpose when done. His charges are unconnected, and carelessly arranged. As there appears to have been no purpose of truth or order to serve in what he undertook ; but a foregone conclusion that the Book was " intentionally Romanized," and therefore must be suppressed ; so any, and every objection that could be found to cast odium upon what they do not want, was hastily adopted. And these selected objections are so blended together, that they may well be called — a gatl^^ring together of numerous crude misrepresentations into a paob. /?': • 17 Tliere in not any (>bj(jcfci(^u mjie contiary to Scripture, corrupted by many errors, and to agree with the Church of Komo in doctrine. But as a sp('.ciiu<'-n of tl»o self com]»litcft to our generation to construct a Baptismal OlHce in strict accoi'dance with Holy wiit. This has been done in the recent Council of tlie Kefornied Episcopal Church." The Catechism, is said to have been " altered to intensify the Sacramental prineijjle of tlie book." Although the additions were made in the time of Jas. i. at the request of the Puritans. So difficult is it to please tliose persons whose will and pleasure it is, not to be pleased with anything but what is done by themselves. The Commiuiion Service, they allege, has been altered at different times, and each time made less Protestant in its character. The Articles, it is asserted, were "tampered "'with, some things added and others suppressed ; and the publication of them held back until Queen Elizabeth had broken with Rome. All of which was done, lest the Poi)e and members of the Church of Rome should take offence. * The Ordination Seivice is severely condemned, on account of the exclusive spiiit manifested by it. Tlie use of the Apocrypha, Tradition, and some other things olyected unto, will be found noticed in the body of the work. All these charges are gross assumptions, have no foundation in fact ; but a collection of objections gathered from any source, as if the sole pur[)ose, was, to condemn and destroy by any means, a foi-m of doctrine and worship, the truth and pui'ity of 3 nl 18 which has never been disproved ; and tJiat has not an equal in any branch of the Christian Church. Then lest these things objected against in the Book itself, sliould not bo found sutRcient for the utter condemnation of it : we find the usual amount of abuse thia class of writers delight to indulge in and pour out upon those who differ from tliem. So the character of fiach of the Monarchs, and some of the Clergy, who were engaged . in the several Revisions, is asserted to be such, that it would be an impossibility for the book to be found pure after passing through such " filthy hands." Such meaningless and reckless assertions jire the natural refuge of a man who does not understand his subject, or even know his own mind. But with the help of a few illustrations, I hope to shew that the book is neither " the outgrowth of man's wisdom," nor yet a compilation " to serve certain purposes of state," but that it has a CHARACTER of its own. Although I have no intention of setting it up as a " Liturgical Idol ;" still, I think it has only to be known and understood, in order to be valued for its own intrinsic excellence, and the good purpose it is intended to serve. Notwithstanding that " it is left to our generation to CONSTRUCT Services, etc.," the objector has somewhat mistrusted his position ; and tried to fortify it, by assuming that his. opinions are in pei-fect acccd with such writers as Jerome, Cranmer, Grindal, and other names of good repute and authority in the Church. But in every quotation made, it is evident that he has misrepresented the matter ; garbled the quotations to serve a purpose ; and that his witnesses, when allowed to speak in their own words, testify against him. The main charges, those expected to have the most influence with the general public, are these : — that the worship of our Church even when reformed, had from the first a close resemblance to that of Rome. But subsequently that the Book was " unprotestantized." So the difiereiio alterations made in the Rubrics, Forms of Prayer, etc., are said to be '' steps in the directipn of Rome." Queen Elizabett\ i 19 k is said to have taken at least seven steps in that direction ; and by each su})se(juont revision, the number was increased. Seeing that so many " sto[»s " are said to have been taken, and Rome yet very far off, our opimnents ought at least to give up the "paper wall" fallacy as it should not take so many steps to pass through a ])apt'r wall : unless they intcMid by that paper wall — tlu; Bible — in the language of the pooi)le. For that is the real dividing wall between the two Churches. But this foolish notion, that ev r} thing done by the Church of Rome, whether good or bad, ought to be avoided ; is by no means a modei-n one. It has been a i)ocidiar of the Puritans from the earliest Reformation times, and a cause of much hindrance and vexation. For in the time of Jas. i. at the Hampton Court Conference, Doctor Reynolds desired tliat the custom of making the sign of the cross on the forehead, in baptism, sliould be abandoned ; because, IN THE TIME OF pofi:ry, it had been sui)erHtitiously abused. King James in answering said, " Tliough I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long ; yet, i* there were nothing else to move me, this very argument were an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order established : for inasmuch as it was abused, so you say, to superstition in the time of popery, it doth plainly imply that it was well used before popery. I will tell you, I have lived among this Bort of men — Puritans — (speaking to the lords and bishops) ever since I was ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ did of himself, though I lived amongst them, yet since I had ability to judge, I was liever of them ; neither did any thing make me more to condemn and detest their'courses, than that they did so peremptorily disallow of all things which at all had been used in popery. For my part I know not how to answer the ol)jection of the pajnsts when they charge us with novelties, but truly to tell them, that their abuses are new, but the things which they abused we retain in their primitive use,, and forsake only the novel coiTuption. By this argument we might renounce the Trinity, and all that is holy, 1-^ H : I ii4 I! I It 20 because it was abused in popery ! (and speaking to Dr. Reynoldd merrily) they used to wear hose and shoes in popery, therefore you shall now go barefoot." But to be brief : you may find in the Church of Rome, evoiy truth and ordinance of the Christian Church, as used by the Apostles and their immediate successors in the earliest age& ; any one of which no right thinking person would wish to part with or to see abolished. But in addition, you will find the first foundations so overlaid with the superstitious rubbish of after nges, that it would bo a life-long labour to come at any one of them in its purity. Those who wish to speak truthfully of the Church of England in these matters, should say, that we desire to agi'ee with the Church of Rome in every thing, where Rome is found to have Christian truth. But not in anything wherein Rome has corrupted that truth. No other ]iosition than this, could be taken and held with safety ; for to act otherwise, would be to destroy the foundations, and build our house upon the sand. We may permit the " railing accusations " of " ungodly Monarchs, and a degenerate Clergy," to pass for what they may be worth to those who value them. We ought not to be contentious for a good name ; let those who use opprobrious names, look to it for themselves. " Idki words " are rosei-vcd for the judgment of the great day. But we ARE contentious for the truth of our doctrine, and purity of our Service, and wo follow good examples. When our blessed Saviour was called a Galilean, a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners — when He was reviled. He answered not again ; but when they said " He hath a devil," He replied " I have not a devil." Again : a certain follower of Christ, when persecuted and slandered, let all personal charges pass without reply. But when called a heretic, he said " I am a sinner, but I am not a heretic." When asked why he answered to the one rather than the ) 21 any to find ^h of one f the other : he said, he learned of Christ his Master to suffer lies, Imt not His doctrine to be touched ; for heresy separates a man from God." I may be excuH(»(l for quoting the following words of Canon Stowoll, seeing they fully moot the objection of " filtliy hands." " Tt would be Utopian to look for a faultless branch of the visible Church, at least in the })resent dispensation. Those who go an ecck^siastical voyage of discovery in search of such a Churcli, are becking on earth what they ought to look for in Heaven — expecting in the Church militant, what they ought to anticipate in the Church triumi)hant. If a man tell nu) he cannot be contented till he find a perfect Church, where no tares commingle with the wheat, I just ask him — are you sinless end perfect yourself 1 And if he know ought of his own heart he will assuredly answer — No. Then I rejoin — J'2 you are not siidess yourself, what right have you to demand a sinless Church ? For were you to find the siidess Church of which you dream, by joining it, you would nuike it sinful — you would mar the perfection which you had coveted. The state of the Church of England, liowever her discipline may be raised and revised, will still be, and cannot fail to be, a mixed stkte. Does this oft'end any 1 Such was the state of the Church of Corinth ; Such was the state of the Church of Rome ; such was the stjite of the Church of Philippi ; and at the very time when the Apostle inspired by the Spii'it of God, addressed the general body of ostensible believers in those Churches as " holy brethren, called to be saints, elect of God." He designated them thus, in accordance with their profession, and in consonance with that charity which * belie veth all tilings, and hopeth all tilings.' At the same time, from what follows in these very e})istles, it is clear, that in those Churches, as in all visible Churches, the tares grew beside the wheat, and the j)recious were not sejiarated from the vile. * Let both grow together until the harv(!st,' is the ordinance of God ; and let us not be more intolerent of the mixture than He is, whose holiness must be infinitely more offended ))y it than our imperfection can be." I will next laoceed to an examination of tlie particulars charged against us, and shew in what our forms of doctrine are supposed to be corrupted. I will endeavour to point out distinctly, the tilings the objector has mistaken and misrepresented, and make plain the fallacy of his objections." 22 CHAP. II. BAPTISM. M 'I: In treating oit this subject, i think it will he necessiity first to> ^ive the reader an intimation of caution, and state what part of it is objected unto. The objections are made against what is ordered to be said and done in the Book of Common Prayer, as set forth in the Offices of Baptism. It is alleged that some of the things ordered, are not Scriptural. I would also desire it to be borne in mind, that the baptism of Infants, and mode we uce in baptizing, have not been called in question , so that these subjects will not be discussed at all hera Objection I. (a) "The office for Infant Baptism is not a Scriptural office." Answer. As to the " office " being a Sci-iptural one ; the Scripture gives no other fixed form for Baptism, than that it is to be with water, and the words we use in baptizing, viz : — I baptize thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen." All the other parts of the " office," as Exhoi-tation, Prayer, Thanksgiving, etc., follow from the need we have of instruction, help from God, and gratitude for benefits vouchsafed. Obj. I. (b) " It begins with tlie proposition that the subject is dead in sin, the water is sanctified to the mystical washing away of sin ; the subject is baptized, and a thanksgiving is offijred for the regeneration which has just taken place." ^ Ans. This is the only statement giving the substance of the assertion, that our Baptismal sei'vices are not Scriptural. But why these four things should be selected as " not Scriptural," appears to i 23 m« RtrRngo indoe*!. Sceing tlie deplorable state of all mankjul by nature, was doubtles.'* that which moved God to send his Son' into- the world, and institute the Christian religion ; which is Hiju appointed, and sole remedy for the evil. Obj. I. (n) " The water is sanctified to the mystical washing away of sin." Ans. Truth and candour would require it to be statoil thus — Prayer is made to (iod to sanctify the water. Seeing that water is the element Christ appointed to be used in Baptism, and can only be efficacious when accompanied with God's blessing, we do well to make tin; ncknowledgment that He is the Author and Giver of all good things, to ask in prayer, and to believe " that if we ask anything according to His will He heareth us." We follow thei scripture very closely in this matter, as may be seen from ActSi xxii. 16, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins> calling on the name of the Lord." Obj. I. (d) "The subject is bai)tized." Ans. In obedience to the command of Christ, who said, " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, y God's grace take u})on us to defend, that not only the Common Prayers of the Church, the ministration of the sacraments, and other rites and cerenumies, but also all the doctrines and RELIGION set forth Ijy our sovereign lord King Edward the Sixth, is more pui-e and according to God's word than any other that hath been used in England these thousand years : so that god's word MAY BE THE JUDGE, and that the reason and })roof upon both parties may be set out in writing." fi! y h ! !! 26 They were not influenced by Roman error in the compilation of the Baptismal Services ; for the Church of Eome had not any doctrine, or office for Baptism, that could be said to be peculiarly hers before the council of Trent. It is a fact well known, that the worship of that Church as now used, was not defined or authoiized before that time. Now, the decrees of that council were not confirmed, or promulgated, bt^fore January 26th, 1564. Avd were to be held as obligatory from the 1st of May, same year. Therefore, the Reformers of Edward could not be influenced in 1549, or 1552, by what was set forth in 1564. Obj. II. (b) " The doctrine of Baptism in the offices of the two churches is the same. This is made clear by the fact that when Stapleton, another Roman conti'oversialist in 1565, presented a very careful exposition of the points of difference between his own Church and that of England, among his twenty-two points, he makes no allusion to the subject of Baptism." Ans. The objector has assumed that silence gives consent. As there are no charges in this objection, I must follow him in his conjecture, and answer by another, but with better ground. There Avas no need for Stapleton to have brought forward the subject of baptism in his controversy. Not because the doctrine " of the two churches is the same," but, for another reason, that will be new to most persons. The Church of Rome assumes the position of being the mother and mistress of all Cliurches. Every baptized person, by WHOMSOEVER BAPTIZED, is claimed as a subject of the Pope. The members of the so-called Reformed Episcopal Church amongst the number. It matters nothing whether we ai-e willing or unwilling to acknowledge his authority, the claim is set up and persisted in. The maintaining and asserting the Pope's supremacy is the CHIEF article of the religion of Rome, and the last to be given up. Let any church but acknowledge the Pope to be God's vicegerent on earth, and it would readily obtain permission from Rome to regulate doctrines and qere^ionies in any way that would **?* t npilation not any eculiarly that the ithoiized v^re not r^cl were lerefore, n- 1552. the two it when I a very is own nts, he lit. As in his There ject of le two EW to lothei* •n, by The it the ? or ) and nacy ?iven jrod's from ould 27 he pleasing to it. I will now give some specimens of the authorized doctrine of the Chva^ch of Rome on the subject of Baptism, which will explain why there was no necessity to compare their teaching witli ours, on this subject. Council of Trent. " Socon'l part of the Decree concerning Baptism. Canon iv. — Whoever shall affirm that baptism, when administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy (Ihost, with intention to do what the Church does, is not true baj>tism ; let him be accursed." Cardinal Bellarmine expounds it thus: "by 'the church ' is not meant the Roman Church, but the true Church, as understood BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ; SO that when a minister of the Church of Geneva ; foi" instance-baptizes any one : he intends to do what the Church does, tliat is, the Cliurch of Geneva, which he holds to RE the true Church." Again ; these that follow, are words from another Decree of the same council. " Penance. Chap. II. It is very plain that the minister of baptism cannot be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment only ON THOSE WHO have FIRST ENTERED INTO HER BY THE GATE OP BAPTISM. For what have I to do, saith the Apostle, ' to judge them who are without X 1 Cor. v. 1 2. But it is otherwise with those who are of the household of faith whom Christ the Lord hath made members of his body in the laver of baptism. For if these afterwaj'ds defile themselves by any transgression, it is not his will that they should be cleansed by the repetition of baptism, which is on no account lawful in the Catholic Church, but they should be placed as offenders before the tribunal of penance, that they may be absolved by the sentence of the priests, not once only, but as often as they penitently flee thereto, confessing their sins." And from the Catechism of the Council of Trent — " Yet it is not to be denied, but that they (heretics and schismatics) are in the power of the Church, as those who may be judged by her, and condemned with an anathema." Thus it will be plainly seen, Borne has nothing to gain or lose by any particular form of words to be used, or mode adopted. All S' '' I ^ ' 28 liiipiized persons, witlioiit. rofcrcnco to tlio office, doctrino, or mode. ur(! liable to ])o coinpolled by puniHliiiK^nt, to be Christians ; which bj Iloiuan Csitholic divinity, nieaiis s])iritnal subjects of the Pope. Tlui policy of that Church has never Ix^en one of persuasion, but i!0(M'cioii. 'i'iiey do not trouble themselves much about opinions, save aud except as such opinions might forward or hinder them in obtaining tlunr prime object- sole jurisdiction There is a dilTerence between the Church of England and that of Home, in i\w. doctrine's and ceremonies each uses in Baptism. About the same dilKerence as would be found between the woi-d of (lod in its purity, and the same word, obscured and corrupted by many sujterstitious notioMs and pViVctitH's. If any one is contentious, or desirous to assert tlu* contrary, and has any regard for truth : let him first m;ister the subject, and understand whereof he affirms, and M htM'cin he denies. cuax(;ks in Till-: offices for hattism. Obj. Til. (a) "What did they do with the offices for Baptism? 'Plu'v restored the words ' sanctifv this water to the mvstical washing awav of sin ;' words which, while in the original service book of 1') p.), were carefullv excluded from that of lo.'rj.'' A US. This objection also, is onlv a part of the truth. SeU'cted and supported by statemelits of other objeetoi-s whicli convev a false idea of what i- intended bv the words beinc placed there. Previous to l')"J2, the water to be used in Baptism was •'pro[>ared" ready for use beforehand. By this I mean, that theiv was not anv praver made to God, to sanctifv the water, on EVERY occasion when Baptism was administered, as is now done. And that it did not, necessarily, form a part of the public service. 1 i>urpose to shew tliis by the Rubric, and some of the prayers oi"vlv»rtHl to be said, taken from the book of 1.M9 :— ^*fjf 29 *'Tlu' Widvv ill tJu' fold s]i;ill ].(> (.•]iaii;,MMl ovcrv iiiontli once at loast; jukI at'oi-e any child 1k> l)a]>tiz('(l in tin' watci* so cliaii.Lr^'d, tlie Pi-iest .shall say at the font thesf jtrMVt'rs follow iii<>' : ***** Sanctify f this fountain of Itaptisni, tliou tliat art the sanctiKer of all tliin;,'s, tJiat hy the jKiwer of thy ^\n\d all those that khall he baptized therein may he s])irituallv regenerated, and made the children of everla.stino- adoj)tion. Anien. merciful dod, ^i^raut that the old Adam in tliem that shall pa: nAPTiZKi) in this fountain, may he >^o ijuried, etc."" Avitli sex en others and the following one : — " Almighty (>verlasting (lod, ^\'hose most deai-ly heloved Son Jesus (Uirist, for t\w the fo)-giveness of our sins, t'tc./ * * •>^ * liegai-d, we beseech thee, the sujtplications of thy cf)ngregatioii, and grant that all thy ser\a7its wiiirn shall in-: [!Aptized ix thls WATEK, prefarkd for the miinstnition of thy liolv S:i;^ram<'nt, may receive the fulness c^i thy gr.'u.e, etc." Th<^ [)rayers and the lluhrio al)OV(> (luoted, form a part, and may he found at the (Mid of the oliice for Private Ba])tism, as at first set forth in the time of Edwju-d vi. In l.")52, the places of some of these prayers were changed ; tluy- wer<> made part of the office for Puldic r),ii)tism and others were left out alto<'ether. But the prayer containing the words " Sanctifv tliis water, etc." WAS in each book from the first. TJu^ plac^e it now holds, was wiven to it in 1552. The woi'ds objected unto, did not form part of it before 1662 ; but a good reason why they were not in it, and what caused them to be added to it, will be given in ans\\'er to a following' part of this objection. Obj.^ III. (n) " In their po-esent connection the words became a prayer of consecration with respect to the element of water." Ans. The ol>jector failed to perceive the purpose these words were intended to serve, in consequence of his " ^iew " beinr/ a superficial '^ue, and his knowdtnlge of the subject not extending to ]>articuhi)-K. 1 so Tlio " clement of water," embraces a vast expanse of ocean, river, etc., with which the words have no ** present connection," although they had such a connection previously to 1662. But the place they now hold, was given to them at that time, in order that they might be special; "Sanctify this water, etc.," not the element of water — "the flood Jordan and all other waters." The following quotations will shew how this objection is supjioi-ted. Obj. III. (c) " Jacob, in his admirable Lecture on Prayer Book Revision, p. 15, says : ' The consecration prayer was omitted, on the ground, as we learn from the Scripta Anglicana of Bucer, that it implied a recognition of the superstitious, unscriptural, and essentially Pagan notion of a magical transmutation (magicas rerum mutationes) of the material element employed in this Sacrament." Ans. In order to know the whole truth of this matter, we must pass by the Rev. M. Gallagher and other Lecturers, whose objections he has selected to strengthen his own, and gather information from the facts themselves. With respect to this subject, the sanctification of the water, in BOTH books of Common Prayer, as set forth in the reign of Edward vi. the following form of words was ordered to be used, and may be found in the office for Public Baptism : — " By the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, didst sanctify the flood Jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing AWAY OF sin, (fee." In addition to this there was in the first book a special prayer, part of which has been already quoted. Bucer " censured " the practice of blessing and consecrating inanimate things ; because, he thought that in blessing such things as the water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper ; they might be so used (sint detortae) as to persuade men of a magical change having taken place in them ; and that in so great Gospel light he saw no necessity for such practices being retained. He also objected to the statement, that all water was sanctified by the baptism of Christ. -* m 81 80 in 1552, the prayer of consecration as found in the first book, was omitted ; but the words " didst sanctify the flood Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin," were retained. Still, I should say the prayer was not omitted because censured by Bucer ; nor yet, that the Reformers were convinced that there were any superstitious notions likely to be fostered by its use ; or that on account of so gi-eat Gospel light it was unnecessary. But if they held, which they did — as is manifest, the words being retained — that all water was sanctified by the baptism of Christ, " to the mystical washing away of sin : " then there could be no necessity for a special form of consecration, as ANY water might be used for baptism without prayer for consecration. Therefore, th: / transferred from the office of Private to that of Public Baptism, the very prayer that -is now objected unto ; save and except that it had not the words " sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin," and omitted " prepared for the ministration of thy holy sacrament." Thus making the service conformable to the staten.wiit, that " all water is sanctified by the baptism of Christ, etc." In this form it was continued without change from 1552 until 1662, and might have been so to this day, but for the "exceptions" of the Presbyterians, for they were the cause of the change being made. THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE PRESBYTEPvIANS. " It being doubtful whether either the flood Jordan or any other waters were sanctified to a sacramental use by Christ's being baptized, and not necessary to be asserted, we desire this may be otherwise expressed." THE ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS. " If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by Christ, as to be the matter of baptism, what authority have we to baptise? A.nd sure his baptism was ' dedicatio baptismi.'" :)-2 '1^ ill 11 Till) HiiHvvoi- of tho Jii.sliops appears to b<) in favour of the woi'ds being retained without change, but the full disposal of the mattoi' was not for their decision. The Houses of Convocation took up the woi-k, anil causinl it to be " otherwise expressed," I. E. as it is V3W to be found in the Prayer Book. In consequ(MU'(' of this i-hange, that wliicli ])efore was general, lieeaiue special in its aj)plioation, and necessitated an addition to the Rubric; wliieli orders, tliat at every administration "The Font is THKN to be filled with pure water." So that instead of declaring, as l)efore was done, tliat " all ^^ater is sanctified," it is " otherwise expressed." A special prayer is made to God to " sanctify Tins water," viz : the pure water, then put in the font. Neither were the words " I'ostored," but wjiat before, in each book, was a declaration- -became a special reipiest in prayer. Nor yet are su})erstitious, or Pagan notions of magic encoui-aged, the whole work l)eing done openly, in the presence of the congregation, who may see if they desire to do so, the pure water poured into the foiit, and hear the words of consecration spoken in their own toni'iu^. Obj. 111. (d) " Yet tiiis ]>rayer, as it stands now in our Prayer Book, is worse than the one which appeared in Edward vi. first book. That piayer had, indeed, the words, ' who hath ordained the (element of water for the regeneration of thy faithful people,' but this expression l-ende^-ed less objectionable by the addition of * the FAiTHFi'L people,' is still further qualified by the concluding words ' that by the power of thy word all those who shall be ba])tized therein may be spiritually i-egenerated ;' while the pi'ayer now in our Liturgy savs, witliout any qualifications : ' Sanctify this watei* to the mystical washing away of sin ;' thereby leading us back to the gross superstition attached to Baptism in the fourth and following centuries, when prayer was made to God to SANCTIFY the water, and to give it tJRACE AND POWER, ETC, ; and when, by a number of ceremonies, men were taught that the water was TUANSELEMATED and obtained an inlierent power to wash away sin." x\ eju'Ii Ans. TIkj i>rayci- now objected uiitOj is the one appointed to be said when consecrating tlie water to be used in baptizing. These objectors have compared it with one of those that may be found in the book of 1549, as used for alike jmrpose, and declared it to be the " worse " one of tlie two. But the reason they give to shew why it is worse, is one of the most dishonest quotations and perversions that I have ever seen. It is very much to be feared, that worse evils may follow, than that of suj)erstition, when men believe, love, and commend a lie. I find, in examining the form given as used in the first centuries, that instead of " sanctify the water, and to give it grace and ])ower, etc," it should be quoted — " Him (God) therefore, let the priest even now implore at the baptism, and let him say, Look down from heaven and sanctify this water ; and bestow grace and power, so that he who is to be baptized, according to the command of thy Christ, may be crucified with him, and may be buried with him, and may rise with him, to the adoption which is in him, by being made dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto righteousness." So the words — to — and — it — are not in the original document ! And yet these ai-e the strong points of this objection. But not being there, tlie whole sense is changed, and the objection amounts to — nihil. Instead of give it — the water — gi-ace and power : the request is, "bestow grace and power" upon the baptized person — that the command of thy Christ may be fulfilled, etc. The Christian dispensation, is one of grace and power ; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. We are saved, by grace. "To as many as received Him, to them ua\e He power to become the sons of God." Grace and power, are indispensible requisites for salvation ; they are promised gifts : therefore, seeing that men cannot be saved without them, and knowing that God will give good thiiigs to them that ask ' 1 I.I 34 in His Sou'h name : tlity ai'(; pioper nMjiu'Hts in pmyor, ami cannot, IN TRUTH, be charged with "leading us back to gross superstition." The Lecturer (M. (jaUaghei) calls the; sanctification of the water, "amedireval doctrine." Dr. Jacob, his quoted authority, says it is a gross superstition of the rouRTii and following centuries. I supfjose aniphi space will Ix; found for a vai'iety of oi)inions in their modern Utopia : " they agree to differ ;" but fail to speak the truth ; such testimony is ecjual to — yea, and nay. Now that it was the custom of the Church, in the first centuries, to pray that the water used in Iwiptism might be sanctified, may be demonstrated by the testimony of Tertullian, born A.D. 160 — died, in 220. Prayer being made to God, **Supervenit-enim statim spiritus de co'lis et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semet ipso." And Cyprian says, tliat the water must be first purified and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away the sins of the person who is to be baptized. These testimonies will be sufHcient to shew, that we have very ancient autliority for our practice, and that the doctrine is not mediieval. Obj. III. (e) " Here we have, says Fisher, " the very basis of the ' opus operatum ' — a remnant, too, of the old tenet of * Transelementation,' already repeatedly noticed, and which on account of its close alliance to the dogma of Traiisubstantiation, both Bucer and Cranmer were at so much pains to exi)unge from the Liturgy of 1552." Ans. The " o])Us oi>ei'atum,'' being only incidentally mentioned, I might let it pass for the present. But in order to connect the consecration of the water used in baptism with it, it ought to have been shewn that we assert such a transelementation to have taken place. Now the term la foreign to the Church of England, and has never yet found a home in her Book of Common Prayer. The different " offices " always speak of water, as water, and no other Ciinnot, •J tition." of tJio tlioritj, iloNving i ►iuioiiM > siK3ak 3 first stifled, A.D. • i-enim seniofc I and f the cient and 8 of 'f i of 4 on ■■ !.,':H(!rviii«^ tlio ono, tiR w(i havo for tlio obHorvano(^ of tUo otluM*, viz : — (lod'H wortiHni, an holy ordinanco of Christ's own appointing. Koth mv holy, wln^n pi-oporly (5ni})loyod in tho Lord's sorvico, and at no othfM* tinio, and in no othor way doth tho Church call tlieni so. Whon ho und(*rHtood, I can scio no cause for ofKnice, or any reason why the i)ractico should he given up, Ohj. IV. (a) "A Rubric was added to tho office for Infant Baj)tism, in these words : * It is certain, by God's word, that children which are lurTiZKD, dying l)cfor(5 they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.' Hero Baptism is made, und(uual>ly, tho ground of the salvation of infants," Ans. False ! both in tho fact alleged, and inference drawn therefrom. The Rubric here said to be " added," has formed a part of EVERY edition of the Prayer Book, from its first issue to the present time. It is in both books of Edward vi., in that of Jas. i., also in the one now authorized. It has, however, experienced a slight change with respect to place. Until 16G2, it preceded the Catechism and order of Confirmation ; and now it is placed at the end of the office of Public Baptism of Infants. This Rubric has been an innocent occasion of causing much trouble and difficulty to many persons, both within and without our Church. Not from anything ccatained in it, or that it ought not to be there; for it is the most Protestant of all the Rubrics in the book, and when understood, those who have condemned it and fought against it to destroy it, will feel the more sorry to think they should have been so deceived with respect to it. Now observe particularly, the purpose it was intended to serve, and why it was placed in the book ; afterwards, you will leave to the Romanist, the trouble of objecting. It was first placed in the book as a protest against the necessity of any other Rite or Sacrament than Bai>tiRm being administered to "1>. tho 37 cliiMroii, Ix'forc tlicy cnn\c to vf^irs of (liHcn.tiou ami wore h1>1(5 to f^ive an account of their faith. I»ut with Hi»«'t;ial rcfcnMicti to Coiifinnation, on whicli account, it at firnt pn-ccchMl tliat service. Oui" ( *ontiiiiiution sei'vi<'e in l.