... . . . . . . .
* PUSEYISM UNMASKED. . .
--—s -º- -º- N-Z 4-7- A SIN. D. L. . .
52.77 #
• , 6, 7%
SKETCHES FC TIMES. -
BY THE AUTHOR OF
“ GOD IS LOVE,” “BAPTISM, A TRACT FOR THE TIMES,”
&c. &c.
f — —- . . ~~~ --—------— —--- s
“Beware lest any man spoil yon through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all
º - the fulness of the Godhead bodily. AND Y E ARE comir LETE IN HIM.”
l Col. II 8 — ; 0.
LONDON:
JAMES NISBET AND CO. BERNERS STREET.
MDCCCXLI.
Price Twº Shillings. -
•#
s#~




JB Y
5 oz ºf
*Tº sº.s.
* f £,

£2
% *-*~6,4-a.e.,
Z -
/
2 - 3 3
C O N T E N T S.
PART I.
t *'
THE GROUNDs of opposition To Pusey IsM. They are not trivial
and unimportant, but involve Fundamental Truth - - **
PUSEYITE ESTIMATE of The Articles, The Reformers, and The
Reformation - º *- * - - -
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION as an Article of L'aith - - * -
TRADITION as the Interpreter of Scripture - - - - *
PASSAGES ON ROMANISM, including Purgatory, Prayer for the
Dead, Invocation of Saints, &c. - - - - -> º
PART II.
PUSEY ITE PRINCIPLE OF RESERVE in communicating Religious
Knowledge. The practical Effect of this Principle To veil
THE TRUTH IN M YSTERY º - tºº - - º
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT of THE PRINCIPLE OF RESERVE, as re-
gards the Preaching of THE ATON EMENT - - - -
Justi FICATION as explained by Scripture and the Church of England
opposed To PUSEY ISM - - &- - - - *
THE Con NECTION of v A Rious opposiNG SECTS AND HERESIES -
l? A {, },
21
30
40
46
67
P. R. E. F. A. C. E.
——º-
THE following Sketches of Puseyism have one simple
object in view—that of exhibiting the real character of
the doctrine commonly known under this designation,
and of identifying it, modified by various peculiarities,
with that natural religion of the heart of fallen man,
alike opposed to the spirituality and self-renunciation re-
quired on the Gospel plan of salvation, and to the
doctrines of the Church of England as grounded on that
Revelation. The extracts given in these pages from the
Puseyite writers, have been so selected as not to detach
passages, of which the context fairly bears a different
meaning; and such only are quoted as can scarcely fail
to carry with them their own condemnation. The in-
troduction has been carefully avoided of any of those
specimens, unhappily too frequent, of covert and artful
insinuation, of insidious reasoning, and of sophistries,
which the hasty or careless reader might not at once
unravel. It may be asked whether the study of these
writers be generally necessary, to become aware of the
effects of their errors, when those errors are plainly
pointed out? Do we judge it necessary or expedient to
take poison in order to know its effects 2 We are willing,
in such a case, to be satisfied with being taught by the
experience of others. We are never safe in running
needlessly into danger. We have no warrant so to expose
ourselves to temptation and delusion, and no promise
that in so acting, we shall be preserved unharmed. To
try our strength in the subtleties of controversial dis-
cussion, from motives of curiosity, an unsettled temper
of mind, or in self-confidence, is dangerously sporting
with deadly weapons. To be safe or profitable, it must,
in any case, be a deeply serious and prayerful examina-
tion, and a matter of plain and imperative duty.
B
vi PREFACE.
On one point the writer is anxious not to be mis-
understood. No term is employed in the following
pages, except to characterize a system, and as a means of
doing so intelligibly, without having recourse to circum-
locution. To the system also, strictly, is any expression
of hostile feeling confined. And this strong feeling of
decided opposition has been the result of careful inves-
tigation, and derived from an acquaintance with the
writings delineating this theory, from the time of the
first systematic efforts for its propagation, in the com-
mencement of the publication of the “Tracts for the
Times,” now about seven years ago. The writer fully
believes that there are many individuals, superior to
their system, failing clearly to apprehend its evils, and
themselves deceived by it; and such may be startled, to
find themselves called upon to admit, as the sentiments
of their party, statements drawn from these writings,
which shock their better feelings, and in which they dare
not coincide. May the fearful tendency and anti-scriptural
nature of the creed here laid open to their view prove a
timely warning. May others also be deterred from
rushing into the same snare. And lastly, may every
reader seriously reflect, that a mere acquiescence of the
judgment, in any creed, however scriptural, is not re-
ligion. Freedom from error, therefore, in regard to that
nominal belief, will not secure our eternal safety. It is
the religion of the heart, the faith of the Gospel, carried
out into the life, which alone can avail. “The Scripture
hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”
“Who of God is made unto us, wisdom, and righteous-
ness, and sanctification, and redemption.” And in each
heart thus receiving the Saviour, the prevailing desire
will be, in the strength of the Holy Ghost, to “w ALK
worth Y OF THE LORD UNTO ALL PLEASING, BEING FRUIT-
FUL IN EVERY GOOD work.”
PU S IE Y ISM U N M A S K E D.
SKETCHES FOR THE TIMES.
PART I.
THE GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO PUSEY ISM NOT TRIVIAL
AND UNIMPORTANT, BUT INVOLVING FUNDAMENTAL
TRUTH.—PUSEYITE ESTIMATE of THE ARTICLES, THE
REFORMERS, AND THE REFORMATION.—APOSTOLICAL
SUCCESSION AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH.—TRADITION
AS THE INTER PRETER OF SCRIPTU R.E. – PASSAGES ON
Rom ANISM, INCLUDING PURGATORY, PRAYER FOR THE
DEAD, INvoCATION OF SAINTs, &c.
THE DocTRINEs of THE CHURCH of ENGLAND having
been so boldly assailed by the Puseyite party, while yet
professing to belong to that church, no apology is re-
quired for pointing out the undisguised Anti-protestantism
contained in their writings—the Ecclesiastical tyranny
resulting from their principles—and the entire opposition
of their favourite dogmas to those of the Church of
England, and, by consequence, to Scripture, that being
the standard of appeal acknowledged by our Church.
The principles and pretensions of the authors of the
“Tracts for the Times,” have latterly assumed a cha-
racter of development which imperatively demands their
examination. Notwithstanding it may be true that the
B 2
2
abstract style, and general dulness of many of these Pu-
seyite compositions, will preclude their being extensively
read, yet investigation and refutation of their principles are
requisite, from their insidious and dangerous statements,
from the increased activity of their agents, and because
of the various modes now adopted for the diffusion of
their pernicious opinions. In addition to the separate
and more independent works; from the Review and the
Magazine under their patronage, to the cautiously-
worded occasional article, unwarily gaining access into
other publications; from the editorial preface, or the
notes appended to a reprint, or biographical sketch,
to the ‘Village Tale, or Children's Story Book; from
the pulpit effort, to the more private intercourse of the
social circle; no means are left unemployed to dis-
seminate these mischievous doctrines; just so much on
each occasion being developed, as the audience or the
readers are supposed prepared to receive, this wily prin-
ciple of “Reserve” governing every other, with a con-
stancy and perseverance worthy even of Ignatius Loyola
and his followers. The display of learning assumed by
some of these authors, renders them only more capable
of investing error with gayer colouring, and what is false
will never more readily pass current, than when made
plausible by men of talent and ingenuity.
It is the object of the following pages to show that
THE GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO PUSIEYISM ARIE NOT
TRIVIAL AND IN SUFFICIENT
We do not contend for trifles, when we find the para-
mount authority of Scripture denied, and Tradition
exalted as its Interpreter, thus subjecting the Word of
God to the decisions of men, and presumptuously dis-
regarding the denunciation of our Lord, “In vain they
do worship me, teaching for doctrines the command-
ments of men.” We are not contending for trifles, when
“ another gospel, which is not another,” is preached,
and justification is made to depend, in part at least,
upon the obedience—the merit in other words, and the
3
worthiness of man ; the very foundation of the Gospel
plan of salvation by grace, being thus overthrown.
It is not for trifles we dispute, when it is sought to pro-
hibit the proclamation of the Gospel; to keep back the
declaration of the atonement of Christ for the salvation
of sinners, on the miserable pretext that the theme is too
lofty and too mysterious, to render its universal promul-
gation consistent with due reverence. O the impious
folly of acting in direct opposition to the command
of God, with the wretched profession on our lips of
religious deference and awe Are we better judges than
God, of the mode in which our reverence for the mys-
teries of redemption shall be shown 2 Shall we dare to
disobey the solemn command to “preach the Gospel to
every creature,” with the hypocritical plea in our mouths,
and the wicked presumption in our hearts, of assuming
that we have more reverence for God than he claims for
his own perfections, and that we have a right to conceal
from our fellow sinners, that amazing display of those
perfections, as exerted for our redemption, which it has
pleased Him of infinite mercy to make known as his
“GIFT’” — “Eternal life, through Jesus Christ our
Lord.” Shall we incur the deep responsibility of thus
treating the heavenly message of “peace on earth, and
good will to men º’ We do so treat this revelation, by
joining with those who refuse to proclaim without reserve,
the only “name under heaven given among men,
whereby we must be saved;” and we are partakers of
their criminality, when we think, or speak lightly, of
this guilty betrayal of the immortal interests of our
fellow creatures.
PUSEY ITE ESTIMATE OF THE ARTICLES, THI E
REFORMERS, AND TIl E REFORMATION.
As we proceed in the investigation of the doctrines,
3 y
2
advocated by the authors of the “Tracts for the Times
4
and their associates, various other oppositions to Scrip-
ture, and the Church of England, (of which they yet
profess to be members,) will appear. In the mean time,
let us examine how far the charge of heresy is justly
alleged against these writers. What then is heresy %
If it be to hold opinions ‘contrary to some Article of
the Faith, or something which, by necessary conse-
quence, leads to the subversion of some fundamental
truth.”— If this definition be correct; if opinions con-
demned alike by Scripture, and by our Articles and For-
mularies, be heresy, then the authors in question are
clearly amenable to this charge, if it be shown that
the foregoing statements are substantiated by their
writings.
But first, and as indicating their own suspicion, of the
difficulty of reconciling their sentiments witH THE ARTI-
CLES, the attempt to set aside their authority must be
noticed. The 71st “Tract for the Times, represents the
“Settlement of religion at the Reformation as incomplete and
defective.”
Then states the Articles to be
“Scarcely more than protests against specific existing errors
of the sixteenth century, and neither being, nor professing to be,
a system of doctrine.”
It is added, that
“They have practically superseded previous Catholic teaching
altogether, which they were but modifying in parts.”
It is admitted in this Tract (though not in some other
writings of the same class,) that nothing can be pointed
out in the English Church, which is not true as far as it
goes, and that the complaint is of “ omissions;” and with
this specious subterfuge, do the “Tractarians” defend
themselves, when they advocate the superstitious ob-
servances of antiquity, and a servile submission to the
decisions and practices of a corrupted age of the church.
5
On this plea of omission do they depend, as sufficient to
shield them in all their manifest discrepancies from the
doctrine of the Church of England. Standing plainly
in need of some plausible device for escaping from their
inconsistencies, it will scarcely be denied, that if a some-
what ingenious, it is at least a deceptive and unworthy
evasion.
But again, are these Articles “mere protests against
some existing errors?' Why these writers desire to
assume that they do not “profess to be a system of doc-
trine, has been seen, but they were “agreed upon in the
Convocation of 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of
opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true
religion.” They are put forth as “containing the true
doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s
|Word.” The question now before us does not include
the argument for the scriptural character of these Articles.
It is simply this :—Can those claim to be Churchmen
who oppose their “true, usual, and literal meaning,” as
“ the doctrine of the Church,” by adding to them those
figments of antiquity rejected by that church 7 Granting
for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the Articles
were protests merely against Romish errors, what is the
result? Why that not according in their statements
with these protests, the Tractarians are no more Church-
men than before.
The disparaging language used respecting THE RE-
ForMERs of our CHURCH, AND THE REFORMATION, further
illustrates the Anti-Protestant nature of the Puseyite
principles. One of the party, after much general con-
demnation of the Reformers, ends by wishing “ to have
nothing to do with such a set,” a judgment formally
defended by his Editors, who also inform us that their
sentiments differ materially from those of our Reformers,
“About sacramental grace, especially in the holy Eucharist,
about the power of the keys, Apostolical Succession,” &c.
* * Declaration’ prefixed to the Articles.
+ See Preface to the Second Part of Froude's Remains.
And they add—
“Compare the sayings and manner of the two schools, (namely
the Reformers, and the Fathers of the fourth century,) on the
subjects of fasting, celibacy, religious vows, voluntary retirement,
and contemplation, the memory of the saints, rites and cere-
monies recommended by antiquity... and especially on the great
point of giving men divine knowledge ... not indiscriminately,
but as men are able to bear it, there can be little doubt that,
generally speaking, the tone of the fourth century is so unlike
that of the sixteenth, that it is absolutely impossible for the
same mind to sympathize with both. You must choose between
the two lines ; they are not only diverging, but contrary.”
Yes, we have to thank God, that our scriptural Re-
formers appealed to the Bible as their standard, and
could not therefore but adopt a tone in the sixteenth cen-
tury, unlike that of the corruptions of the fourth. Eccle-
siastical history affords convincing proof of the numerous
unscriptural addenda, which had gradually been adopted,
as the practice of the Church at that period, and to this
bondage of superstition, to these puerilities, and vain
traditions, would the Puseyites of the present day bring
us back. Let their words be marked. Formerly a dis-
guise of deference towards the Reformers was assumed—
an attempt was made to show, that the Reformers and
the Articles did not contradict Puseyism; now the mask
is boldly thrown aside, and we are told that we must
“ choose between the two lines;” the tone of the fourth
century is so unlike that of the Reformation, that the
lines “are not only diverging but contrary.” Need
proof be added to this voluntary confession, on the
part of some of the leaders of this new sect, that their
doctrines and views are not those of the Reformation,
and by consequence, not those of the Church to which they
treacherously profess to belong 2 Did space permit, how-
ever, multiplied testimonies might be adduced, of the
depreciating and disrespectful tone of these oppositionists
on the subject, but brevity having been a very principal
7
object in these Sketches, it has been as far as possible
consulted, in limiting the quotations to those indispen-
sably requisite.
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH.
The undue and semi-popish exaltation of the power
and dignity of the Episcopal and Ministerial Offices,
being one grand object and perpetual effort of the Trac-
tarians, it becomes necessary here to produce evidence of
the differing sentiments of the Reformers of our Church.
In this view, and in fact comprising the rest, APOSTOLICAL
succession is most strongly and continually insisted upon
by the Puseyite party, lamenting that the Church of
Fngland does not make it an article of Faith, regretting
“the omission of any direct safeguard in the Articles against the
disbelief of the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession.”
They are comforted however in some degree, by re-
flecting as before, that
“the omissions, or rather obscurities of Anglican doctrine, may
be supplied for the most part by each of us for himself.”
Our Reformers wisely and piously judged the stability
of the Church to rest only in adherence to Scripture.
They did not therefore require a belief in Apostolical
Succession as an article of Faith—a thing necessary to
salvation, because they did not find it so placed in the
New Testament. They there found that the Church was
to be built upon Christ, the Rock of Ages, and so they
left it, with ample scope allowed for private judgment on
minor matters. As expressed by the 20th Article,
“although the Church be a witness and keeper of holy
writ, yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the
same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything
to be believed for necessity of salvation.” That deeply
learned defender of the Church of England, Bishop Jewell,
* Tract 71, page 32.
8
remarks on this subject, “If it were certain that the re-
ligion and truth of God passeth evermore orderly by suc-
cession and none otherwise, then were succession a very
good substantial argument of the truth. But Christ saith,
(‘by order of succession) the Scribes and Pharisees sit
in Moses’ chaire.’ Annas and Caiaphas, touching succes-
sion, were as well bishops as Aaron and Eleazar. God’s
grace is promised unto a good mind, and to any one that
feareth him; not unto Sees and Successions . . . . If so
be the place and consecration only be sufficient, why then
Manasses succeeded David, and Caiaphas succeeded
Aaron. And it hath been often seen, that an idol hath
been placed in the Temple of God.” The grand care of
our Reformers was, that the Church of England should
have the marks of a true Church, as to being scriptural
in doctrine, and in requiring this in her ministers carried
out into their preaching and practice. It is not therefore
Apostolical Succession by which the Church is defined,
but the 19th Article declares “the visible Church of Christ
to be a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure
Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly
ministered according to Christ's ordinance.” And in ac-
cordance with this, Bishop Jewell, in his famous Defence
of the Apology for the Church of England, thus speaks.
“Lawful săccession standeth not only in possession of
place, but also and much rather in doctrine and diligence.”
And again, “for that ye tell us so many faire tales of
Peter's succession, we demand of you, wherein the Pope
succeedeth Peter : Ye answer, in his Chaire, as if Peter
had been sometime installed in Rome, and had sate with
his triple crown in a chaire of gold. And then, having lost
both religion and doctrine, ye think it sufficient at least
to hold by the chaire, as if a soldier that had lost his sword
would play the man with the scabbard. But so Caiaphas
succeeded Aaron; so may Antichrist easily sit in Peter's
chaire.”
* One of the Puseyite writers, compelled to admit that Apostolical
Succession is not clearly taught in Scripture, asserts that the Godhead of
9
To those who do not hold a belief in Apostolical Suc-
cession, to be of absolute and indispensable necessity, and
are willing to admit therefore that a difference of opinion
may exist on this point, it has been unfairly objected, that
by this admission they make the Institution of the Minis-
terial charge to be of man and not of God. Now the
foundation and origin of the ministerial office is assuredly
of God—the preaching of the Gospel, and the ordinances
of religion, are his merciful and appointed provision for
the spiritual need of man; but that there were to be
ministers in the Christian Church, does not prove that
ministers at the present day, are such by an unbroken
Apostolical Succession. Those who doubt the absolute
necessity of this belief, or doubt the historical proof, may
yet hold a commission to ministers by divine authority,
and they do so on the ground of a New Testament ap-
the Holy Ghost is nowhere so taught, and that consistency would oblige
the rejection of both doctrines if either—that they must both stand or
fall together, if clear Scripture proof be demanded.” Surely the falsehood
of this assertion scarcely needs remark, but a passage from the Homily
for Whitsunday, may serve to show Tractarian consistency with Church of
England doctrine. That “the IIoly Ghost is the third Person in the
Deity, distinct from the Father and the Son, and yet proceeding from
them both, may be easily proved by most plain testimonies of God's holy
word. No man possibly can doubt thereof unless he will blaspheme the
everlasting truth of God's Word.”
The author of this most objectionable Tract, proceeds in the same
strain to assume, that of other important doctrines, Justification by Faith,
Original Sin, the Atonement, &c. nearly the same thing may be said as to
there being little about them in Scripture! and asks especially whether any
“ Church doctrine,” as it is termed, “about the power of Absolution, the
Christian Priesthood [meaning Succession, and the Sacrifice of the
Eucharist] or the danger of Sin after Baptism, is so disadvantageously
circumstanced in point of evidence, as Justification by Faith only.”f To
what unhallowed and dangerous positions will men resort in defence of a
favourite theory, unscrupulously attempting in its behalf to shake the
evidences of Christian faith, but which, let us thank God, are too clear and
decisive to be affected by Sophistry.
* Tract 85, p. 4. + Tract 85, p. 12.
1()
pointment. In other words, that the christian ministry is
of divine authority, does not necessarily include the further
proposition, that the ordination of ministers at the pre-
sent day is derivable from apostolic times, in indisputable
regularity, without one flaw or link in the chain wanting
in any single instance, for eighteen hundred years. Bishop
Hall, in his celebrated treatise, ‘Episcopacy by Divine
Right, leaves this point entirely out of the question, and
wisely places the argument for episcopal authority on
Scripture ground. Let those who are themselves satisfied
with the evidence, hold the doctrine of Apostolical Suc-
cession, but without perverting it to the object of unscrip-
turally magnifying the spiritual power of the clergy in
popish guise, as respects absolution, the Sacraments, &c.
thus re-introducing those Romish principles of ecclesi-
astical tyranny banished at the Reformation.” Nor yet
let it be demanded that the doctrine of the Apostolical
Succession be made an Article of Faith, thereby insisting
upon an addition to the Articles of the Church of England,
and fearfully approaching to suspending the very existence
of the Church of Christ, not upon the testimony of Scrip-
* The 85th Tract for the Times, among many others, holds very un-
justifiable language on this subject of priestly power and authority. And
speaking of the miracles worked of old by the Prophets, adds, “ and if
baptism be the cleansing and quickening of the dead soul, to say nothing of
the Lord's Supper, they (ministers) do work miracles.”f Comment upon
this arrogant assumption of a power belonging to God alone, would be
superfluous. It is the same feeling which induces the support of the doc-
trine of a ‘real presence,’ in the Lord's Supper, in a form so nearly re-
sembling transubstantiation, that its advocates admit that the distinction
cannot well be defined in words, and that explanation might infringe on
reverence. It follows that the holy Eucharist is again, as in former cor-
ruptions of the doctrine, to be looked upon as a sacrifice and oblation, and
the Priest as offering it. A real spiritual presence in this holy Sacrament,
“The body of Christ, given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an
heavenly and spiritual manner,”f is the doctrine of our Reformed Church;
but if there be meaning in language, such a construction as this cannot be
put upon the words of this Tract. §
+ Tract 85, p. 95. 28th Article. § Tract 85, p. 97.
1 |
ture, (as “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and
Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone') but upon an intricate historical question of doubtful
proof, not required in Scripture to be believed at all,
and one of those things therefore, having, according to
our 21st Article, “neither strength nor authority, unless
it may be declared that it be taken out of Holy Scrip-
ture.”%
TRADITION, AS THE INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE.
“To THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY; IF THEY SPEAK
NOT ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, IT IS BECAUSE THERE IS
No LIGHT IN THEM.” Is A. vii.I. 20.
In making appeal to the Bible, the different language
used by the Puseyite writers, and by our Church, must be
zemarked. According to the former, equally with the
Romanist, TRADITION IS THE INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE;
but according to the Church of England, “Holy Scrip-
ture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,
is not to be required of any man, that it should be be-
lieved as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite
or necessary to salvation.”f If, therefore, leaving this
principle of the sufficiency of Scripture to teach all saving
truth, we admit that we are to receive it as interpreted
by the Church, we do not believe it at all, in the sense of
the article just quoted, for the decisions of the Church,
and the voice of antiquity, are of no weight here, and are
* It may perhaps be permitted to illustrate the distinction here advo-
cated, by a parallel case. It is equally by divine authority that we honour
kings, and yield submission to temporal rulers, for “there is no power
but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God,” whether civil or
ecclesiastical; but we do not consequently require that the titles of our
kings and rulers, be proved by unbroken succession from the days when
the command was given, in any other sense than that there always have
been rulers, to whom subjection was due by divine command.
# Article VI.
12
only estimated so far as they are contained in Scripture,
or may be proved thereby.
It has been said, that we receive the Creeds as handed
down to us by Tradition, and that our Church therefore
admits its authority. “We take,” say the Tractarians,
“ the tradition of the Church Catholic as the legitimate
Interpreter of Scripture, or of the Apostles' Creed.” But
how does the 8th Article state this point : “The three
Creeds—ought thoroughly to be received and believed.”
Why? Because we received them by Tradition? No;
but because “they may be proved by most certain war-
rants of Holy Scripture.” And here, let the essential
difference be marked, between making a wise and judi-
cious use of what is really valuable, as tested by Scripture,
in the remains of antiquity, and claiming unqualified
submission to their authority as Interpreters of God's
Word. Nor let it be forgotten, in any discussion on this
subject, that this consent of antiquity, so much talked of,
and so ostentatiously paraded, as that to which we are
now required to yield subjection, is itself a mere fable; a
thing which exists on a few points only, aud those not
the points of the present controversy. We, “Ultra-Pro-
testants,” as their opponents are contemptuously styled
by the Tractarians, also delight in antiquity, and desire
to assimilate with primitive Christianity, only we would
contend for a real, and not a nominal and assumed, anti-
quity. Let us go back to the first century, to the first
portion of that century—to really apostolic doctrine and
practice, as developed in the New Testament. Here we
have primitive Christianity. Here, and here only, we
have infallibility; and to this standard, to this alone, we
claim, and are authorized to claim, implicit obedience.
The first Homily exhorts us to “search for the well of
life in the books of the New and Old Testament, and not
to run to the puddles of men's Traditions.” It declares,
that “there is no truth nor doctrine necessary for our
* Tract 80, p. 15.
13
justification and everlasting salvation, but that may be
drawn out of that fountain and well of truth.” And a
judgment is added, to which, on their own principles, our
antagonists ought to bow. “Chrysostom saith, that man's
human and worldly wisdom or science is not needful to
the understanding of Scripture, but the revelation of the
Holy Ghost who inspireth the true meaning of them,
that with humility and diligence do search therefore.”
“Where shall we find Him, who is Truth itself, more assuredly
than in the Catholic consent of his Church 2*
This is the Puseyite argument. But we shall much
more assuredly find Him, through the promised guidance
of his Spirit, in those Scriptures which we are com-
manded to “search” for this very purpose, and which we
are told are “able to make us wise unto salvation.” Let
these antique Churchmen be reminded of the judgment of
their Church in this matter. “We see what vanity the
old school doctrine is mixed with, for that in this word
they sought not the will of God, but rather the will of
reason, the trade of custom, THE PATH OF THE FATHERs,
the PRACTICE of THE CHURCH.” ºf And again, “Our
Saviour Christ taketh not, and needeth not, any testi-
mony of men, and that which is once confirmed by the
certainty of his eternal truth, hath no more need of the
confirmation of man's doctrine and writings, than the
bright sun at noontide hath need of the light of a little
candle, to put away darkness and to increase his light.”f
Shall we trust to Scripture—“the bright sun at noon-
tide,” or to Tradition, at best the “little candle” of
“man’s doctrine and writings 2°
Once more, the authorized Canons of 1603, do not
countenance any appeal to the Fathers, or Tradition,
or the ancient Bishops, as authoritative expounders of
Holy Writ. And this observation is more particularly
requisite, because an unauthorized Canon has been con-
* Tract 80, p. 62. + Homily for Rogation Week.
IIomily against Peril of Idolatry.
14
sidered so important to the cause, that it has latterly
been triumphantly cited in several publications as favour-
ing the appeal to Tradition, and commanding preachers
to “take heed that they teach nothing which they would
have the people religiously to observe and believe, but
that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old Testa-
ment and the New, and that which the Catholic Fathers
and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very doc-
trine.” Now this very questionable Canon is not found
in those at present authorized, and its history ought to
be kept in mind. Strype says, the book of Canons of the
Convocation of 1571, in which the above is found, was
signed by the Bishops and Upper House, but not by the
Lower; that the Queen declined giving it a formal as-
sent, which Archbishop Parker was not able to procure,
nor was it confirmed by Act of Parliament; and Parker
put it forth ‘only for further instruction, and if it pleaseth
not, let God do what is good in his eyes.”
Now in opposition to these testimonies, how do the
Tractarians, as professing Churchmen, speak of Tradition?
“Scripture and Tradition taken together are the joint
rule of faith !” Again, “The argument of Ultra-protes-
tantism may be taken, and we may say, ‘The Bible and nothing
but the Bible, but this is an unthankful rejection of another
great gift EQUALLY from God, such as no true Anglican can
toleratel Pi In the next sentence, it is called “ the sounder
view, that the Bible is the record of necessary truth, or of
matters of faith, and the Church Catholic's tradition is the
interpreter of it.”
What treachery to the authority and sufficiency of
Scripture, and to the Author of Scripture is this, under
the mask of humility and deference to the Church 1 Not
content with taking the aid of historical testimony, in
the legitimate mode, for proving the Canon of Scripture,
the authority of antiquity is assumed and superadded,
for the interpretation of the Inspired Canon, and even so
• Tract 78. t Tract 71, p. 8.
15
do the Papists in like manner, “making the Word of
God of none effect through their traditions.” The fol-
lowing is given as to the right mode of ascertaining
divine truth,
“Should it however be asked, whence our knowledge of the
truth should be derived . . . it may be replied, first, that the
writings of the Fathers contain abundant directions how to
ascertain it.”
Surely the reply ought to be, “Search the Scriptures,”
and the Church of England does take the Bible as her
rule of faith, declaring its sufficiency to teach all saving
truth. But the Puseyites, in common with the Ro-
manists, assert that the Inspired Word of God is insuffi-
cient, inasmuch as to ascertain truth, it needs to be
interpreted by Tradition—needs addition by man to make
it comprehensible, thus daringly impugning the wisdom
and goodness of God, as if He had left his Revelation
for man’s salvation, deficient in that which concerns his
eternal safety Our Reformers thought differently.
“Shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge
of God and of ourselves, in any earthly man's book or
writing, sooner or better than in the Holy Scriptures,
written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?”f
Speaking of the doctrine of Purgatory, it is said, “If
Scripture, as interpreted by Tradition, taught it, we
should be bound to receive it.”f. How dangerously sub-
versive of the paramount authority of Scripture, is this
monstrous position of implicit obedience to the teaching
of man
To trace a little further THE RESULTs of this system of
reference to Antiquity, and the writings of the Fathers, as
necessary for a right acquaintance with saving truth.
After a show of learning employed to perplex plain
questions, the insinuation naturally follows, how useful
must be a knowledge of antiquity to clear up these
* Tract 71, p. 34. f Tenth Homily of the 2d Book.
f Tract 71, p. 12.