*)40 wms Itrou^ilit hack to tho ancient niannec of it, and tlie Ilnhnc phicod foi- jirotest; hecause it had hecn much misused hofoi-e th(! Ileforniation, heinj; a(hninistored as a Suoramont to vary younju; diihlren. The following (juotation will show this — " Instead of tliis most i>iofital»l(^ and ancient confirmation, they convt'y(>d a device of tlieir own, that is, that tho hishop should not examine childr(Mi, wheth((r th(»y wen; skilled in the. precepts of leli^Mon or no, but that they should anoint youno INFANTS L'NAHLE VKT TO si'KAK, much l(;ss to give any account of thoir faith ; adjoining also other cerem(mies unknown unto the Holy Scripture and the prin)itive Church. Tliis invention of theirs they would needs have to l»e a sacrament, and accounted it in manner equal in dignity with ])aptism ; yea, some of them preferred it also before baptism. By all means they would that this their confirmation should be taken for a cei-tain supplying of l)aptism, that it should thereby be finished and brought to perfection, as though baptism else were unperfect, and as though children who in baptism had put upon them Christ with his benefits, without TIIKIR confirmations WERE BUT HALF CHRISTIANS ; than wl'lcll injury no greater could be done against the divine k^acrament, and Jigainst God himself, and Christ our Saviour, the author and founder of the holy Sacrament of baptism." Thus it will be seen that the statement in the Rubric, is equal to saying, that in Baptism, Infants — -as Infants — have all that they are cajiable of leceiving while in infancy, or that the Church can give ; and that if they should die before they commit actual transgression, they are undoubtedly saved, even if not confirmed. My -first illustration is given in the words of one who was contemporay with the men who com})iled our Prayer Book ; the 38 next will show that it was understood in this way in 1662, both by Churchmen and Puritans. EXCEPTIONS OF PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS. ' ill " Although we charitably suppose the meaning of these words was ONLY to exclude the necessity of any other sacrament to baptized infants ; yet these words are dangerous as to the misleading of the vulgar, and therefore we desire they may be expunged." EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE BY THE BISHOPS. " It is EVIDENT that the meaning of the words, is, that children baptized, ' and dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved, though they be not confirmed ;' wherein we see not what danger there can be of misleading the vulgar, by teaching them truth ; but there may be danger in this desire of having the words expunged, as if they were false ; for St. Austin says : ' he is an Infidel that denies them to be true.' " Query, for the objector to answer : If this Rubric was added in 1662, how came it to be quoted in 1661 1 I think I may claim to have demonstrated clearly and satisfactorily, that the charge of having been inserted in 1662 is " undeniably " false. Obj. IV. (b). The Inference. " Here Baptism is made, undeniably, the ground of the Salvation of infants." Ans. Jeremy Taylor says, it is "a baseness of nature by which we take things by the wrong handle, and expound things always in the worst sense." The objector's assertion that the Rubric was added, must, at least, have been made in total ignorance of the subject. And now, his inference by which he expounds it in the worst sense, proves to be " undeniably " false also. The Rubric is merely a declaration of the state of baptized children^ dying in infancy. There is not even an allusion to the « ROUND of their salvation. Noitlior should the faith and doctrine f Ml 39 ®b ¥^' of our Church be sought for in tlie Rubrics. We have two Books of Homilies, which have as much authority as any Rubric ; before any man would undertake to impugn and deprave the Book of Common Prayer, he should know this, and be aware of their contents. It will be seen from the following quotation that the objector has not spoken the truth. "The salvation of mankind, by only ciirist our saviour, from sin and death everlasting. * * * * Inasmuch that infants being baptized, and dying in theii* infancy, are, by this SACRIFICE, washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and made his children and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven. And they which in act or deed, do sin after baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this SACRIFICE from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any spot of sin, that shall be imputed to their damnation." Thus it is sufficiently plain to be seen — that in the Church of England, the sacrifice of the death of Christ is placed as the only ground of salvation for all her members, and not Baptism. This kind of ignoiance ought to be considered without excuse, because there are ample facilities for knowing better. I hope this exposure of it will have sufficient influence to make men more cautious in future. Obj. V. (a) " If it be said that the Church has not pronounced ui)on the condition of children unbaptized, and therefore does not deny the possibility of their salvation, why, then, did the revisers of 16G2 append this Rubric to the Burial Service? Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing il not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicated, or have laid violent hands upon themselves. A.x^8. The work that Christ entrusted to His Church, is that which should be done, and none other. We are not to spend time and labour in proi)agatiiig idle dreams of possibilities, or the vague fancies of men who would be wise above that which is written. Our work is clearly stated and briefly expi-essed in these words — to preach the Gospel to eveiy creature^, and to baptize all nations, VP ^ 40 »e, and forbid them not : for of .1 1" ?'"r *" ""'"'' ""*« """^ '« the kingdom of God." Tho Church receives all that wi]J «„.„. , Sacrament, and in no other ^-yy r, ■ , ' ^^ ""^^"^ ^ this . to the institution of Christ " L. * "'"''" '° ''« " agreeable -^ " -. - in infi;:: .:=i;^ri "'"^-'• Church then to leave the G^Z" ' ""'*'"' -«-•» ^ th: -™e men dislike and negZlZr^ J'''^''''''''''" '--^-^'^ fordoctrine^theopinionsilf ''Secr^ ^^ <=--' t-h obsei^e her commission, neither fa,!! ? ""'' *° '"^ ^-^'^^^ "'-t of Christ is not a possibilitv tw J ' 7 '""^''- ^^>« «oBpol " For ... the promises of S thi " "'" *" ^^''' -" 4 : The., is no promise of sah^l 1 "" ^"' ""<* " ^^ Amen " a. have been baptised intc L [ "" '"* "' ^'"^' '^ "^« -n, "-linst, have put on Christ, etc." The course chosen by our PI,,,, i • cloes not shun to declare the ^^^T " ' "'" ""' ^^^ <»>«, it -hei. God hath not spoken """"' "' «"''' l-"* - silent - - Wtitilrrptf '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - "— ." children," and use the mear.. '" '" "^"" »^ ^our ■ l-^ter, than to be buo/ed .iraT ""'^ '''' "^ '"^^^ ^■ ^table, than man's opinion o conXe^f T"^ °" "°*^"»" -»- I -ould rather give confidence? a^T .T^* "^ '""^^^ *» ''o. -ord, than be led by the ex-^.t '''''"" '^*^'-<'f God's ^-elllgent, unprejudicL, o, or^"-^"'^''*"^^^' "^ ^" *"« or any other century. ' "^ *'"' P-'-'^ont enlightened, The proper i^Iace fnv +i • probabilities, such as P„r tl "T"^;'- ' ^'"" ""^ '■•'- "Fonounced " upon, and sa' , to b^ ^LaT " "^''^^'^ ''- a fond thuig vainly invented, f ^Dtk- .;?(te. ;■; if': ..-it'' 41 and groiuided upon no warranty of Scriptur(3, but rather repugnant to the word of God." 01 )j. Y. (b) "Why, then, did tlie revisers of 1662 append this Rubric (as (pioted above) to tlie Burial Service V Ans. Because, during the " great rebellion," the worship and services of the Church of England were suppressed. And the conflicting o})inions of nearly two hundred differing sects, were scattered broadcast over the land, producing an abundant crop of Anabaptists, and pie-\'enting many from being baptized that would have been, if ojiportunity had served. To remedy the evil, an office of " Baptism for Persons of Riper Years " was provided, to meet the wants of those who had not been, and yet desired to be baptized. The Rubric Avas appended, to enforce the discipline and maintain tlie oi'der of Christ's Church ; by excluding from Christian buiial all those who tieated Baptism — a Sacrament ordained by Christ himself — with contempt or neglect. Obj. V. (c) " If these unbaptized infants are iit for heaven, why are the words of the English Burial Service too sacred to be used over their remains 1 We thank God that the little ones fall into dilfeient hands in the next world, from the men who prepared this so much lauded Book of Common Prayer." Ans. There is no ground for complaint here, because the offence is taken, not given. If any person is refused the use of the Burial Service at the death of a child, it will be caused, either by neglect to have the child baptized, or by stubbornness in maintaining opinions contiury to the teaching and discipline of the Church ; which requires all her members to be baptized. She has prijvided an office and ministr}^ for the administration of baptism, which is free to all that come. The Burial Service is not for all, only for her baptized children. If i)ersons refuse the adoption, and will not be children : then they have neither right nor title to th<^ iniviJoo-e of childr(Mi. As it is their pride of opinion 6 I fKff 42 to adjudge baptism of infants \nin«)oessary, and so keoji tlicni out of the Cliureli; tliey must ex})ect to he, and by i-jglit will be, treated as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel Every provision l)eing made for the administration of Ba])tism, that none need die without it, so far as the Church is accounta])le : if persons will refuse the Church's baptism, by consequence they must lose the Church's consolation. I see no other remedy, than that St. Peter gave on the day of Pentecost — " Repent, and be ba})tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the i)i-omise is unto you, AND TO YOUR ciiiLDUEN, and to all that are afar off', even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Ol>odience to this command would remove all the ditlicultv. In answer to the question, " Is tlu; Burial Service too sacred to be used over their remains, etc. ?" It woidd necessitate a recommencement, and teach whicli be the " tlrst principles " of the Christian religion, to make such an objector understand. I shall thei-efore onlv say, that we do not pray for, or address the dead, in any part of this service, but gi%e words of comfort and prayer for tliose that moui"n. What may be said, or left unsaid, on such an occasion, will in no wise ali'ect oi' determine^ the state of such infants, in the world to come. (>})]. V. (d) "Are wci sur})rised tliat Baxter, who was thought Avoi-thy of a bishopric, declared : ' of the forty sinful terms of communion Avith the ('hurch party, ii thirty-nine were taken away,, and only that Ilubric, respecting the sah-ation of infants dying shortly after their bH])tisn), were continued, yet thvy (i. E. he and his colleagues) could not conform.' " Aus. There were mauv erude notio^uKS held bv the Puritans, with respect to the Book of Common Prayer, before the. Savoy (Jonference. But wlieu tiiey were i'(M{uest(^d to give their objections shap'e, in or(l(>r that tliey might be tested by those who w^ere better acquainted with sueli matters : the forty .sinful terms of communioii 4:^ ni out of 0, treated ion l)oini: ' without fu«t3 tilC OJiurcJi's gave on J of you ya sliall to you, s many I woultl sacred tate a of the shall ul, in 31- for ■h an fants, light IS of ring and I us,. )ns ter ou n witli tlio Church party, dvvindf.kd down to onk. Which was not the one here naiufnl, neither could tlie one they })referred ])e maintained, v^ide : " My assc^rtion is, Nothing contained in the liturgy is sinful. This geneiul assertion I am ready to make good in all particulars, in which our brethren shall think tit to charge the liturgy with sinfuiness. And because oui' brethren have as yet by way of disputation charged no other part of it with the imputation of sinfulness, but that which concerned kneeling at the communion, therefore my first assei-tion as to that particular is this : The command contained in th to (U'(i(l(! tin; ({UcsLioji that lliat \va.s not tlio doc'lrinci of tli») Prayer Book, tlw CoinmisHionors of (liarles (iu eoiitradistiuetion to the action of the Rcifornieis) \\uu\r, the i)Ositivo deelMvation with regard to tijo spii'itual regeneration of tlie chikl hy Ba[)ti.sin, in th(^ otHce of Private ]?a])tiKni, \vlie)-e no s})onsoria): answers are re.(|uir«!d, hiii when tJiis eiii})]iati(' assertion iiniiiediately follows the siniph' act of adiiiiidstering the rite." Ans. Tlie "olHce" alleged as deciding the question of j'ogeneration, is a jiro\ isional one ; and must l»e considered according to its liuiits. It is ordered to l^e used, only in cases of necessity, where a child is sick and not likely to recover ; and shouhl such a child die, it is saved by the merits and death of our Saviour Jesus Ohrist. But should it recover, the very same answers of sponsors, and i)i'osentation of the infant is required as in Public l>aptism. Which takes away all the GROUND of difference between the Piefomiers and the (Commissioners of 1662. And the answer to })0 found below, where the Commissioners give an exposition, will takt; away all ground foi- the su])position that there is a)iy difference. Obj. VII. (c). '' When, th(;refoi"e, says Fisher, the C'hurch has couKj in this way m annex, as a necessary adjunct to the performance of Infant Baptism, so positive a declaration of its regenerative efficacy, sh(3 has, vre submit, pronounced most unmistakeably her own doctiine upon the subject, and excluded every artifice by ^vhich the real meaning of her Baptismal ofticey might be honestly evaded." Ans. This '•' necessary adjunct," is a prayer of thanksgiving to God for grace and mercy bestowed, as we ho})e and believe, in answer to our prayers, and observance of Christ's appointment. For, he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of thent that diligently seek Ilim. And so by faith, we praise Him fi'om whom all blessings floAV ; which is at all times, meet and right, and our bounden duty. This " positive de<'laratio}i " of the regenei'ative efficacy of w ^ I Iji :ii|*l! ■IS - Baj.tis,,,, ,„woo(ls f,o,„ ti,,, „„^,- „„ , . God n.a.,0 ,o them i„ the ,«.„.„ ^f j,^l^' Z *'"' l'^-'^ of our reiigi„„. «,...ieo. or .,ao«„o„t. ,^C J'T'.;''"* — >' give glory to God in anv way n,o,.. „. T , ^'""' ' ^'"'- *« *o ou..o,ve, than „ \.o,i .C'rHCr *•; "T """ ''^"^«'='-'" truth? ^ *'' ''^^^^ '^»^i acknowledging iu This prayer of thunkngivin- w.^ f.i P..MicBapMsn.; an. is ah„;t :;, ^ "^ tf""' "" "'"^ '- the book of 1552. '' ^^'^' ««"it' 'i« that in idea of what prayers wouH te „!. , *° "°"^''^ " — ' administered Therefore 1 1 'rf T'"" *'"'' «— ent was P.-eviously to 1663, the thantsgiZtas^ 1 ""''""'^' "''«"'-' "ot But this I will say, that"! ct W "" '""'' ~'=''^'™" °'- the Commissioner, of 1662 BElr!, '"•" ''<'«''"««on " a« did the bapti«,d. When a ehild thit h ,''""'"' "'"'^ '"""'^^^ fo-' brought to the Church for etli '"'"'"" P"-*^'^' '« ;:«er it was rightly Z,ZriC''7- ^' *° ^ "^'^ d-rected to say-«I certify you that ..' *' ^'^'^^ i« -ell, and according unto due o.der . " "" ^'^ ^-« ^one oMld; which being horn in ri^i 's "IT t '''''''" "^ ^^^'^ '« »ow, by the laver of Ee^eneral T '" *' ^^t'^ "^ God, -"ber of the child, J f ^^^ " .^^.'^P*'- '-eived into the «o there has been a perfee ^ emtt '! V ^"'''"^^^^ "^«-" -<>'y fi'^t; or, the voice of the CwTr . f '"'^■^'^* ^""^ the exp..ssed, and has never varied t ' ^""°" "^^ "'^''-tely ' po— d most. mista^abi, her i::rr:r:-; r 4^) iilid .Mii'I '• S;i" r;i liiiiil > (ir'ns of i:r;icc. ;iliv tlic \\liir|i 111- (loHi wdik Iii\ i.>ilil\ ill us, iui'l (lo'Ii not onlv y wliicli the r>a]tlisnial Sci'N i<'os Mia\ !•<• ifioncili'd with tlio wortl of (lod/' Ans. The i'ook of ('onmioii I'iM\fr ran oniy '* lt'?u-h "' wliat:, is i>rinti'(| in it. Tho < omjiihTs of it wcio \ ofy cai't'ful to k('('[) \vn MIX the liiu' of "'\i-iiif uir doctiinc. Willi the }»ook itself, at tli«^ last l{o\ision, tla ;. ui\<' this proffssion : '' We aro fully |MM-suad«'d in ouf ind-anon.ts (;unl wr hcic piofrs- it to the world) that the r.ool<. ;is il sto.id l.cfori' c-taoli^licd \>\ \:\\v. doth not (.-ontain in it anylhinif eontran to the v,{a(l of c allowi'd such just and t"a\ oin-ai)]e coiistructien tis in fonim-'n ei|nit\- (U!i:lit to he al!o\\('(l to all iiuinaii w ritini:;s, esiici-ialU' sui'h as arc sci foilh hy aulhoi'ity, and e\en to tin- \eiy licst t I'aiislations of ijic hole Siaanl u I'e.'' }) Tlii- sc\in ncliiods of reconciliation nanu'ii, ai'c of no luofe nmIuc and aniiioritv, than scxeii coniincnts made upon sonn? paiticiilar text of SciipLinc l.ct me here state, that the ohji^etor, has not ,^i\en v.. in liis whole woik, so much as oNK Ti;xT of Sei'iptui'e lo point otu a w i'(Ci!';' Like unto ail otlier " new lights," !iis own Sense of wlist is ii,uhi oi- w ron^ lias heen tlie standard fui' test, PWr-^i^^^FV^ 50 ()l)j. Vril. (h) " Hui let UH hear tliosr HisliopH of \i){\'2 Im.MIv aninn wlmt tlui HiiptiHinal OtlicdH arn iutoml(«l to teach, and wliat their (lolilun-ate hiii^'uajn;e nnniistakcably nicaiiH : ' Sci^iii; that (Jod's SacramontH have their effects wlieii th(i receiv(»(l (i-ec(Mvei') (h)th not 'ponere oV)iceni ' put any har a»^ainst tlieni, Avhicli chiMren cannot do, we may say in faith of every cliild that is l»aptized, that it is n^gcneratcnl by God's Holy Spiiit." Ans. If the desire as hero expi'cssed, is ukama' to " hear tlie J3ishoi)8 ;" why give only a part of an answei* ? And, s(K'in^(j;, tliat not one of a hundred could know more of the matt(?r than what is thus given : Why not also, give the objections made that called forth the answer 1 Surely this is a veiy unfair way in which to treat nuitters of such vast importance Lvt us have the (juestion and answer in full j the Church of England is solicitous of euiiuiry. EXCEPTION OF PUESBYTEllIAN COMMISSIOXEHS. " We cannot in faith say, that every child that is baittizc is * regenerated by God's Holy Si)irit ;' at least it is a disputable y > and therefore we desire it may be otherwise expressed." ANSWER OF THE lilSHOPSr. Seeing that God's Sacraments have their eflects, where the receiver doth not " ponere obicem," [)ut any V)ar against them (which children cannot do) ; we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ; and the denial of it tends to anabai>tism, and the contempt of this holy sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material wiiether it bo administered to children or no." Thus it appears that both parties were A(aiEEi), that the baptized when regenerated, were "regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ;" and quote that part of the Service which declares it. The disputed point, was, whether the words " this child," v.diich words are used for every child, ought to stand or not. The Presbyterians say, " WE cannot in faith say that faehy child, etc." The Bishops, I bo '>1 ' auHWdi' •' wo may nny i\ I'AFTII of kvkiiv cliild (hat in ImiitiziMl, itc." Til*' PnisKytt'riiiiis •Ickcin i-il thr rclmke, for ihvy uliould have j(iv»»n ci())'oiniHO of (Jod. Iliit tliry wanted to l»o CKUTAIN, to s[n'aU from knowlod;^'*', and not by faitli. Altliou«i[li liow tlu-y could oxjK'ot to \k) ubir to dLst-ern Ix'twecu an elect infant and one riijirobate thoy do not state. Obj, YIll. (o) " The eflect of a i-hihl's Haptism flepends njuther ui)on their own jacHent actual faith and r«^pentance (wliich the Catechism says expressly tliey cannot p(Mform), uor upon the faitii and rfspentance of tJKiir natural parents nor pro-parents, or of tluui- •(od-fatiiers or on a really actual faith and rejientance of tlieir own ; or that of those who i)romise for them. To which the Bishops reply that it does not depend upon any such thing, but upon the ordinance and institution of Christ ! But the most important part of the answer the objector has found it convenient to omit, and which I will now supply. To follow after " institution of Christ," as quoted above. " But it is requisite that wlnm they come to age they should perform these conditions of faith and repentance, foi- which also their god- fathers and god-mothers charitably undertook on their behalf. And what they do for the infaiit in this case, the infant himself is truly said to do, as in the courts of this kingdom daily the infant does answer by his guardian ; and it is usual to do homage by proxy, and for princes to marry by jtroxy. For the fuHher justification of this answer, st^e St. Aug. E}). 23. ad Bonifac. * Nihil aliud credere, quam fldem habere : ac per hoc cum respondetur parvulum credere, qui tidei nonduni habet eflectum respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, et conveitei-e so ad Deuni propter conversionis ..£ji:i!ii»| E '!>i'' 1 yaei'imieniiim. C^uia et Ipsa lY'spousio a'l oeloliratioiu^m portiuei sacraineiiti. Itaque parvulum, etsi Jiouduiii iUh:n ilia, qua? in credentium voluntate oonsistit, tamen ipsius iiXi;ilS. iVlav i'(r('i\'<> remission ot:' sins l»y spiritual iviicnci'ation. ''This expression sceinini'' inconxcuiont, avc dcsii't' it mav be chanircHl into this : 'May be regenerated and i-eeei\c the remission r»t' sins,'" AN'SWKl! OF Tin-: I'.ISIIOI'S. " Iteeeive rt^Hiission (yf sins l»y spiiitual regeneration/' JMost propel', for bajjtism is our s|»iritual regeneratioji, (St. John If!.) " Unless a man l)e l)orn again of water and the Spirit, (>tc." Ami by this is received remission of sins, (Acts 11. ii.) "Itepent and Ik; ba})tized every one of you, for the renii.sion of sins." So the Crei-d : "One ])aptism for the remission ot sins."' As will j-eadily be seen fi'om lliese (jUotatioPiS, it was not a (juejition of v,'iu;tl",'r Kx^generation and JvtMiiission of sins were ptromised to the baptiz(.'d in IJa^Jtism. lUit whc^tlier oui- Church has chosen the propei* juode of e.\p)-essing and ai>))lying tliese truths l>y the provision mad(? in hei- S<'i\ices and Catechism. Tin; Presbyt(,H'ians, like the Itomanist and this lvef()rmeisco})al obiectoi', had nothini'- moi-t? to sav than that thev Dlsi.iKKD manv particulars, and desired a change. Not o;u' text from Scripture to shew that anvthin^ thev disliked was eontrajv to (rod's Avord. Wher(ias the Bishops in rt'ply, sti-ejigtlien our position by many :Kc;ripture proofs, as well as examples of (^itholic nsage ; which, taken together, will show that our Sei'vice is not a compilation of ])rivate opinions, but embodies the ti'utli and practice of the (Jhristian Church. iliis h'.i ^^\>\. VI] I. (I)) *' 111 y\c\v of tluisr AV(U-(ls. ii'iw utt.i'il\ woitiilt'.ss and iiuiet'en' iljh^ was the declanitiou signctl iu IS? I by lit'ty American Bishops, that tlie word ' regenerate ' iu tlie (Jtlice for Baptism does not determine a moral cliange in every recipient." Ans, I have not seen the document referreil to, but as it is no part of our Book of Common Prayer, I fim not called upon to defend it. 'This oiijcctor li;is luadc surh i-ciii;irkiiM(' ({'i(iiatiajitismal Ser\ ices may be icconciied v,itli llie word (if ( b)d ; shew the p)Osition 1»;ipti/(^d pei'sons have in tlie (.'liurcli ; and in Nvhat sense thev are said to be i;egenei;ite. KXCHI'TIONS OF THK IM! KSi'.VTKi; F A\ COM M ISSloN KIIS. " Whereas throughout the se\ la' otHces, the j»hi'ase is such as }»resumes all ]>ersons (within the communioiL of tin; clLurch) to bc I'egenerated, conviM'ted, and in an actual state of grace, (whicii, had ecclesiastical discipline Ijeen truly and \ igorously executed, in the exclusion of scandalous aiui obstinate sinneis, might b(j l)eiter supposed ;) l)ut there has'ing Ikm-u, and still bt'ing a confessed want ot that, (as in the liturgy is acknowletlgt'd,) ii cannot l)e i-ationally adnutted in tise utmost latitude of chai'it}' : we dosii-e thai this may be refoi-med." II? ANSWKi: OF I'liK insHol'S. The chui'ch in her pi-ayers useth no moi'e oliensi\(' [.lirase tlian St. Paul us(\s, when lie wrives to the Corinthians, Calations, and othej's, calling Ihem m general the t'huich of ({od, sanctilied in r^ 54 Christ Jesus, by vocation saints, amongst whom notwithstanding there were many, who by their known sins (which the Apostle en- deavored to amend in them) were ^ ot properly such, yet he gives the denomination to the whole from the greater part, to whom in charity it was due, and puts the rest in mind what they have by their baptism undertaken to be, and what they profess themselves to be ; and our prayers and the phrase of them surely supposes no more than that they are saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by their baptism admitted into Christ's congregation, and so to be reckoned members of that Society, till either they shall separate themselves by wilful schism, or be separated by legal excommunica- tion ; which they seem earnestly to desire and so do we. SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON BAPTISM. There are some other remarks on the subject of baptism, made by this objector in his Lectures, which perhaps might be more properly styled incidental allusions, rather than objections. And as they may be part of that " information of the most valuable nature," I do not wish to pass them over without notice. I will therefore place them in the following order, because I think this will be the best way of making them understood by the general reader. He says, some of the Reformers of Edward have presented clear Scriptural views on this subject. Bishop Hooper, teaches " Al- though Baptism is a Sacrament to be received, and honorably used by all men, yet it sanctifieth no man. And such as attribute the remission of sins to the external sign do offend." To stop here, is to give the Bishop's proposition without the demonstration, and pervert the meaning of his words. Seeing that to give the whole subject would take up too much space, I will add what I think is necessary for a full understanding only. Bishop Hooper continues : John the Baptist preached repentance and remission of sins in Christ, saying, I baptise with water. As though he said, my bap- tism maketh no man the better ; inwardly, it changeth no man ; 55 but I call and preach to the outward ear, I exhort unto repentance. And SUCH AS SAY they do repent, and would change the old sinful life, I wash with water. Then after other things, says, So that there are two kinds of baptism, and both necessary : the one in- terior, which is the cleansing of the heart, the drawing of the Father, the operation of the Holy Ghost : and this baptism is in man, when he believeth and trusteth that christ is THE ONLY AUTHOR OF HIS SALVATION. ***** Likewise no man should condemn nor neglect this exterior sign, for the com- mandment's sake : though it have no power to purge from sin, yet it confirmeth the purgation of sin, and the act of itself pleaseth God, for because the receivers thereof obey the will of his commandments. There is the pretence of a quotation from Bishop Latimer, garbled in the same manner. " Man must have a regeneration, and what is this regeneration 1 It is not to be christened in water, as these firebrands expound it John iii. 3, and nothing else. * * * Our new bii-th cometh by the word of the Living God, by the word of God preached and opened." Latimer's subject was not baptism, but the great necessity of the })reached gospel, saying " The preaching of the Gospel is the power of God to every man that doth believe. He means God's word opened ; it is the instrument, and the thing whereby we are saved) tV:c., «♦*»«* not to be christened in water, as these fire- ])rands (the Romanists) expound it, and nothing else." So in the Baptismal Services, there is the word of God, and prayer ; the solemn charge, that the baptised shall be taught as soon as he shall be able to learn, " all things that a Chiistian ought to know and be- lieve to his soul's health," as well as being " christened in water.' Abp. Oranmer says of Regeneration, " The second birth is by the water of Baptism, which Paul calleth the bath of regeneration, because our sins be forgiven us in l)aptism, and the Holy Ghost is Ho i f t 66 • }touiL't| into IIS, as iiil.n (JimLs LcIommI cliildic-n, so ilint hy the power and working of tlu' iloly Crliost \vv. are born again Hi»iritually, and mad(! now crcatnrcs. J^ml so iiv maptism wi; enter into the king- (Unn of Cfod, and .shall l»e saveil forev(;r, if we continue to our lives end in the faith of Christ." BiKhop Jewell sets forth the fc^llowing as the doctrine of the Churcli of England, "\V(! confess and have evermore taught, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, nv the I)KATJi and blood 4Df Ciikist, is given remission of all mannei* of sin, and that not in half or in part, 01- l»y way of imagination, or \)y fancy ; but whole, full, and perfect of all together. So tliat now, as St. Paul saith, there is no condemnation to them that be in (Jhi-ist Jesus." The oltjectoi" on ]iage 'M of his paniphlet, says, "Jacob soundly remarks, wliat must be tlu^ case with our congregations in the use of these words, as they always ]nust be used, without anything to (pialifv them, or to inteifere with their natural signification ; and what the ellect upon any tlioughtfnl inan, when lu^ hears his Pastor deny in his [>ulpit wliat he aliirms at the font T' "By forced and unnatui-al explanations, men tluis satisfy each oik; his own con- science;" but ilo not convince; others ontsidf! their circle. And th;it the E\'ani.':elical (']erut, "• tliosc; outside" hav(! long wondered why their "foreign opinions" have not had more influence, and })ro(lucetl a better i^lTect. I hope this exposui'e of some of their " fo]-ced and umiatural " objections will assist in exjilaining tliat doubtful mattx-'', Pohaps ( li'' foMowin^- slntcniciit niav lu'l[> to (\o so als sign without anything signified ; a rite, a ceremony, a form, anything or nothing — certainly not the thing written of in Scripture under the name of baptism." However much this sacrament of baptism may have V)een misused ; hcywever much the doctrine of it mav have been misunderstocd and misiepresented : still 1 have not the slightest hesitation iji saying, that whatever may be found embodied in oui' formularies, is true and faithful to the teaching of the word of God. And, that the object and purpose our Saviour had, in instituting Baptism, will be fully served by its being faithfully administered, and rightly received, according to the present teaching of our Church ; and, without any alteration being made in the Book of Common Prayer. The foregoing scatements and answers being for a special jjurpose, viz. : — To meet and refute the objections to which they are joined ; I hope it will not be considered as asking too much, if I request, for the sake of peace, that they be not made the ground for new disputes. 