C
16
doubts, which however owe their existence to similar
subtleties. From the utility to the importance of this
knowledge of antiquity, the inference is easy. Next
comes its assumed authority, and then, it is of course
pronounced indispensable. Having advanced so far, too
much learning is required to ascertain the way of salva-
tion, except through the medium of the expounders of
“ the Fathers'—the students of antiquity, so that the
more part must needs resort to the judgment of the
Church. Hence the undue augmentation of the authority
and power of the priests. Hence, be it observed, the
assumption of spiritual despotism, on the part of the
Romish hierarchy, and hence the slavish and superstitious
subjection of the people to their rule. Is not the course
adopted by the Tractarian School, of the very essence of
Popery, and well calculated to throw the Bible into the
back-ground, as inadequate for the purpose for which it
was given, without the aid of human additions?
The line of argument pursued in the 85th “Tract for
the Times,” on the subject of Tradition, is too flagrantly
mischievous to pass unnoticed. On the subject of suc-
cession, &c. it has been already quoted. The writer
pursues the same reckless course throughout, and from
the infidel tendency of the reasoning, much of it is unfit
for quotation. The argument of its 5th Lecture stands
thus. Accounts of the same things are related in Scrip-
ture with variations or additions. We do not on this
ground reject these differing accounts, therefore, we
ought not to reject the additions to Scripture derived
from Tradition. A very sound conclusion truly. The
author would do well to add a little reverence for Scrip-
ture to reverence for Antiquity.
He further asks,
“Why, when St. John says, “If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness,’ nothing is said concerning Absolution, or
the Lord's Supper, as the means of forgiveness.”
I7
Because we are referred just previously to “the blood
of Jesus Christ” directly, as the means of forgiveness.”
But this does not satisfy our author. Church doctrine,
as it is called, must be supported, and therefore, assuming
that if ancient it must be right, it is to be taught and
believed. If not developed in Scripture, then tradition
develops it as an addition to Scripture—as interpreting it,
so that in any case “Church doctrine” must be maintained,
though the author's own conclusion is,
“Certainly the tone of the New Testament is unsacramental,
and the impression it leaves on the mind is not that of a Priest-
hood and its attendant system.”f
We have seen something, and shall see more, of the
unscriptural system, sought to be upheld under this
specious title of Church doctrine, and our author's con-
clusion is undoubtedly a just one, that recourse must be
had in its behalf, to other sources than Scripture. We
do not read there of Absolution as the means of forgive-
ness, or that forgiveness is dependent on the will of man,
and therefore neither dependent on any priestly power of
Absolution, nor yet on the administration or the refusal
of the Sacraments. For otherwise, the Priest, and not
Christ, would be the Giver of Salvation, and the with-
holder also, according to his will. And it needs no
proof how awfully similar doctrine, has practically pre-
vailed in the Romish Communion, nor how surely, early
and gradual corruptions of the nature alluded to above,
prepared the way for the Papacy. We willingly admit
with the Author therefore, that the tone of the New
Testament is unsacramental in any such sense, and that it
is ‘not that of a Priesthood’ with any such ‘attendant
system.’ Something very different from this, is that
affectionate reverence in regard to the sacred office of
the Ministers of the Gospel, instilled in the New Testa-
ment. “To esteem them very highly in love for their
* “Faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins.”
Homily on Salvation.
t Tract 85, p. 58.
C 2
18
work's sake,” who “ have spoken unto us the word of
God—to obey them that have the rule over us,’ and to
follow their faith—such as these constitute the instruc-
tions given in Scripture, respecting this important part
of christian feeling and conduct, and in which our
spiritual welfare is so nearly concerned, regarding the
benefits to be derived from the divinely-appointed ordi-
nance of the Christian Ministry.
We must again return to the Tract which has called
forth these remarks, and for the purpose of exhibiting in
the strongest light, the evil tendency of the determination
to exalt Tradition, and how fraught with danger is the
result. Church doctrine, as it is so falsely called, and
Scripture, are throughout identified in this production,
as alleged to rest on equal authority, so that consistently
to reject one, is to reject both. And to gain admission
for this groundless assumption, that the traditions of
antiquity, and the truth of Scripture, stand on the same
evidence, the wicked attempt is made to shake the testi-
mony for the Canon of Scripture. A writer capable of
constructing so plausible and ingenious a specimen of
sophistry can scarcely be ignorant enough to be uncon-
scious that it is mere sophistry; but if his readers will not
adopt his theory and allow the equal authority of tradi-
tion, he is regardless of the mischief of unsettling their
minds, as to the evidences for the present Canon of Scrip-
ture. The whole argument rests on the fallacy that we
are bound to receive the opinions of the Fathers, and
their interpretations of Scripture, because we admit their
testimony to the historical fact, that such and such books
of Scripture were accounted canonical, and formed the
received Word of God. We would only ask, do we at
the present day receive all the opinions of persons, because
we admit them to be credible witnesses of certain facts 2
Upon the ground of the consent of antiquity, the 71st
Tract reposes,
As to “the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.” “We
have the certainty of possessing the entire truth as regards the
19
high theological doctrines, by an argument which supersedes
the necessity of arguing from Scripture against those who
oppose them.””
Now, however valuable corroborative historical testi-
mony may be as to facts, Articles of Faith must be shown
to be according to Scripture, and no consent of anti-
quity,' therefore, can “supersede the necessity' of so
proving them. The exhortation to the Thessalonians,"f
“Stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been
taught, whether by word or our Epistle,” is cited, as
requiring “adherence to the Catholic truth, written and
unwritten " The writer would have his readers forget,
in appreciating this wretched sophistry, that it was the
“traditions”—the things delivered, by inspired Apostles,
the Canon of Scripture not being then complete, which
the Thessalonians were commanded to “hold fast.” The
same argument is used also in the 85th Tract,S with
reference to this and other passages, with this addition,
that
“ St. Paul himself tells us in Scripture, that there are truths
not in Scripture”—that “the circumstance that it is extra-
scriptural is no proof that it is unscriptural.”
Certainly not; it may be in accordance with Scripture,
but also it may happen that it is not so, and, as mere
tradition, can have no independent authority in matters
of faith. With regard to “St. Paul telling us that there
are truths not in Scripture,” the absurdity is too manifest
almost to require notice, of styling that “Tradition,” in
the sense here intended, which he received by inspiration
from God. “‘I delivered unto you’ (gave by tradition)
‘first of all that which I also received' by tradition,” is
the sagacious comment here given, as suiting the author's
argument in behalf of the authority of Tradition. The
Tractarians make much of these passages, however, as
supporting their cause, for in another place we find again,
* Tract 71, p. 28. + 2 Thess. ii. 15. j Tract 80, p. 64.
§ P, 43. || 1 Cor. xi. 2, 16, 23 ; xv. 1–3.
20
“The voice of God, whether oral or written, “the traditions
which we have been taught, whether by word or epistle, St.
Paul has pointed out as the anchor we are to hold by.”
It is indeed a sinking cause which needs to be thus sus-
tained by misrepresentation of the most obvious meaning
of Scripture.
A parallel is attempted to be drawn, in order to sup-
port the authority of the Fathers, between the contradic-
tions in their writings, and the apparent difficulties and
differences in Scripture narratives of the same transaction.
“If the Fathers contradict each other in words, so do pas-
sages of Scripture contradict each other.”f
As further specimens of the mode in which their au-
thority is upheld, the following may suffice:—
“To say that the ancient Fathers were holy, self-denying, and
devout, but at the same time were weak, injudicious, and fanci-
ful, is to transgress the first principle in christian morals, which
is, that he “who doeth the will shall know of the doctrine.’”f
Not a very fair deduction this. It is one of those false
conclusions, drawn from insufficient premises, so frequent
with these writers. So far as they do the will, they will
know of the doctrine. But not being infallible, and
exempted from falling into error and sin, the Fathers
assuredly may be weak, injudicious, and fanciful, like
other men, nor does it unhappily require an extensive
acquaintance with their writings to prove them such in very
many instances. We have again the rash assertion, that
“we cannot allow ourselves to think slightingly of apos-
tolical Fathers, without thinking so in some degree of
Apostles,” &c.S. It is almost needless to observe that this
is a fallacy of the same kind, by which to exalt unduly
the authority of the Fathers in matters of faith, and to
place their opinions on ground similar to that of inspired
Apostles in the New Testament. The perpetual citation
* Tract 86, p. 40. t Tract 85, p. 80.
Tract 80, p. 46. § P. 67.
21
of the Fathers for this purpose, in a mode implying that
their decisions are imperative, is a lamentable proof of
the desire to exalt Tradition. It is also very observable,
how indiscriminately the name of any Father is used as
authority, to whatever century he may belong, or how-
ever he may have been convicted of heresy, fanciful in-
terpretations of Scripture, or superstitious observances
and predilections. Yet there is scarcely an error, heresy,
or absurdity, which may not be advocated as an opinion
of one or other among these ancient doctors. When such
a course is resorted to, and enforced as needful for teach-
ing the sense of Scripture, is not the inference a just one,
“LO ! they have forsaken the word of the Lord, and what
wisdom is in them ’’’
PASSAGES ON ROMANISM.
After the preceding specimens of semi-papal teaching
on the subject of Tradition, it will further illustrate the
popish tendency of the doctrine advanced by the authors
of the “Tracts for the Times,” to quote a few passages,
showing THEIR MoDE OF DEALING WITH ROMANISTs, and
the views presented of PURGATORY, PRAYER FOR THE
DEAD, IN voc ATION OF SAINTs, &c.
The 71st Tract, ‘ On the Controversy with the Ro-
manists,’ might seem almost designed to state the argu-
ment speciously for Popery, and feebly for Protestantism.
It is really grievous to see the imposing and perplexing
statements throughout, on the side of Romanism, and on
doctrines having this tendency, with much parade of
learning, and a show of apparent reverence and humility,
when the object appears to be to keep back truth, and
apologize for error in a garb of charity; and also to en-
tangle and entrap the unwary, by a display of mysticism,
difficulty, and incomprehensibility. Transubstantiation,
for instance, that tremendous source of evil in the Romish
Communion, and of tyranny in her priesthood, (declared
22
in our 28th Article to be repugnant to the plain words of
Scripture, and to overthrow the nature of a Sacrament,)
is dealt with on this principle of mystery, and affectation
of superior reverence for the Lord's Supper. It is accord-
ingly advised, that
“The Controversy about the Holy Eucharist be put into the
back-ground, as almost certain to lead to profane thoughts in
the minds of the many,”—and as that which “cannot well be dis-
cussed in words at all, without the sacrifice of godly fear,
while it is well nigh anticipated by the ancient statements, and
the determinations of the Church.”
[Evidently to avoid the conclusion that we know from
the New Testament, the simple and sufficient truth re-
specting this sacred ordinance.*] -
*It is not designed to lengthen these Sketches of Puseyism, by any
extended comments upon the doctrine advanced on the Sacraments, but
a few quotations may show the fearfully delusive importance attached to
a participation in the outward rite. “The denial of the cup to the Laity.
—Considering the great importance of the holy Eucharist to our salva-
tion, this seems a very serious consideration for those who seek to be
saved.”f Again, “The necessity of the Lord's Supper to salvation.”.
[As generally necessary to salvation, says the Church Catechism..] And
again, as applied entirely to this Sacrament, “Our Lord says, “Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life
in you.’”S But the Lord’s Supper not being then instituted, the whole
passage in John vi. (which in the 73d Tract is called the first announce-
ment of the doctrine of the holy Communion,) must be considered as
primarily referable to the spiritual reception of Christ into the heart,
“feeding on him in our hearts by faith;’ and thus most of the older
Fathers understand it, and witness, says Bishop Jewell, “that Christ
speaketh not of the Sacrament, but of the spiritual eating with our faith.”
Augustine says, “Believe and thou hast eaten. Believe in Christ—this
is to eat the living bread.” These are authorities which our patristic
opponents, at least, ought to appreciate. Once more, Tract 73, p. 12,
“The virtue of the holy Communion ; how it conveys to us the body and
blood of the Incarnate Son crucified, and how, by partaking it, body
and soul are made spiritual.” Not a syllable here, or in very numerous
passages of the same kind, as to the worthy reception to obtain any spi-
ritual benefit thereby. How does such doctrine differ from the Romish
Opus operatum?
t Tract 71, p. 10. j Tract 85, p. 65. § Tract 71.
23
As might be expected, the writer shrinks from doc-
trine, on the pretext of reverence for sacred things, and
wishes to represent the Controversy as touching chiefly
some points of practice.
“The arguments to be urged against Romanism ought to be
taken from such parts of the controversy, as bear most upon
practice, and kept clear of what is more especially sacred and
painful to dispute about.”
That is to say, keep clear of the really important
points. Keep back the Protestant principle, on which
hinges the whole matter in dispute—namely Justification
by faith, without the deeds of the law; and then, when
there is no root whence it can spring, talk about practice,
for this will do Popery no harm. Neither, we may add,
will it hurt Puseyism, for here too it joins hands with
The Sacrament of Baptism having been the subject of a separate Tract,
it remains only to notice here the Puseyite statements respecting sin
after baptism. The language used, Tract 80, for example, on “the
question of sins being admitted to pardon and remission after baptism,”
the “difficulty of obtaining forgiveness,” &c. can proceed only from those
overlooking the scriptural method of forgiveness, “If any man sin, we
have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is
the propitiation for our sins.” And further, such sentiments are either
introductory to the dangerous papal doctrine, of the distinction between
venial and mortal sin, or they indicate very inadequate ideas of sin–of
the daily and hourly sins of the holiest Christians, for, “If we say that
we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” and
“There is not a just man upon earth that doeth good, and sinneth not.”
One of these writers" speaks of a state of repentance being “less honour-
able, perhaps less safe, than one in which the baptismal robe has not been
defiled,” which is just as much as saying, that there is in some no sin,_
no soiling of this baptismal robe of fictitious, non-existent innocenceſ
The same author uses words elsewheret equivalent to the assertion that
every baptized person must be saved, for this would be the legitimate in-
ference from the argument, that in every instance, that spiritual life, and
principle of holiness, are communicated in the administration of the out-
ward rite, which life, “hid with Christ in God,” we are taught in Scrip-
ture is SALVATION.I
* Dodsworth. + “On the Efficacy of Baptism,” page 11.
i Col. iii. 3, 4.
24
Popery, and both have their source and their strength, in
the pride and self-righteousness natural to the human
heart.
The writer of this 71st Tract, does not consider that
the communion of the Church of Rome, need be quitted
on account of the doctrine of Purgatory.
He says, “ The Creed of Pope Pius—the Romish Creed of
communion, only says, “I firmly hold there is a Purgatory, and
that souls therein detained are aided by the prayers of the
faithful, nothing being said of its being a place of punishment.
Now supposing we found ourselves in the Romish communion, it
would be a great relief that we were not bound to believe more
than this vague statement, nor should we, I conceive, on account
of the received interpretion about Purgatory superadded to it, be
obliged to leave our church.”
But, in this vague statement, as it is called, is it not
plainly implied, though cautiously worded, that Purgatory
is a place of punishment 2 If not, why should souls be said
to be detained there at all, or how otherwise should they
need help-the aid of the prayers of the faithful ? The An-
glican Church,+ states Purgatory to be “repugnant to
the word of God,” and is it not virtually setting aside the
Atonement of Christ, to substitute for it, an atonement on
the part of man for himself? And if souls in Purgatory
be “aided by the prayers of the faithful,” then it is not
the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanseth from all sin, and
‘ his one oblation of himself once offered,’ was not ‘ the
full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis-
faction,’ which our Church, in accordance with the Bible,
teaches that it was. We have still to inculcate human
merit; the prayers of the living are necessary for the
dead, and hence follows all the priestcraft of Popery,
“ with its sacrifices of masses, (in the which it was
commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the
quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,”)
and every other refuge of lies, with which it beguiles the
* Tract 71, pp. 15, 16. + 22d Article.
25
souls of men to their destruction. Yet how leniently do
this writer, and others of his class, continually speak of
these abominations.” Purgatory has ever been the grand
engine of the Papacy, its master-lie, and soul-destroying
delusion to persuade men, that when they have passed
into etermity, their final doom is yet undecided, and in
the power of the priest, or at least within reach of the
influence of the purchased masses and prayers of the
priest for the repose of the soul. And the all-important
doctrine rejected by a belief in Purgatory, is the free, full,
and finished salvation, wrought out by Jesus Christ our
Surety, and offered to all who truly believe in Him.
But on this ground our author is silent, and considers
that the corrupt Church of Rome need not be quitted on
account of this monstrous doctrine of Purgatory ! In the
third part of the Homily on Prayer, we find this scrip-
tural summing up of the subject, after the reasons for not
praying for the dead. “Neither let us dream any more,
that the souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by
our prayers; but as the Scripture teacheth us, let us
think that the soul of man—goeth straightways either to
heaven or else to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer,
and the other is without redemption. The only Purgatory
wherein we must trust to be saved, is the death and
blood of Christ, which if we apprehend with a true and
stedfast faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our
sins—‘with the one oblation of his blessed body and
precious blood, he hath made perfect for ever and ever,
all them that are sanctified.’”
In regard to the IN vocation of SAINTs and PRAYER
FoR THE DEAD, the 75th Tract for the Times, (consisting
of selected portions of the Breviary for devotional use,)
* “Speak gently of our Sister's fall,” is the language of another,t as
regards Rome. Speak, let us rather say, as our wiser Reformers did,
of her “blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits,” I and we shall speak
more like those who feel the worth of immortal souls, and dare not trifle
with their everlasting welfare.
+ Keble's Christian Year, 1 31st Article.
26
includes so many objectionable passages of the above
kind, and so many specimens of specious and subtle
reasoning in favour of some of them, that it is altogether
beyond the limit of these brief Sketches to discuss or
quote them. But may it not be fairly asked, why publish
at all for Protestant use such passages * Why but to
bring them forward in a plausible and misleading form,
mixed up with truth, and wearing the deceptive aspect of
devotion. For the disciples of this new Oxonian school
of opposition to the doctrines of the Church of England,
speak elsewhere of prayer for the dead, not as a corrup-
tion, but as a practice, of ancient date, consolatory to
the feelings of mourners, &c. In the “Plain Sermons,
by Contributors to the Tracts for the Times,” to which
further reference will be made, it is said—
“Whether we can do them (the dead) good or no, we per-
haps know not.”f The 85th Tract goes further, stating it as
“ the church's doctrine [Tradition] that there is an interme-
diate state, that in it the souls of the faithful are purified and
grow in grace, that they pray for us, and that our prayers
benefit them.”f
“Appended to this selection from the Breviary, are
services in commemoration of Bishop Ken and for the
* Why give for example such as the following, and without animadver-
sion or observation ? “Blessed Laurence, Martyr of Christ, intercede for
ws.” “Grant that by the deserts of (Peter and Paul) we may obtain ever-
lasting glory.”f “And meekly implore, Our pardon may wait, On
his triumph in heaven.”f We are informed, p. 119, that “ only one
hymn here translated savours of Romanism,” and that just cited is not
the hymn pointed out, so that the writer does not think it Popery ! In
furnishing portions of the Breviary as models of devotion, ought these and
similar things to have been included ? Was it needful, or would it have
been done but to serve a purpose—to show that Prayer for the Dead,
Invocation, in one form or other, of saints, &c. were practices of con-
siderable antiquity, and with these men, this is tantamount to the defensi-
bleness, though more is constantly insinuated, than openly and candidly
stated; often rather implied, than directly asserted.
+ Page 104. | P. 48.
* Page 125. + P. 81. f P. 121.
27
anniversaries of the death of friends, and here we have
as prayer, for in this connexion it is nothing less, “ May
their souls rest in peace,” and again, “Into thy hands
we commend their spirit.”f What need on any other
supposition than that of praying for the dead, of com-
mending the spirits of those already departed ? In the
previous sentence we have, “ In the valley of the shadow
of death, They shall fear no evil.” The twenty-third
Psalm is indeed strangely applied, to such a purpose as
that of intimating, that those blessed dead which die in the
Lord, are still in that valley of the shadow of death,
through which they have safely passed, made “more than
conquerors through him that loved them.”f
It is true that some of the addresses to the virgin &c.
included in the portions of the Breviary, given in this
75th Tract, are animadverted upon, but other things of
the same kind are palliated and excused. Brevity admits
only a single example. §
“As to the confession in which is introduced, the name of the
blessed Virgin and other saints, this practice stands on a different
ground. It is not a simple gratuitous invocation made to them,
but it is an address to Almighty God in his heavenly court, as
surrounded by his saints and angels, answering to St. Paul's
charge to Timothy, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and
the elect angels, and to Daniel and St. John's address to the
angels who were sent to them. The same may even be said of
* The Vesper Service contains that which may serve as an exposition of
the meaning of the above, “May the souls of the faithful through God's
mercy, rest in peace.” p. 81.
+ Page 147.
I It is unnecessary to adverthere to the painful and cheerless represen-
tations of the separate state, made by some of these writers, and by a
few others, further than to observe, that they owe their origin, not to Scrip-
ture, but to the opinions of some of the Fathers—among them one so
early as Tertullian. As a reputed Montamist, we may well suspect the
soundness of his judgment on other points, and allow it also to serve as a
warning, against admitting merely human opinion as authority in matters
of faith.
§ From page 10.
28
the invocation, “Holy Mary and all Saints,’ &c. in the Prime
Service, which Gavanti describes as being of very great an-
tiquity.”
Now first we may observe that this address cannot
answer to St. Paul's charge to Timothy, or derive any
support from it, unless we are at liberty to read, the
Virgin, the Baptist, Peter, Paul, and all Saints, for
* God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,'
in whose presence St. Paul supposes himself as giving the
charge. Neither can it answer to Daniel and St. John's
address to the angels sent to them, for Daniel was re-
questing information, not praying to the angel, and St.
John was twice rebuked, and not encouraged by the
angel to worship him. “See thou do it not.’ But further,
this is not ‘an address to Almighty God, as surrounded'
merely by his saints and angels. With the sophistry and
misrepresentation so usual with these writers, it will be
found that instead of being as above stated, it is actually
confessing to the Virgin and the Saints, equally with God,
and their prayers are requested—in plain English, without
the help of a jesuitical comment, it is praying to the Vir-
gin, to these Apostles, to the Saints, and—to God. The
following are the addresses in question.*
“Prime Service. People. I confess before God Almighty,
before the Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, the blessed Michael
Archangel, the blessed John Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter
and Paul, before all Saints, and thee my Father, that I have
sinned too much in thought, word, and deed. It is my fault, my
fault, my grievous fault. Therefore, I beseech thee, blessed Mary,
Ever Virgin, the blessed Michael Archangel, the blessed John
Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all saints, and
thee my Father, To PRAY THE LORD Our GoD For M.E.”
“Holy Mary and all the Saints, INTERCEDE For Us To THE
LoRD, that we may be worthy of his help and salvation, who
liveth and reigneth world without end.”
* Pp. 61, 62.
29
The Author adds,
“These usages certainly now” [if now—then always] “do but
sanction the direct worship of the blessed Virgin and the Saints,
but it is worth pointing out, that as on the one hand they
have more claim to be considered an integral part of the
service, so on the other, more can be said towards their justift-
cation than for those addresses especially under our conside-
ration.”
Nothing more can, or ought to be, said about them, than
that they were earlier corruptions, but still corruptions,
of primitive Christianity, but it is ever a grand object
with the “Tractarians,” to make us forget that a practice
of antiquity, so called, might be a corruption. This is a
fair specimen of the subtle, apologetic strain, of extenua-
ting and explaining away error, of which complaint has
been made. Let the reader decide whether justly or
otherwise.
PART II.
PUSEYITE PRINCIPLE OF RESERVE IN COMMUNICATING RE-
LIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE.--THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS
PRINCIPLE TO WIEIL THE TRUTH IN MYSTERY.—FURTHER
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RESERVE AS RE-
GARDS THE PREACHING OF THE ATONEMENT.-JUSTIFI-
CATION, AS EXPLAINED BY SCRIPTURE AND THE CHURCH
OF ENGLAND OPPOSED TO PUSIEYISM.–THE CONNECTION
OF WARIOUS OPPOSING SECTS AND HERESIES,
IT remains to consider THE PUSEYITE PRINCIPLE of RE-
SERVE in communicating religious knowledge, and to trace
this fruitful source of error in its practical working and
effects, as actuating the obscuration of truth IN MYSTERY ;
developing itself further as regards the character of preach-
ing, in the concealment on system of THE DoCTRINE OF THE
Aton EMENT ; substituting in place of this teaching, the
cultivation of NATURAL PIETY, to which as in fact, ‘making
men meet to receive grace’—the understanding of divine
things will be communicated ; thus virtually overthrow-
ing the doctrine of Scripture and the Church of England,
on the subject of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, and resting
that justification, in part at least, on the worthiness and
merit of man, as the result of obedience on his part, instead
of teaching that obedience as the fruit and consequence of
justification—the good fruit from the good tree. And lastly,
THE connecTION of various sects and heresies will be
noticed.
Let us first examine THE PRINCIPLE OF RESERVE, and
31
notice also its necessary result of obscuring the truth IN
M1 YSTERY.
The 80th Tract for the Times, is that developing in
detail the doctrine of Reserve, but the 87th has since
been added on the same subject, apparently in consequence
of the censure which the first had so justly encountered.
To examine and refute every objectionable position ad-
vanced in these Tracts, or in other publications noticed in
these brief Sketches, would of course be impracticalle,
but it is only necessary to show the pervading character
of the doctrine contained in them, and this is the more
requisite with regard to the 87th Tract, because it has
been lately stated by Dr. Pusey, * to have superseded the
* In his late Preface to his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford. In conse-
quence of the view given subsequently in these pages, it may be well to
explain, that this Preface, (containing Dr. Pusey’s elaborate defence of
the doctrine of his party on Justification, illustrated by numerous passages
from the Sermons of Mr. Newman,) comprises substantially the senti-
ments of the “Plain Sermons, by contributors to the Tracts for the
Times,” so frequently quoted in the following pages. In a word, we are
justified at baptism, therefore no subsequent conversion is needful, but—our
continuance in a justified state depends upon ourselves—upon our own
works, and will do so to the end. St. Paul says, “being justified by
faith” (not by baptism, for we were incapable of faith if baptized as
infants) “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” and
then, having “received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted
and built up in him.” This is not the place to controvert the glosses too
often, as the writer is well aware, put upon these and similar texts. It is
only now designed to mark out the two kinds of Justification. That of the
Tractarian school, is of the law, do this and live, not that of the Gospel,
believe and live—believe and be holy, because of the implanted love of
holiness. The Tractarian scheme, is working for life; not from life,
which principle of life, being also one of love, effectually worketh to
holiness in them that believe. The Tractarian doctrine then, is not that
of a free, a complete, or a present, justification, like that of which we read
in Scripture—like that for which our great Reformers, and noble army
of Martyrs contended, and fom which Dr. Pusey and his companions
now formally acknowledge their dissent. Great names, as respects
learning, have been adduced on their side as on the other, but learning
is not necessarily truth, erudition may be in error; talent and ingenuity
form no security for a right apprehension of spiritual things. And it is
D
32
necessity of any further explanation of the misapprehen-
sions connected with the 80th Tract, and as removing
the grounds of objection by that explanation and further
development. Now it may surprise the Reader to be in-
formed, that not only is there no retractation of the ob-
jectionable statements of the 80th Tract, but that these
are repeated and enforced. The style is more cautious
and more subtle, and care is taken to introduce a certain
amount of truth, which is then explained away and mul-
lified by subsequent contradictions. The writer also
courageously assumes throughout, (though sensibly enough
not undertaking the hopeless task of proving,) that Scrip-
ture is on his side. There is a good deal besides of gra-
tuitous misrepresentation, of the doctrine commonly
understood under the term Evangelical, and even if this
be admitted to arise from ignorance of the principles of
his opponents, they ought at least to have been more
accurately ascertained previously to controverting them.
For the rest, there is much trouble taken as usual, to
make ‘the worse appear the better reason.' It deserves
observation also, that many of the passages cited as
proofs of reserve from the Fathers, will not bear the
peculiar meaning forced upon them, but merely signify,
not a designed concealment of truth, but that spiritual
things could be spiritually apprehended, only by the
spiritually-minded.
The following extracts will sufficiently prove the
identity of the sentiments, with those of the 80th Tract,
to be presently considered. Other specimens from the
87th, will be given in connection with the subjects to
which they refer.
As before, the opinion is strongly condemned,
“That it is necessary to bring forward prominently and ex-
plicitly on all occasions the doctrine of the Atonement.” “It
well known, how soon the purity and simplicity of the Reformation
standard of doctrine, on justification by faith, became corrupted, and
how extensive was that lamentable defection which took place.
33
is a plan thoroughly unscriptural, un-catholic ; we will at
once allow that this maxim of Reserve is directly opposed to it.”
Again, “ The teaching of the Church, which keeps the doc-
trine of the Atonement in the reserve of Scripture P’ “To
suppose that a doctrine so mysterious as the Atonement, is to
be held out to the impenitent sinner, to be embraced in some
manner to move the affections.” “A principle quite opposed to
these modern opinions, which speak of the display of God's
mercy in the Atonement.” “There is no scriptural sanction for
the necessity of our always thrusting forward the doctrine of
the Atonement without reserve.””