1 know that on each particular of this subject almost ''everv man hath a doctrine;" therefore, I have caiefullv avoided mixing up tlie different questions, in order to make the things explained as intelligible as I i>ossibly could for the general reader. If the answers given, ai'e found to meet the objections made, let that sullice ; and let us be thankful that such troublesome things are removed from vexing the Christian Church. But if in any thing it can be shewn that I have missed giving the true sense of Scripture or history : I refuse not to be corrected, by proper ^ 69 proofs from the Word or standard testimony ; although I shall refuse to be governed by private opinion, or ])arty sentiments. Had it been my work to have given expositions of such things oidy, without clearing them from objections : I could have taken a wider range* embracing more particulars. But thinking it best to clear the way first, by answering these objections, I have r«^ser\(Hl for som(i future time, many things that ought to be said so as to enable any one to give a sound judgment of the whole subject. I therefore only claim to have demonstrated the following ])ai-ticulars : 1. That our Baptismal Services do not contain any thing that is contrary to Scripture. 2. That the Reformers of Edwanl, were not in any way influenced by Komish eiTor ; but were scrupulous in thcur desire to be governed by God's word, when forming these and all our oth( r religious services. 3. That the changes said to have been made subsequently in these services, as "Sanctify this water, itc," did only ^affect the placing of some sentences, and did not make any change of doctrine. Also, that the custom of consecrating the water used in baptism, is neither a superstitious nor yet a medi(cval practice ; but in accordance with truth and ancient usage, and conducive to piety ; and should by all means l)e retained. And further, the quotation made co strengthen the accusation, is either made disho)iostly or in ignorance of tlie subject. 4. That the Pvubric with respect to baptised children dying in infancy, said to have been added in 1GG2 : may be found in each book from 1549. And that it is shewn to l)e the most Protestant of all the Rubrics in the book. Also, that the ground for salvation of infants, is not Baptism, but the sacrifice of the death of Christ. 5. That the Burial Sei'vice is for the ba[)tised members of the Church, only. And that chiMren, or others, dying unbaptised. *■■. V, 'I f. .5 ^ r3 I 60 being rofuHorl tho use of it, in only a nocosRavy reniilt of the observanco of order. And that tlic l)lanie must attach to those persons who neglect or refuse to h ive their children, or themselves •baptised. 6. That the substance of the Rubric conceriiing Sponsors, did not originate in 1662. 7. That the Churcli has never varied in her statements of authorized doctrine ; the ground or warrant for " asserting " Regeneration in Baptism, having been always one and the same. 8. That Baptismal Regenei'ation is said to be by water and the Holy Ghost. That the ground for asserting it to have taken place, is faith in the promises God has made to mankind, in the name, and for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 9. This shewn to be the teaching of the Church by her authorised documents of past and present time, and by quotations from the writings of the first Reformers. 10. That so-called Evangelical Ministers are not to be charged with inconsistency in using our Services. 61 CHAP. TT^ THE CATECHISM. Obj. I. "Tlio Oateohism chftjigcd." Ana. The Catechism has not been clianged. It was nuide hirger at the request of tlie Puritans, in 1604, l.y an additional instruction on the nature and use of tlie Sacraments Ijeing placed therein, but nothing changed. The veiy same things, in the very same words, are continued to this day. Obj. II. (a) " The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer remained as imperfect at the death of Elizabeth as at her accession." Ans. To olrject to tlie Catecliism in its supposed imperfect state, and to oppose any cliange being made in it, can only l)e termed obstructiveness. If, imperfect, Iioav could the defect be remedied without change i But before we can agree with the objector, and say that the Catechism was imperfect, at any time ; we must first have a standard of perfection set u]), saying what a Catechism ought to be. The Catechism in the look of Common Prayer, is a form of instruction necessary to be learned by all that wish to be confirmed. The very lowest qualification for a candidate to be admitted to confirmation, is, that he be able to say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue. The Bishop that confirms may now extend this requirement, and at his discretion put any one or all the questions contained in the Catechism that he may feel disposed to ask. So that it will be seen that the Catecliism was pehfect in Queen Elizabotli's time t- f it I! Ii!| 62 and is so now also ; inasmucli as it did, and doos serve the purpose for which it was eonii)iled ; i. e. to furnisli a necessary form of instruction for tlioso wlio wisli to ho conthined. , Ohj. II. (b) "It consisted of thirteen questions and answers, of which FIVE tau^lit the lloinisli unscriptui'al view of haptisnial I'ogeneration." Ans. There are only Foi u (piestions that have reference to tlie Sacrament of Baptism. Tlie lirst, " Wliat is your Name ] Tlie second, refers to tlie promises of God made to Christians in that Sacrament. The baptized pei'son having a Christian name, the promises ai)ply to him, or her, in tlie general. The third, refers to and explains, the promises made in the name of the baptized, to repent, believe, and obey. The fourth, an acknowledgment of the obligation to fulfil them, with prayer for the ability to do so, and thanksgiving for the privilege. If these are *' Romish views :" then the Church of Rome either misrepresents her " views," or obscures them. But the objector is a mere child, and cannot even count five correctly, much less teach theology, oi' distinguish between things that diflfer. Obj. III. (a) " If Edward and Cranmer had lived, the Cliurch would doubtless have possessed a very different Catechism from the one now in the book. This is evident from the publication of another Catechism by royal authority, six weeks before the king's death in 1553. This work, the latest issuing from the reformers, may be regarded as the clearest statement of their views which we now possess." Ans. This remark will be sulficient to shew that the objector did not understand the nature and purpose of either Catechism. The one he names as published by roya' "nthority, was not intended to supersede that one at first prepared and placed in the l)ook ; but to be supplementary to it. As said before, we must notice what PURPOSE each has to serve. The short Catechism in the Prayer Book, is specially for candidates for Confirmation. If we have 63 capHoity for, and dcsiic inor*- cxiciisivc kiiowlcdj^M' of CliriHtian liutli, there \h h liirgiir (Jutecliisin, both in Latin and English, banctioncfl by Convocation, antl s(^t fortli by autlioriiy of Qu(;i'n ElizalKith ; wliich fully (3on the conference at Hampton Court, is much more fully and particularly delivered than the other [)arts of the Catechism, in short answers titted to the memories of children, and thereupon we otier it to be considered :— First Whether there should not be a more distinct and full explication of the Creed, the Conniiandments, and the Lord's Prayer. Secondlv. \Thether it were not convenient to add (what seems \. :' 64 to Ik- vvaiitiii;;) soiiicwliat i»;irtirularly coiiciM'iiiiig the nudirn of fiiitli, of rcpontaiice, tlio two cov(Mi!inis, of JMstificiition, HHiictitication, adoption aiul lO'jcsiKMation." As tlu! lai'<^<'r CutfclnHin was found to l>c (iiiito sulKciont to moot all thc'so things hum naniod, the shortor one was continuod without ohangc, as being more suited to the caj)acitioH of childicn, and the coninion |t('oj)le. T3ut the objection now nuide to the way in wiiich the dilVeient subjects contained in the Catechism are apportioned, and the assei'tion that tlie greatest prominence is given to the doctrine of the Sacraments ; is a necessary consequence of the subject being in a state of confusion in the mind of the objector. A want of clear perception on his })ai't, with respect to numbers, quantity, and subjects. ICe says tlicrc; were five questions whicli taught the Itomish unscriptural view of baptismal regeneration, in the Catechism of Elizabeth : whereas there were only fouu that could in any way be said to refiu' to Baptism at all. Then he says that nine questions and ans'weis were added, when the number should be twelve. Th re should also be a distinction made with respect to the quantity contained in each question and answer, before asserting that the doctrine of the sacraments is "about two-thiuds of the whole." If the importance of a doctrine is to be determined by the ipiantity of matter devoted to the teaching of it : then, ' our generation " has discovered a new way of testing such things. But if this test is to be applied, let it be done with fairness. To select two questions, to illustrate the fallacy and absurdity of such test : " What is your name 1 which may be answered with one word. But, "What is thy duty towards thy neighbour]" would require one hundred and sixty-one, to answer it. In the Book of Conunon Prayer before me, I find that the Catechism takes up a space of seven colunnis. The first of which teaches the nature M^ 05 and oliligHlioii of tlui OliriMtiiiu covoimnt oiitniHul into ;it l>;i|(ti.siii. The second, tlie Articles of Belief. Tiio next two and a lialf, tlie Ten Commandments. One, to the Lord's Prayer. T\w last OXE AND A HALF to the two Sacramoiits. So tiiat out of seven (u|nal portions, four and a half will be found to set forth Christian truth, in almost the very words of Scripture ; and the two-thirds of the whole, })y a proper api)lication of the objector's own ruh.^, will he found to he reduced to one-tiiird. I am sorry to have to treat these subjects in such manner, but I must plead the wise king's proverb, and ** answer a fool according to his folly." r Obj, III. (c) " The Catechism of the Reformers, out of sixty- seven questions, allows this subject only seven, NOT one in nine. In other words, the later Catechism mak(»s the sacramental cpiestion six times as important as the Catcjchism of tl e lieformers. Not one of the old Reformers was living at the time of the Revision of James. Dean Nowell, who outlived the rest, died in 1G02." Ans. In this case the objector is at fault, he has made a wrong compaiison of Catechisms. He has compared the larger one set forth by authority of Edward VI. with the smaller one of Jas. I. Whereas it sliould have been compared with what is commonly known as Nowell's Catechism, set forth by authority of the Queen and Convocation in 1570, to supply the place of the one suppressed by Queen Mary. Jn that, will be found about fifteen OCTAVO pages of instruction on the Sacraments. The Church of England, since the Reformation, has always had two authorized Catechisms, a shorter and a larger one. The larger one we now have, is entitled to be considered, the last work of the Reformers on this subject : because it was prepared by Dean Nowell, and approved by Bishops Grindal, Jewell, and Cox ; as well as others contemporary with them. Obj. IV. (a) "Bishop Overall, a highly scholastic and Sacramentarian divine, prepared the nine questions and answers at the close of the Catechism." 9 M. IP "' L*i 66 Alls. Tlioro are twelve of them. But it will be considered a very small matter by churchmen generally, who the person was that prepared them, yet Bishop Overall was a fit and proper person for the work. We place the value of them in their truth and conciseness ; and not in the number of them, or the merit of the man that compiled them. Still, it may be as well to give the reason why the addition was made. The Puritans in 1G04, complained that the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer was **too brief ;" and that of Dean Nowell's, " too long for young novices to learn by heart ;" and requested " that one uniform Catechism might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received." It was asked, " whether, if to the short Catechism in the Communion Book something were added for the doctrine of the sacrament, it would not serve ] " King Jas. : "taxing withal the number of R ignorant catechisms set out in Scotland, by every one that was the son of a good man : insomuch, as that which was catechism doctrine in one congregation, was in another scarcely accepted as sound and oi-thodox ;" requested that the Catechism to be set forth, be made in the fewest and plainest r.ffirmative terms that may be. As the Puritans assented to these additions, and promised to observe and teach them, we may assume that they saw nothing objectionable in either matter or manner. Obj. IV. (b) ^' These were confined to the matter of the sacraments, which are treated with far more minuteness than the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, or tlie Ton Commandments ; and the inference is natural from the i)erusal of this document, that the Church regards this subject as the most important to be brought before the minds of youth." Ans. There is not any more minuteness of treatment than each portion of ^' e subject requires, which is a simple statement of particulars- The Creed, Lord's Pvayer, and Ten Commandments, were delivered to the Church m a fixed and permanent form, which makes the requirement with respect to them, no more, than that they be faithfully transmitted. The doctrine of tlte sacraments was, '!fe" 67 not delivered in any such permanent form ; therefore, it was necessary to collect it from the Scriptures. It is scarcely posssible to give the simple facts in fewer words, or clearer sentences. We ought to know, and teach positively, how many sacraments there are ordained by Clirist in his Church, seeing that it is a matter of dispute. Some say, seven ; others, none ; the Catechism says, two, only. The word. Sacrament, is not an English word ; it is also ambiguous, has been taken to signify what men please lo laake it ; therefore, it was necessary to define how it was to I: reccved and understood in the Church of England. The nature and puApose these ordinances have, and are intended to serve, should be stated clearly so as to guard against error. Also, the Sacraments are " to be duly used," so that it is farther necessary to teach, by whom, and in what way, they may be rightly used. When we know that of all tlie good things the Christian Church has received from her Lord, not one has been more abused and corrupted than the doctrine of the Sacraments : can we wonder that the Church regards this subject as important, although not the MOST important, to be brought before young peoi)le 1 Because if you " Train up a child in the way lie should go : when he is old, he will not depart from it," I conclude, that the subject has not been treated with any more minuteneHH than the nature of it requires ; and bearing in mind, the superabuii' lance of erroneous teaching with respect to it, feel grateful that we jk^jscss this form of sound words. Obj. V. (a) **Tbe supremacy of Holy Scii])ture is not even alluded to." Ans. The sui»rema(y of Scri[)tiire), is not an Ai'ticle of Faith. But the sutticiency of Holy K<;ripturo to make us wise unto salvation, is ; and will be found iu its })roi)(n- place, i. e., as the VI. of, the thirty-nine Articles. 4 ri5fc': i ■ '■(■<. r 1 n \ .* i I 1 1 ) ' !M Q8 Such ignorant cavils make it necessary to point out, that the Catechism is only a part of a book. And that it is specially devoted to set forth a form of instruction, necessary for childi"en to learn, so as to be prepared for confirmation. And that it takes MANY LIKE PARTS to make the book complete. It is quite enough that each part is complete in itself ; and that the several parts, when added together, make up a complete book of devotion and instruction. An objector, might, with as much reason, complain that the whole of the Gospel was not contained in a particular chapter of the New Testament. After this explanation, it will be easy to see, that in the Calender, which is also A part of the book the WHOLE of the Scripture is not only " alluded to," but every chapter thereof is named, and ordered to l)e publicly read in the Church. Obj. V. (b) " Faith and repentance are mentioned as they are related to Baptism, but not explained. Ans. They are more than mentioned. I do not think it is possible for any one to say more, in so fev words ; nor with all the forced explanations of modern times, to state moi-e clearly what purposes Repentance and Faith are intended to serve, than is here done in the Catechism. "What is required of persons to be baptized ? Repentance, whereby they forsake sin ; and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament. " But in addition to this, let it be known, that it is also a part of the duty of baptized persons, to hear JfJermons ; anart even, of the book of 1552 ; bu*. was set forth by myal authority after the book was published and signed. I will give tlio following statements to prove this td be true. "The Book of Common Pmyer having the last year (1551) been carefully I'evised and coi-rected by the Archbisliop and others, the Parliament in April'this year (1552) enacted tiiat it should begin to be used everywhere at All Saint's Day next. And accordingly, THE Book was printed against the time, began to be read in St, Paul's Church, and the like throughout the city. But because the posture of kneeling was excepted against })y some, and the words used by the Priest to the communicants, at the reception of the bread, gave scruple, as though the adoration of the Host were intended; therefore to take off this, and to declare the contrary to be the doctrine of the Church ; — Oct. 27, A lettei- wrs sentfroin the Council to the Lord Chancellor, to cause to Br: added to the Book of Common Prayer lately set forth, a declaration skjned by THE King touching the kneeling at the veceiving of the Communion." The next quotation will shew, that this is not the first timo this same thing has been called in question, and understood as I wow explain it. THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRESnVTKRIAN COMMLSJ^IONEIIS. *' And we desire that tiie following Rubrick in the Common Prayer-book, in 5 and 6 Edw., established by law as much as any other part of the Coinmon Prayer-book, may be restored for the vindicating of our chui'^h in the matter of kneeling at the Sacrament (although the gesture be left indifferent) : ' Although no order can be so perfectly devised, itc' " ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS. << T This rub. is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by law ; nor is tliei-e any great need of rowtorincr it, the 75 world being now in more dangor of inofanation than of idolatry. Besides, the sense of it is declared sufHcienily in the 28th article of the Church of England." 9 1 The Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, confirmed by law, as 1 Eliz. 0. 2, A.D. 1559, was the book of 1552 with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants, and none other or otherwise." If, therefore, this " Declaration " had been legally a part of the book, it would have been confirmed by this Act, as much as any otlior part ; or named in the exception. But as it was not even named, the evidence is conclusive that it was as stated, a proclamation made l)y the King ; having only the same authority as " Injunctions " of Queen Elizabeth, viz. : — to provide t(3mporarily for pressing matters, until the subject could be settled by proper authority. But that wliich ought to set the matter at rest and silence objections, is the difference in the w^ording of the Declaration of 1552, and that of 1662. K. Edward, in Ills proclamation, says: "Whereas it is ordeyned in thf^ Book of Conunon Piavei", (kc ***** Wk do t^eclare, ttc." Tt must be evident that it is the King himself speaking in his own name and by virtue of his authority. But the language of that of 1662 assumes the Ai tiiority given to THE BOOK ITSELF : by couscut of Church and State. " Whereas it is ordained in this opfice for the administration of the Lord's Supper, &c. * * * * It is hereby declai-ed, itc." ^* I find that many historians have sp'olvrn of this objection as a valid one, most likely copying one from another ; but it will now be evident that it never had ecclesiastical or parliamentary sanction before 1662 and therefore was not legally a part of the book before that time ; and further would have nothing to do with conciliating the Roman Catholics, neither was it expunged. K:. ■c I ■■l-J 'I -ill u y 01>]. IT. " Another alteration in tlie Communion Service was witli respect to THE FORM of givincs the elements. In tlie first Book of E » Ans. Heylin is not a good authority ; his reniaiks are inuiginary, and as may be seem, not governed by facts. The «• Injunctions " were not intended to bring us " closer to the Church of Rome ;" that church provides the " Host," unleavened, thin, flat, of a circular form, and has certain mystii* signs impressed on it, — Whereas it is ordereid that the "sacramental niiEAD be made and fonned plain, without any fkjurk thereu})on." It was an order to return to the c\istoui of T'^dwiird VI. time ; and to AiiOLisii that introduced by th(» Church of Tvome, in the reign of Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth's injunctions : An admonition to simple men deceived by malicious. — " Item, where al«o it was in the time of Edward the Sixth used to have the sacramental bread of common fine bread ; it is ordered for the more reverence to be given to these? lioly mysteries, being the sacraments of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, that the same sacramental bread be made and formed plain, without any figure thercnipon, of the same fineness and fashion round, though somewhat bigger in compass and thickness, AS THE ^USUAL UTIEAD AND VVAFKU, lierctofore named singing cakes, which served for the use of the private ma.S8." Archbishop Parker, and other bishops, gave " Interpretations and further Considerations " of the Injunctions ; on this particular, we have " Item, That the communion hread be thicker than it is now (1559) connnonly used. The FINAL order of the Cluuvh may be seen in the 20th Canon, 1G03 : — Bkead and Wine to be provided against every Communion. The Churchwardens, etc. • « • * * provide a 70 BulViciciit (luaiitity of line whitu Driuul, luul of good and wlioh-aomo Wine, etc. And in the lluluic now in the book, and wliich is nearly tlio Hanie in eacli edition of it : ♦' To take away all occasion of dissenHion and superstition, which any person liath or nuglit have concerning the Bread and Wine, it shall suflice, that the Bread ho such as is usual to bo oaten ; but the best and purest wheat Bread that conveniently may be gotten." The objector ought to have known, that this objection could have nothing whatever to do with the present edition of the Prayer Book, or influence our practice in any way ; s(3cing that it was only a temporary arrangement, and for which tliere was great need at the time. But if we may judg(i the amount of knowledge he is l)0ssessed of, l»y the remark ]\v, has made, saying, " which the Book required only to be made of the linest flour ;" it is eN ident that he, like many others, has much yet to learn, and common prudence should teach him to keep silence until he knows better. Obj. III. (b). '* She (Q. Elizabeth) also ordered, tliat the Lord's Table should be placed where the altar stood." Ans. I should quote this as an evidence of the Queen's Protestantism. Very few Protestants would comjjlain that she preferred to use the term " Lord's Table," to that one which designates it an "Altar." But zeal will sometimes outrun discretion. However, the truth is, the Queen simply speaks of it as "the holy table." And the placing of it where the altar stood, was "for observation of one nniformity throughout the whole realm, and the better imitation of the law in that behalf." The Injunction is headed, " For tables in the church." I will try and give the essence of it. No sooner had this Queen ascended the throne, than many persons, in excess of zeal, began to make phanges in the churches without aiithoiity ; and amongst other ?4 *, .,j; ■■'**4' ^ \ Hll! M ¥%: I' w /»>; ■:,:! :# !! • 80 things, to bnnik down tlic altars and runiovt^ them. The Queen, wishing to put a stop to such lawless proceedings, orders, that " no altar be taken down but by oversight of the curate of the church, and the churchwardens ; or one of them at the least, wherein no riotous or disordered manner be used." And that the holy table in every church be decently made, and set in the place whei'*^ the altar stood, i. e. Such position was to be the permanent place for it* But if not found to be convenient, it might be moved when the communion of the Sacramt^nt was to be distributed, '* so that the minister uught be better heard, &c." After which " the same holy table to be placed where it stood before." Obj. IV. " We must simply allude to the changes in the same Romish direction in the Office for the Lord's Supper. They are not very noticeable ; and with one who is not veiy familiar ^vith the Theological tenets of these Carolinian divines, and with the Romish controversy, they would readily escape notice. Elizabeth, however, as we have seen, had so thoroughly tampered with the work of Edward & Cranmer, as to leave but little necessary to be done in the same direction." Ans. As these " changes in a Romish direction " in this office, are here only *' alluded to," I shall only make a slight comment. They cannot be of very much importance when they are " not very noticeable ;" and as the objector himself is not very familiar with the Romish controvei jy, he has made a few selections from " a High Church writer," Alexander Knox, from Dr. Pusey, and from Dr. Newman ; which shall receive attention in due order. In so far as I have replied to these objections, and those yet to follow, I claim to have made Jt manifest that the only " tampering with the work of Edward or Cranmer," has been that done by the objector himself. Obj. y. (a) "A Higli Church writer, Alexander Knox, refers to the ' insidious ' manner in which the changes were made by those artful ecclesiastics, lie says : ' The revisers seized the opportunity V no bo ^S ^e 81 (contrnrv to what th^ ])nV)Hc vr;\^ rerkonin^: on) to make o\ir Formularies not more Puritanical, l)ut uunv, ('atiiolif. Thcv elFected this, witliout douht, stealtliily ; and, to all ap))earances, l»y the minutest alteration ; Init to conijiaie the Communion Service;, as it now stands, esi)ecially its lluhries, with the form in which we lind it, previously to that transaction, will Ix; to discover that without any change of features which would cause alarm, a new S[)irit was then breathed into our Comuiunion Service.'' Ans. The quotation from Alexander Knox, is not entire, so as to give a proper understanding of what he said, noi' yet correct in ^oi)y. Knox says, " The distress of the Church had more than ever endeared her to her giniuine children and served to ahiite all inidue Protestant zeal." And in effect, although the Puritans hapoiiit- ment to their hopes ; the changes went against them, and were more Catholic — not Romish. This he says was effected stealthily, by minute alterations of the Communion Service, esjx'cially the rubrics. Without any change of f(!atures to cause alarm, having a new sj)irit breathed into it. And ex})lains by the following, which the objector "conveniently" omitted: — '-Principally l)y a few signihcant circumstances in the manner of conducting the business which were fitted to impress the devout, though certain to be fully understood only by the initiated." As this question is too occult and fanciful, to have any real inliuence on any person, save the " initiated :" and as I am not one of the "initiated;" I think it will be labor in vain to try and make anything of it. Oi tliis I am certain, it is not in accordfince with the facts, and has no practical bcMiing on the subject. The word " stealthily " does not aj)ply ; for the work was done opeidv. In Convocation, fully and freely discussed, and afterwards passed through both Houses of Parliament. The part the Puritans had in the " Revision," failed altogether, n |l " ">> ]^ '■m* ■ > to * r ■ r ■\ ■ ««' .Jl iwM. - fji^^mi^^^ i It ■ f 82 on account of th(dr inability to suHt;an it, as any well road [)tM[sun knows, and as 1 will shew Mluni treating of that particular. On the strength of the word " stealthily," the objector has taken '^ccasion to declaim against the Ilitualists ; but as he says himself " th(^ issue to-day is not between the Ilitualists and the Ilefonnod Episcopalians." I shall consider this an inadvertence, and proceed. Obj. V. (n). " I will briefly notice these stealthy changes. I have stated witli resjxict to the Rubric of 1552, where, with reference to the postii:-! of kxkeling. it is declared, no ' adoration ii# done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacranioital bread and wine then bodily received, or unto any kical or essential presence there being of Christ's natui-al fl(!sh and blood,' one of Elizal)eth's llomanising stei)S was to ex}>ungc altog(.'thcr this denial of the " real ])resence." Ans. I must again protest against this use of the tei-m " stealthily," and the objector's improvement of it — stealthy changes — there is no warrant for it being used, it is a mere assumption, not capable of any proof. Bui it is equal to charging the members of the Church of England with being partakers in a crime. For, to steal, is either to take by force or otherwise, what is not your own ; or to take away secretly what is another's, without consent of tho OAvner ; neither of wdiicli cuses, or any other like ones, can be charged against us, with truth. The Prayer Book is the lawful proi)erty of the English Church, and recognized as such all the world over ; the State and Convocation being the pro})er guardians of it. Changes have been, and may again be made in it, when a majority can be found to agree to do so ; the last changes made in it, were made by lawful authority in 1662, and in the most public manner possible. T\w. contents of the book are all honest truth, and were honestly obtained ; and nothing done stealthily ; to say otherwise, is to uttci- slander against the Church and nation. 1 have already slu^wn conclusivelv, that what is now aijain miscalled a Ku))ric, was proi)erly a " Declaration ;" set forth by the 8d authority of Kng Edward VI., was only temporary ; and never at any time before 1662, a lawful portion of the book. Therefore to say that it was " expunged," is not, and cannot be true. Before asserting that this is " one of Elizabeth's Romanising steps," or that she caused it to be *' expunged :" let the objector first establish the fact, that it was a part of the book, and a legal part thereof. Then his objection might be worth considering ; but until he does so, (and he never can) his o))jection has no more value than a di'eam, or the ravings of a brain-sick |)erson. Obj. Y. (c). " What did these shrewd Sacramentarians of Charles II. do in this coiniection 1 Tliey reinstated the llubric of Edward, but changed it in its most important feature, by expunging the words ' real and essential," and sul)stituting the word ' corporal ' in its stead, thereby conveying the idea that the Church believes in the ' REAL AND KSSENTIAL ' presence of Christ in the bread and wine, but one which is not 'corporal ' or 'physical,' or ' sensible.' Ans. " These shrewd Sacramentarians," whoever they were, would only have a vote equal to their number. The changes were made and sanctioned by both Houses of Convocation, by th(^ Lords and Commons as well, and carried by a majority of each. So it was the voic(? of the whole nation that agreed to it. If by " these shrewd Sacramentarians," the Bishops &c., of the Savoy Conference are alluded to, it will scarcely ap])ly ; becau.se they declared that there was no necessity for the Kubric being restoieil, vide p. 74. The " Rubric " ap]>ears to be a very "strong" point with the o)>jector. But as it was not "expunged," so neither was it " reinstated ;" and neither is it a " Rubric." At the first it was called a " Declaration." In 16G2, it was called a " Protestation !" And then foi- the first time found a lawful j)lace in the Book of Common Pray(M-. I scarcely think " shnnvd Sacramentarians '' would have anything to do with such a Protestation. ♦* C]ian<'ed in its most important feature :" should 1)0, changed -i. ^1 i — • ii4 ^ 84 I'iiJ' ! •i i li I 1 1 in tlie words usod for illuHtration. l>eca\ise tlic most iiuportaiit foatiire i)i the Declaration, as also in the Protestation, is, to signify what is meant by the act of kneeling, when receiving the EiOrd's Supper, viz. : * Our humhle and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Chnst therein given to all woi-thy receivers, and for the avoiding of such pvofanation and disoi'der in the holy C/Ommunion, as might otherwise ensue," And lest the act might be misconstrued, to declare ''Tliat 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." " Evimnuinii the words 'real and essential,' and substituting the word 'corporal.'" The Protestation is not only a declaration of our intention and pur]»ose in kneeling, when receiving the Lord's Sujiper : but also a protest against Transubstantiation. When it is understood that the decrees of the Council of Trent, were ])romulgated after the death of Edward VT., and that some tl (S therein decreed have a bearing on this suliject, (as the following quotation) : it may perhaps l)e allowed that the word " corporal," is more effectual in this ])lace as a ]>rotestation than the words taken away. Decree of Council of Treiit, Oct.; 1551. Caput. IV. De Tiunsubstantiatione. Quouiam autem Christus redemjitor noster, corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere esse dixit : ideo persuasum sem})er in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idquo nunc denuo sancta \\xc Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiie ])anis in substantiam coi'poris Christi Domini nosti'i, et totiu? substantiae vin' in subsiantiam sanguinis ejus ; qujx; convei'sio convenienter ei jrrr/prie a sfincta Catholica Ecclesia Trans ubstantiatio est ai)pellata." Tliat this was one pui'])0s<' the " Protestation " was intended to mrve may be seen from the following part of it : " For tlus 85 Sacmnioiital BickI iuul Wine i-cinain still in tlu^ir vcrv iiHtiirul substances, aiul theivfoif may not Ix' adored ; (for tliat were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faitliful Christians) : and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Clirist are in Heaven, and not here ; ifec." •' Conveying the idea that the Church believes in tlic REAL AND ESSENTIAL presence of Christ in the bread and Avine." How can an ile i'ecei\e from Christ's sacrifice. But there is 'lo ground even for an inference, for the Church HAS defined in wdiat manner "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper :" as in Article xxviii., " only (very exclusive) after an heavenly and spiritual Dianner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is receively introducted on these two occasions, proved [>artly the ground of the defendants in the notable Berinet case, and thus helped to legalize a 4) :i 'ill 'j i ! i ^ 1 : i ' 1 I l> I,' ' • i S8 new approjioh to Tran.sul>r;tiUitiation and Ho.;t worship in the Church." Ails. Dr. Jacob's remarks aro luori'ly a ri^K'titioii of soiiu", of tho ol)jectioiis rcjtlicd unto ahoady, and slicw tliat lie is another wlio has niistai'W I'i 1. That there was not any ulttjration made at any time in this Service to conciliate the Roman Catholics. . 2. That what is called a " Rubric," and said to have been eximnged from the Book, was not a Rubric, but a Declaration. And that it had no lawful place, and therefore could not have been expunged. 3. That the forms now used ni the delivery of the elements, have sullicient warrant from Scripture, to made them accepUible and suitable words for the purpose they are used for. 4. That the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth, with resi)ect to the Sacramental bread, was not to make the custom of the Church conformable to that of Rome ; but to abolish or counteract that intkoduced in the reign of Queen Mary. 5. That that one also respecting the phicing of the Lord's table, wjxs not to imitate Rome, but to establish one uniform mode, and " imitate " the law. Rather an evidence of the Queen's Protestantism, than a step in the direction of Rome. 6. That the quotation made from Alexander Knox is a partial one. That Knox himself used fanciful and occult terms. And that to say the changes made were " stealthy changes," is a slander on the Church and nation, 7. That the " Rubric " said to have been reinstated and changed in its most impoi-tant feature, is not true : but shewn to be a Protestation against Transubstantiation, and a denial of there being any intention of adoration in the act of kneeling. And that the Church has defined the manner in which Christ's Body is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper. 8. That the word " Coi-poral " as used by the first Reformers in Ai-t. 29, was synonymous with " Real," and a protest against the Romish error of Transubstantiation, r.si 97 9. That the quotation from tlirj Catechism, is an unfair one, and deserving of censure. 10. That the remarks of Dr. Jacob, are a repetition of false chai'ges founded on error. 11. That our Formuhiries were not drawn up for the purpose of including Roman Catholics. 12. That there is another alt(u*native for an "honest, sincere, and enlightened Protestant," besides these offered by Revision or Secession. 13. That the "alteration" made in "the Exhortation" in 1662, is an improvement ; setting forth in the best manner the most important subject of the Gospel. 14. That the objector is guilty of a gross interpolation, when quoting a Rubric respecting the bread and wine remaining after Communion, and that the alteration made in it in 1662, was conducive to good order, and requisite. HkK il, I ■ ^n . ^. jii-.-i 'T%J r ■ i^ Jiir ^ . mf^ 13 If IM li I i i II ^ ,! I !■/■' CHAPTER V. THE ARTICLES. Obj, I. (a). "The ARTICLES, the Constitution of the Church, were tampered with in two important instances." Ans. The Articles, Formularies, &c., of the Church of England, are the property of the Church ice the time being, whatever that time may be, or whoever the persons may be representing it. Therefore, any alterations made in them by lawful authority — which is known and determined — ought not to be called " tami)erings." Things are tampered with, when persons meddle with them who have no right to do so. As the so-called Reformed Episcopal Church have done with our Book of Common Prayer, which, although the common property of the whole Church, does not belong to any individual, whether Bishop or layman. Obj. 1. (b). *' Cranmer and his associates, in order to condemn as clearly as possible the error of Sacramental grace, now ao widely taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church, had inserted in the articles of 1553, Art. xxvi., these words : *Our Lord Jesus Christ gathered his people into a society by Sacraments, very few in number, most easy to be kept, and of most excellent signification ; that is tc say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome eftect and operation ; not as some say, ex opere operate, which terms, as they are strange and utterly unknown to Holy Scripture, so do they yield a sense which savoi-s of little piety and of much superstition.'" Ans. This is a vkry partial quotation for any one to give, who. In the same breath, speaks of " tampering." I will first supply what the objector has omitted, and tlien shew that liis judgment is at. fault in quoting thiF* passage at all. II 99 •><<. After tho words ** Supixn- of the Lord," read, *• The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be ^azed ujion, or to >)e canned about, but that we should duly use them." And to follow his whole quotation, " but they that receive them unworthily, receive to themselves damnation. The Sacraments ordained by the word of God, be not only Badges or Tokens of Christian Men's Profession ; but rather they be certain sure witnesses, effectual signs of Grace, and God's good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us ; and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." -IF,," mL«J^ **? " tl Thus it will be seen that Cranmer and his associates say, when ALL their words are given, thi^t our Lord Jesus Christ gathered his people into a society — by Sacraments. That they are of most excellent signification. That they were ordained to be duly used. That in such as worthily receive them, they have a wholesome effect and operation. That they are more than badges or tokens of Christian men's profession — they be certain sure witnesses, effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us. And that they not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. I think the objector will now see the necessity there is of rectifying his own error firstj before he re-asserts his charge of error being taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church on this suVjject. Obj. I. (c). " ' This statement,' writes Nangle, of the Church of Ireland, in Irish Church Advocate, March, 1874, 'which demolishes the foundation of Baptismal Regeneration, was expunged from our Prayer Book in the reign of Elizabeth,' and the following of a totally different aspect, was substituted for it : * Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be sure, certain witnesses and effectual signs of grace,' &c." Ans. " This statement," is a false statement ; and therefore \sorthless. The paragraph said to have been expunged, and one of a totally different aspect substituted for it, I have shewn was a part • -li li (■ t 1 am i if t" 100 of th(} xxvi. Art. of Edwanl VI. lint tliat tuticlo has no i<;foroncn to BaptiHnuil Regeneration ; it treats of the SacrunieiitH, stating the number, nature, and use of tlieni. Tlieir iStli Art., which, excei)ting the last paragraph, is woid for word the banio as our 27th, treats specially of Baptism, and declares it to be " a sign of Regeneration, or New Birth." Now if these half-read individuals who glean a little from some party " magazine " here, and a little more from an " Advocate " of party view there — would remember, that " a little knowledge is a dangerous thing," and govern themselves accordingly : they would not perhaps be so forward to assist in demolishing or expunging wholesome doctrine ; or so ready to charge othei-s with having done the like, and find out afterwards that they were mistaken. Obj. I. (d). " On this change, Fisher, in his work on Liturgical Purity, p. 507, remarks : * The same false tenderness towards the corruptions of the old superstitions which had caused, in the year 1559, the admission into the Communion Office of the Romanizing doctrine of the Real Presence, as well as the omission from the Liturgy of anything like a distinct protest against the errors of the Papacy, occasioned likewise, in 1571, the withdrawal from the Article on Baptism of that specific protest against the — opus operatum — so wisely inserted in the earlier articles of 1553.' " An& The latter part of this long sentence is all that appertains to our present subject, the other things objected, will be found to be noticed each in its proper place. Tliere is not any such " protest " to be found in any Article on Baptism, either in those of 1552, or those of 1562 ; and there has been no change since that time last named. The words " opus operatum " are not in any Article. The words " ex opere operato,'» were in the xxvi. of those of 1552 ; but cannot be said to apply to Baptism more than to the Lord's Supper, because, that article treats of the Sacraments. The words are expository, and to convey the meaning intended by them, I would place them thus, in a parentliesis : *' And in such only as worthily receive the same, they "jrvJ 101 Imvo a wlioh'HOJiH' viYrci or o cratioii ; (not m some sjiy, Kx oprjo oporato, wliicli terniH, im tlioy aro stniii^f^ iiml utt<'rly unknown to tho Holy Scriptiiiv, ho do tluiy yield a sense? which savouioth of little Piety, but of nuich sn})(;rstition) : hut they that rec^'ive them unwoi-thily, receive to themselves dannuition." This objection is said to be an extract from the work of " a layman of the Church of England," and commended as ** the most thorough and candid on the subject." The quotation made and dates given, upon which the " remarks " are founded, are erroneous ; but perhaps they have not, as yet, perceived, that accuiiacy is a necessary ingredient to constitute a work ** candid and thorough." Obj. II. " Nor was this tho only alteration in the Articles. * A clause of great clearness and precision of statement, which had been introduced into the articles of 1553, in condenniation of the doctrine of the * Real,' nor of the Ileal ojdy, but of the * Bodily ' presence of Christ in tho Sacrament, was wholly omitted from those of 1562. It has never to this day been restored.' It reads thus : *For as much as the truth of man's nature recpiireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in some one certain place, therefore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diveree places. And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue until the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real bodily presence (as they tei'm it) of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Ans. " This " clause of great clearness and precision," is neither clearly nor precisely stated by the objector. It is one of the most incorrect quotations yet noticed ; it ought to be called a paraphrase. He has made a distinction between " Ileal " and ** Bodily ;" althougli there is no such distinction made in the Ai-ticle* But I suppose this has been done on the strength of his own paraphrase. When he says that " it has never to this day been restored," he should have said , to its place in the Article ; because the same ideas may be found in the Protestation, at the end of the Service for the Communion. « .u . ,. i '^4' lO 102 ThiK portion of tlin Aitiolo \h not. a condom nation of the " real proHonco " of ChriHt, in, or at, tluH Sacrament. It denies the " Cor|>oroal proHcnce," or real in-esence of Christ's natural flesli and blood, (whicli tlie Church of Rome affirms) : Saying, " it becometh not the Faithful to believe or profess, that there is a Real on Cori)orcal presence (as they [Church of Rome] phrase it) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist." It is not to be wondered at, that the objector should fall into eiTor, when we see the nature of the material he makes use of to obtain his information from. I will here give his pretended quotation and compare it with the original by placing them side by side ; it should have been given word for word, if otherwise, it is not «. quotation : ■'■if- •ill objector's quotation. " For as much as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divei*s places, but must needs be in some one certain place, there- fore the body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places. And because (as Holy ' Scripture doth teach) CJhrist was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue until the end of the world, a faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the real bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup- per." COPY FROM ORIGINAL. " Since the very Being of humane nature doth require, that the Body of one and the same Man, cannot be at one and the same time in many places, but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place ; there- fore the Body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time. And since (as the Holy Scriptures testify) Christ hath been taken up into Heaven, and there is to abide until the end of the world ; it becometh not any of the Faithful to believe or profess, that there is a Real or Corporeal presence (as they phrase it) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist." The leading men engaged in the reformation of the Articles, &c., in the time of Queen Elizabeth, were not men likely to >• -.1 . ,m 103 " tainpoi' " witli thoiu ; for tlioy wcro nishoiw Parker, Jcwf II, Cox, Grindal, «kc. : thoHO wlio still remained alive of tlie firat Reformers. The chief difficulty they had to contend with at that time, wtvs the Romish error of Transubstantiation. They had no objection to any statement tlie Article contained, as is shewn by their ado]>ting it at first without change ; but on mature consideration, they decided that it was not prudent to issue it in that form. It ought to bo remembered, that they did not succeed to the offices they held in the Church, as they were loft by ** Cranmer and his associates," or with the Liturgy oi*dered by Edw. VI. in full use and force : these had all been abolished by Act of Parliament. But they were successore of Bishops Gardiner, and Bonner, and their associates ; and they found England's Church fully supplied with Romish Bishops, Priests, Jlfc,, teaching amongst numerous other eiTora, that peculiar dogma of Rome " that the whole substance of the bread is changed into the body, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the blood of Christ" And pronouncing anathema against ** Whoever shall affirm, that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable eucharist, as joon as the consecration is performed, but only as it is used and received, and neither before nor after ; and that the true body of our Lord does not remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels, which are reserved or left after communion : let him be accursed." % :- *H«fJ. To refute this, it was thought necessary and sufficient, to protest Transubstantiation, and condemn it ; but to say more at that time, would be superfluous. Because, denying that there was ANY CHANGE MADE IN THE BREAD AND WINE — was also to deny, that there was any " real bodily presence " in, or with the same. And they state the manner by which " The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper," by adding to the article, " only, after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the bodv of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith." »•■ i ■■ Si .IV*^ .!i 104 So they having authority, form the Ai-ticle on this suhject anew, and in the following manner : The first paragraph, is retained and continued without change. The next, beginning with Transubstantiation, is amended, by adding the words " ovei-throweth the nature of a Sacrament." The next one, was " wholly omitted '* as the objector states. Because they thought the same truth could be expressed in some better way, than by denial and philosophical reasoning. Therefore they introduced, what is now the third paragraph of the Article, " The Body of Christ, is given, taken, cfec." Whether this was made specially to cliallenge the " anathema " of Rome or not, I have at present no means of knowing ; but, if it is " Protestant " to oppose Romish error : then this paragraph increased the Protestantism of the Book of Common Prayer. The last paragraph, is common to both editions of the article, and was continued without change. In order to give this difficult subject, " as great clearness and precision " as I possibly can, I will conclude it by saying that the declaration of the Church, as now expressed by her authorized formularies, is — there is no corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood in the Lord's Supper. The Sacramental Bread und Wine remain still in their veiy natural substances. Obj. II. (b). " Are we surprised to Imd Bishop Jewell, the ablest divine of this reign, writiiig thus : " Now everything is managed in so slow, cautious and prudent a manner, as if the word of God was not to be received upon its own authority ; so that as Christ was thrown out by his enemies, he is now kept out by his friends." Ans. A little attention to the order of events is necessary, in applying documents of this kind. When Bishop Jewell wrote his letter, the Queen had not been many months in possession of the throne, and the reformation of religion, not really begun ; and as will be seen by a more extensive quotation, the Bishop was impatient, ani. ^^'ould huvo acted without law, simply because the 'Ji 105 papists had clone so in the previous reign. The hindkiikks, were the Roman bishops, who had legal possession ; who " treated the reformera with many reproaclies, and much scorn ; and called them seditious incendiaries." " He (Jewell) laments the want of zeal and industry in promoting the Reformation ; far short of what the paj)ist's shewed in Queen Mary's time Then everytliing was carried on violently, without staying either for law or precedent : Ijut now everything is managed in so slow, so cautious, and prudent a manner, as if the word of God was not to bo received upon his own authority : so that as Christ was thrown out by his eneuiios, he is now kept out by his friends. This caution made that the spirits of those that favored them were sunk, while their enemies wo'e much exalted upon it. Yet he acknowledges, that though no law was made abrogating the mass, it was in many places laid down. The nobility seemed zealous in their hatred of popeiy. The Queen had indeed softened her mass much ; but there were many things amiss that were left in it. If she could be prevailed on to put the crucifix out of her chapel, it would give a general encouragement : she was truly pious, but thought it necessaiy to proceed by law, and that it was dangerous to give way to a furious multitude." This letter was written on the 10th of April, 1559, before any alteration was made in the Articles, and therefore does not apply to them. The other inferences made are of the same nature, and are not necessary to be brought in here. Obj. III. " A writer already quoted, in an article on * the Anglican Reformation,' remarks : ' Our readers are aware of the controversy as to how the celebrated clause — ' The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of faith ' — crept into the twentietli Article of the Church of England, when it occurs neither in the first |>rinted edition of the Articles, nor in the draft of them which were passed by convocation, and which is still in existence, with the autograph signature of the membei-s. It is now the universal belief that Elimbeth inserted this clause.' " 14 .iiA, „, I 4 1'"JJ ■f^*< •( )>i 'iri m 106 Ans. " This clause " as quoted, never was, in any Article of Religion, set forth by the Church of England. And never will be, so long as the VI. Art. is retained. The clause alluded to, as will be seen by reference to the xx. Ai*t., has the word " Controversies;" for which the objector, or his quoted authority, has substituted " matters." I am very far from suspecting even, that either of them were influenced by base motives in doing so. I would rather charitably suppose, that like St. Paul before his conversion, they have done so "ignorantly." But yet, I feel it a duty, to say, that whoever could set forth, or endorse such a quotation as the one now before us : if not ignorant, must at the least plead guilty to gross carelessness ; and by no means fitted to give out a system of religion. Such mouths ought to be stopped ; they are without excuse ; millions of copies of the Book of Common Prayer are in circulation, aiid one could be procured for a few pence ; neither does it require much skill to copy correctly. But the substitution of one word for another in this case, is, perhaps, a point of difference TOO FINELY CUT for Ordinary readers readily to perceive wherein the distinction lies. But as by consequence, so much the more DANGEROUS, it must be pointed out. The difference between " authority in matters of faith," and " authority in controversies of faith," is the difference between the authority which Gnd ha? reserved to Himself : and the authority He has been graciously pleased to entrust to the Bishops and Stewards of His mysteries. God ALONE has authority in matters of faith. He hath said, "The just shall live by his fa th." And "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of tiie Lord doth man live." The word of God, is, wholly and solely — matter of faith. God hath commited His word to His Church, which accepts the trust, and acts as a " Witness and keeper of Holy Writ." The Church of England has never exceeded her authority in this respect. 