Having seen in the above extracts, something of the
fearful character of the statements made on this subject,
the agreement of the principles of the two Treatises will
be seen, by the subsequent references to the 80th Tract,
which will be principally taken as the groundwork of
the following remarks, the doctrine of Reserve being
there professedly unfolded. Its writer's object, in so
urgently pressing the occasionally reserved tone of in-
struction adopted by our Lord, as that to be exclusively
imitated, is easily seen. But the more limited infor-
mation on some points, desirable at the outset, and
before the work of Redemption was accomplished, was
assuredly not that considered desirable or sufficient after-
wards, or the remainder of the New Testament would
not have been added. Though the author may be un-
mindful of the source, it is Socinianism thinly disguised,
thus to endeavour to oppose one part of the Bible to
another, the teaching of Jesus to that of his Apostles
inspired by his Spirit. It is virtually rejecting the
further revelation, vouchsafed after the completion of the
work of salvation, thus to make the necessarily more
obscure and parabolic style of the Gospels, the exclusive
pattern of teaching, after type and shadow were super-
seded by the Great Antitype, and the way ‘ into the
Holiest’ made manifest by his blood. Yet it is on a
* Tract 87, pp. 47, 48, 61, 65, 68, 69.
D 2
34
fallacy of this kind, that a very considerable part of the
argument of the Tract in question is constructed. 4 -
One strong hold of the author, is that the principle of
Reserve, was shewn in the dealings of God with the
heathen world, in keeping back the knowledge of Reve-
lation, and again in the case of the Jewish nation, not
having the full light of Gospel truth under the Mosaic
dispensation. But who does not see that the real question
at issue is not why it pleased God thus to act, but whe-
ther we are to presume to throw a veil over what is now
Tevealed 2
It is asserted,
That “Our Lord never said that he was the Christ,””—that
“It was the Divinity of our Lord which could not be dis-
closed without so much danger.”f
This point is much dwelt upon, to prove the danger
now of an unreserved declaration of the Divinity and
Atonement of Christ. It is surely simply necessary to
contradict such unwarranted statements. The discourses
in St. John's Gospel, for instance, have only to be con-
sulted, to show that our Lord, most explicitly, repeatedly,
and publicly declared his Divinity. HE, therefore, saw
none of this danger arising from the declaration, and
that the Jews understood his claim, is evident, from
their accusation of blasphemy for making himself God.j:
The parable of the new wine received into old bottles,
is said
“To indicate the earceeding danger of the Gospel being
areceived into the unregenerate heart of the old man.”$
It need only be observed, in reply, that this eaceeding
danger would be the salvation of the receiver. In ac-
cordance, however, with this Tractarian view of danger,
we have further a representation of “the dangerous con-
sequences,” of “the knowledge of divine truth being
* Tract 80, p. 67. t Tract 80, p. 15. i John x. 33.
§ Tract 80, p. 25.
35
forced upon men of corrupt lives, and put forward without
this sacred reserve.” It may be left to the author to
inform us, how the corrupt lives are to be amended,
without acquaintance with divine truth, and how it can be
received, if not known.
Again, the author considers, as confirming the above
opinions,
“The many passages in the Epistles, in which the Apostle
speaks of his care, not to impart divine knowledge to those who
are not worthy to receive it.”f *
There are not many of these passages, but in none of
them does the Apostle speak of the knowledge of sal-
vation through Christ, which he preached to all, without
exception. It may also be asked, to whom would this
knowledge have been imparted, if only to those who
were worthy to receive it 2 Surely to none of our fallen
race. The next sentence of this strange argument states,
That “A full and adequate reason for this withdrawing and
withholding of divine truth, might be shown in passages which
speak of the great danger of a revelation of God to man,
as a savour of death, as well as a savour unto life.”.
The reply to this most groundless assertion is, that
this is never given as a reason at all, for withholding
the truth, but only named as the awful consequence of
a wilful rejection of an offered salvation.j: We learn
from the Epistles, and from the Acts of the Apostles
that their teaching consisted in preaching Christ, his
all-sufficient Atonement, and remission of sin by his
blood, through faith, itself the gift of God. This was
the doctrine, having for its glorious results, “obedience
to the faith,’ ‘gladness, singleness of heart,’ the devoted-
ness of love, and all ‘the fruits of the Spirit.” But in
opposition to this, we are told by the Tractarian
preachers, of the
“Holy reserve God expects men to practise, in communicating
the high mysteries of Christ to the world! . . . . not to be
* Tract 80, p. 60. + Tract 80, p. 27. † 2 Cor. ii. 14–16.
36
made matter of conversation with all sorts of people, pious and
thoughtless, self-willed and humble.” And it is spoken of as
matter of further lamentation, that “as times are now, one can
hardly keep very unworthy persons from knowing the sayings
which convey the knowledge of the Trinity, and other great
and awful secrets in religion.””
It requires little consideration of such sentiments as
above quoted, to become aware of their practical result
To verL THE TRUTH IN MYSTERY. The knowledge of
divine truth is represented as dangerous, and therefore
not to be indiscriminately communicated. The Bible
furnishes no authority for such maxims, and therefore
the practice of a so-called antiquity, is resorted to in
support of them, and some detached texts of Scripture,
plausibly misinterpreted, are brought forward, as we
have seen, to give colour to them.
But further, the author of this 80th Tract, in common
with the other writers of his party, aims at resolving
into incomprehensible mystery, the plainest truths of the
Gospel, disuniting them from their practical bearing and
influences, and making out a creed for the head, rather
than a religion for the heart. This induces the mode of
speaking of the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incar-
nation for instance, as abstract and theoretical only,
simply to be believed as such, overlooking their spiritual
application, as “the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ,” because an apology is desired
for keeping back the glorious truths of those stupendous
engagements, undertaken by the Trinity in Unity for the
salvation of sinners.
Again, by resolving the Sacraments into merely in-
comprehensible mysteries, the Puseyite writers arrive
at most unscripturally magnifying the outward rite.
Mystery is their favourite resort, on every occasion,
when they design to outstep the warrant of Scripture,
and would introduce subservience to human tradition,
* “Plain Sermons.” XXIX, p. 269.
37
and the corruptions of former ages. To cite the various
passages of this description, would be to quote a large
part of these compositions. The principle pervades the
whole, and is used to defend the most unwarrantable
views.”
In connection with this reserve and mystery, we have
the opinions of the writer of the Tract under censidera-
tion, respecting efforts to promote religion. The follow-
ing may show the line of argument pursued, but the
limits assigned to these Sketches, preclude a full de-
velopment of the subject as thus singularly stated."f
“If the erection of churches, which from easiness of access,
are to invite . . . . is to do the work of religion, then it is more
easy to win souls than Scripture will warrant us in supposing.
On the contrary, if the maxim be true, that men venerate that
which resisteth them, and that which courteth their favour they
despise,”f [a sufficiently heathenish application, be it observed,
of a heathen sentiment, “then have we to fear, lest, rather than
doing good, we be breaking that holy law, that we give not
that which is holy to the dogs . . . For if churches are to be
brought home to all, then are all persons to be brought into
churches, and this by human means.” “Sacred things brought
out of their chaste reserve, and put forth to attract.”
Can such sentiments require refutation with those who
believe, on the authority of the Bible, that it is their
bounden duty to use all legitimate means, for bringing
their fellow sinners, acquainted with the truth as it is in
* It is not intended to deny, in the above observations, in any justi-
fiable sense, that there is much of mystery, that is, much that we are
incapable of fully comprehending, in the doctrines of Scripture, for how
can our finite understandings reach the acts, and the attributes, of an
Infinite God? That which is here condemned is, that man should mystify
what God has revealed; and that a mysterious power of conveying sal-
vation, should be given to Sacraments, of which Scripture knows nothing,
which robs Christ of his honour, and deludes the victims of such doctrine
to their eternal ruin, while trusting to “the form, and denying the power
of godliness.”
f Tract 80, p. 69.
f Thucydides, as cited in the Tract.
38
Jesus, and that they are thus obeying the command of
God, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come
wnto the knowledge of the truth?” If the author be right,
then we are not to be ‘workers together' with God,
in proclaiming that “life and immortality brought to
light by the Gospel,” and “he that winneth souls, is no
longer “wise.”
Again,”
“Much of what is here said may be applied to an indis-
criminate distribution of Bibles and religious publications . . .
we have rather to look with awe on these new dealings of
Providence with mankind. It might be thought . . . that to
bring the truth forward before persons unprepared to acknow-
ledge it does not signify. Such persons cannot receive it, and
therefore the effect is merely nugatory. This does not follow.
That they cannot receive it is the appointment of God, but
our attempting to act contrary to his mode of acting may be
productive of evil. . . . . Are we rightly estimating the eonse-
quence of a bare knowledge of the Gospel 2’
In answer to this extraordinary announcement, it must
be demanded on what ground we are at liberty to pre-
sume to decide upon the state of the heart, and who will,
and who will not receive the Gospel ? What right have
we thus to consider others out of the reach of mercy?
What was St. Paul’s exhortation ? “Preach the word.”
—To those supposed to be prepared to receive it 2 No.
“Be instant in season, out of season.” Preach the
word, plant, water, and trust to God to give the increase.
Let us obey God, and leave the result to him, instead of
presumptuously flying in the face of his commands, and
walking according to the foolish devices of our own
imaginations. Our author supports his theory, by the
usual resort of reference to the Fathers so called. O may
we take the warning, and make the Word of God the
“ lamp to our feet, and the light unto our path.”
The numerous passages discouraging active efforts in
* Tract 80, pp. 70, 71.
39
the cause of God, under a fair-seeming show of humility,
and superior sanctity and devotion, would be too ex-
tended for citation here. It is a principal, and most
mistaken object with the Puseyite writers, to inculcate,
as far as possible, the old corruption of a monastic se-
clusion from the world ; forgetting that good men are
Agents for God on earth, the Instruments whereby He is
pleased to work, and that they must no more shrink
from the imperative practical duties thus devolving
upon them, than neglect to seek strength for their ful-
filment in secret communion with God. “Let your
light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
What a far nobler and more exalted exercise of Christian
self-denial, the abundant labours and the active zeal of
St. Paul, in his arduous course for the everlasting benefit
of his fellow creatures, than the subsequent abandon-
ment of useful exertion and social duty, and the volun-
tary retirement and will-worship of the sequestered
recluse, adopted in an age less pure in doctrine, and
therefore mistaken in practice. The evil of such a life
is seen, in its failing to manifest in the world, and yet not
of it, the living influence of Christian faith and love,
in a resolute opposition to the spirit and conduct of that
world, and with the high and holy determination to bear
that decided testimony for God among men, which may
subserve their eternal welfare, and will most assuredly
bring with it “the reproach of Christ,” but which is,
notwithstanding, “greater riches than the treasures of
Egypt;” and be it remembered, that to take up this
cross and follow him, is our Lord's test of true disciple-
ship.
40
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RE-
SERVE, AS REGARDS THE PREACHING OF THE ATONE-
MENT.
“THE PREACHING OF THE CRoss Is To THEM THAT
PERISH FOOLISH NESS; BUT UNTO US WHICH ARE SAVED
IT IS THE PoweR of GoD.” I Cor. 1. 18.
The principle of Reserve, as it regards the character of
Preaching, in the concealment on system of THE DoCTRINE
of THE ATONEMENT, comes now under consideration.
The depreciation of the importance of preaching, is a
marked feature of Puseyism, and originates in the imita-
tion of ancient abuses.
Preaching, it is said,
“May be necessary in a weak and languishing state, but it is
the characteristic of this system [Evangelical religion, God
grant it ever may be such] as opposed to that of the Church,
and we fear the undue exaltation of an instrument which Scrip-
ture, to say the least, has never much recommended.”
O the daring misstatements of Scripture, with which
the Tracts for the Times unhappily abound ! Was the
uniform practice of the Apostles and first teachers of
Christianity, that of preaching the Gospel or not 2 And
where do we find in the New Testament that preaching
was “never much recommended?” The Parisian Breviary,
among other testimonies, is brought forward with this
object of depreciating preaching.
“In its long services for the feast of Dedication . . . . there
appears no allusion to this end as the object of building
Churches, viz. the converting of persons by preaching. What-
ever objection may be made to this testimony, it serves at all
events to prove what the religion of a former age was.”
And of a dark age too. But whenever the Church has
most flourished, and whenever also the most signal
revivals of religion have taken place, from the days of
* Tract 80, p. 69.
41
the Apostles to the present hour; then has preaching—
the unreserved preaching of the Atonement of Christ,
and the free and full salvation which is in Him, most
abounded. And notwithstanding the opposition or indif-
ference, of nominal or misguided disciples, and the scorn
of a world which lieth in wickedness, it still pleases God,
by his own appointed Instrument, “by the foolishness of
preaching, to save them that believe.” The preaching
of the Atonement, is spoken of by this Puseyite writer,
as “a new principle unknown to former ages.” It was
however very well known to St. Paul and his coadjutors,
when they preached the Sermons in the Acts of the
Apostles.
“This principle,” proceeds our Author, “is that the highest
and most sacred of all Christian doctrines, is to be brought
before, and pressed home to, all persons indiscriminately, and
most especially to those who are leading wn christian lives.”
And why is this course, so strongly reprobated by the
Puseyite school, to be pursued ? Surely that, as “faith
cometh by hearing,” these persons may hear the Gospel
call, “Repent and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out,” and because “the Gospel of Christ—is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.”
The Author adds,
“So far from it being considered necessary to keep persons
from Church on account of irreligious lives, it is usually thought
that every thing is done if they can be brought to it.”
[Where is the New Testament eacample to be found, of
sinners being eaccluded from the preaching of the Gospel 2
It is only to be met with, as these Idolaters of a fictitious
and spurious Antiquity well know, among the figments
and distortions of a later age.]
Again, “The prevailing notion of bringing forward the
Atonement explicitly and prominently on all occasions.”
* Tract 80, p. 63.
42
[How otherwise could the Apostolic reply be given to
the enquiry, ‘What must I do to be saved ?’ Could these
semi-popish Tractarians answer, consistently with their
own eaſpressed sentiments, “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” and if not, are they not
condemned out of their own mouths?] But to continue.
“It, (the prevailing notion of bringing forward the Atonement,)
is evidently quite opposed to what we consider the teaching of
Scripturel Nor do we find any sanction for it in the Gospels 1
If the Epistles of St. Paul appear to favour it, it is only at first
sight!!!”
The writer proceeds to account for “the occasions on
which St. Paul brings forward this doctrine,” but he
must account for its being brought forward on all occa-
sions, and that most “eaplicitly and prominently.” The
true way of accounting for it, however, is that St. Paul
believed Christ to be “the power of God and the wisdom
of God,” and therefore he says, “we preach Christ cru-
cified.”f. He believed that there was “none other name
under heaven given among men whereby we must be
saved,” and therefore, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he
taught continually, that “By Him all that believe are
justified from all things.”
The Author further argues, that when
“St. Paul speaks of himself as at all times preaching Christ
crucified—it will be evident on a little attention that it is not
the Atonement and Divinity of our Lord that he brings
forward / although it is implied in that saying. It is a very
different view, and in fact the opposite to the modern notion,
which St. Paul always intends by it. It is the necessity of
our being crucifted to the world, it is our humiliation together
with Him, mortification of the flesh.”f
* Tract 80, p. 74. f 1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
1 In the “Plain Sermons,” the same assertion occurs. “Jesus Christ
crucified, that is, the taking up our Cross, and following him practically,
in fasting and abstinence, in mortification and self-denial, must be the
foundation on which the faith of high doctrines must be built.” Sermon
43
Argument would appear to be out of place, with
assertion so directly and palpably in face of the truth.