107 Th. rulers were within tl^pir proper bounds when tliey decided the " Controveray " with respect to tlie " Sufficiency of Holy Scripture ;" decreeing 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 tlie faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." They have decided another ** Controversy " as to what is to be received as the word of God , by naming certain books to be received as such, and rejecting others as not being such. Tho Church acts as a judge, not as a law-giver. In so far as I know, our rulers have not ordered anything for our Church, that is contrary to God's word. And certainly, not set foi-th matters of faith on their own authority. The Church has, at different times, decided for her members, many " Controversies of faith f such for instance as, in addition to those already named, " Purgatory, Pardons, tfec," and declared them to be " repug- nant to God's word." Many other good works of a like kind hath she done : for which of these good works is she now to be condemned or destroyed 1 Why not patiently consider, and even humbly enquire, so as to understand her purpose before destroying that which can so easily be shewn to be good ? This celebrated clause was in the XX Art., and was placed in it in 1562 ; sanctioned by both Houses of Convocation ; then printed and issued by ecclesiastical authority in 1563. It was left OUT at the second publication in 1571, when the Articles were confirmed by Act of Parliament. But was shortly afterwards restored. Now an Act of Parliament could not be made without the Queen's sanction. So, if she sanctioned it without the clause : what ground is there for "the universal belief that Elizabeth inserted this clause '?" None ; only the people love to have it so. But, seeing that it was a part of the Article some years previously, and sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority, Queen ■m I"' „ 4 "■4 ■:-^,'4ufi^ ^h4 I i I Hi Si V, 11' ) ii I 1 ji 108 . Elizabeth could not have inserted it en her sole authority ; I think that it amounts to more than a probability, that the omission was caused either by the copyist or the printer. : The Piritans never did found a charge upon anything better than suspicion. For Abp. Laud was also charged with having introduced it on his own authority. But like unto all these false charges now refuted, that one had no foundation in fact As Burnet says "he easily cleared himself and well he might" Abp. Laud retorted, and charged his accusers with having falsified the Articles by omitting the clause in the printed copies. He appealed to the original, which was then in existence, and aftirmed the words were in it. The objector says, " the draft of them * * * # passed by convocation is still in existence." True ; there are even "drafts" of them in existence. But drafts are not decisive. I think a draft is scarcely to be considered as a legal document It is well known that before such things take a permanent form, they frequently undergo many omissions and amendments. The Record, which alone COULD give authentic information, and decide the question, was BURNT. " in the great fire of London." But even after all that has been said, what valid reason can be given, to shew why there should not be such a clause in the Article, no matter by whom introduced ? Surely every association, calling itself a " Church " — the Beformcd Episcopal included- — assumes this authority ; dictating how religious services shall be performed, and what its ministers are to teach for doctrine, and what shall not be taught. Therefore seeing that the Church of England does not lay claim to any higher authority thpn this : and which is openly and honestly stated in the Article ; where is the necessity for such objections, or what good purpose can they be intended to serve 1 I am of opinion, that it is worse than a waste of time ; because, instead of gathering with Christ, it is scattering and dispersing 109 those already gathered in His name, by sowing the seeds of dissension and strife. Again ; why ask for " Revision " from the authorities of the Church, and then turn round and say, ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy ; so that if our rulers will not make the alterations we demand, we will make them ourselves 1 Well, the Lord will one day shew who are His, as He did in time past." Obj. IV. (a). " One marked reactionary change made by Elizabeth, I have omitted. In the articles of Edward, there is a remarkable clause : " The grace of Ciirist, or the Holy Spirit, who is given through the same, takes away the heart of stone and gives the heart of flesh.' " .,,, . Ans. As^usual, we have a parai)hrase imposed upon us, for what should be a quotation. Tliere is nothing " reactionary " in this case ; but simply, a reducing to order, what had been before rather vaguely expressed. The " clause " in question, is a part of Art. X. of K. Edw. VI., with title " Of Grace." But the word " Grace " is scarcely more than mentioned ; for the substance of the Article, is an explanation of how grace acts upon the will of man. Our second reformers who, in part, were a continuation of the first ones — 'in 1562, made one Article, that which is now the IX. i out of the substance of the former IX. and X. I shall readily dispose of this objection, and I think most effectually, by merely quoting the Articles at length, as at first prepared, and then after- wards amended. aRT. IX. OP GRACE. EDW. VL We have no power to do good Works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when v e have that good will. ^'V L^^ • >«• ■■' I % *. «u:4 110 ART. X. OP GRACE. EDW. VI. The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Gliost which is given by him, doth take from Man the heart of stone, and giveth him a henA of Flesh. And though it rendereth us willing to do those good "Works, which before we were unwilling to do, and unwilling to do those evil Works which before we did, yet is no violence oflfered by it to the will of Man ; bo that no Man when he hath sinned can excuse himself, as if he had sinned against his will, or upon constraint ; and therefore that he ought not to be accused or condemned on that account ( .1 ■J "■■'J ■•I"' 'l: i! ART. X. OP PREE-WILL. BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER. The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith, and calling upon God : wherefore we have no power, to do good works, &c., as above in Art. ix. Obj. IV. (b). " Here, grace conveyed by the Spirit, the conversion of the soul, as distinguished from grace inwrought by the Sacraments, is positively asserted. This strong Protestant statement, so powerful an antidote to the Sacramental errors of the Liturgy, was expunged by this shrewd monarch ; and wherefore, if not still further to unprotestantize the Book, and to render it less distasteful to her Roman subjects 1 Ans. From an assumption of false premises we have again false inferences. There is not any distinction made between the several manifestations of God's grace, in the Article quoted ; but a statement, that the Holy Ghost changes man's will, and how the work is manifested, and what are its effects. They state that the Holy Ghost himselp, — is — the grace named. As may be inferred from the word — or. That the Holy Ghost is given by Christ the Scripture teaches : " I (Jesus) will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, &c." "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart I will send Him unto you." So also, as in the Litany Ill Service, we supplicate Jesus, " to endue us with the grace of thy Holy Spirit to amend our lives according to thy Holy Word." Doubtless on this account called the " Grace of Christ." The work of taking from man the heart of ** Stone," and giving him a heart of " Flesh," is, truly ; a work of grace — but the worker, is, God the Holy Ghost. The grace inwrought by means of the Sacraments ; as well, the grace wrought by means of the word and prayer ; is all the work of that one and the self-same Spirit, who divideth to erery man severally as He will. For grace inwrought by the Sacraments, vide p. 56, where are words used by one of the very persons who assisted in changing this Article ; and whose words were, and are now, approved, and believed to express the sense of our Formularies. For these surmises, that the book might have been altei-od to render it less distasteful to the Queen's Roman subjects, I have none other answer to make here, than that the Church must patiently bear such things, until people learn to govern their speech by the truth. For the tongue can no man tame ; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Obj. V. " The Protestant portion of the Prayer Book is especially the Articles, which Elizabeth only allowed to be published after she had, upon her excommunication, broken with the Pope, when there was no further object in conciliating the Romanists." Ans. This charge is a false one also. The 42 Articles of Edw. VI. were abolished by his successor. And when Queen Elizabeth came to the throne, the Pope's Supremacy, and the Romish worship had taken their place. But provision was made immediately to restrain and remove those evils. In virtue of her " Supremacy," the Queen issued those celebrated Injunctions, and instructed Bishops Cox, Grindal, and others, to prepare certain "brief articles' that might serve until the others could be restored by an equal authority to that which abolished them. .10 » ^♦1 I '^ % ^.-t * cJ. m hpi ir; ii'3 S'-iJI M 112 The forty-two Articles, were revised, reduced in number, and first published in 1562 ; but by ecclesiastical authority only. Since that time, they have always been called the Articles of 1562, as may be seen in the 36th Canon, and also in the " Declaration " preceding them, in the Prayer Book. The " Ratification " should suffice to prove that the Articles were not then, 1571 J published for the firat time. The import of the word itself. Ratification. The words " again approved," and " AGAIN confirmed," must refer to some former time. So, 1571, was the time they first received Parliamentary sanction ; but not the first time of their publication. They were therefore published before Elizabeth had "broken with the Pope." Some few things that may relate to Queen Elizabeth personally, will be found under the heading of " Kings." I have now only to point out the subjects noted in this Chapter, and shew how tliey appear. 1. That the Articles were not tampered with in the time of Queen Elizabeth. 2. That tampering should be charged against meddlers. 3. That the charge of expunging .ne statement and substitu- ting another in Art. xxviii., is a false statement. 4. That there was no false tenderness towards the corruptions and old Superstitions ; but that the whole charge is based on wrong impressions, and that the objectors have not enough knowledge of the subject to give correct statements. 5. That a clause in the same Article, relating to the Corporeal presence, said to have been omitted ; was expressed in other and more suitable words. 6. That Bishop Jewel's letter does not apply to the subject for which it is (quoted, 113 7. That the objector has substituUsd one word for another, in his partial quotation of the xxth Article, thereby changing its whole sense and purpose. 8. That Queen Elizabeth did not insert the " celebrated clause." 9. That the objector has entirely mistaken the purpose of the Article of Edward VI. on " Grace." 10. That some of the first Rofc .ncrs, as Bishops Parker, Cox, Grindal, Jewel, and others ) assisted in preparing the 39 Articles as now in the Book. 11. That the objector has garbled eveiy quotation he has made. 12. That the whole of his work, is worse than time wasted. 13. That the 39 Articles, were published before Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated by the Pope. J A'«a Jl I ,t» *• <• .<«» •5 1 1 **f.|l *^-:.l • ' ; (1 - tp:.. 'ri^ilfii, J H-" i J»*-,1-J. 15 114 CHAPTER VI. THE APOCRYPHA. ^ * M* K f- »4rt Obj. I. •* Again, it is well known that tlio scvorance of the Apocrypha from the Canon of Scripture, has always been, with the partisans of Home, a prominent topic of denunciation against the reformers and their work." Ans. As members of the Church of England, we govern our- selves by the Book of Common Prayer, and have nothing whatever to do with " the partisans of Rome." If these people wish to denounce that Book ; let th(;m do so, and keep to their subject ; and I will do my best to defend it. Now with respect to the Scriptures, and which portion of them is held by the Church of England, to be Canonical, and which not, our VI. Ai-t. fully declares. The difference between the statements of the Church of Rome and our own, on this subject, is a very wide one. At the Council of Trent, the Church of Rome, for the first TIME, decreed all the books of the Old and New Testament to be Canonical. But, the Old Testament — with them — includes the books called Apocrypha. In " decreeing " this, they say : " More- over, lest any doubt should arise, respecting the sacred books which are received by the council, it has been judged proper to insert a list of them in the pi-esent decree." In the list given, the books of the Apocrypha, are mixed with the books of the Old Testament ; and^not kept distinct, or severed, as by lis. The Bible of the Church of England, is the book of the English language, and said to be " the secret of England's greatness." All English speaking people, except the members of the Church of Rome, receive and use our Bible, and have no other, lift Our Church, in her VI. Ai-t., as well an in the Bible itself, namoB the Canonical books of the Old and New Testunient, and distinguishes between them and the Apocrypha. The Article further says, the Canonical Scripturr's contiiin af-l things necessary to be Ix^lieved and known, in order to salvutioii. And the Ai>ociy})ha " the Church doth read for example of life anncial repugnance of the Puritans to the use of the Apocrypha, was manif(;sted by their petition at the Hamj)ton Court conference in 1G04." Ans. This repugnancy of the Puritans, sprang from the same source as all their other scrujjles of conscit^nco, viz. : an overweening conceit of their own importance, and of their great abilitlc^s. In tlieir petition, they assume to be " We, the— -ministers of tho gospel in this land, ttc ;" whereas, they were not a tentli part of them. And, that all opinions they held must certainly be infallible, and not only govern themselves, which could have been borne with ; but must also rule others as well The Three Articles of subscription. Canon, 3G, were the trouble here, they could not conscientiously subscribe to the second one. Dr. Reynolds says, " To subscri]>e according to the statutes of the realm, namely, to the ai'ticles of rfdigion, and the king's supremacy, they were not unwilling. The reason of their backwardness to subscribe otherwise was, first the books Apocryphal, which the Coiimon Prayer Book injoined to be read in the Church ; albeit there are, in some op the chapters appointed, manifest errors, directly repugnant to the Scriptures." The particular instance selected, was Ecclus. xlviii. 10. saying, it implied a denial of the cliief article of our redemption. They were answered in their general objection, by the bishops : " that the most of the objections 7 \ ^^^ .11 • ' 1 ;.: .1 mi' It 116 A made against tliose "books, were the old cavil of tlie Jews, wnewod l)y St. Jerome in his time, who was the first to give them the name of Apocrypha." The distinction of St. Jerome, is that adopted by our Church, viz. : " Canonici sunt ad informandos mores non ad confirmandam fidem." K. Jas. himself made answer to the particular objection, Ecclus. xlviii. 10, shewing that " what was there said by Elias, Elias liu/l in his own person, while he lived, l)erformed and accomplished." Then turning to Dr. Keynolds, said, " It was not good to impose upon a man that is dead, a sense never meant by him." And next to the bishops, "What, trow ye, make these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think ho was a bishop, or else they would never use him so." The Puritans were then requested to note the chapters of the Apocryphal books where those offensive places were ; and so the matter ended for that time, by changing the portions objected against, for chapters selected from the Canonical Scripture. Thus it appears that ihe Puritans had repugnance only to the use of a very few passages of the Apocrypha, some six chaptere in all. And the ground of their repugnance, was, a misapprehension of the sense and pui*pose of them ; for they submitted veiy readily, and willingly, when more fully informed. iM Obj. III. (a). " * Down to the present period,* says an author, (Anglican Reformation, p. 46,) * there were comparatively but little of the Apocrypha used in the Calendar ; and even that little, by an * admonition ' prefixed to the second book of Homilies, in 1564, le officiating clergyman was not only authorized to omit and substitute in its place some more suitable portion of Canonical Scripture, but he was recommended to do so.' " Ans. Where the objector say?.*, "cGmparati\ely little used, &c." 1 may suppose him to mean, ordei-ed to be used. But this statement is false. For in the Calendar of each book of Edw. VI., the WHOLE of the Apocrypha will be found to be so ordered. Beginning with Oct. 5th, and ending with Nor. 27th, nothing else is provided for first Lessons at Morning or Evening prayer, but i!'i''«i 117 clmpters from the Apocryplia. And at tliat tiino, thoro wore no proper Lessons for Siuulay-H ; tlu^sc waw Hrst ortlorod in 1559. An Act of Parliament I. EHjl. u. ' 3, ^i'^us [lalliuiit^ to uso " the Book flf Common Prayer of 5th and 6th of Edw. VI., with one alteration or addition of coi*tain lkhhonh to 1»o imed on every Sunday in tli ■% 16 132 CHAPTER VII. SAINTS DAYS. m Obj. I. (a). " Again, Hallam remarks : * The Puritans having always objected to the number of Saints' days, the bisliops ordered a few more,, more than sixty of the mythical and semi-historical heroes of monkish legends.' " Ans. In reply to this objection, I think it will be best, first to give the Exceptions of the Puritans with the Bishops' Answer, so as to have the matter fairly before us. EXCEPTION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS. "That the religious observation of Saints' days 'appointed to be kept as holy days, and the vigils thereof, without any foundation (as we conceive) in Scripture, may be omitted. That if any be retained, they may be called festivals, and not holy days, nor made equal with the Lord's day, nor have any peculiar sen^ice appointed for them, nor the people be upon such days forced wholly to abstain from work, and that the names of all others now inserted in the Calendar which are not in the first and second books of Edw. VI. may be left out." ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS. " The observation of Saints' days is not as of divine but ecclesiastical institution, and therefore it is not necessary that they should have any other ground in Scrij)ture than all other institutions of the same nature, so that they be agreeable to the Scripture in tlie general end, for the promoting of l)iet3\ And the observation of them was ancient, as appear by the i-ituals and liturgies, and by I ^*w 123 the joint consent of antiquity, and by tlie ancient translation of the Bible, as the Syiiac and Ethiopie, where the lessons appointed for holy days are noted and set down ; the former of which was made near the apostles' times. Besides our Saviour himself kept a feast of the churches institution, viz., the feast of the dedication (St. John, X. 22). The chief end of those days being not feasting, but the exercise of holy duties, they are fitter called holy days than festivals : and though they be all of like nature, it doth not follow that they are equal. The people may be dispensed with for their work after the service, as authority pleaseth. The other names are left in the Calendar, not that they should be so kept as holy days, but they are useful for the preservation of their memories, and for other reasons, as for leases, law -days, tkc." Thus it appears the objection of the Puiitans was not to the number of the Saints' days ; but to the religious observance of them. Had their request been complied with, the observance of Christmas day, Epiphany, Good Friday, Ascension day, tkc, would have been abolished. Their supposition, that we have no Scripture foundation for the observance of them, shews the extent of their knowledge of such matters. The desire of the Church, is, that the chief acts of our Saviour's life in the flesh, and the work of the Apostles, should be com- memorated. Surely the observance of such events, or remembrance of such persons, is more to be desired than the anniverearies, the bicentenaries, bazaai's, tea-meetings, ike, of modern times. We have Scripture testimony, that God did bless mankind by those events and persons whose works and names we commemorate. Whereas such " religious observances " as have lately sprung up, to say the least against them, celebrate at best, " benefits " of a questionable nature. Obj. I. (b). " And, adds Isaac Taylor, * for the charitable purpose of annoying those who objected to all commemorations of the kind, the names of a few popes were included in the list' " »/ xJi iff .(■ - i i .A ',» ^ ^ \ "> s. ■' ' ii SI • *• ■■■- *J "'^ i\ ,m--'^ <-i 124 Ans. From their own " Exception," we see they u.sk for the removal of ail other names now— 1661 — inserted in the Calendar, not in the books of Edw. VI. Therefore, could not have been included in the list for the charitable purpose of annoyance. We learn from Wheatley, who is much more reliable on such subjects, that they were introduced by our " second reformers :" Jewell, Grindal, tfec. ; and for the purpose of giving information, when certain days called by such names should be observed ; but not for RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE. The days noted in the Caleiidar observed religiously by the Church of England, are these named in the following table, taken from the Book of Common prayer : — A TABLE OF ALL THE FEASTS THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. All Sundays in the Year. The Circumcision of our Lord JESUS CHRIST. The Epiphany. — The Conversion of Saint Paul. The Purification of the Blessed Virgin. Saint Matthias the Apostle. The Annunciation of the Blessed Viigin. Saint Mark the Evangelist. Saint Philip and Saint James the Apostles. The Ascension of our Lord JESUS CHRIST. Saint Barnabas. — The Nativity of Saint John Baptist. Saint Peter the Apc^tle. — Saint James the Apostle. St. Bartholomew the Apostle. — St. Matthew the Apostle. Saint Michael and all Angels. — Saint Luke the Evangelist. Saint Simon and Saint Jude the Apostles. — All Saints. Saint Andrew the Apostle. — Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Nativity of our Loi'd. Saint Stephen the Martyr, — Saint John the Evangelist. The Holy Innocents. Monday and Tuesday in Easter- Week. Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun-Week. The 13th Canon gives the manner in which they are to be celebrated. 125 " All maiinor of i)frsons within the Church of Eiiohnul sluill from henceforth celebrate and keep the Loi-d's ciay, commonly called Sunday, and other Holy day.s, according to God's holy will and pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed in that ])ehalf ; that is, in licaring the word of God ]*ead and taudit ; in private and public prayers ; in acknowledging tlieir offences to God, and amendment of tlie same ; in reconciling themselves charitably to their neighbours, where displeasure hath been ; in oftentimes receiving the Communion of the body and V)loo«l of Christ ; in visiting the poor and sick ; using all godly and sober conversation." I us. As a nation, we have both religious and civil observances ; and if this distinction were received and acted upon, when speaking or writing about this subject, there would be no room either for cavil or mistake. In history, and public documents, wo have mention made of sundry events occurring on one or oth ^- of such named days, as found in the Calendar, but omitting date. Just as we uso the term Christmas day without saying the day of the month, and other like terms. And it does not lequire much sagacity to perceive, tfcat it would be a much easier matter of " reform " to take Chistmas day out of the Calender, than to change the " vulgar" custom of calling the 25th of December by that name. The Puritans did not succeed, themselves, in abolishing them ; although in the time of the "great rebellion " they tried to do so. They enacted, that " Festival days,' vulgarly called Holy days, having no wariant in thi? word of God, are not to be continued, ttc, ttc. The days objected against, that are named in the Calender, have a civil observance only. They relate to practices of courts of law ; as Hilary term, &c. To Societies : as St. George, St. David, Crispin, &c. To common customs : as Lady day, Martimas, &c. In Towns and Villa.<;^es, where Fairs and Feasts were instituted, " ... I 126 tliey were held on one or otlior of the days named in the Calendar. These and many other such like reasons would necessitate their being reti ' ed ; and the fastidious must be hard pressed .for something to find fault with to raise such ol>Jections. Obj. I. (c). " Cranmer had allowed, besides Scriptural worthies, only three names to be commemorated, those of St. Michael, St. Lawrence, and St. George. " 1,1 l^''i '■111 it J** m \m ■ I m Ans. Say in the first book ; for in the second one, we find St. Clement, Lammas, Term times. Signs of the Zodiac, ifec. And as the rest were inserted by his " associates," in the time of Queen ElizaV'ith, the reason given for this objection is worthless. In the preamble to the bill which passed the Commons on the 15th of March, 1552, we read : •' That men are not at all times so set on the performance of religious duties as they ought to be ; which made it necessary that there should be set times in which labour was to cease, that men might on these days wholly serve God ; which days were not to be accounted holy of their own nature, but were so called because of the holy duties then to be set about : so that the sanctification of them (was not any magical virtue in that time, but) consisted in the dedicating them to God's service : that no day was dedicated to any saint, but only to God, in remembrance of such Saints : that the Scripture had not determined the number of holy days, but that these were left to the liberty of the Church. Therefore, they enact, that all Sundays, with the days marked in the calendar and liturgy, should be kept as holy days, &,c/ Obj. I. (d). " Here is the fifth evidence of the Romish proclivities of these remarkable Commissioners." Ans. This remark will not apply to the Commissioners, because they failed to bring their work to any good issue, on account of the perversity of the Puritan section of them. Also, the alteration was made many years before; as in 1564. 127 "Item, That tliorc be no otlier holidayos olwerved besides tlio Sundayes, but onelye suche as bo sot out for holidayos, as in the statute, < anno quinto, et sexto Edwardi sexti,' and in the new- calendar authoiysed by the quoenes majesty." I' :4 The Church of England, in confining he members to a religious observance only of the days named in the table as above, has certainly departed, many steps, from the i)ractice of the Church of Rome. We set forth, and celebrate the names of those "whose praise is in the Gospel," and none other. We retain some of the ancient customs of the Christian Church, and are free from errors and corruptions in this matter. The following is as old as the third century, if not older : " Let the servants work five days ; but on the Sabbath, and on the Lord's day, let them ha\e leisure to go to church, for the doctrine of piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, but the Lord's day on account of the resurrection. Let sei-vants rest from their work all the Great Week, and that which followeth it ; for the one is in memory of the Passion, and the other of the Resurrection. And there is need of their being instructad who it is that suffered, and rose again ; and who it is that permitted him to suffer, and raised him again. Let them have rest from their work on the Ascension, because it was the conclusion of the dispensation of Christ. Let them rest at Pentecost, on account of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Let them rest on the festival of his Birth ; for then the unexpected favour was bestowed on men, that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, was born of the Virgin Mary, for the Salvation of the world. Let them rest on the festival of the^ Epiphany ; foi* then there was made a manifestation of the divinity of Christ, the Father bearing him testimony at his baptism ; and the Comforter, in the form of a dove, indicating to those who wei-e present, the individual respecting whom the testimony was borne. Let them rest on the days of the Apostles ; for they were constituted your teachers in respect to Christ, and have deemed you worthy of the Spirit. Let them rest . J« If ,.JI m 128 on the day of Stej)l»eii, the first martyr ; and on the days of tlio other holy maityrH, who have esteemed Christ more precious than their own life." And further to shew the utility of observing them, the follow- ing from Dr. Smith's " Account of the Greek Church.', Next to the miraculous and gracious providence of God, I ascribe the preservation of Christianity among them, to the strict and religious observation of the festivals and fasts of the church ; this being the happy and blessed effc^ct of those ancient and pious institutions, THE TOTAL NEGLECT OF WHICH WOULD SOON INTRODUCE IGNORANCE, and a sensible decay of piety and I'eligion, in other countries besides those of the Levant, ttc." I hope that I have now made it ai>pear — 1. That the bishops did not order the number of Saints' days to be increased. 2. That the Puritans did not object to their number, but to the religious observance of them. 3. That the number celebrated by religious obsei'vance, has always been a fixed number since the Reformation. Hi 4. That the names objected unto, were first inserted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and not in that of Charles ii. 5. That seeing the names were in the Calendar, they could not have been placed tliei'e for special annoyance to men born many years afterwards. 6. That the Church of England has only selected the names of " Scriptural worthies " to be commemorated by a religious observance. (' 129 7. Tluit Uhuc iH a wido (lirtbreiict! butwocii th(5 piaolict^ of tlie (Miurcli of England, and that of Rome, both in tho days observed, and the manner of observance. 8. That such an observance; as we make use of, is intended for a good purpose ; conducive to a knowhulgo of tho work of Christ, and to promote piety and religion ; and should by all moans be retained. ... tji V m .. -Ml 'V \ \ »■ ■i4i*' a 17 1^ I 130 CHAPTER VIII. TRADITION. 0))j. I, (a). "Witli r(!H|)ect to tlie objoctioii offere«l tliat our Book of Oonuiioii Praytu* unduly olevutos the ottice of Tradition, wliat do tlie Bislioi»H of 16G2 atHnu 1 • Tin; Cliurdi hatli bccm caroful to i)ut notliinjj^ Into the Liturgy but that wliich ia evidently the word of God, or that which hath been gentsrally receivcid in the Catholic Church ; neither of which can be called i>rivate opinion. If by orthodox be meant those who adhere to Scriptin-e and the (Catholic Consent of Anticjuity, we do not know that any part of our Liturgy hath been questioned by such.' " Ans. Before making any remark about this objection, I will give a couiiECT statement of it, and the answer to it ; as they proceeded from the parties who first made tliem. In doing this I shall only give the substance of the objection, and such sections of t1ie answer as a})ply to tlie subject. I do so in this case, because of th(; MixiiD nature of the " Exception " of the Puritans; and because the word " Tradition " is not mentioned in it. rilOPOSAL OF I'UESIJVTHRIAN COM.MISSI'JNEKS, 1G61. an If •■ That all the pr;)yors, and other materials of the liturgy may consist of nothing rvjunTi-'ij. or QtiisTioNKo luiiongst })ious, learned, and orthodox persons, inasmuch as the proft's.sed end of composing them is for the declaring of the unity and consent of all who join •> .'ivi'i* , 'i ■•■ iiig too evident that the limiting of c iiULiJi-ovj^iiUuuuon to things of DOUBTFUL DISPUTATION, hatli been i 1 all aires the ground of Schism and separation, according to the saying of a leai'ned person." mm 131 ANswr.M or TFii; msirops. " Ah to tlmi part of tlir jtroposul Nvlii(;li i»M|iiij('s tliiit the lualtcr of tlic lituru)'y him, but threw hia I Sf » f I m\ M 'f- ^PlfflfN^ 1 i^^^^B ' 1 In ■ ■ 'iX',?,,. |i%-;;*^' ^'^^Skm^ UO book into his grave with the following anathema, antl then went away and preached forthwith from the text, " Let the dead bury their dead," (Luke ix., 60.) : " Get thee gone, thou cursed booke, which has seduced so many precious souls ; get thee gone, thou corrupt, rotten booke, earth to earth, and dust to dust ; get thee gone into the place of rottennesse, that thou maist I'ot with thy author and see corruption." The quotation made of Chillingworth's words do not in the least apply to us. He was refused burial because he was an Episcopalian, which shews how his work was understood and to whom it applied. Obj. IIL " The stipulations which are made in Baptism, as well as in Ordination, do only bind a man to the Christian faith, or to the faithful dispensing of the Gospel, and of those Sacraments of which he is made a minister ; so he, who, being convinced of the errors and corruptions of a church, departs from them, and goes on in the purity of the Christian religion, does pursue the true effect of his Baptism and his Ordination vows." Ans. This is a very unfair quotation ; it fails to give the sense of what was writ+cu, and makes the writer appear to say the very opposite of what he intended. Bp. Burnet first shews that the Church of Rome had the " fundamentals of Christianity, a true baptism and true orders, * * * * we do neither repeat the baptism nor the ordinations of the Church of Borne; we acknowledge that our forefathers were both baptised and ordained in that communion ; and we derive our present Christianity or baptism, and our orders from thence ; yet we think, that there were so many unlawful actions, even in those rituals, besides the other corruptions of their worship, that we cannot join in such any more. The being baptized in a Church does not tie a man to every thing in that Church ; it only ties him to the covenant of grace." Then follow the word^ quoted by the objector, and after tSbm, *' For these are to be considered as ties upon him only to God and Christ, and not to adhei'e to the other dictates of that body in which 141 he had his hirth, l)i4»ti.sni and ordination." Whicli ^a\('s (juito a different sense to the whole niatt^jr. It is a justification of tlie course taken by the Church of England in separating from that of Rome. And not that any man tliat pleases, may separate from any Church on account of mere wJiim or caprice ; but that lie ought to hold communion with it, if that he shall find it to be true in doctrine and fundamentals when tried l)y Scripture. Having now examined all the reasons to justify this Schism, I will point out : 1. That the things offered to justify these separations are purely speculative and have no practical value. 