It is as painful as it would be difficult, suitably to
characterize such awful perversion of the plain meaning
of Scripture. Nor ought it to be forgotten, that it is
most essentially Popish, thus to degrade the work of
Christ for sinners, into a legal, self-righteous work on
our part, as a ground of hope towards God, a means of
acquiring a worthiness, as is elsewhere said, for the
blessings of salvation. It is the idea of human merit,
which prompts and pervades such statements, however
plausible and specious may seem the grounds on which
they are maintained.
The “Tractarians” enter their protest against what
they term, “the popular theology of the day,” pro-
nouncing it a striking contrast to what ought to be taught,
because this theology is stated by them to be as follows.
“That the Atonement is the chief doctrine of the Gospel;
that it is chiefly to be regarded, not as a wonder in heaven, and
in its relation to the Attributes of God, and the unseen world,
but in its experienced effects on our minds, in the change it
effects when it is believed.”
It is untrue that the Atonement is not preached by
anti-Puseyite and evangelical theologians, in its relation
to the attributes of God. The defect in this respect will
be found on the other side. But further, the grand prac-
tical question for each of us, is actually comprehended in
xxix. p. 265. [The reader it is hoped, need scarcely be reminded, how
entirely contrary to Scripture is such teaching. We have there first the
faith, and then, as the necessary result, and unfailing test, its conse-
quences. As expressed in the 5th Homily, “Where the faith of Christ
is not the foundation, there is no good work, what building soever we
make. There is one work, in the which be all good works, that is faith,
which worketh by charity; if thou have it, thou hast the ground of all
good works.” And the 4th Homily, “The true, lively, and Christian
faith, is no dead, or unfruitful thing, but of wonderful operation and
strength, bringing forth all good motions and good works.”
* Tract 73, p. 13.
44
the very point calling forth the sneer of our opponents,
namely, “the experienced effects on our minds, the change”
which the true reception of this Gospel doctrine, “effects
where it is believed.” In relation to man, the Atonement
truly is “the chief doctrine of the Gospel,” for its recep-
tion is life eternal. “He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life.” And when this doctrine ceases to be
thus regarded, we may write Ichabod on our National
Church, for its glory will be departed. But we must
first destroy those formularies, which so fully set forth
Jesus Christ in all his Offices, as the Almighty and all-
sufficient Saviour, and the Holy Trinity, as engaged in
that work of inconceivable love and mercy, for us mi-
serable sinners who lay in darkness and the shadow of
death, that we might be made the children of God, and
exalted to everlasting life.
The writer before quoted undertakes to explain, that
“The cause of the extraordinary prevalence of this modern
opinion, of the necessity of preaching the Atonement thus
explicitly seems to be, that the doctrine of the Atonement is
secretly implied in the whole of Scripture.”
There is indeed an “extraordinary prevalence of this
modern opinion” in the Services and the Homilies of the
Church of England, and certainly no great care taken to
keep the Atonement “a secret.” And our Church thus
closely follows the example of Scripture. The preachers
of the Atonement are afterwards actually accused, of de-
veloping a disguised shape of Socinianism, and it is sin-
gularly added, that “all corruptions tend to that Apostasy
which shall deny the Son.” The writer thus unde-
signedly supplies himself and his associates with a most
important lesson, for who so effectually “deny the Son,”
as those who refuse to declare his atonement, as the only
foundation of hope for etermity? “I am the way, the
truth, and the life,” says our blessed Lord himself, as the
sum of his own teaching. “He that cometh to me shall
* Tract 80, p. 79,
45
never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst.”
In demonstrating the anti-scriptural views entertained
by the Puseyite party, it is indispensably requisite, but it
is most painful, to bring to light, even in the foregoing
very limited form, such sentiments as the preceding.
They cannot but grieve and shock the minds of those who
are themselves resting, and desiring to lead others to rest,
on that peace-speaking Atonement of their Lord, which
can alone bring pardon and reconciliation with God. If
there be salvation only in Christ, and yet his Atonement
be the doctrine to be concealed and kept back, on what
ground, so far as the salvation of the hearers be concerned,
can preaching proceed 2 Jesus is able “ to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by Him;” and
we have the promise and the oath of God, in order that
“we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for
refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us.” We can
have this “strong consolation,” only by knowing and
believing that Atonement, which must be the ground of
our hope towards God; and if it be not preached, how
can a minister pretend that he is presenting this only
true source of confidence to his people : Again, “the
love of Christ,” we are told, is the constraining princi-
ple, and if we know it not, how can it influence 2 Yet
so it must be, on the Puseyite principle of systematic
Reserve, and concealment of the Atonement.
To see this more fully, only let us for a moment reflect
on the whole tenor of the New Testament. What is the
uniform principle laid down, as the producing cause
through the influence of the Holy Spirit, of our love to
God, resulting in Christian obedience 2 It is, without
exception, that of the love of God manifested to us in
Christ. “God commendeth his love toward us, in that
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” “Hereby
perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his
* Heb. vii, 25, with vi. 17, 18. + 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.
46
life for us.” “We love Him because He first loved us.”
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life.” And it is on
this ground of his love in Jesus Christ, that God is
pleased to demand our hearts and our love in return.
Can there be a stronger argument, that this love of God
in Christ—Redemption through the Atonement of “the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,”
is to be universally, unequivocally, openly, and fully
declared to our fellow sinners ? It is at least making
ourselves wiser than God to presume to teach otherwise.
It is opposing the method marked out in his Word,
and incurring the tremendous guilt of concealing his
plan of salvation from our fellow creatures, in wilful and
direct disobedience to his command.
JUSTIFICATION AS EXPLAIN ED BY SCRIPTURE AND
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND OPPOSED TO PUSEYISM.
“WE THROUGH THE SPIRIT, wait For THE HoPE of
RIGHTEousNESS BY FAITH.”—Gal. v. 5.
“ The sum of all Paul's disputation is this ; that if
Justification come of works, then it cometh not of grace ;
and if it come of grace, then it cometh not of works.”
3d Homily.
Refusing, as we have seen, to make the Atonement the
subject and foundation of their teaching, the Puseyite
party propose to substitute THE CULTIVATION OF NATURAL
PIETY, to which, as “making men meet to receive grace, con-
ferring a preparatory worthiness for its reception, the
understanding of divine things will be communicated.
It must be afterwards shewn, how entirely the doctrine of
Scripture and the Church of England on the subject of
Justification by Faith, is overthrown by such statements.
* Rom. v. 8, 1 John iii. 16; iv. 19. John iii. 16.
47
A few brief extracts, explaining the Puseyite theology
respecting this natural piety, are previously necessary.
It is stated to be the object of the 80th Tract, to ascer-
tain,
“Whether there is not in God's dealings with mankind, a very
remarkable holding back of sacred and important truths.”
[Inferring hence that we may now conceal what God has
revealed, because it was not sooner revealed !] “as if the know-
ledge of them,” continues our Sophist, “were injurious to persons
wnworthy of them.” [Can the persons worthy of God's favour
be found among us?]
Again,
“As if it were injurious to us, unless we were of a certain
disposition to receive it.” “The manifestation of our Lord
was seem to imply some very great and peculiar danger, when
the heart was not prepared to receive it.”
Now besides that this alleged “great and peculiar
danger,” is a gratuitous assertion, utterly unsupported
by Scripture, it is entirely overlooked in this and similar
observations, which are of continual recurrence, that
the preparation of heart necessary for the right reception
of spiritual truth, is of the Lord, and not of man; and
though the want of that disposition of mind is truly
moral guilt, consequent upon man's responsibility, yet it
is equally true that “the natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolish-
ness unto him : neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned.” The views of the writers
under consideration, upon Baptismal Regeneration, pre-
clude their urging the necessity of this spiritual change
of heart at all, and accordingly the solemn declaration
of the indispensable necessity of conversion, in our Lord's
dicourse to Nicodemus, f is termed “a modern gloss, in
which some persons imbued with modern glosses, will
discern but a practical exhortation to conversion, change
* Tract 80, pp. 3, 60. + John iii.
E
48
of heart, and the like.” It is needless to enter here
upon the mode by which this Tractarian theory is sup-
ported, viz. the “glosses” of a spurious antiquity.
Instead of the conversion repudiated as a “modern
gloss,” we have the two following requisites for the
right reception of the truth.
“We should form high conceptions of the divine promises
and expressions, as, for instance, “This is my body, and the
second requisite, is such an interest as would open our minds to
acquiesce in the proofs of probable evidence. Both of these
would make the reception of the truth to depend upon natural
piety.”f Again, “All divine and saving knowledge is derived
by pains on the part of man.”f
How strongly do the multiplied expressions of this
nature, scattered through these writings, imply wor-
thiness and merit in man, an ability" and natural power,
in our fallen state, to receive heavenly truth without
divine assistance; for we exclude the necessity of Divine
Influence to change and prepare the heart, if we attri-
bute the reception of gospel truth to “natural piety.”
Our tenth Article, it will be remembered, refutes this
idea of natural piety, and power of self-preparation, for
the acceptable service of God. “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.” But Puseyite
doctrine teaches differently.
“That the preparations of the heart which can alone receive
the faith—are by other means than this system (preaching the
Atonement) we cannot but be assured—it is by insisting first of
all if need be on natural piety, the necessity of common honesty,
Tepentance, judgment,” &c."
As a contrast, let the Church of England speak her
own doctrine. “ They are greatly deceived that preach
repentance without Christ, and teach the simple and
* Tract 73, p. 26. f Tract 80, p. 66.
I Tract 87, p. 37. - § Tract 87, p. 50.
49
ignorant that it consisteth only in the works of men—
They may indeed speak many things of good works, and
of amendment of life and manners, but without Christ
they be all vain and unprofitable.” And again, “They
that teach repentance without a lively faith in Christ,
do teach none other than Judas's repentance, as all the
schoolmen do.”* But the Tractarians, directly opposing
their Church's teaching, say,
“We must again repeat the same point. Good works must
ever make a good man.”
They may as well express themselves on the next oc-
casion, in the well-known semi-infidel couplet,
“ For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight,
His can't be wrong whose life is in the right.”
“To ameliorate the heart and practice is the only way to
arrive at the riches hid in Christ.” They further assert that
such a system as above expressed in the Homily, is “opposed to
Scripture—puts knowledge [faith] first, and obedience after-
wards, and says, let this doctrine be received, and good works
will necessarily follow.”f
And what does the Church, to which these men profess
to belong, teach 7 “All holy Scripture agreeably beareth
witness that a true lively faith in Christ doth bring forth
good works.”f And again, “This faith the holy Scrip-
ture teacheth; this is the strong rock and foundation
of Christian religion,” and the 12th Article speaks of
good works as the fruits of faith, which follow after
Justification. Now if Justification be by faith, then
there must be the faith FIRST, because the works follow
after Justification as THE FRUITs of THIS JUSTIFYING
FAITH . wº
As the Theology of Puseyism differs from that of
Scripture and the Church of England, on the preceding
subject, so also, and by necessary consequence on that most
* 1st and 2d parts of Homily on Repentance.
+ Tract 87, pp. 64, and 56.
t 4th Homily, 2d part, and 3d Homily.
E 2
50
important and essential doctrine, JUSTIFICATIon BY FAITH.
Puseyism stands opposed To THIs DocTRINE as ea:-
plained by Scripture and by our Church, because on the
Puseyite scheme, Justification rests, in part at least, on
works, and is the result of obedience on the part of man,
whereas we find Scripture, and our own Church ac-
cordantly, teaching obedience and Christian holiness,
As THE FRUIT AND CONSEQUENCE OF JUSTIFICATION, of a
justifying faith in Christ; the good fruit from the good
tree.
That the above is not a false estimate of the doctrine at
present nnder our investigation, the following extracts
will abundantly prove. The 80th Tract before noticed,
supplies some striking instances of the truth of what has
been advanced.
“Fully to know that we are saved by faith in Christ only, and
not by any works of our own, and that we can do nothing
excepting by the grace of God, is a great secret—the know-
ledge of which can only be attained by obedience as the crown
and end of great holiness of life.”
The doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ, it will be
observed, is admitted here in words, for to deny it would
be a bold, and perhaps also an undesired step, and even
a Papist would scarcely object to a statement, so clogged
and encumbered as that in this extract. It is exactly
reversing the Gospel order of things, which is faith in
Christ first, and holiness as the necessary result of this
influential and purifying faith. “Every man that hath this
hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.” It is
they who have “learned Christ,” and “ have been taught
by him,” who put off the old man, and being renewed in
the spirit of their minds, “put on the new man, which
after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”f
So also our Church teaches, “We must set no good works
before faith, nor think that before faith a man may do
any good work.” And “as men first have life, and
* Tract 80, p. 49. t Eph. iv. 20–24.
51
after be nourished, so must our faith in Christ go before,
and after be nourished with good works.” But the
Tractarian mode is to attain the knowledge that we are
saved by faith in Christ, by our previous “obedience—
as the crown and end of great holiness of life.” The Bible
speaks of no principle which can produce this holiness,
but only the faith in Christ, which our author says, is
to come afterwards, as the crown of great holiness!
Who that knows any thing of the Puseyite writings,
will not be aware also of the meaning usually attached
to holiness of life, as implying the observance of the
ceremonies and outward forms merely of religion, and
of the undue stress laid upon them as if in them-
selves efficacious. Who can have failed to remark the
manner in which these, and similar external acts, are
pressed as a kind of semi-eaſpiatory penance, and then
speciously termed self-denial, and mortification of sin,
but so far as they partake this false principle, tending
directly to subvert the Atonement of Christ, at least as
a perfect, and sufficient eaſoiation for sin. An example
or two on this head may be needful.
“All religious worship must be the spontaneous act of the
individual, and the more inconvenience, or self-denial such an
act is accompanied with, the more does it partake of the nature
of such spontaneous action.”f
[How ought every act of religious worship, whether
public or private, to be felt and considered—as a high
and sacred privilege, or as penance and self-denial? And
which estimate ought to be inculcated 21 Again,
“As long as we do what we like best, whether it be in re-
ligion, or in any thing else, it is evident we give no proof of
our having any of the spirit of true religion abiding in us.”f
* Homily V. On good works.
f Tract 80, p. 70. “This was commonly the penance that Christ
enjoined sinners, “Go thy way and sin no more.’” Homily on Re-
pentance.
f Plain Sermons, xxxvi, p. 327.
52
We shall like best whatever our hearts and affections
are most engaged in, and if this be the service of God,
we give the very best proof, instead of none at all, “ of
our having the spirit of true religion,” when “we do what
we like best.” But the mistaken theology of the Trac-
tarian school, taking as a guide the self-imposed penances
and asceticism, of an early corruption of Christianity,
loses sight of that principle of love, which makes re-
ligion not less a matter of choice and privilege, than
of duty; and no occasion is unhappily lost, of depre-
ciating the importance and the reality, of the joys and
consolations of a religious life, and of representing
them as unwarranted by Scripture, and to be therefore
rather met with the language of cold discouragement.
And why is this 2 Because it is the natural religion of
the heart of man, to cling in one form or other, to the
merit of his actions, and to self-inflicted and unauthorized
pain and penance, as a satisfaction for sin, “which things
have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and
humility, and neglecting of the body,” and which we
accordingly find, as a principle of atonement for sin, in all
false religions of every age and country. And now,
having seen something of their ideas of penance, how do
we find the Puseyite teachers, treating the subject of the
peace and joy and gladness, of religion ?
“Scripture does not set before us any sensible joy or satis-
faction to be sought for as the end of holiness.”f
Let Scripture speak in answer to this most unfounded
allegation, “ The joy of the Lord is your strength.”
“The God of Hope fill you with all joy and peace in
believing.” “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace.”
“And these things write we unto you, that your joy may
be full.”
“Whether in this world a man can have a full and posi-
tive assurance of final acceptance” is declared to be among
* Col. ii. 23, † Tract 80, p. 82.
53
“ the subjects about which God has not thought ſit to give elear,
if any, intimation, and which no Christian need trouble him.
self about.”
Not “ trouble himself” about his “final acceptance!”
“What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul ?” And is he not to trouble
himself, whether his soul shall be saved or lost? St.
Paul teaches Timothy, that the Holy Scriptures were
able to make him “wise unto salvation,” and surely the
Bible was given for this very end of shewing us the way
of salvation. And is that way left in such obscurity,
that we cannot ascertain whether we are in the right way,
or not, for the attainment of the end ? This uncertainty
about salvation, this doubting of the promises of
God, as if they were secret things and unrevealed, has
ever been, as we know, as much a tenet of Popery as
of Puseyism, but does Scripture give it any countenance?
Is it true that “ God has not thought fit, to give clear,
if any, intimation,” as to whether we can have “as-
surance of final acceptance 3’ St. John gives as the
reason for his Epistle, “These things have I written
unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God,
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,”f Our blessed
Lord continually promises in the plainest and fullest
manner, eternal life to those who believe in Him. “ Him
that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” “He that
believeth on me hath everlasting life.” “My sheep hear
my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I
give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.”f
The epistles are full of the strongest encouragements
to rest upon God, as a God of love in Christ, for the
fulfilment of all the glorious promises for the everlasting
safety and happiness, and the accomplishment of the sal-
vation, of every humble believer in the Saviour of sinners,
aiming to shew the sincerity of that belief, as it must,
* Plain Sermons, iii. p. 23. + 1 John v. 13.
j John vi. 37, 47; x. 27, 28.
54
and ever will be shewn, in the grateful, affectionate obe-
dience, of a holy and heavenly walk and conversation. But
this happy assurance of acceptance through Christ, taught
in the Bible, and so evidently enjoyed by the primitive
Christians in apostolic times; the “rejoicing with joy
unspeakable and full of glory,” in the “lively hope” of the
“inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth
not away;”—all this, is with the Puseyite divines, “ the
modern heresy of final perseverance,”—the “modern
figment of indefectible grace.” Yet St. Paul declares,
that “if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable,” and if no sure and certain hope
in Christ for the next life, be attainable, then to the extent
of this uncertainty, we are involved in this “most mise-
rable” state. But St. Paul and his fellow-labourers,
taught by the Holy Ghost, were themselves persuaded,
and left on record for us the same triumphant and glo-
rious truth, that neither death, nor life, things present or
things to come, should “be able to separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
To return from this digression to the more immediate
subject of discussion—the Puseyite statements on faith.
It will be remembered that in some former extracts,
particular reference was made to self-denial, as connected
with penance. One is now added as illustrating this
W16W.
“It will always be true of human nature, that it cannot ap-
proach God without a sacrifice.”f
Assuredly there must be the sacrifice of self-will, and
* Rom. viii. 35–39.
Is not the following passage in direct and plain opposition to the
whole of the above Scripture testimony ? “Let no man expect too much,
either of spiritual joy, or of quiet and peace in believing—Let him not
while this world lasts, look for that clear knowledge of saving doctrines,
which may be fitly compared to light.” Plain Sermons, xxix. p. 269.
[What are the words of Jesus? “ He that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have THE LIGHT OF LIFE.” John viii. 12.]
f Tract 80, p. 70.
55
an unreserved submission of the heart to God; but how
this is to be produced is the very point at issue. The
sacrifice without which fallen human nature cannot ap-
proach God, was that “full, perfect, and sufficient sacri-
fice’ made on the cross by Jesus Christ. Self-righteous-
ness will try to make one for itself. Christian self-renun-
ciation will “count all things but loss,” to “win Christ
and be found in him,” and so take up the cross and
follow him, with that true self-denial and crucifixion to
sin and to the world, only to be found as a principle of
love;—“I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself for me,” is St. Paul’s exposition of
the subject.” But then Paul preached justification “by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law,” and
only as possessors of this faith, can we die to sin and
live unto God.' So only will the world be crucified to us,
and we unto the world. But if this only foundation of
sanctification be that which, according to Puseyism, it is
“dangerous” to lay—that which ought to be kept back
and concealed, on what can a Christian life and conduct
be built 2
The writer of the 71st “Tract for the Times, gives; as
a specimen of “perverse interpretation, the popular sense
put upon the Eleventh Article,” which he professes to con-
sider, “clearly and soundly explained in the Homily on Justift
cation or Salvation—now so associated in the minds of many
with this wrong interpretation, as to render almost hopeless
the recovery of the true meaning.”
Let us trust that it is hopeless for the Puseyites to
associate their meaning with it, this “ popular sense,”
and “wrong interpretation,” being in reality, the true
and simple meaning of this important Article. “We are
accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our
* See Gal. ii. 16–20. f Rom. v. vi. f Page 32.
56
own works and deservings,” &c.” While yet professing
Churchmen, this Article cannot be directly denied, but
the subterfuge is to attach another meaning, and so explain
away the true one, which is the ultra-protestantism, scoffed
at by these servile copyists of a pseudo-antiquity. The
sincerity of a profession of agreement, in the doctrine of
the Homily on Salvation, as explaining the Article, may
be appreciated in those who descant on the impropriety
and the danger, of preaching the Atonement indiscrimi-
nately to all, for it is there so preached, and most faith-
fully and fully set forth, as the cause of that free “justifi-
cation or righteousness, which we receive of God’s mercy
and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, taken, accepted,
and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justifica-
tion.”:F
* Article XI. It should not escape observation in connection with this
Article, that to deny the doctrine of imputed righteousness, and yet admit
the Article, is merely disputing for words, a hair-splitting distinction
without a difference. For if “we are accounted righteous before God,
only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our
own works and deservings,” but for his, it follows, that the righteousness
of Christ, is that on account of which, we are accepted as righteous in
God's sight. In other words, his righteousness is imputed, made over to
us, “by faith”——accounted ours, so that we are “accepted in the
beloved.” “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.”
And why? “That we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
“By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” “The righ-
teousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all
them that believe.” It was this “righteousness which is of God by faith,”
which St. Paul desired in renouncing his own. The Homily on Salvation
thus expresses the same truth. “Christ is now the righteousness of all
them that truly do believe in Him. He for them paid their ransom by his
death. He for them fulfilled the law in his life. So that now in him,
and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the
law.”$ Bishop Beveridge thus states his own faith on this subject. “I
look upon all my righteousnesses but as filthy rags; and it is in the robes
only of the righteousness of the Son of God, that I dare appear before the
majesty of heaven.”
+ Homily III.
f 2 Cor. v. 21. Rom. v. 19. iii. 22. Philip. iii. 9.
§ Third Homily—close of part 1st.j
57
Complaint is further made that the “popular teaching”
above alluded to, “ has practically made a separation
between the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification.”
Certainly the Puseyite teaching will not do so, for in this
creed these doctrines are mixed together. We have
already seen that this teaching does not consist, in preach-
ing “ the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God
hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of
sins.” It is adjudged “dangerous” to declare these
blessed and saving truths, free justification through the
blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ, and Sanctifica-
tion as resulting from it; and therefore, on account of this
“exceeding danger,” as it is elsewhere called, of Puseyite
imagination, the knowledge of salvation by faith in Christ,
(being a truth which “ is in fact the very secret of the
Lord, so far from its being what is supposed,”)* is to be re-
vealed only to those who are worthy, who have acquired by
previous holiness, a worthiness and meetness for it, for it is
said to be attained, only “as the crown and end of great
holiness of life.”f The consequences of this confusing
together of Justification and Sanctification, it is important
to mark, because it has ever been a fruitful source of
Popish error, and of Protestant Popery. If Justifica-
tion be not distinctly kept in view as the principle, and
Sanctification as its consequence, then Justification be-
comes dependent upon Sanctification, and must, in part at
least, be our own work, and not the work of Christ for
us. And this is to overthrow altogether, that doctrine
* Tract 80, p. 76.
+ It may be well to mark again the dissentient doctrine of our Church,
from that of Puseyism on this subject “ of works before justification,” as
explained in the 13th Article. “Works done before the grace of Christ,
and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as
they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to
receive grace, or as the school authors say, deserve grace of congruity:
yea, rather for that they are not done as God willed and commanded them
to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.”
58
pervading every part of the gospel revelation;–“By
GRACE are ye saved through faith.”
Frequent reference has been already made to the
“PLAIN SERMons, by Contributors to the Tracts for the
Times.” (Vol. i. 1839.) Some further extracts from this
volume, which the writer of these Sketches has carefully
examined throughout, will be found to throw additional
light upon the views which have been considered. In a
course of thirty-sia, Sermons, by various writers of the
Tracts, it will be judged reasonable to expect to find, if
any where, the doctrines and the character of the preach-
ing, fairly developed. And more especially can no objec-
tion be made to this testimony, as these Sermons are put
forth, professing to carry out more fully the design of the
“Tracts for the Times,” and to shew that these Tracts,
“Were not set forth as mere parts of ideal systems, or themes
for disputation.... but rather wrged as truths of immediate
and essential importance ... means of continual resource and
consolation in life, and of calm and sure hope in death.”f
And what then do we find presented in these Sermons,
as the “ means of continual resource and consolation in
life?” What is to teach the “calm and sure hope in
death ** The only answer which can be given is—our
own works. This may seem strong language, but it is
warranted.
The second of these Sermons, is on “The Certainty
of Judgment.” It might be supposed that the way of
salvation through present faith in “ the Lamb of God,”
would be pointed out, and the Refuge in Him, as the
unfailing defence of his people in “the great day of his
* The Homily on Salvation establishes this point with admirable clear-
ness and precision. “Justification is the office of God only, and is not a
thing which we render unto him, but which we take of him,” excluding
works therefore in the matter of Justification, and it is expressly said
that faith “shutteth them out from the office of justifying.”
+ Preface to the “Plain Sermons.” It will be in the recollection of
the reader, that a “sure hope in death,” a certainty of final acceptance,
is pronounced in these very Sermons to be unattainable.
59
wrath” upon his enemies. But the Sermon contains
no reference to any thing, but that we shall be saved or
lost by our works. Beyond all doubt we are to be judged
according to our works, for so the Bible plainly tells us,
and that they are the evidences of our having a living
faith at all, for that is no true faith which does not bear
the fruits. But faith in Christ must precede these fruits,
and it is on system kept back in these discourses. The
87th Tract elucidates the motive for this style of preach-
ing as follows.
“Religious doctrines and articles of faith can only be received
according to certain dispositions of the heart; these dispositions
can only be formed by a repetition of certain actions.”
This fallacy of teaching good works as a preparation
for faith, has been already noticed. The 4th Homily
opens thus, ‘The first coming unto God, is through faith.”
Then the works, “As the light cannot be hid, so a true
faith will shew itself by good works.’
The Writer then insists that
“He who preaches the judgment, recommends alms and fasting,
impresses most the shortness of life, or any such practical appeals,
will lead men most to pray, though he may not repeat in express
words the necessity of aid from the Holy Spirit.”
And the same argument is used to give the idea that
Christ may be preached without naming his Atonement,”
or as expressed a few pages previously, that it may be
truly and effectually preached, “by one who might have
even never prominently and explicitly declared it.”:# It is
mere mockery thus jesuitically to affect to admit in words,
doctrines which in practice, are thrust out of sight, ex-
cluded under these false pretences from the teaching,
and so rendered altogether nugatory. To such senti-
ments, the strongest condemnation alone is either appli-
cable or suitable, for it is no occasion on which to speak
* Tract 87, pp. 58, 59. + Tract 87, p. 54.
60
‘smooth things,” when our Lord is thus as it were, be-
trayed with a kiss, and by his professing friends.
In the Sermon on “Religious Peace,” we are said to
attain and possess it, simply on the ground of our own
obedience. Not only is there no reference to Christ as
“our peace,” or to that sweet peace in our hearts, arising
from a sense of pardon and reconciliation with God, by
faith in his Son, but this last is altogether repudiated as
a matter of mere fanciful feeling and delusion.
The 22nd Sermon, professing to describe true faith
from the example of Abraham, asserts that he was selected
from all others on account of his faith and other graces;
and in the next page states that it was not “from mere
arbitrary choice, or for some hidden reason, but because
he was eminently good and holy, self-denying and re-
signed.” The summing up is as follows:
“You see then that true faith, such as Abraham practised,
and such as God will accept through the blood of Jesus Christ,
consists in a self-denying life; to speak shortly, self-denial is
the real test of faith.”f
True Christian self-denial, will most certainly be found
as a fruit and test of living faith, but this Sermon, pro-
fessedly explaining Christian faith, does not contain a
syllable about faith in Christ, or about believing in Him
at all. Puseyite pulpit instruction excludes this on system,
and though it is cause enough for reprehension and
sorrow, it can excite no surprise, for it has been shewn in
the preceding pages to be the principle acted upon and
advocated. Another definition of faith occurs, which
will be further explanatory.
“They will be justified by faith, i.e. by the free and un-
deserved mercy of God in Christ Jesus, accepting their faith as
if it were perfect obedience, yet in another sense, they are justified
by the works of the gospel law, not by faith only, that is, God
graciously accepts their good meaning proved by their works,
* Eph. ii. 13, 14. + P. 192.
61
as the proper condition on which he vouchsafes to pardon
them, and make and keep them members of his Son our
Jord.”*
We do not read in Scripture of “our good meaning
proved by our works, as a condition of pardon,” but that
being pardoned, and “made nigh by the blood of Christ,”
the principle of sanctification is also imparted, enabling
the renewed nature to bring forth those “fruits of righ-
teousness, which are by Jesus Christ to the glory and
praise of God.” And further, it is thus only that we can
be made and kept members of Christ. It is not our “good
meaning proved by our works,” that can make us such,
because “the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it
abide in the vine,” and we must be members of Christ,
spiritually united to him by faith, (not merely nominally
such as baptized in his name) before we can bear the
fruit. “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 we have that good will.”f The
Sermon thus continues,
“This faith, like all other good habits, is, under God's Holy
Spirit, the result of continual good works . . . and God, by it,
makes us worthy, and reckons us worthy, of his kingdom.”