2. That the Schism of the Puritans, was openly declared by Act of Parliament in 1645 ; and therefore could not have been caused by the Revision of the Prayer Book in 1662. a. That having previously sworn to the " Oath and Covenant" would prevent any conformity from those who had sw orn. 4. That the word Schism, inserted in the Litany, was rendered necessary from having seen how easily a flourishing Church and State could be brought to ruin by it. . 5. That the Book of Common Prayer does not give any occa- sion for Schism, seeing that it does not order any thing as necessary for Church Communion of doubtful disputation. 6. That Cliillingworth was treated as a vSeliismatic by the Puritans. 7. That the qr.otation from Burne": is garbled, and does not a:)ply. I 1 'H «>-H' 'fi « Ii3 'h CHAPTER X. THE COMMISSIONERS. The character of the Comuiissioners appointed hy K. Chas. II. to confer together about the alterations the Puritans desired to have made in the Book of Common Prayer, is described by the objector in such a way, and with such words, that I can only call it railing. Now railing accusations, are of such a nature that they cannot well be met by argument ; and " railing for railing " does not become the christian character. I will therefore select a few phrases, make a general comment, and let that suffice. Obj. I. The Commissioners for the Church party, I suppose* are meant ; and they are alluded to, as " The unprincipled Com- missioners of 1662.' Again, as * Sheldon, Gunning, and Morley, that vindicitive and reckless trio.' And again, 'These were the three Chief engineers, the Controlling spirits in framing the Prayer Book of the Church of England, as it has lemained unaltered for two hundred years." Ans. The Commissioners appointed were twenty-four in number, twelve for each party ; each side having in addition, nine coadjutors. They were commissioned to advise upon, and review, the Book of Common Prayer ; and to compare it with the most ancient liturgies used in the church, in the primitive and purest times. They were allowed four calendar months to bring the same to an issue. To consider well the objections and exceptions. To avoid, as much as may be, all unnecessary alterations. Those were the " principles " for guidance. The church party had opposed the commission being granted at all : they were perfectly satisfied with the book as it was. But the 14.'^ King, to i)lo!i.s<3 Llu) PrciHltytt'iiiiM party, gi-aiit(!(l tlirm iiutliority, hh named above. So the Prosbytoriau party, who (Uiiurod a chaiigc;, were asked to name their objections and oxce])tioii8. Upon wliich, Mr. T3axter produced a LiTuiuiY of his owx composition, and desired that it might be adopted ; but, the oM one to be retai^icd as well ; and that the minister might use one or other at his own discretion. This, Ixiing no part of their connnission, was refused by the other side, who were determined not to exceed tlieir orders. The Presbyterians were again requested to produce their " Exceptions," which, when brought forth, proved to ))e nothing more than likings or dislikings of their own ; disregarding the terms of their com- mission, and making their own private judgment the standard of what the Church should be governed by. Of course the Church i)arty COULD NOT exceed their commission, and — retain their princij)les : had they done so they might have, with some shew of justice, been called " unprincipled ;" but as these " new opinions " did not agree with the most ancient liturgies of pure and primitive times, they were rejected, and the conmiission failed. " About ten days before the Commission expired, the Nonconformists desired a personal conference with the Bishops, upon the subject of the papers exchanged. The Bishops, with some degree of reluctance, consented. Three of each party were appointed to manage the dispute, the Bishops choosing Drs, Pearson, Gunning and S])arrow, and the Presbyterians selected Bates, Jacomb, and Baxter. When they met, the conference, through want of order, frequent interruj)tions, and personal rellections, turned to no account." At the close of the last day it was mutually Jigreed, that the report of the conference should be delivered to the King in writing ; and that each party should give in this general account, That the Church's welfare, that unity and peace, and his Majesty's satisfaction, were ends upon wliich they were all agreed ; but as to the means, they could not come to any harmony. Obj. 11. "Fisher remarks, p. 281 : 'It was a domineering S 4* 1 'r , ... J iiftf lU u ('cclosiaHticul [Muty, whosr HchohiHtic hiuI lloinitni/Jug pntdiU^ctioiiH wore notoriouH, wlios(i writin^H ufronl littU^ or no indicatioiiH of an fixporiinontal ac(juaintance witho the Having trutliH of the Gospol, but who wei'o, n«5V«i"thoh'H8, perinitttnl, undfir tho auHpicos of a rockloss and unprinciph'd governnnuit, to tamper with the very choicest work of tlusir martyred predecoHsors, and to hjave the improHs of their now barnm 8y.stems upon that precious heritage of truth — precious notwjtliHtanding certain manifest defects — which those holy men had left us.' " ¥, m 11: Ans. I will just leave this matter hi the hands of their highly esteemed Mr. Baxter, and quote his words a:: scored by himself. I hope they may see, like Baxter, that declamation will not serve for evidence. " You never try them, nor iikar them speak for themselves, nor examine any witnesses publicly against them, nor allow them any church-justice ; but avoid their communion, upon reports or pretence of private knowledge. They judge you personally, one BY ONE. You condemn whole parishes in the lump, unheard. They condemn you as for a positive crime. But you condemn them without charging any one crime uj)on them, because they have not given you a satisfying proof of their godliness." So therefore, all these insinuations of base motives ; all the hearsay evidence ; all such " reliable " statements, as " Calamy says, * 'tis credibly reported he should say.' " " Fisher remarks, * 'tis said by Calamy.' " And, " Burnet says, that he seemed not to have a deep sense of religion," make little or no impression upon those who are accustomed to judge men and things by evidence and laws. Let me now point out : — 1. That the Commissioners were not '* unprincipled," or governed by Sacerdotal or Sacramentarian views ; but were men of principle and integrity, not to be swayed by popular clamour, W'' ' 14.') '2. That it was not poHsihlo to j,MMtify tluj NonuonfoniiiHtH, bucauHC thoy deairecl chaiigea not warrautoil by tho toriub of thoir coniuuHuion. 4 3. That tho Savoy Coufcu-ouce was a failure. 4. Tliat ther« is no ground for thoso " railing actMiNations," tho Jjook of Ooiunion Prayer being revised by Convocation. 5. That the objector knew this ; for on p. 47, of his i>anii)hlet he says "It is a fact that the Common Prayer Book, with tho ALTKllATIONS and AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE CONVOCATION, tfec." 53 4 i-r- * 19 i: ■i 4. ^1 146 CHAPTER XL THE PURITANS. 'ii\ 1'! ,1 :i Objc'tor. " The Puiitans, so styled because they adliered to the PUKE wouD OF God, apart from traditions." Ans. Tlie term, Puritan, like many others, was given, not assumed. And although, l)y false glosses, it may in modern times be made capable of a good meaning, it had no such signification at first. Twill sliew from the " sagacious " Walsingham, and from Bisho}) Cooper : names quoted with marks of approbation by the objector ; how the name and party first came into being^ Walsingham says " For the other l»arty, which have been offensive to the State, though in another degree, wdiich named themselves Reformers, and we commonly call Puritans, etc." And Bp. Cooper, in an *' Adm. to the people of England," shews how fluctuating were the opinions of those who styled tlunnseives Reformers, and how at length all that o})posed the Churcli came to be called Puritans. Objector. " The oi'dinaiy view of English and American Episcoi)alians, with respect to tlu; position and chaiacter of the Puritans, and also with regai'd to th(^ Book of Conniion Prayer, is incorrect, and needs reconstruction." Ans. The view Episcopalians take is the one presented nnto them, they regard them as se}»aratists, because they see them to be such. But with respect to " vien's" of }»ast ag(;s, we guide ourselves by the statements of contem])ory writeis, such as the foregoing and the following. Sir Wm. Dugdale, as cpioted ])y Dr. Coit, says, " They were first imported into England from the continent in the rjign of King Edward VI., and created so much disturbance as to excite the ire even of Calvin, wlio ^vas no eiuany of wholesome 'n U7 authority, and b}' no means shrank from tlie use o£ carnal weapons and material fire. Calvin would have had Somerset, the Protector during Edward's minority, restrain them ' by the revenging swoi'd.' # * # * ♦ The very emblem of it (a round head) was well known in Germany, long before its api)earance on English shores." Another \>'riter says, " The hierarchy established ])y Queen Elizabeth in the churches of her dominions, the vestments worn by the clergy in the celebration of divine worship, tlie book of (Jonnnon Prayer, and, above all, the sign of the eioss used in the administra- tion of baptism, were very offensive to many of her subjects, who, during the persecution of the former reign, had taken refuge among the Protestants of Germanv and Geneva, Th(!se men tiiought that the Church of England resembled in too many pai-ticulars the ant:- christian churches of Eome ; they therefoie called per]>etuHlly for a more thorough refoi-mation, a puher worship. Fi'om this circum- stance they were stigmatized with the general name of Puritans." Although these jieople were many in number, yet they were unanimous in nothing, save in their anti})atliy to the established Church. Robert Brown, one of the princi})al men amongst them, together with his associate.^, held, and preached, seditious and impracticable opinions. They " anirmed that all communion was to be broken off' with those religious societies that were founded upon a different plan from his ; and treated more esi)ecially the Church of England as a spurious church, whose ministers were unlawfully ordained ; whose discipline was i)opisli and anti-christian ; and whose sacraments and institutions were destitute of all efhcacy and virtue." And then, when after having sown most industriously such seeds of dissension and strife : he abandoned his deluded followers, and left them to shift for themselves. But, he, himself returned and took orders in the very Chui-ch he had so foully abused. " History still repeats itself." Modern would-be Puritans, present sueli like scenes to our view. So that before we reconstruct our " impressions," we require to be presented with diffei-ent "views." ^ !V ,.i^ ii 73: r-i i.i'S'tl ^t': ; i:f 111 f '/:,'{' I* *» .n. >a 148 CHAPTER XII. KINGS OR xMONARCHS. Obj. I. I will next give a few extracts from these Lectures, to shew how these modern Puritans esteem " kings, and all that are in authority." The objector speaks of the pleasure he "received in exposing the process by which the work of the Reformers under Edw. VI., was deformed and defiled by three ungodly Monarchs and a degenerate Clergy." These " three ungodly Monarchs, are the imperious Elizabeth, the vain and frivolous James, and the Romish and profligate Charles." Ans. These descendants of the Puritans, boast, that they " adhere to the pure word of God." It would be well if they would also govern their speech and conduct by it In Job. 34, 18, we find " Is it fit to say to a king. Thou art wicked ? And to Princes, Ye are ungodly T I fear their words savour more of the spirit of pride and arrogancy, than of that meekness and humility which the word of God inculcates. I fail to perceive how such expressions as the foregoing can promote the cause of good government, or prepare men's minds for gospel teaching. The Apostle Peter says, "Honour the king." St. Paul says, first of all make prayers and supplications for kings and all that are in authority. But these Puritans " stir up strife all the day long." Obj. II. The objector insinuates that the Book of Common Prayer, is far from being as pure as it was at first, on account of the unfitness of those "three ungodly Monarchs, &c.," for the work of revising it. He argues thus ; the book of Edw. VI., was good : because, the king was a good and pious young man. The same book as revised in the reign of Elizabeth, Jas. I. and Chas. II., was deformed and defaced ; because they themselves were " ungodly Monarchs." It scarcely seems possible, that any thinking man 149 would endorse hucIi tmshy " logic " as that ; inucli less so, that any • should be found to commend it, as "information of the most valuable nature." But on p. 33, we have "we put it to the common sense of our fellow Puritans, both in England and Ireland, to say, could our Prayer P>ook have escaped from tlie manipulations of such filthy hands without defilement (" Ans. Let the character of the King or (^ueen reigning at the time the Prayer Book was revised, be what it may, good or bad. Let the motives governing the mind or purpose in revising it, be pure or impure. Still neither can the contexts of the book, nor the form of the worship, as they now exist, be affected by any such things as these. The book, is, what it is— in itself. It has a character of its own ; and neither character nor motives of men long dead can in any way influence its contents. Every statement can be, and ought to be, properly tested by Scripture, and Catholic usage of primitive times ; and not by the good or bad motives of. any man or men, living or dead. What doctrine are we required to Ijolieve on the authority of any one of the " three ungodly Monarchs, or degenerate Clergy ]" What has the i)omp and magnificence of Q. Eliz., the vanity of K. Jas., or the profligacy of Chas. II., to do with any Ilite or Ceremony of the Church^ Such frivolous objojctions ])lainly sIk^vv the diiliculty of finding any more serious ones. What would be thought of tlie man who would say, the Pentateuch was not true, because Moses got angry at the waters of Meribah, and therefoi-e, was not a fit i)erson to write it 'I And yet, the Sceptic would have as good ground for his objection, as the objector has for the one made above. The fact is, there is little difference between tlie two parties in tlie gi'ound they take ; for one requires a moral perfection, and tlie otiier a religious perfection, of their own devising. They each look for tilings to be good, from the goodness of the person originating them ; and can see no good in any other persons than thos(^ that agree witii th«'m ; therefore what J ,4X> : !!l > ti 150 does not belong to tlieir party cannot be, by them, allowed to be good. But, to return. The Queen, or King at each Revision, commisioned competent persons to perform the work entrusted to them ; and gave oi)})ortunity to all tliat wished, or could object, to do so. At each Revision, objections were received and answered. The first one, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Romanists were the objectois ; and were completely silenced. The next, in time of J as. i., the Puritans made a few objections, which were met and answ^ered, when they expressed themselves as fully satisfied and remained in the Church. The last one failed to satisfy ; because the disaffected required a new form both of government and service, which could not be grantetl. Obj. III. (a) "This monarch (Queen Elizabeth) has been called a Protestant. " Ans. Yes ; and was fully entitled to the name. She made more " protests " against the usurped authoiity of Rome, and — Dei gratia — overcame more opposition from Rome, than any other monarch either before or since her time. m Obj. III. (b) " But we read that ' during her sister's reign she regularly attended confession and mass, and conformed to all the ritual observances of Popery.' " Ans. Elizabeth, during tlie reign of Q. Mary, was held a close prisonei", and the slightest cause of offence would have, been sufficient pretext for her death. Although it is possible, for it is by no means certain, that she comi)lied with many — not all — observances of Poi)ery, l)efore slie was proclaimed Queen, still there is no cause for complaint afterwards. ^.'^•^r^^iil Obj. III. (c) " She was crowned by the Roman Bishop Ogelthrope, according to the forms of the Roman Pontifical, of which High Mass is aj^ essential part." ■''"(I 151 Ans. The Queen would be crowned according to the hiws then in force. The action of a Bishop was necessary in this matter, to constitute her a lawful sovereign. The Bishops in oHice at that time, were all of the Church of Rome. Bishop Ogelthoqie was the only one among them that would perform the ceremony. Obj. III. (d) " After her accession to tlie throne, she continued to pray to the Virgin Mary. She believed in the Real i>resence ; publicly censured a preacher who j)reached against it in her presence, and praised another who preached in its favor. She retained a crucifix with tapers burning Ijefore it in her own ])rivate chapel, till as late as 1572." Ans. All such statements as these require to be examined with veiy gi'eat care befoi-e being received. In all things necessary to faith and salvation, the Queen was governed by the Scriptures only. In religious ceremonies by the law of the land. Slie was not responsible for the laws enacted previously to her accession ; but would be responsible for the observance of them. Being a Refonner, as soon as opportunity served, superstitious practices were abolished ; and the whole worship purified. Although at her first coming to the throixj, she found the images, kc, in her chapel ; yet were they not worshipped or adored : l)ut retained until they could be legally removed. They were not retained " till as late as 1572 " as the following copied fiom an authentic source will shew. I'M 1^ .!» Ul;' ..: i In a letter written on the 1st of April, 15 GO, Bishop Sandys says, " There was yet a question concerning images : the Queen thouiiht that was not contrarv to the word of God, and it seemed convenient to have a crucifix, with the blessed Virgin and Saint John, still in her chapel. Some of them could not bear this : We had, says he, according to our injunctions, taken away all the images we found in churches, and burned them. AVe see superstitious people plainly worslii}) this idol : upon this, we had spoken freely to the Queen ; with that she was so displeased as to threaten to deprive him ; she was since that time more softened, i' ;r :■ M;ii I" i: ,'::,1 Ell 152 and YiiE IMA(JES WERE IJEMOVED: but that the popiah vestments were still used ; yet he hoped tliat should not last long." That the Queen was decidedly opposed to the doctrine of transubstantiation, or real bodily presence, as also to the "Invocation of Saints," I need not labour to prove. These different charges brought against the religious character of Queen Elizabeth, .„o founded on susi)icion, for the most part ; but they have nothing whatever to do with the Book of Common Prayer. I suppose that not one person of a hundred, knows, or cares to know, whether Queen Elizabeth had images, or a crucifix with tapers burning before it in her private chapel, or not. But every one of the hundred will know, that the Church of England gives no authority for such things in her public worship. Obj. III. (e) " To illustrate her ecclesiastical qualifications, her treatment of Abp. Grindal is in point. Grindal was styled by Lord Bacon ' the greatest and gravest prelate in the land.' He laboured assiduously to increase the number of sound and enlightened preachers. He established meetings of the clergy for their spiritual and intellectual improvement. Elizabeth, who declared that she considered ' two or three preachers enough for one county,' ordered Grindal to suppress these meetings. He replied that he could not in conscience do this. Whereuj^on this wilful woman suppressed him. She shut him up in his residence, and placed his office in the hands of two of her followers until his death." Ans. A misrepresentation, from a confusion of subjects. These meetings first began at Northampton in 1571, and had nothing to do with the " two or thi-ee preachers for a county f but, were called " Exercises," or " Prophesy ings." They were not only irregular : but also remarkable foi' squabbling and unnecessaiy disputes ; and failed to fulfil the end designed. A report of them first came to the ears of the Queen from the diocese of Norwich in 1573, when she ordered Abp. Parker to put them down; which was effected after much opposition. Afterwards, complaints came in from other places, of which fjhe Q\ieen informed Grindal, who was 153 then Abp. of Canterbury, and desired that they might be suppressed. The Archbishop approved them, and thought the evil arising from the abuse might be taken away ; but, on account of conscience he could not suppress them himself. He recognized the Queen's authority, and in his letter says, he " was a most humble sutor unto her majestie, that I might not ^be made the chief instrumente in suppressinge the same." He was willing that it should be done, but by some one else, and he would not " condemn any of a contrary judgmente, or being of authoritie sholde suppresse them." He contended, that " the abuse being reformed, which I alwaies offered myselfe reddie to labour in, the said exercise might yet serve to the great profittc of the church : and feared that the utter suppressinge of them wolde bread offence." And so far is he from considering the Queen a " wilful woman," that he says of her " who havinge authoritie and power to have used greater and shaq^er severitie againste me, and for good policie and example thinkinge it so expediente, hath notvathstanding dealte so mercifully, mildlye, and gentlye with me." Lord Bacon gives the same idea. " I know prophecying was subject to great abuse, and would be more abused now, because heat of contentions is increased : but I say the only reason of the abuse was, because there was admitted to it a popular auditory, and it was not contained within a private conference of ministers." According to Camden, the Archbishop had to thank the Earl of Leicester for the loss of tlie Queen's favour and his long imprisonment. Obj. III. (f). " I think histoiy shows, that if the Pope had acknowledged that her mother was the lawful wife of Henry, and that she was the legitimate sovereign of England, she would have accepted the Papal ''Supremacy, and England this day would have been subjected to Rome." Ans. The best way to dissipate such vain thoughts, would be to READ histoiT and be certain. I wiU furnish the very passage 20 J 1 154 ;|' m required, so as to save further trouble. " Pope Pius the Fourth, reflecting on the capric'.ous and high answer his mad predecessor had made to her address, sent one Parpalia to her, in the second year of her reign, to invite her to join herself to that See, and he would disannul the sentence against her mother's maniage, confirm the English sei'vice, and the use of the Sacrament in both kinds. But she sent the agent word to stay at Brussels, and not to come over. The same treatment met Abbot Martinengo, who was sent the year after with the like message. From that time, all treaty with Home was entirely broken off." Obj. IV. " The open, scandalous viciousness of Charles II. was most offensive to the religious portion of the nation." Ans. It would not be necessarry to notice this remai'k, only the objector, like others of this class, has made it to cast odium on the Book of Common Prayer. I shall not undei'take to defend the charactei' of Chas. II., but only to shew that neither that nor any of his personal acts and doings, in any way reflect on the tnith and order of our Church. But I desire to suggest that it would only be common honesty to state that previous to 1662 he was flattered by that I'eligious portion of the nation, the Puritans, with such titles and addresses as, "We, your majesty's most loyal subjects, cannot but acknowledge it as a very great mercy of God, that immediately after your so wonderful and peaceful restoration unto your throne and government (for which we bless His name). He hath stirred up your royal heart as to a zealous testimony against all proi)haneness in the people, (fee." And that his " Romish and profligate character " was not developed until some years after the Book of Common Prayer was completed. Charles II. had no part whatever in ORDERING the form of doctrine and worship now in use. The Church of England at the Restoration took her own proper place as a matter of right and justice, and would have continued the use of " the Liturgy without change. The dissatisfied pai'ties were the Nonconformists, who asked for changes to be made so n.s to nieet 155 their scruples. The King tried i^ serve titism, but the attempt failed; their demands were such as could not be complied with. Upon which the Houses of Convocation made such alterations in the Book as were deemed lawful and necessary. Then the matter was taken up by the Houses of Parliament ; because the King had promised, in the *' Declaration of Breda,' ohat every thing should be settled by the wisdom of the Legislature. They received and adopted the book as it came from Convocation, after which the King merely gave a formal sanction to what had been done. So little, indeed, had he to do with the contents of the book, that it would not be possible to point out a single sentence and say, this was placed there at his command or desire. It would be well for these would-be Puritans, when speaking of Charles II., to remember the remark made by Dean Swift : — "To Puritanism also, England, by a sort of vice versa rule, has been indebted for Popery. Puritanism drove the children of Charles I. into exile, where one of them at least. King James II., was seduced to Popery ; which ended in the loss of his kingdoms, the misery and desolation of this country, and a long and expensive war abroad. Seeing that our interest as a Church, centres in the purity and truth of the Book of Common Prayer alone ; and not in the character of any Monarch reigning at the time of its different Revisions ; I shall deem it quite sufficient to have pointed out, that its contents were in no w ,y affected by anything they did or said. ,* "> n.' 156 CHAPTER XIII. BOOK OP SPORTS. Obj. I. (a). " At the same time, Charles began a series of oppressive acts, which were in violation of the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Together [Chas. I. and Abp. Laud] they endeavored to enforce the infamous * Book of Sports,' which enjoined for the afternoon of tho Lord's Day games of various kinds, dancing and general hilarity." Ans. In the case I have selected for illustration, the reverse of this statement will be found to be the truth. The " Justices " were acting arbitrarily and violating " the fundamental principles, (fee." "At the summer assizes held at Exeter, in the year 1627, the Lord Chief Baron Walter and Baron Denham made an order for suppression of all wakes." The Puritans had impressed the people with the idea that these " Wakes " were a remnant of Popery, which had provoked opposition to them. Four years later a like order was made by Judge Richardson for the County of Somerset But on Bishop Laud's complaint of these innovations, the King commanded the last order to be reversed ; which Judge Richardson refused to do. So enquiry was made how these feast days were observed. The answer returned was " on these feast days (which generally fell on Sundays), the service of God was more solemnly performed, and the church much better frequented both in the forenoon and afternoon, than r^^ any other Sunday in the year : that the people very much desired the continuance of them ; that the ministers did in most places the like, for these reasons, viz., for preserving the memorial of the dedication of their several churches, for civilizing the people, for composing differences by the mediation and meeting of friends, for increase of love and 157 unity for tlieso foastH of charity, ami for reliof and comfort of the poor." Judge Richardson was again cited to tlio council tul>h», and peremptorily commanded to reverse his fornHU" order. After which it was thought lit to reinforce the declaration of King James, This was simply to declare what privileges thf; people had, and to protect them in the proper use of them. The peoj)le were not enjoined to dance, tfec. : but as there was no law to prevent thtnr doing so if they felt disposed, they were not to be debarred from such recinjations as were permitted, at the mere dictation or dislike of others. Obj. I. (b). "Jeffreason remarks, p. 132: 'Charles followed up the affair of the Somersetshire wakes, by republishing, at Laud's suggestion, the fatal * Book of Sports,' where>)y his subjects were invited to show their loyalty to their King and theii* contempt of the Puritans, by spending their Sunday afternoons iu riotous merriment.'" Ans. For the proper way of spending feast days, see p. 125, that is the mode "enjoined." The objector has given a lengthy quotation which gives his " view " of the matter, but I must again remark, he has a very unfair way, when quoting from documents, of leaving off" just where the sentence favors him. I cannot afford sufficient space to give the whole proclamation, but, will supply a portion so as to give a better understanding of the purpose of it. " Now out of a like pious care for the service of God, and for suppressing of any liumours that oppose the truth, and for the ease, comfort, and recreation of our well deserving people, we do ratify aud publish this our blessed father's declaration, the rather because of late, in some counties in our kingdom, we find that under pretence of taking away abuses there hath Ijeen a general forbidding, not only of ordinary meetings, but of the feasts of the dedication of the churches, commonly called 'Wakes.'" King James says that the Puritans and Papists misrepresented and mistook his meaning and misled tlie people ; so he fo md it i '* 1 r'li 168 necnssary to niako thiH cUiclarution of his intention in granting Sunday recreations. And tliat tlie preventing of the same cannot but produce two evils which he was desirous to counteract. That it woukl hinder the conversion of Romanists ** whom their priests will take occasion thereby to vex, persuading them that no honest mirth is lawful on those days, which caimot but breed a great discontentment in our people's hearts, especially of such as are peradventure upon the point of turning." And with the common and meaner soit of people — " in place thereof, sets up filthy tiplings and drunkenness, and breeds a number of idle and discontented speeches in their ale houses." Jeaffreson says, that the conviction planted in the minds of the simple, of their sovereign's hostility to religion, was unreasonable AND UNJUST. The Book of Common Prayer is not responsible for these "Sports, Wakes, &c. ; they were something like the modem Soirees, Socials, Concerts, &c. ; or the anniversaries of such societies as the St. George's, St. Andrew's, Orange, Mason's and others ;" and were " improved " religiously, as a means of bringing a greater number of people together than would otht. vise be brought by the ordinary services of the Church. The " fashions " may have changed, but the craving for entertainments has not passed away : a concert or other entertainment would fill a " Church " now, on short notice ; but the readi'-'g of the Scriptures, or use of Common Prayer, will no more do this now, than in time past. This objection can in no way be made to apply to the services of the Church. \' ^ I* 159 CHAPTER XIV. ^ THE PUAVER BOOK IJNPROTESTANTIZED. Obj. I. (a) " Elizabeth determinorl to luako tho Service Book acceptable to her Roman subjects ; and in this effort she succeeded ; for they attended the parish churches, with the preaching and sacraments, for the first ten years of her reign." Ans. It was not that the Book was made — but found — acceptable to her Roman subjects, save and except the real Romanists, that they continued for ten years to attend church. This ought to be taken as proof that the book was free from anything calculated to give offence. The Queen had entrusted the revision of it to a select few, some seven or eight of the first Reformers, whose names have been given already on p. 103. She could not trust the work with Convocation, the majority at that time being strongly opposed to reformation, and determined to continue the worship of Rome. But from the known character of the Queen, and those entrusted with the revision, I should say the last thing they would think of wouki be a compromise with Rome. As also the great dissatisfaction manifested by the Romish Bishops in the House of Lords, and their determinate opposition to the Prayer Book taking the place of their mass-book, might be testimony enough to enforce silence on this subject. Tlie objector has omitted to tell the reason why, after the first ten years, they could no longer join in a worship made — as he says — so acceptable to them. I will supply it for him. Because tlie prayers were said in English ; th jre was no " sacrifice " in the Lord's Sui)per ; and, worst of all, the Pope's supremacy was protested. So on the 27 th of A])ril, 1570 — just about ten years after the Liturgy was restored — Pope 1 1^ m '^■M im ■I hi |i ■ 160 i Pius V. excommunicated the Queen and interdicted the " Service Book." From that time unto this present, they have continued in a state of separation from the Church, and followed a form of worship of their own devising. Obj. I. (b). " So acceptable did she make the Prayer Book to the clergy, that of nine thousand four hundred ministers, who had served under Maiy, and conformed to Popery, under Elizabeth all remained at their posts and used the Ritual, with the exception of two hundred. Not one iu forty refused to conform." Ans. The objector, in the blindness of his zeal, has failed to perceive that this rema.k applies to the Second Book of Edw. YI., shewing how little real influence it had upon the nine thousand four hundred. The greater part of them would have subscribed to the Heformed faith in time of Kenry YIII. and Edw. VI., and afterwards " conformed to Popeiy " in the time of Q. Mary. Therefore, seeing they were so changeable, the Queen would not trust them. In virtue of her Supremacy, she forbade their preaching; but permitted them to lead the Service, the Scriptures, and the Homilies ; also to administer the Sacraments. So valuable is a good " sound form of words," with the laws well administered ; for by these means Popery was well nigh driven from England, and those who secretly favored it, made a means of destroying it. Burnet says, " the bishops after this time had the same apprehen- sion of the danger into which religion was brought by the jugglings of the greatest part of the clergy, who retained their affections to the old Superstition, that those in King Edward's time had ; so that if Queen Elizabeth had I'.ot lived as long as she did, till all that generation was dead, and a new set of men, better educated and prii 'pled, were grown up and put in their rooms ; and if a prince of another religion had succeeded before that time, they had probably turned about again to the old Superstitions as nimbly as they had done before in Queer. Mary's days." Obj. I. (c) " As the Prayer Book now is less Protestant than then, we are not surprised that Ritualists and Low Papists can iVP 161 minister in the communion of the Episcopal Churches in Englmid, and in this country. History is simply repeating itself." Ans. The Prayer Book is not the cause of men's differences. It has a certain definite form, ami should be honestly received and used by all persons enti'usted with tlie ministry. But as in times past, so it is now, many persons make use of it to serve their own purposes. Among so numerous a )|ody of men, divei-sity of tho") ght and difference of o])ii'ion will be sure to be found, so lo? ij hs oi)inions are free ; and no one with a proper sense of whai. h, simply necessary to conformity could ex})eot moi'e than a general agreement in recei\ing and using the form and doctrines prescrioecl. Some will always be found to be careless and inattentive ; othere precise and particular ; and many grades between the two extremes also. To say that '' History is simply repeating itself," uiK)n the strength of this (quotation, does not well J^pply ; for the Church Clergy have not yet changed the Keformed faith foi- that of Rome, and then tujued back again to the Keformed. But J will supply a )>assage from liistory that will l)e more to the purj^ose : '' In the yeaj- 1567, Faithful CUMMINS, a Dominican Friar, was much admired and followed by the people for his seeming piety, for his readiness in ujakiug long extempore prayeis, and for inveighing against tliti Pope, Pius the Fifth. His real charactei- being suspected, he was tukt-Ji iij> and examined before the Privy Council. Having made Iii» es<;af)e, h<' wtuit to Runu'. Being <|uestioned by tlie Pope, Cunnuins rei»lied, ' That liis Holiness little thought that he had «l<>ne liini n consifU'mblt' s*'i\ icr. notwithstanding he spoke so much agajjist liini.' Wlifii tlu- Pope asked how, he said, ' He had preached against set foiu.s <•! piayer. and that he called the English P)ayei- B(.ok. Knglisli Ma,s/, and had pcisuaded sevei-aJ people to pray .spiritually and i'Xt»Mii|ior«' : and that this hud Ht» )nu('li taken with the people, that the (Miiuvh of K)ightud was beeome as oilions to that soit «>f |»«'o|.>le s\ horn he instruete«l as a 'II 1' '.; f><> i ' . 162 Mass' was to the Olimcli of Eiigliiiid ; and that tliifs Avoiikl l>o a stuinbling-l»lock to that Ohiirch vvliile it was a Church.' Upon tliis the Pope comnieiKled him, aiul gav(^ him a ivward of two thousand ducats. " So Faithful Cuuuiiins at tiist, tljcii iiis iiamesake and now his co-adjutoi\s and successors, have done, and are doing wlat they can to make the Book of Coumujn ^-ayer of tlie ( *hurcli of Kngland, as odious as possible to the general public. Obj. I. (d). *' But how did Elizabeth succeed in making the Prayer Book so acceptable to her Roman (Jatholic clergy and subjects ( In the lirst places as Hume states : ' She retaine : she was possessed of too great prudt-'Uicc and discretion to do so. Being sincerely attached to the reformed faith, and fully persuaded of its ti'uth and puritv ; i)i-o«>f enouyli «tf which was yiven bv liei' steadv adherence thei-eto, thouufh tried 1>\' much persecution ; she inipartf'd her intentions and designs, only to a few well tried and reliable friends, 'i'o the .Manjuis of N<»i-tha»ti]>ton. the Earl of Bedfoinl, Sir John (Iray, and Sii- Win. ( lecil ; she .selected some of the first reformers to review the Liturgy of h]dw. VT., which she ]>urj>osed to and did r<'stoi'e. Her Roman ( 'atholic counsellors were not consulted /m religious ([U(^stion.s. and ha- (*hrl.-; ian could justly exce))t ai^ninst, and that it was- made s])eciaUy for Knijland : there is nothiuif to he surj^rised at, tliat AT THAT Ti.MK, he iniyht otter to ratify it Foi! Kxclaxd. A few years later, aiul Iih could not have iUmi' so. Fm- in l.'ifvt the same Pope issued an order of ser^ ice am] faith for all churches in c(mim union n with Rome, from w hich H; UK yeram (.*atholicani tidem, extra quani nemo salvu no de\ lation is i>erinitted, essf cei\ ])otest." And \ \ttirma ]>ronouncfHi aju^ainst all that do not receive and ado])t it. The only thin^u" the Pope desired was the Supremacy: ;,dve him that, :!nd all th»^' rest wc^dd follow as a matter of course. This tlie Queen steadily refus»-d. Aid the end was: the P>ook was interdicted, and the <^)iie<)i -^xcnminunicated : so that the Pope's approbation of the pMM»k .t time, ,i;o*^s for veiy little. Obj. L (<;). " We know that the Prayer P>o<»k thus tampered with, to satisfy tlie Romanists, was enforced l«v leu'al penalties on all Ei^flisliiMen.' Ams. As alrt^ady stated on p. OS, the book could not be *' taatttiered ' witli by those who had right to it. The Book of il : J i A 164 ¥. ■;^;^i ',-.-. '4 ii # ,.*• 4 ' Common Pray»»]s xKVF.n was altered at tlic mjnt'st of, oj- to plt)HS«^ the Romani.sts : tJiey i'ej<^ctprl it in toto, as luM-etical, and saiM it wrtB onlv i\t for tlie flamps. It was altered to pU-ase the Puritsins ; hut tliev, like tlie Romanists, cannot be pleased with less tlian a total abolition of it. The PnritanK May, to "jjive some public testimony of our endeavonrs for unitormity in divine worship, whicli we have promised in our solemn league and (Jovenant ; we have, after earliest and freijuent calling upon the name of God, and after much considtation, not with flesh and blood, but with His holy word, resolved to lay ASIDE THE FORMER LITURGY, with the many rites and c(;j'emonies fommrly used in the worshii* of (4od/' In the reign of Q. Mary, the KoinaDists gave jiroof of their approval of the Book of Common Prayer, by decreeing its total abolition. The Puritans did the same dunng tlie " great I'ebellion." Such things give the strongest testimony possible, that it meets not their approbation ; but tiiat it w a distinct j^rotest against the opinions of both parties, Obj. T. (h) " Concession of the Bishops. With regard to the charge of theii* opponents, that the Liturgy was the result of a compromise with Rome, they honestly acknowledged what was asserted in mv former lectui'e : ' It was the wisdom of our Reformei'S to draw up such a Litui'gy -ah n#*itlier Romanist nor Protestant could justly exf^ept against." ' Ans. False ' Tlie*-e was do com|)roniise witli Rome. Neither did " their oppon«ents ' charge the Liturgy with being any sucli compromise. Nor yet did the Bisliops '* Imnestly acknowledge " that it was so. The Presbyterian Commissioners allege, that the first Reformei"s, to win the papists, varied as little as they WELL OOULD from the Romish forms before in use. Thev desire the Bishops, in the contemplated Revision, to obsen e the same rule of \i^:^ yvmhucc nii.l diMiity. ni.d \\vh\ sfmic\vli:»t to tlic opinions of the Puritiin i>nrtv. TW Uisliops dkw tliat tlio IJtmxv was any compnunisc^ witJi Home; smd assert, 'that tlio ar<;innent used in demanding an alteration is not reasonahle/ I will supply in full, the Exception and tlw answer; whieh will "hear an investigation.' KXfKPrroN OK pr{i:si!VTi:i!i.\N roMMjssioxmis. " We humbly desiie that it may i)e s»'iiously ccmsideml, that as our first vefoniieis out of theii- oi(.at wisdom did at that time so compose the liturgy, as to win u))on the papists, and to draw them into theii- chui'di-eommunion, by \arying as little as they well could from the Homish f«H'ms })efoie in use ; so whethei- in the ftresent constitution, and state of things amongst us, we should not accord- ing to tlie same rule of |)rudeni-e and charity, ha\e ouj- liturgy so composed, as to gain upon the judgments and affection of all those wlio in the substantials of the protestaut ivligion ai-e of the same persuasions witii ouj'seives ; inasnnich as a. more firm union and consent of all such, as well in w^orship as in doctrine, would greatly strengthen the ju'otestant intei-est against all those dang(M-s and temptations which our intestine divisions and animosities do exposf! us unto, from the common ad versa rv." ; .1 1» 1 answi:h of thk hfsih>ps. " It was the wisdom of our I'efoirners to draAV up such a liturgy as neither Romanist nor protestai it could justly except against ; ami therefore as the first ne\er chargrotestaiits most properly belongs, those that profess the Augustan (confession : and for those who unlawfully and sinfully brought it into dislib; with some people, to ui'g(! the present state of affaiis as an argument why the book should be altered, to give them satisfaction, HO that they should take advantage by their own unwarrantable act»5 is not reasonable."" *«t*. fei-i iW''- " *'■; 166 Ohj. 1. (.)) "This stsiLomoiit. is utterly false with respect to the original Ivefomers unrler Edwaid. It is perfectly true as rejyards Elizabeth, as 1ms been rleinonstrated. " Aus. But " this statement "' wjis made by the obiectoi\s own ehosen friends — the Pui-itans of 1661. It is too bad to chai'ge YOUR OWN FHiK\i>s with nmkin«( statements " uttei'ly false.' In this case, the objector, poor man, has evidently v'^* " 167 2. Tliat the nine thousand four luiiulrcd Olortrvmon. worn, in the gi-eatest part, the same pcisons that liad confonued to the l)Ook of Edw. vi. ; and that on account of tlieir inconstancy they were not much trusted afterwards. .'?. Tliat the objector's statement : " History is simply repeating itself ;" is well illustrated by means of the " Cummin's Schism " of the present time. 4. That th(! Roman (Catholic portion of <,)uet'n Elizalxith's council, had no i)art in ordering the Prayer Book. 5. That the Liturgy is not a [)roper p] iCe for a '' protest ;' that the Revisers did well in removing the petition referring to the Bishop of Rome : and that these things are better expressed by tlie changes made. 6. That the Pope's ap})robati()n of the Book of C'Ommon Prayer, is testimony in its favour. 7. That the Book was not tampered with to [)lease the Romanists ; that they are not ])leased with it ; but denounce it as only fit foi' the flames. 8. That the objector has stultitied hiniselt', by not perceiving the word "justly" in an im])ortant sentence; and by admitting its truth, has declared his own, and all other objections mai' saw the missal or breviarv, or but knows so much as what the books are. And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might produce some proofs of this hash affirmation, which is so frequent in their mouths, they would be infinitely pu/zled. They would not find, either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor those excellent passages which set before our eyes tlu- grejitness of our guilt towards God, and of his mercy in pardoi\ing the same unto us ; which patjsages are placed in the very be^nnning of it. 171 Tiioy would not Ihul ^liorc tli.it ijoiily fwliort.-ilion to ivpnitRiiff, nnd to the L'onfeR.sioii of om- sins in tin" in-c-fnc-c o*" (Iod, which followcMi imincdifttoly thf^* le idiuj,' of those i)assa<;(S. Sm- yet the rojifessioii of .sins, nor the abHolution \vhi(Mi followcth the sauic, for tlioro is NOT ONK LINE OF ALL THIS IX TlIK MASS-HOOK. Th<; ten COUHuaild ments are not to bo found thcfo, noi- tlmt inayor which is ina(h' at the end of every coinnMuduu^nt which the niinlstei- linth pronounced; nor the Ooninniiation, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of tlu; other forms. But in it tliey will nn^et with the Louos Prayer, the Creeds, the Songs of Zachary, Siinc^on, of the Bh»s.sed Vii-i^'in, and of some others, which are word for word in the Scriptnv*', <>r are extracted out of it, and are gronnded uj)on the same, and were in use in the Primitive Christian (church before ever the mass was hatclied. Tlierefore, it is manif(^st that to say that our liturgy is either the mass, or taken out of it, is a mere slander, i)roceeding from malice, or ignorance, or both." i Obj. I. (c). " Naugle, an b^pisco[>al clergyman, of Dublin, remarks: 'The thorough Sycojihancy c»f Sheldon, AForley, and (xunnini; is suHicientlv manifested in the fact, thai tliev intro(biced into our Liturgy the prayer for the Parlianumt, in which the profligate aiid hyi)Ocritical Pa]>ist who then sat upon the throne of England, was designat(Ml oni- most icligious and gracious King.' "' A: 3. The first thing to be setthul Jiei'c, befoi-e " tiie thorougb. Sycophancy," ifec, will a})ply, is this : What was the known character of Chas. 11. at the time '\ Tlie Piritax Commissioners address him, and use much the same language as found in the prayer : " How greatly pleasing it will be to the Lord that your majesty's heart is so t(>nderly and religiously com[)assionate, itc." And THEY woi'LD PRAY that God would bring the resolutions of the King " unto so perfect an effect and issue, that all thf! ginxl people of these kingdoms may have abundant cause to rise up and bless you, and to bless God who hath delighted in you to .make vou his instrument in so happy a work . J' 172 ".I' ^ 4 It: r'r Auil tlu; kiiiy 8 own (h^clarution, " Wv e of everlasting salvation : or else that the minister, when any have ofi'ended their brother's minds with a great otfence, or witli a notable and o])en favdt, whereby they liave as it were banished and made themsehes "strangers froiu the common fellowship and from the body of Christ, then, after perfect amendment of such persons, doth I'econcile them, and bring them home again, and restore them to the company and unity of the faithful. We say also that the minister doth execute the authority of binding and shutting, as often as he shutteth up the gate of the kingdom of heaven against the iinbolieving and stubl)orn persons, denouncing unto them Cod's veng(»ance and everlasting punishment; or else, when he doth (piite shut them out from the church by open excommunication. Out of doubt, whatso(n'er sentence the minister of God shall give in this sort, (xod himself doth so well allow of it, that whatsoever here on earth by their means is loosed or bound, God himself will loose and bind, and contii-m the same in heaven. And touching the keys by wliicli they sliiii or open the kingdom of hea\-cn, we with ( ^hiysostouk say, they be tlic kjiowledge of the Scriptures : v. itli 'IVrtuilian \vr say they be the iiiterj»etatioji of the law ; and with l^usel'ius we cali Mieni tlii' word of fiud. Moreovei' tiiat Cliii.st's disciph-h (lid re<-ci\-e the uutliuiity, nut that they should ileal- pir^ite .•onfe^si..ns uf llir people, anli^> ^ **^»m irt I r; teach, tlicy sliould publisli aliioad IJih Uospcl, and l»c unto tin; believing a secret wavour of life unto life, aiul nnto tlu; imltelieving and niifaithful a savour of duatli unto death. This take we to be the meaning of the keys ; and afto- tliis fashion men's consciences are to be eitlu'i" o[H:'n or shut. We say that the priest indeed is iuda;e in this cas(\ but vet hatli no niann(M- of risfht to cliallenije an authority or power ; assaith Anil)ro,se. •So " Sacerdotal element '' should liavc! becji either niagisterial or judicial element. "Spite of Scri])ture," shews that tluy who object are not \V(dl r(;ad therein : for the words are from th(^ xx. Chap, of St. John ; and the v/ork, to pi'each the Gospel and admiiiister the Sacraments.^ Neither is agieement with Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Eusebius : to " Spite the Ecclesiastical usage of the first TEN centuries. And by reading 2 Coi-. ii. 7, we may see how "one frail mortal" exhorts other "frail mortals" to formve an excommunicated person, in the person of Jesus Christ. Obj. 1.1. (a). But (h-anmer taught, at tlu; saiiic time, that " Bishops and Priests were both the [sanu'] oflice at the beginning of Chi"ist's religion." Ans. This WIS in l-llO, some years before the oitices for Ordination were compiled : but it was a nuTt; private opinion that yielded to better knowledge. At that time, l.")}!), lie had not had sutHcient time to exaniine the ground for every opiiiitai he held ; for he then also lU'knowledged s<'ven Saerameiits, Pui'gatoiy, Transubstantiiition, S:r. \)ut when looked into, these things were found to be gross deeeits of the Schoolmen a)id Canonists; one party to set u]i the grand mystei-y of 1 r;tnsub.>iantiation. and the otJi'.-i- to secure the Popisho|»s of riie ('huich. Obj. 11. (|{). •■ In tin uijieteenth Artiele he car<-Iully U-ft -ni all allusion to any one foijn of i>o\ ei-nment as essentwd to th' Church, and in the Litany he ma'.ie the petithni for the Clergy read : 'All Bishops, l*nsto)'s, and Minislei-s of t]i>- Cliuivh."'' 170 Alls. 'Pile Ai'l icl'',s wciv, HL^rccd ujioii, twclvt' vcarf? suljseciiKMitly to (Vuniiici's liol.lino' and ('xpi-cssiiii^MJic ()|.iiii(.ii just statc'l ; a]i(] linviii;^ ]>mss('(1 l.otli ( 'oinoont ion and Parlianu'iit, ()un call('(] (Jianinci's oi- iiitrrpi-t-tcd hy his ]»i'i\itti' (i|>iiuoii. Tlio F()i-inii1ai'it>s tlicnis-dvos, suiliciciilly declare wliat tin.' doftriuo ot tlie Clmrcli is ; yet, ('raninei- liaviug siibsciihed tli(»in, we may suppose iliat THKkk were Ins i,ati:st ojiinions. The XX. Ai'ticle (Edw. \'l.) oidy deliiies what we are to understand l)y "The visible. Uliurcli,"' aiiddt could not ho (!xi)ected that there wovdd l>e any '^^dlnsiou to auy one form of gov^eriirneiit ij: it.'' But in the XXIA'., they .say, " It is not lawful for any man to take upon hivii the Olliee of ]aililic Preaching, or ministering the Sacraments, in t!ie (.'onnicoation, befor-(? he ho lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those \ve oudit to iudL'P lawfully called and sent, which l^e chosen and called to this Woi'k by Men, who have ])ublir Authoi'ity givcMi unto them in tlie Congregation, to call and send Ministei's into the Lord's Vinevard." From the XXXY., which names the Ordination Service, as l->eing published by authority of ihe King and Parliament, for oj'dering Minister's in the (.'hurch : we may learn who are to be considered "lawfully called," i. e,, those who had Ejnscopal Oi-dination ; and who had "public authority," \ iz. : the Bishops to whom the care of the Church was given. " Tn the Jjitany he made the j»etiti(m for the Clergy read : all r>isliops. Pastors, and Ministers of the Church." True ; and the Ordination Servicf;, lie uiade it i-ead, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, which, when taken togethei, shew that they had names of order, and names of oliice. Collectively, they were the Clergy. By order : thev worr- P>ishops, Priests, and Deacons, according to tlunr grnde. In otiice ; they were Overseers, Pastors, or Ministers, according (o ' •• dlhee each lield. Obj. 11. ((').- " Moreo\ef. he fully recOj^nized the ord/'fs of Ministers ordained lux'ording to the Pi'esliyteHiM) (ful'Ui." >*\ 180 ' Ans. TIk' Cliui-cli iit tlint tiuio knew no other l!i;iii Kpis )|»al Ordination, 'riiorc were no English or Scotcli Prc^shytorians luiofc^ the time of Quo(ni KliziOicth. !t is votli evils. The laws pi-ovidcd, woidd at any tinin liii\(> boon sutiiciont to prevent ministers otherwise; or.iained fi-oin olHt-iatinir in iIm, Church, had ^ they been ]»roperly administered. But men witli " private oinnions," intcM-jtretiiig theii\ in such a way as was pleasing to themselves, might, at times, havf; admittcnl some who luxd not proper orders, When eonij.laint was ma.lc that sin-li things had been done, it Mas at om-e ordered to be coi-peeted. See how, in 1559 a letter fi-om the CoiiiK-il directing Abp. Parkec, " About the recovering tin; discipline of the Church," he issues "Visitation Articles ;" in No. vii. of which, '• ftcni, Whether there lie ajiv parsons, that intrude themselfe, and jiresumc to excicise any kinde of mynistery in tlu; ehurche of Cod, without iiaj)osition of handes, and ordinary aucthority." And Abp. AA^ hi (gift in In.Sl, Art. V. "That none be ]»erniitt(Ml to preach, or intei-pret the Scriptures, unless lie be a, priest or deacon at the h^ast, adndtted thei-eunto according to the laws of tJiis re.ihne." The Canons of 1603, are sufficiently well known to sjxvak decisivtdy on tliis subject, to the exclusion of all jo-iAate opinion. The " simple subscription ' recjuires an acknowledgement of the three oixlei-s ; and if any man would subscribe that, who was not so ordered himself : I would not say mucli foi his conscience. I cannot see how, either a. real Preslnterian, or a rkal Romanist could subscribe at all. For it requires an acknowledgeni» ut that the Queen is Suprenu"' ruler in things Ecclesiastical as well as Civil. A denial of all foreign authority whether Prince oi- Prelate. An acknowledgement, that the Book of (."^ommou Pi-ayer, and ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, is not in anything conti-ary to Cod's word, and that he hims(df would use the same and none other. An \M^ I *^ Laud }U 1(1 Ills followers; Imt f(nv of the laity r«'C(nv(Ml ii ; it. wiis first practically aof;o]>te(l Wy tlio (Ihuvtli in 1()()2, l^y tW chaiifijos in the Ordinal, and by tlio ])assaf,'(' of tlio infiunons Act of ITniforniity." Ans. Pi'osliytorian ordination, is a inodorn doc^nia itself ; and therefore tlio denial of it must l)o modern also. There were no such oi'ders for the fii-st fifteen linndred years. However much necessity may hav(^ r(M|uired such ordinations ; or e\]iedi(Micy tolerated tliein ; still both Sci-iptni-e and Canon Imw arc^ against them. The Pref.ice to tlie ( irdinal, whicli was in the book from the first, plainly states that tlie (Ihi-istian dhnrch from its very begin- ning, had only E])iscopal ordinjttion, and the desire foj* its continuance in tlie Church. Dr. Jablonsky says: "It is very I'emarkable, that there is no doctj'ine oi- tenet of the christian i-eligion in Avhich all chi-istians, in genei-al, have for the space of fifteen hunisho|)s, and even where christians differed in other points of docti-ine or custom, and made sclJsms and divisions [by heresies] in the Ohurch, yet did they all remain unanimous in this, in retaining their Bisho])S." Obj. II. (f) " In testimony of this statement, I quote the language of the most venerable of the Commissioners of 1652, Bisliop Cosin : ' If at any time a Minister so ordained, in these French Churches, came to incorj>orate himself in ours, and to receive a j)ublic charg(i, or cure of souls, among us in the Church of England, ('as I have known some of them to have done of late, ar^d can instance in many others before my time,) our Bishops did not i<.'ordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they must have done if his former oi'dination in France had been void ; noi' did oui' laws require more of liim than to declare his public consent to the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe the ai'ticles." Ans. At present I hav6 no means of testing this (piotation, or of knuwinti; in what sense it was used. 183 I liiive iili'oady Siiid, (li.it in ciis'-s of is^rcni iirccssil y, siuli sv thing may bo excused. The Jlcstoriitioii woiihl iluuhth'SH l»i! such ii, cas(! of n('C'(\s.sity : foi- the I'ishop.s had been (h'piivcd of their olhci's for nearly twenty ycHi's ; and it won hi not lie j)ossil»le to Mad on thoir return, a sutlicient number of Priests or Deacon's to till tlic vacant livintrs ; therefore, foi- a time, thev miuht euntloy Ministers otherwise oi*dain«Hl, Ihit this (^idy shews tJiat tJie disfrijtliiie was soinewliat relaxed, in (U'dei' to miu^t an extreme ease ; a litth; time would soon reiiiedy that state of tilings, and order would 1)0 again i-estored. Ob). Tf. (isho]»s Hall, Hurnet, Fleetwood and others, might be given if time ])ermitted." A ns. w jlj sup])ly then- testimony. Ihsliop Hh!I, in s|»('akin of the absolute necessity of Ministeis for thi^ being of a Chureli, and tlie impossibility of ol)taining Fjiiseopal or itable necessity may do, \sv. now dispute not, yet for the main substance, kimsooI'ACY is i :TTI:KI,v IXDISl>^:NHA]nJ: an. must so eoiitiniU' to tli e wo •Id HisI s end T] IC! ion if; as a objeetoi' has made a c;iii:at mistake, in naniin! witness in his favoui' ; but, a ori: vrKit, in naming lip. liuriiet; for he destroys his argument.. In Artidi' xxiii., '• Tho antiiorify of the Ministry," ti'cating of a liko ntcessity, lie says " yet aic wc; vcit sure, that not only those who iiciokm! the .Artitics, but the boESl(;\KD ON PriU'OSK TO KXCHI)!; TIIKM, ■ i« '< 184 h, ('« ■ IJ • i' ••ill T]i(?.s(! <)l»jr(loi'.s ou.^lil (o Im'. iiKHc nucfiil in si'lcfctiiig tlicir witnesses ; foi' nlt]»ou<;li the two last nuined, ;iro Hullicient to destroy tli(i wlioh; objection to E|)iseo[nu'y ; yet the contenn)late«l Jtevision of Wni. II f., mIucIi, on ]>. 19, lie says : "failed to become the law of the land, tlnoui;h the intolevanco, bi«^oti'y and ii^uoranco of the iilitAL CLEUGV," gives the last needed evidence^, to convince any one, that Presbyterian ordinations wvro, nov(!r recogni/ed, as valid, by I. lie Cliuj-ch of l*]ugland at any time. " And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no minister ordained only l>y })resbyters since tlu^ year of our Lord lOGO, shall be admitted to any benc^fice or promotion iiidess he rciOCMve a second imposition of hands fi'om some bishop, to reconnnend him to the grace of God for the work or exercise of his oilice, in the })lace or charge unto which he is called ; and the; bishop shall frame his words and testimonial accc. lingly, to the nnitual satisfaction of him.jelf and the ordained, till a form on })urpose be by a convocation and a law established." i ' i^-:, -'•■■Sn»eh^.. Obj, II. (ii). "One remarkable^ instance on record shows conclusively wlutt were the views held in the I'eign of Elizabeth with respect to Prcfsbyteiian orders. It is the license given to John Morrison, a .Scotch Pi-esbyterian Minister, by Abj). Grindal to exercise all the functions of the luinistrv without reordination." Ans. \Vv shouhl base supposed, that by this time, this one single case of Morrison's as an illustration, had been disposed of. This is not the first time it has been alleged., or replied to. But however, w^e may shew from the documciut itself, as the objector ( (notes it, the reverse of what he infers. It states, that John Moi'rison, M. A., was ordained to Holy Ordei's, by imposition of hands, in the to^vn of (jarvet. County I^othian, Kingdom of Scotland ; fine vears before he obtained a license to otFiciate in England; that would be in 1577. Dr. Bowden says, "That Presbyterian gcnernment was not introduced into the Church of Scotland till the year 1580, is capable of such proofs as no human mind can resist.'" That being three year's after Morrisoji's or .igion now received and by public authority established ii. this realm of England :" and docs NOT name tlie Church of Scotland. Add ( , this a remark by Bp Sage, "The parliament which met at Dumlee, July 12th, 1680, established a presbyterian regimen for tie Church of Scotland, to the grief, and with th(^ execrations of thousands in that kingdom." Which gives an idea that Morrison might be one of the " grieved," and had to leave for conscience sake ; and taken altogtither, is very far from a clear case. Tiie objector also draws a few inferences, as : " Theex]>ii?ssion, * in cases,' in this precise legal-like document })roves that the custom of thus licensing Vresbyterian ministers prevailed at that time." It should he "in like cases," i. e., cases like this, of giving a license to officiate ; such a license would be given now, to any clergyman whose orders were approved, and without which he would not have autliority to minister. This, therefore, is not evidence in favoui' of Presbyt(;rian ordei's being acknowledged by the Church of England as valid. Obj. II. (i). " As the Church of Scotland was then Presby- terian, and no bishops Episcopally ordain(?d held oHice in that countiy, the case is settled bejyond contradiction." Ans. The trovernment of the Church of Scotland at that time, was somewhat mixed ; so it is rather too much to say with CERTAINTY " the case is settled beyond contradiction." T read, from Adam's work on this subject " the reforming i)arty, ever ready to 24 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) •^ // K 1.0 i.l in la 128 125 ^ 1^ 12.0 L25 III 1.4 I' m 1.6 4 c2r o^ y y Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0 (716) 872-4503 ^^ ^V •ss ?'