Scripture, and in accordance with it, the Church of
England, make faith “the gift of God,” not a good
“ habit ;” nor yet “the result of good works,” as above
asserted, but the good works the result of faith. Neither
do we learn from the Bible, that our faith makes us
worthy of heaven. If so, how do we need a Saviour !
* Sermon xxxv, p. 224. + Article X.
I “Good works go not before in him which shall afterward be justi-
fied, but good works do follow after, when a man is first justified.”
Augustine, as quoted in the 16th Homily (On Fasting.) The 12th article
explains, that “Good works do spring out necessarily of a true and
lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently
known, as a tree discerned by the frnit.”
62
As connected with the subject of conversion, the follow-
ing passages, out of many others, may be instanced.
“There is not one word as though the Judge to please
himself. . . took out here one, and there another, to be endowed
with faith, and finally saved, whether themselves will or no.”
And again, “not at all converting and compelling them whether
they will or no.”
Not against their will certainly, because God makes
his “people willing in the day of his power.” “God hath
from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanc-
tification of the spirit and belief of the truth.” Thus it is,
by renewing the will, and changing the heart, that the
people of God, as “his workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works,” are enabled willingly, and not
against their will, to receive the Saviour freely offered in
the gospel, and knowing that they are not their own, but
bought with a price, to glorify God in their body and in
their spirit which are God’s.
“Let us fear,” the writer adds, “ lest so much depending, as
plainly does depend, on our own works, those works be found
at the last day to be nothing, or next to nothing.”
Surely this is most objectionable language, and far
better calculated to instil a pharisaic, self-righteous de-
pendence upon ourselves than anything else. We shall
never arrive at true Christian holiness of heart and life,
but on the gospel principle of love to Him “who gave
* Sermon iii. p. 21.
t” I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh.” Ezek. xxxvi. 26.
“I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts.” Heb.
viii. 10.
As a professing Churchman, the 17th Article ought to be authority
with our Author, and the contradiction between the Sermon and the
Article is glaring enough. As also that between the Article and the
following. “God having put it in our power to choose for ourselves,
leaves us to ourselves to make the choice.” Sermon xvi. p. 136. Certainly
the fatal choice which we should all make, if left to ourselves, is our own
fault, through the love of sin; but it is by grace alone that any obey the
call of God, and are turned “from darkness to light, and from the power
of Satan unto God.”
63
himself for us.” It is in vain to teach any other way
than that which God has marked out in his word. It is
“the grace of God that bringeth salvation,” which alone
can teach us, to “live soberly, righteously, and godly,
in this present world,” and make it our aim and desire to
“adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.”
In the 14th Sermon, the doctrine is condemned which
is stated to prevail,
concerning “the Christian character being formed at once,f by
some fancied operation of the Holy Spirit on the soul, working
a miraculous change which is felt in the heart, and making
the person from that time forward an altered character,
A NEW CREATURE.”
Yet, “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old
things are passed away, and all things are become new.”$
Would the caution be needless, in the case of this In-
structor of others, to beware lest haply he “be found
even to fight against God?”
It should be observed that these views respecting the
non-necessity of conversion, necessarily follow on the
adoption of such sentiments as the following, on Baptism.
“All therefore who have been made whole by baptism.” “I
speak especially to those who have not yet stained their bap-
tismal robe with any gross wilful sin, or habit of sinful indul-
gence.” “First, regenerating grace comes by holy baptism,
whereby as Infants, being once for all made partakers of the
atoning blood of our Redeemer, and sanctifted by his Holy
Spirit, we need afterwards, from time to time, only supplies and
* Tit. ii. 11–14, + P. 122.
f The writer ought to know that the Christian character being formed
at once, is not the view maintained by those on the evangelical side, who
oppose the unscriptural and Antinomian idea, that there is no progressive
sanctification—no growth in grace.
§ 2 Cor. v. 17.
| Sermon xi. p. 94.
T Sermon xii. p. 107.
64
arenewals of the same grace,” which supplies are said to be
afforded by Confirmation, prayer, fasting, and most of all the
holy Eucharist.f Once more, “some good space of time, some
regular practice of holy desires—and just works, must be gene-
rally necessary, before you can be duly clad with the wedding-
garment, the robe of holiness, which God in his mercy threw
over you in holy Baptism, but which you too often by your un-
worthy behaviour, have more or less thrown off.”f
Let the message to the Laodicean Church be seriously
pondered in reply to the foregoing. “Because thou
sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need
of nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and
* The necessity of any change of heart, but that which is assumed to
take place invariably in baptism, is here, it will be remarked, formally
denied. In Tract 86, p. 5, we are said “to have received from the Church,
our Spiritual Birth in one Sacrament, and the bread of life in the
other.”
+ Sermon xxiv. p. 214.
f xxv. p. 225. The same Sermon speaks of “the sentence pronounced
in holy Scripture against those who fall into deadly sin, after being
delivered from sin by holy baptism.”
The following extract is from the Sermons of Mr. Newman, pp. 101, 2,
as quoted by Dr. Pusey. “We believe this—that He (Christ) at our
baptism spoke over each of us the word of acceptance, and admitted us at
once to his presence, by the same word forthwith proceeded to realize his
gracious purpose; that his word ran very swiftly—‘sharper than any
two-edged sword;’ that it reached even to our hearts, conveying its virtue
to our nature, making us what the Almighty Father can delight in,”
[making the Almighty Father delight, one trembles to write it, in the
unholy lives, because unrenewed natures, of millions of baptized and
nominal Christians] “and so returning to him “not void,” but laden with
the triumphs of his grace, the fruits of righteousness in us, ‘spiritual
sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.’”
[According to this theory, all are justified at baptism, and all then ex-
perience this regenerating change, and need no further conversion, and
thousands, and tens of thousands in every age, have been deluded by the
same belief, to their everlasting perdition. Can it be said by any stretch
of charity, that the fruits brought forth by the generality of baptized
persons, are “fruits of righteousness,” the necessary result, it must be re-
membered, of regeneration and renewal of the heart, where really found?—j
65
miserable, and poor, and blind and naked; I counsel thee
to buy of me gold tried in the fire that thou mayest be
rich; and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed.”
“They that are whole need not a physician, but they that
are sick,” and only such will come to Christ, and feeling
their own sinfulness and spiritual poverty, thankfully
accept his righteousness as their “robe of holiness’ in the
sight of God, and so “be made the righteousness of God
in Him.” Let us also remember who has said, “to whom
much is given, the same loveth much.” They only who
know how much has been forgiven them, will feel the force
of the exhortation, “I beseech you that ye walk worthy
of the vocation wherewith ye are called.”
One additional extract must close these notices of the
“Plain Sermons,” published on their own shewing, as
specimens of the instruction judged most suitable, by the
Authors of the “Tracts for the Times,” to afford “con-
tinual consolation in life, and calm and sure hope in
death.”
“Would you know the true Gospel 2–Know something as
the Saints know it, of the way of Salvation.”
[Let the way of Salvation, as alleged here, and this
true gospel, be marked. “It is a faithful saying, and
worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into
the world to save sinners.” “Come unto me all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” is
his own most gracious invitation, and unchanging promise.
Is this coming to Christ, this faith in Him, the way of
Salvation here proposed ?]
“You must begin by denying yourself,” says this teacher,
“Christ crucifiedt is the Corner Stone, the foundation of the
building of true faith, that is, not simply believing that he died
* Preface.
† We have previously seen that it is not Christ crucified for us, but our
being crucified to sin, as a preparatian for faith in Christ, to make us
worthy to attain this faith, to which Puseyism refers the expression,
“Christ crucified.”
66
for you, and trusting to be saved by his merits ; that in com-
parison is an easy kind of faith, and has been felt by many an
impenitent sinner.”
[Has been professed would more nearly resemble the
truth. None have ever been really possessors of this
faith, and (under the influence of the Holy Spirit con-
vincing them of sin,) simply clinging to Christ, trusting
to be saved by Him, through his atoming sacrifice, as their
Priest, who have not, with equal sincerity, desired Him
also as a King, reigning in their hearts, sanctifying their
affections, and enabling them to devote themselves to his
service, and to live to his glory.]
In closing these Sketches of Puseyite doctrine, its
Socinian tendency should not escape notice on the one
hand, any more than its Popish leaning on the other.
The writers under examination can quarrel with the
Socinianism of the American Abbot,” whose works have
unhappily been so widely circulated in this country, and
sufficiently Socinianized beyond all doubt his statements
are, but our Puseyite opponents do not see apparently,
that in systematically separating Christian practice from
Christian doctrine—in preaching morality, and excluding
the principle whence only it can spring, they are but
following in Abbot's wake, teaching the Socinianism of
good works acceptable to God, being the foundation
instead of the superstructure—making holiness and a
Christian life, independent of the faith in Christ which
produces them, and even a preparation of worthiness on
our part for the reception of the gospel, and the know-
ledge of the salvation which is in Jesus Christ. In short,
we have the Anti-Christian absurdity of the tree without
a root. The fruits of faith are expected without the faith
itself, and without even the teaching of that faith. An
outward conformity to the duties of religion may be thus
produced, and it may be, in some cases, much apparent
strictness and regularity of conduct. Something very
* See Tract 73.
67
closely resembling Christianity may appear as the result.
But it will be as the dead men in Ezekiel's vision of the
dry bones, after they “came together bone to his bone,”
“ and the sinews, and the flesh came up upon them, and
the skin covered them above, but there was no breath in
them.” They were inen indeed in form, but life was want-
ing. And what was needed ? The Spirit of God to give
that life. And this, spiritually considered, is the essential
truth, rejected and denied by all who represent that those
baptized persons, whose hearts are given to the world,
and who are therefore living “according to the course of
this world,” are notwithstanding partakers of regene-
rating and renewing grace, and need no change of heart,
no renewal of the will and affections, by the life-giving
and sanctifying power of God the Holy Ghost.
CONNECTION OF WARIOUS SECTS AND HERESIES.
The Connection of various opposing Sects and Heresies
with each other, both in ancient and modern times, is a
subject of curious and instructive investigation. Our limits
admit here, only of marking out the connections on a few
points, and principally those of some of the more modern
sects and parties.
And first as respects THE Evidences oF TRUTH.
The Romanist deprecates enquiry, and demands implicit
submission to the teaching and decisions of the
Church, depreciating the value, exaggerating the
difficulty, and discouraging the search into evidence.
The Puseyite joins in the cry, and denies the right and
liberty of private judgment with the Papist. Both
feel that the ground on which they stand would not
bear the test of Scripture, unless as interpreted by
the corruptions of former ages, and both therefore
enjoin unhesitating faith in what is mis-called the
doctrine of the Church Catholic.
68
The Irvingite in like manner, requires faith without a
reason for the trust, and calls investigation unbe-
lief, as to the assumption of “the Gifts,” &c. by his
Sect.
And in every age, it has been the uniform mark of
false religions, and corrupted Christianity, to shrink
from the test of investigation, and in its place to
substitute a blind submission to the dogmas of
human teaching. We are taught in Scripture a
very different spirit, and commanded to search it.
We find the Bereans commended for diligently
examining “whether those things were so,” and in
many passages we are directed to prove and try our
faith.
WITH REGARD To THE SCRIPTUREs, how does the case
stand 2
The Jews reject the New Testament.
The Continental Weologians, and their English followers,
including many Dissenters, with Dr. Pye Smith un-
happily at their head, deny the plenary Inspiration
of the Bible, reject such books and passages as con-
travene their own opinions, and explain away Scrip-
ture miracles, &c.
The Socinian translates to suit his own views, and adopts
such parts as he imagines not to contradict his senti-
ments.
The Irvingite, Campbellite, &c. add to the written Word
what is prophesied and spoken by themselves,
claiming this as the Voice of the Spirit, and thus
they succeed in making void the Word of God.
The Papist adds Tradition, by which he receives and
enforces the superstitious observances of Antiquity,
and doctrines unknown to Scripture, as of equal
weight and authority.
The Puseyite closely follows the Papist in this matter.
And he copies the Socinian also, in keeping back
Scripture doctrines, and making them non-essential,
69
and in setting the teaching of the Gospels against
that of the Epistles.
Do not all these varying Sects concur in adding to,
or taking from the Word of God, and render them-
selves amenable to the guilt and punishment de-
nounced against such offenders?
THE DOCTRINE of PERFECTION has been urged in
many forms, and as comprising the assumption of an
aspect of superior holiness and strictness of life.
In more modern times, it has been a favourite tenet
of the Methodists, the Quakers, the Irvingites, and
the Puseyites, all maintaining it on different grounds,
and with varying modifications, but meeting in the
principle upheld.
The Papists also maintain it, as advocates of the superior
sanctity of a monastic life, celibacy, asceticism, &c.
and how closely do the Puseyites now approximate
to these ideas. But the Papist is amenable to this
doctrine on another ground. His Church claims
merit to spare, a stock of superabundant merit to
part with for money, in the shape of indulgences.
Therefore perfection must be alleged to exist in
some at least of the Romish Saints, or there would
be no spare merits at the disposal of the Priests.
All this gross corruption and falsehood on the part
of the Papacy, has its origin in the corruption of
the Scripture doctrine of the all-sufficient Atone-
ment of the Cross; and whenever the mind is “cor-
rupted from the simplicity that is in Christ,” on the
vital subject of Justification solely by his blood,
deadly errors will arise, and human merit, in one form
or other, be advocated and substituted. And this
brings us to the last point which will be touched
upon in this brief survey, namely,
THE ATONEMENT (as the ground of acceptance before
God, as the only foundation of a sinner's hope.)
The Socinian rejects the Atonement by denying the God-
70
head of Christ, thus depriving his sacrifice of its
power and worth.
The Papist virtually sets aside the efficacy of the Atone-
ment by superadding works, as part of his Justi-
fication in the sight of God, his own works and those
of others, (supererogation) including the merits of
saints departed. He adds Purgatory also, thus
denying the sufficiency of the expiation of Jesus
Christ. *
The Puseyite subverts the doctrine of the Atonement by
concealing it, and keeping back the truth, as not
necessary, and not safe, to be indiscriminately
preached, thus not making it the foundation, and re-
fusing to declare Jesus Christ to be “the way, the
truth, and the life,” that God “ loved us, and sent his
Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” And this in-
volves the doctrine of human merit equally with
the Papist, for it is not Justification solely by the
blood of Christ that is taught, and our justification
on this scheme, becomes in part our own work, de-
pendent on our sanctification, instead of this last
being the consequence of the first, according to
Scripture, and the Church of England.
THE END.
J, Dennett, Printer, 121, Fleet Street.