^ v> 4 >V o" ^ <<^J^ 6^ C^ ^ IS > -1 ■ i 186 - pull clown with tlio one hand what they have jubt raised with the o'jher, beyan to call the lawfulness of Kpi.seoi>aey in question in 1575 and, after a struggle of five years, they condemned it, as \inlawful and unscriptural, an«l soon departed much farther from it than l>efoi'e." Aiid " Presbyterian parity in Scothmd, was at last adopted and estiiblished by act of parliament, in 1592." From the foregoing, antfid i-ase, Obj. II. (.i). '' This case settles the point, that the dispute concerning Travers and Whittingham of the same reign, was not with regard to the matter of their Presbyterian orders, but on account of irregularities of another sort." Ans. Nothina: is cleMrtu- in historv, than that Travers was dismissed from the Tempk^ on account of his ordination. Queen Elizabetli, through Lord Burghley en(piires wliy Travers could not have the appointment. To which the Aljp. of Canterbury replies, and of which this is part, and sulficient for this case : " Unless he will testify his conformity by subscription, as all others latform of government' with their brethren on the Continent, was not because th(;y regar-ded it as unscri])tural, but in the woi'ds of iiishop Cooper, a learjied writcir of J'llizabeth's reign, simply beicause they did not consider i'r sujtaulk to the * the state of our country, people and commonwealth.' " (Fisher, p. 448.) Ans. The Reformers in England, as well as those on the Continent, had lait one opinion about tiie foi'm of government or 187 ministry of Chnsrs Ciinroli ; tlwy weic ygiv.xl tluit Episcopacy was the primitive form, ami in iucoidaiico witli lioth tlic Old and New Testament. And, that wlieio Ej>isooi)acy did exist, and conid he continued : and would tlie Bisliop's ride accoj-din*; tf) (lod's word ; then hy all means retain tliem. Tliat tins was (^alvin's opinion, will be seen by his own words : " If they would .i>i^e us such a hierarchy, in whicrli tlu^ Bishojjs liave sucli a pre-eminence, as that they do not refuse to be subject to Christ, anossible to do so. Obj. III. (a.) "In the Revision of lo5i), the for^ f<.r Ordering Priests was in this wise : 'Receive the Holy Glio ; whose sins thou dost forgive,' ttc. In 1662 it was made to read thus : * Receive the Holy Ghost for the office any the imposition of our hands, whose sins thou dost forgive,' ttc." Ans. It is true, that the forms for Ordei-ing Bishops and Priests were amkxded in 1662. P)efore that time they were exposed to the cavils and censures, alike, of the Puritan, Noncon- formist, and Romanist : and on account of the language used not being sufficiently decisive, were a cause of continual strife. The Presbyterian argued, tliat as thera was not any express mention made of either Bishop or Pi-iest, when onlers were given to them ^ 'i' J 188 W'lll'^^/! that tlie compilers of the Lituij^'y int(Mi(le' and consecrating Bishops, 190 If' 1: •0 :tSi /•- Priests, and DeacoiiK.' As also, " It is t^vident unto all men, diligently reading holy scriptitrr, and nncicMit nutliors, tliat from THE Apostles time there hath been thkse orders of Minister's in Christ's Church ; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," c^tc. It is a sorry- plight to 1)6 in, to have your own selected witnesses testify against you ; but the " early Refoiinei's " distinctly testify to the three orders as named, and say that Holy SriMPTURE gives tlie same testimony. Wliich is quite equjil to saying, that Uishops are a distinct or(h;r from Pn'8l>yters by authority of Scripture. Abp. Bramhall said long ngo, tliat the asskhtiox that our Reformers held Episcopacy an, continued witliout change, except in the reign of (I Mary, to 16G2. But during the "great .ebellion" th(^ iJook of Counnon Prayer, together with Ei)iscoi)acy, was said to be -" abolished. At tlie Piestoration, "thousands" who were not ordaijied according to the order of the CJhurch of England, had usurped the otlices, and expelled the lawful ministers. These, in their turn, had to trive way to others who had a more just claim and title, and who had been previously, illegally and violently ejected for their loyalty to the Church and Crown. Such a state of things naturally produced much contention, so that it became necessary to define who were LAWFUL nnnisters and wJio were not ; and the Preface was made somewhat more explicit, but not more exclusive. Obj. IV. (li). " This chaug(* made the Church henceforth absolutely anartake of her honors and eniolumentH. In this particular (and it is a most important one) the present Churcli of Enghmd is not the C/hiu'ch of (Jranmcr, and Ridley, of Bradford, and Jewel, Usher, and Hail, but a very diflerent institution.' " I^M '?! Ans. The Church of England lias no necessity to jn-otest the oi'dinations of the Church of Home ; they are, and always have Ix^en acknowledged as valid. Fisher, et al, may be very ready at declaiming, when they have Romanism for their subject ; but that they do not understand what they say, is evident by the language used. The Romish Priest, is not admitted as a Romish Priest : but as one that is willing to renounce and forsake Romish error and be guided by the Fornndaries of the Church of England. In this particular, the pi-esent Church of England does not difter from the practice of the early Reformers ; for had they refused to acknow- ledge " Roman orders " they would ha\'e excluded themselves ! Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, ttc, were Romish Priests, and never had any other oitlination than that they received while in connection with the Church of Rome. JOHN KNOX also, himself, was ordained a Romish Priest in 17)24. And in viitue of these orders, Cranmer sent him to take chaigt of tlie church at Berwick. I do not think it is possible to prose, that John Knox ever had a "Protestant" ordination, Tlie same with Luther, Calvin, and most of the Oerniau and Fiench Itcformers, thev also were ordained in accordance with the Jiomish ritual. These people use strong words, but weak objections ; instead of a thorough investigation of the matter, they string a tVnv sentences together hastily, then enforce the same with insolent abuse. Of coursi^, we cannot be exjieeted to yield, or give up our position, to sicii lociic as this. Obj. V. (a) "The Puritans held that a Bishop was only * primus inter pares :' that is, the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a difference of degkee, not a difference of order ; or, to use the words of Cranmei', that ' tliey were both one office at the beginning of Christ's religion.' " Aus. Tin' Pmil.uiK Nvcrc in vimy in this I'csjurt, \vlii<*li orvor was tlio f-nnso of tlicir scliiNni. 'V\mv o)tinionH weif' contrarv to llio ostahlishofl orKi!s :'' he drtcs not sny degroc, >ait nanios thiskk distinct okhkks of Ministci-s. So-in;; tliat the Puritans licld with Jvonic on tliis sultject, I .nn not sur- prised tliat tlM'ir opinions linvf hcon n-jrctcd hy tlic < 'linrcli of Enjfliind. ()l)j. V. (n) '• In tilt! r('i<;u of I'^tlward and Eliziil«'th,tU«' Church of England, by statuto ms wpII ms in i>i-acti('<'. had rocoorni/cd Proshvt»'rian Ordination." Aus. This is an ass(!rtiou witluait proof; it Nv»y Presbyters in Scotlan«l or on the Continent." Ans. An assei-tion that might l»e disposed of by a simple y your disoiplims or hath not heen or«lered l>y ours, that is to say, hy ej)isco))al r»?ginient, Hithence the time that the l)lesse s-tMliit.- Imw, siirli romliK-t an. I cxMiiipN* woiiM \t(' flostnirtivr to jiny stati'. K|.isn.|.;il oiiliintHon wms iilwiiyHknown to \m iH'rnsHai-v, in order to rinjility miiv on*- to niinistoj- in Mih rhnrcli of Kn/iliind : tlicy IijkI it not, neither would tlioy snl.niit, to it, hy conscipK'nc*' wnv dis(|ii;dili('d iinii .Icjirivcd. ()l)j. \'. (r). "Oncmoliv*' for tiiis clum;;!', it is plain, wiis to drive many of tlio Mlilcst niinistcis in Kniil.-ind from tlieir livini^'s ; foi" tli('y (;onld not in (•f)nsoi«'n«(' deny flic ministry tliat. tlie l.oril liafl lonjj; !i<'knowlf'd<;vd juid Messed. " Ans. MoTi\ i:s are not, for man to know oi- Jud;<(' ; it would hn Hafm* to say tlie efleet of this ehajiju'e, itc. IJnt tlie "livinj^s" wore NOT TiFKir.'S fjy liKiiiT, thoy laid ustirped them ; they wore awai'o of this, nnd askfd indulgence, until surh timo as a parliament should decide tlu^ matter ; and in the mnan time K. Chas. II. DID INDI'LOK them, and made a proclamation " that they shall receive ordination, institution, and induction, and shall be permitted to exercise tlioir function, and to enjoy the profits of their livings, without the said srBsruiPTioN on oatff of canonical OBEDIENOK ;" wliicli they could not in consci(Mice comply with. There was no other way of satisfying them, than hy giving ihom their own way ; and, their own way of having their own way. Ohj. V. (a). " Said John How*>, pre-eminent among divines, to a Bishop who remarked : * Pray, sir, what hurt is thei-e in being twice ordained ]' ' Hurt, my Lord : it hurts my luiderstanding ! the thought is shocking ; it is an absurdity, since nothing can have two beginnings. J. am sure J am a iNfinister of Christ, and am ready to debate that matter with you, if youi- T/.idsliip pleases ; but I cannot begin again to be a MinistP!.' '" Ans. In ordination, as in other things, tliere is a right ami a Avron^ ; it would not have " hurt the understanding " of John Howe, pre-eminent though he might have been among divines, to have known, that although he could not begin again to be a minister : yet he could make a now beginning, and exorcise his 19^ ministry in a reguliu- lawful mannei-. It would not require a very great amount of reflection, to learn and understand, that his orders were not snch as the Chnrcli of England required or pei'mitted; and that now order was again restored he ninst either ol»tain proper orders or retire himself. , H His remark, " It is an absurdity, Ac," is an absurdity itself : if correctly stated ; "nothing" — is, simply nothing ; and has not even one beginning. If by this he "meant to say," that a thing once begun, cannot begin again to be the same thing ; it is granted. But any created thing may undergo a change, and begin in a new WAY. Had he submitted to be ordained as the law required, he would from that time have begun again, as a lawful minister, the exercise of that ministry he had before carried on without proper authority. His statement is the very opposite, and a flat contradic- tion, of John iii. 3. "Except a man be born again, &c." Nicodemus, was pre-eminent :ilso, in his day ; bu.t he was not infallible. Obj V. (h). "Protest of the Puritans. 'We doubt not but you know how new and strange a thing it is that you require in the point of re-ordination, when a canon amongst those called Apostolic, deposeth those that re-ordain, and that are re-ordained ; and when it is a thing both Papist and Protestant condemn ; when not only the former Bishops of England, that were more moderate, were against it, but even the most fervent adversaries of the Presbyterian way, such as Bishop Bancroft himself ; how strange must it seem to the Reformed Churches, to the whole Christian world, and to future generations, that so many able, faithful ministers should be laid by as broken vessels, because they dare not be re-ordained, and that so many have been just upon so new and so gener^ly disrelished a thing." Ans. I am very much surprised, that they should have urged the authority ef the Canons Apostolic ; because both Nonconformist and Papist tell us they wei-e not to be relied upon ; but, perhaps, when it suits the purpose of either of them, they may. Howevei", we will try this " Protest" by the Canons appealed unto. In Book iii. Canon xx., " We command that a Bishop be ordained by three 199 Bishops, or at least by two : l)ut it ia not lawful that he he set over you by one ; for the testimony of two or three witnesses is more tirm and secure. But a Presbyter, and a Deacon, and the rest of the clergy, are to be ordained by one Bishop. Nor must either a Presbyter or a Deacon ordain from the laity into the clergy. But the Presbyter is only to tea^h, to offer, to baptize, and to bless the people ; and the Deacon is to minister tq the Bishop and to the Presbyters, that is, to do the office of a ministering Deacon, and not to meddle with the other offices." In Book viii. Canon IxviiL, '• If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, receive a second ordination from any one, let him be deposed, and the man who ordained him, unless he can shew that his former ordination was from heretics ; for those that are either baptized or ordained by such as these, can be neither Christians nor clergymen. If the Reformed Episcopal, and all other objiictors to Episcopacy, will acknowledge this authority themselves : the which they desire the Church of England to recognize ; then the question of the authority of the ministry, which they have raised will soon be settled. By the Canons quoted, the acts of the late Bp. Cummins, and the present co-called Ilefurmed Episcopal Church, are unlawful. Ordination by Presbyters, is expressly forbidden. The three ordei-s of the Ministry ai-e distinctly named. Roman orders are acknowledged ; " If any Bisho}) " ifec, The exclusive right of Episcopal Ministers to ordain and baptize, fully asserted. These things are so plainly stated, that it would require the acumen of a Jesuit, to shew how they may Ix' " honestly evaded," or used with " mental reservation." Having now noticed all the objections that have any connection with this Chaptei', I will poir^t out : 1. That ou)' Ch-clinutiou Services have all the essentials necessary to the ordering of ministei's for Clii'ist's Church ; and agree with those of the first ages. 1%. 200 2. That the clause objected against, '' Eeccive the Holy Ghost," etc., is Scriptural ; and approved by Bishops Jewel, and Burnet. 3. That the charge, " Cranmer taught, Bishops and Priests were the same office " is shewn to be an error abandoned ; and that Cranmer distinctly declares there are three oi'dei-s. As also, that " primus inter pares," is of the veky duegs of Pqpery. 4. That Presbyteiian Ordinations were never at any time recognized as valid in the Church of England, but Bp. Burnet says that the xxiii Article was prepared on purpose to exclude them. 5. That Bishop Hall says Episcopacy is utterly indispensable. 6. That all the Reformers, both in England and on the Continent, declare Episcopacy to have been the original form of iiovernment in the Chuich of Christ. 7. That the forms used for Ordaining Bishops and Priests, were amended in 1662, to silence the objections of the Presbyterians. 8. That Jerome testifies to Bishops being a distinct order from Presbytei's, in the lifetime of the Apostles. 9. That the Preface in the book of 1552, was quite as exclusive as the one now in the Prayer Book at present in use, admitting none tc the Ministry but those ordained by Bishops. 10. That Roman Orders were acknowledged by the first Reformers ; and that Cranmer, Ridley, Luther, ( -alvin, and Knox were ordained according to the Romish Ritual. 11. That the Act of V iformity was not the cause of Puritan Ministers being deprived of the livings they unjustly held. 12. That the Apostolic C'huous quoted by the Puritans for their defence, condemn them and all other objectors to E|»iacopacy. 201 1 1 CHAPTl!:U XVil. H SACEKDOTALISM. 01)j. I. (a). " The Revisers foiina tlie word 'Minister' used to denote the Clergy in tlie reign of Edward and Elizabeth. In the Book of 1552, the wo;ds are : ' Absolution to be pronounced by the Minister" alone,' * * * * they substituted the word 'Priest 'for 'Minister.'" Ans. True ; l)ut this was only one of many terms used to denote the Clergy ; for in the very first Rubric of the book of 1552, we find "Minister, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon;" any one of which would be a Minister. But the Rubric before the Absolution, in the Communion Service of the Book of 1552, has the word Priest ; which word may be found in many other places also. The Puritans of 1661, object against this word which shews it was in the book at that time. " That as the word ' minister,' and not priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places ; it may throughout the whole book be so used instead of those two words." To which the Bishops reply, "It is not reasonable that the word minister should be only used in the liturgy. For since some parts of the liturgy may be perfo.-med by a deacon, others by none under the order of a priest, viz., absolution, consecration, it is ht that some such word as priest should be used for those offices, and not ministers, which signifies at large every one that mnusters in that holy office, of what order soever he be ; the word curate si^iifving properly all those who are trusted by the bishops with cure of s^uls, as =mclently it sigiuHed, is a very fit word to be used, and can ofteud no sober person.' 26 ' liM m i 202 Obj. I. (15). " The so-callcil Priest of the Olmrcli of Eiiglaml ]n-oiiouiices the absohitiou 'standing.' B]). Andrews said that postui'e was proper, because he executed this otKce * autlioritatively.' Here is ex})ressed the clear sacerdotal idea, which has wrought sucli mischief among us." ft », .'■ ^Wi; Ans. The Priest pronounces the absolution autlioritatively, because he has authority given to him, (by those commissioned to send ministers), to preach, to declare, to i)ronounce, to make known, God's terms of })ardon and forgiveness to i)enitent- sinners. He is authorized to say, that " God ])ardoneth and absolveth all them that truly repent and unfeignedly believe His Holy Gospel." As to the position - " standing :" he could not well assume any other. He ought not to— kneel — be(rause lile, says the Lord's Prayer. Query : When a ''Nonconformist" PUoNOrNCES the benediction, does he do it authoritati\ely ? And, what is ills jiosition when pronouncing it i Obj. I. (o). "At the revifsion of KlUl, the term ' Remission of Sins ' was introduced after the word 'Absolution" to render the service more emphatically sacerdotal." Ans. The llexisiou of 1001, was a special eti'ort made to satisfv the Puritans ; and this was one of the changes made FOR THKM. It was left to the Bisho})s to see if the words " lemission of sii.s " might not be ai>ih:i» i-uii kx plan at ion's sakk. Hut how is it 203 tlijil tlif> (►hjcctor tlid not S('.<' tlir mtv smfim' woidsiii tli«' Ahsolutiou, as woll MS ii) t]\v, titlol Anrn\ how were they introduced to rendei- tlie s(M'\ ice moi-e enn>h:itically Sacerdotal I 'V\iv fact is, such men as this ohje(ttoi', have no necessity to head for information- they know without i*e:i:fTv. It will be necessary for i»ie to make a few i-emarks with respect to this Act, etc. ; because the objector and his party, have in addition to their own grievances, assumed that burden the Puritans formerly carried. I shall not do more than state as briefly as I can, the particulars they object to, and say weie caused by the passing of tliis Act. First. They say that the passing of this Act, was the special cause of their Schism. Ans. This is not true; the Schism began more than twenty yeai's previously. The faction by which this was accomplished, had entered into a " Solemn League and Covenant " to " extirpate Prelacy ;" or in other words the Church of England, and abolish the Liturgy. They met with such success, that they were enabled for a time, to suppress both Monarchy and Episcopacy ; so they divided the places amongst themselves, and set up a new form of govern- ment and of religion. The King, and the Church, with theii' consent, would never have been restored ; but their schemes failed and came to naught ; they found it to be impossible to rule the kingdom by such men and such means. When the King returned, the old forms of government were not immediately restored ; it was left to the Parliament to do what was best under the circumstances. The result was, Monarchy was re-established and the Book of Common Prayer again declared to be the form of worship for the Church. Secondly. The Act of Uniformity is supposed and said to be for the purpose of coiBpelling the use of the Book of Common 205 «l> Pniynr ; rcrjiiii-ini^r ;,)» •• uiift'i<;iMMl jissciit mikI I'onsr.iit," at., to all that it cont iiins. Anii mijiistly »'j('ct«'T fj'om tluMv liviiijjfs. Alls. Tliis is ji very ])l!Uisil»I(' story iunl luis sonic M[>|n»amii('o of truth. IJut thcio is aiiotlior si(l<» to the story. T\\r, Puritans had previously bound themselves in a Solonin Lcai^iie and (Covenant to "extirpate prelacy" and to abolish the IJook of (•oinmoii Prayer. They had also taught for doctrine, that it was la^^ful and li^dit for subjects to bear arms against the King, and those conivnissioncd by him : and had cai'ried it out in i»ractice, thus placing themselves in a false position. Men of t<^nder consciences indet^d ! Say, stern, self-willed, determined men. But they deserve credit for consistency and steadfastness of ]»ur]>ose, when they refused to adjure, and swear the very contrary. As Bisliop Sheldon said — they would have been kna\es, had they conformed. But they had to thank their own rashness of lieart and month for their unpleasant position and sul3se({uent sutterings. They subscribed the FIRST OATH willingly and " ex animo ;" so consistency and common honesty would prevent them signing the following '' Declaration or Acknowledgement," as found in Clause ix. of the Act. " I, A. B., do declare, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King ; and that I do abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him ; and that I will conform to tlie Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now bv law established. — And I do declare that I do hold there lies no obligation upon me, or on any other person, from tlie oath commonly called The Solemn Leaguk and Covenant, (o endeavour any change or alteration of government either in Church or State ; and that the same was in itself an unlawful oath, and imposed upon the subjects of this realm against the known laws and liberties of this kingdom." iifH BUJ 2or, floNVcvcf iimdi we iii:iy |»ih' iikmi nvIio Iimnci jJactMl tlu'iiiscilvcH in such an unfoituiuitci i>osition ; y«'t wo rmist allow that ihv i)oaco and safety of the realm nMjuired such nienHUies to be taken. Bettcu* that the " two thoiismul '" should l>ede|)rivtation otl'ered them to make some specific trial of their strength, they ventur(;d to suggest to the king in some private audiences, that the use of the Book of ^ *omnion Prayer had b(H?n long discontinue*! ; that many of the people had never heard of it, and had become familiar with an oi)posite method of public woiship ; and that lu; would be acting agreebly with the wishes of tlu; nation, if he weic to abstain fi-oni using the liturgy in strict form in the royal chajiel. * * * * The king replied with some warmth ' that while he gave them liberty, he woukl not liave his own takeii from him ; that lu^ had always used that form of service, which he thought the best in tlui world, and had never discontinued it in jtlaces whero it was more disliked than he hoped it was by them ; that when he came into England, he would not se\eiely inc^uire how it was usevl in other churches, though he doubted not he should tind it used in many; but he was sure he Nvould have no otluM' used in his own chapel" K. Chas. was verv an.Mous tu win o^cJ■ the Piesbyterians to confoi-mitv ; nnd while tilings wrre in abcynncc, he otfer(>d teinis 208 "i. 1 ] for offecting tin; .saino, wliicli wore of .siudi m niitinr, tliiii any one at that timo might liave conformed without compromiBiiig his conscience. On the 2r)th Oct., 1660, nearly two years before tlie jmssing of tlie Act of Uniformity ; also before the Savoy Conference was held ; before ever un alteration was made in the Book of Common Prayer, to which the Puritans of 1604 agreed ; he otfere*! the following easy terms for conformity. " And because some men, otherwise pious and learned, say tlu^y cannot conform unto the subscription i-equired by the canon, nor take the oath of canonical obedience ; we pre content, and it is our will and pleasure (so they take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy) that they shall receive ordination, institution, and induction, and shall be permitted to exercise their function, and to enjoy the profits of their livings, without the said subscription, or oath of canonical obedience." It will be now seen that want of time cannot be pleaded as an excuse, for they had two whole years to consider the matter. It was not from any alterations made in the Book of Common Prayer, for tney were made subsequently. It was not because they objected to Episcopacy, for they offered to comply with Abp. Usher's plan. It was not because they objec-t(;d to the use of a Liturgy, for Baxter had offered one such as they would use. The cause of all the trouble and disappointment they met with, was, they were unac- commodating, and determined on victory. Their desire was to RULE — and not to be ruled ; they were anxious to force their opinions ujion otliers, and were intolerant of any but their own being received ; they did not succeed in their endeavour, because their party was not strong .,nough. 1^ I do not wish to decide these matters by my own opinions, but will give evidence from history. On the 3rd of Jan. 1644, "The Lords and Conmions assembled in Parliament, taking into serious consideration the manifold inconveniences that have arisen by the Book of Common Prayer In tliis kinijdom, and resolvinif, accordinj' 209 to ihv'w rovi-nHut, to n^forni ri'li^lon, ^c, ilr., rlo jtnl^c it neM-Hsarv tliat tlu' Haul Jjook of Coininon Prayer .sliull ho uljoliHlicd, ami tlu' J)irectoiy for th«5 public woi'shljj of Ciod, lierciiiaftor inontioiiod, U' (jstablishc'd and observod iu all clmiclics within tliis kingduni." Tlic cousei.sliop;< removed from their sees ; the cathedral lanorted by the Court, would abate nothing, nor consent to any i)iovisio)i for such as shouhl be ejected. They wonhl indulge no latitude in the surplico, or cross in Uwtism for fear of ostablishing a Schisui, and w«'.ak<'ning the ^ 27 'tf: 210 authority of tJio Dimrh, hk to ]wr liglit of iiMi»o«iny iTulifrnrmt rit^H and ci'inuonit'8. And tho (lourt wviv, willino to shtt out as many uh they could from the EHtabliNhnuiut, to make a uKNKUAii TOLEiiATlON MOKE NECESSARY. When the LordH urged the King'a declaration from Breda, the Commons ro])lied, that it would hu strange to call a schismatical conscience a tender one ; but, BUp|)OHo this had been meant, say tlniy, his Majesty can be guilty of no breach of promise, because the Declaration had these two limitations; a reference to Parliament, and, so fur as was consistent with the peace of the kingdom." There will be some dirticulty found in reconciling this account with the statements made by the objector : that the Bishops " engineered " this and other Acts ; or that their intention was to tolerate all opinions in religion ; and then add, they were never known to yield a prerogative. I think it will plainly ai)pear that the chief difficulty in the way of Conformity, was, the Oatii of the Solemn League and Covenant ; and that the Act of Uniformity, was the deliberate act of the House of Commons, in which the Cleigy had no voice. ^ > •Jll CIIAPTEK XIX. i rOXC'M'SlON. Vfiy little more now loiiuiiiiH to ho said. In brinj^'in^ tliiH work to a conclusion, 1 am not so |in'suni|>tioiiH as to Hn))poRo that T lia\e Holvod cvei'v tlitticultv, I'oniovjMJ cvorv oUjcction out of the way* and that wo shall not cxiu'rionff fuithor troul>lo. \. am afrai«l that evil nion and seducers will Wiix ^vol•M^^ and woj-nr, doccivinj; and ))eing dooeived. j>ut this much 1 claim to have dono ; shewn very clearly that the char<,'cs made a;,'ainst the Hook of Common Pray(M-, by this ** Ivet'ormed E| |k)ss('Ss. Let us go forwrtid-OTiNvard ! Ncitln'i- turnin, found faithful, and at last nowni,^d M-ith sucfess, we must not ovon halt, as if of doubtful luind, inu('h loss turn out of the way. But, go on — as our fathers did- -as (Vaniner, Ridley, and Latimei- did; rc^gardless alike of the assaults of the Ronianist, the eavil of the Oissentej-, or the sneer of the Tnfidel. >■ I t Our system of worship and teaching is so judiciously contiivt^d, so well defined, so complete, so true to Scri]iture ; that if it is but received iu its purity, rightly and duly used ; we cannot lack any thing that is necessaiy to make us wise unto salvation. The purpose of the C/hurcJi of Enghmd is an honest one ; let men examine as closely as they please ; let them investigate our Formularies in the strictest manner ])ossil>le ; yet then aftei" all is done, we may defy them to, find any thing contrary to ( Jod's word wi'itten. The Churcli of England can never he charged with having kept any thing back from the ])eople that it was profitable for them to know. From the time of the Pvoformation down to the present time, the Bible and the Prayer Book in our own language have always gone side by side ; so that every person is furnished with the ifecessary means of testing for himself the truth of wh}»t he is required to believe, I will conclude with some of the last words of Chas. L to his son, afterwards Chas. II., being dying words, and said by one who was greatly tempted to give up the Church Service altogether, they ought to have weight. " 1 do entreat you, as your father and your king, that you never sufier your heart to receive the least clieck against, oi' disaffection from, the true religion established in the Church of England. 1 tell you I have tried it, and, after nuicli search and many disputes, have concluded it to be the best in the •214 world, not only in the community, as Christian, but also in the special notion, as Reformed ; keeping the middle way between the pomp of superstitious tyranny, and the meanness of fantastic anarchy. Not but that (the draught being excellent as to the main, both for doctrine and government, in the Church of England) some lines, as in very good figures, may haply need some sweetening or polishing, which might have been easily done by a safe and gentle hand ; if some men's precipitancy had not violently demanded such rude alterations as would have quite destroyed all the beauty and and proportions of the whole." 215 CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION CHAP. I. . . General OV)jcctionH, « a (( << (( (( (( i( (( tt tt tt ti tt it tt tt II. . III. . IV. . V. VI. . VII. . VIII. . IX. . X. . XL . XII . XIII. . XIV. . XV. . XVI. . XVII . XVlll. Baptism, The Catechism, The Communion, The Articles, . . .... The Apocryplia, Saints' Days, Tradition, Schism, The Commissioners, The Puritans, Kings or Monarchs, Book of Sports, The Prayer Book Unprotestantized The Book of Common Prayer Deformed and Defaced Ordination, • Sacerdotalism, Act of Uniformity Conclusion, Page 13. It 22. it 61. a 73. tt 98. a 114. it 122. ti 130. (( 136. (( 142. « 146. (( 148. u 156. (( 159. led (( 168. a 173. i< 201. ti 204. 211.