^^K.^\ ;■■
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 No. 00.] [Price I v. 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN THE 
 THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 
 
 [The corrections in the Second Edition are put in brackets.] 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 2 
 
 § 1. Articles vi. & xx. — Holy Scripture, and the Autho- 
 rity of the Church 5 
 
 § 3. Article xi. — Justification by Faith only 12 
 
 § 3. Articles xii. & xiii. — Works before and after Jus- 
 tification 14 
 
 § 4. Article xix. — The Visible Church 17 
 
 § 5. Article xxi. — General Councils 21 
 
 § 6. Article xxii. — Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, 
 
 Invocation of Saints 23 
 
 § 7. Article XXV. — The Sacraments 43 
 
 § 8. Article xxviii. — Transubstantiation 47 
 
 § 9. Article xxxi. — Masses 59 
 
 § 10. Article xxxii. — Marriage of Clergy 64 
 
 §11. Article xxxv. — The Homilies 6q 
 
 § 12. Article xxxvii. — The Bishop of Rome 77 
 
 Conclusion gQ 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. B
 
 Introduction. 
 
 It is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there 
 are in the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent with the 
 Catholic faith ; or, at least, when persons do not go so far as to 
 feel the objection as of force, they are perplexed how best to 
 reply to it, or how most simply to explain the passages on which 
 it is made to rest. The following Tract is drawn up with the 
 view of showing how groundless the objection is, and further of 
 approximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which 
 most men have an implicit apprehension, though they may have 
 nothing more. That there are real difficulties to a Catholic 
 Christian in the Ecclesiastical position of our Church at this day, 
 no one can deny ; but the statements of the Articles are not in 
 the number ; and it may be right at the present moment to insist 
 upon this. If in any quarter it is supposed that persons who 
 profess to be disciples of the early Cliurch will silently concur 
 with those of very opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation 
 of subscriptions, which, it is imagined, are galling to both parties, 
 though for different reasons, and that they will do this against 
 the wish of the great body of the Church, the writer of the fol- 
 lowing pages would raise one voice, at least, in protest against 
 any such anticipation. Even in such points as he may think 
 the English Church deficient, never can he, without a great 
 alteration of sentiment, be party to forcing the opinion or pro- 
 ject of one school upon another. Religious changes, to be 
 beneficial, should be the act of the whole body ; they are 
 worth little if they are the mere act of a majority '. No good 
 can come of any change which is not heartfelt, a development 
 
 * This is not meant to hinder acts of Catholic consent, such as occurred an- 
 ciently, when the Cullioiir body aids one portion of a particular Church against 
 another portion.
 
 "?'?< 
 
 IntrodacUon. ^ ^ -U I 3 
 
 of feelings springing up freely and calmly within the bosom 
 of the whole body itself. Moreover, a change in theological 
 teaching involves either the commission or the confession of sin ; 
 it is either the profession or renunciation of erroneous doctrine, 
 and if it does not succeed in proving the fact of past guilt, it, 
 {ipso facto, implies present. In other words, every change in reli- 
 gion carries with it its own condemnation, which is not attended 
 by deep repentance. Even supposing then that any changes in 
 contemplation, whatever they were, were good in themselves, 
 they would cease to be good to a Church, in which they were the 
 fruits not of the quiet conviction of all, but of the agitation, or 
 tyranny, or intrigue of a few ; nurtured not in mutual love, but 
 in strife and envying ; perfected not in humiliation and grief, 
 but in pride, elation, and triumph. Moreover it is a very serious 
 truth, that persons and bodies who put themselves into a dis- 
 advantageous state, cannot at their pleasure extricate themselves 
 from it. They are unworthy of it; they are in prison, and Christ 
 is the keeper. There is but one way towards a real reformation, 
 — a return to Him in heart and spirit, whose sacred truth they 
 have betrayed ; all other methods, however fair they may pro- 
 mise, will prove to be but shadows and failures. 
 
 On these grounds, were there no others, the present writer, 
 for one, will be no party to the ordinary political methods by 
 which professed reforms are carried or compassed in this day. 
 We can do nothing well till we act " with one accord ;" we can 
 have no accord in action till we agree together in heart ; we can- 
 not agree without a supernatural influence ; we cannot have a su- 
 pernatural influence unless we pray for it ; we cannot pray accept- 
 ably without repentance and confession. Our Church's strength 
 would be irresistible, humanly speaking, were it but at unity with 
 itself: if it remains divided, part against part, we shall see the 
 energy which was meant to subdue the world preying upon itself, 
 according to our Saviour's express assurance, that such a house 
 " cannot stand." Till we feel this, till we seek one another as breth- 
 ren, not lightly throwing aside our private opinions, which we seem 
 to feci we have received from above, from an ill-regulated, untrue 
 desire of unity, but returning ta each other in heart, and coming 
 
 1179057
 
 4 Introduction. 
 
 together to God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, no 
 change can be for the better. Till [we] [her children] are stirred 
 up to this religious course, let the Church, [our Mother,] sit still ; 
 let [her children] be content to be in bondage ; let [us] work in 
 chains ; let [us] submit to [our] imperfections as a punishment ; 
 let [us] go on teaching [through the medium of indeterminate state- 
 ments,] and inconsistent precedents, and principles but partially 
 developed. We are not better than our fathers ; let us bear to 
 be what Hammond was, or Andrews, or Hooker ; let us not faint 
 under that body of death, which they bore about in patience ; 
 nor shrink from the penalty of sins, which they inherited from 
 the age before them \ 
 
 But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which is 
 merely to show that, while our Prayer Book is acknowledged on 
 all hands to be of Catholic origin, our Articles also, the offspring 
 of an uncatholic age, are, througli God's good providence, to say 
 the least, not uncatholic, and may be subscribed by those who 
 aim at being catholic in heart and docirine. In entering upon 
 the proposed examination, it is only necessary to add, that in 
 several places the writer has found it convenient to express him- 
 self in language recently used, which he is willing altogether to 
 make his own. He has distinguished the passages introduced 
 by quotation marks. 
 
 ' " We, thy sinful creatures," says the Service for King Charles the Martyr, 
 " here assembled before Thee, do, in behalf of all the people of this land, hum- 
 bly confess, that they were the crying sins of this nation, which brought down 
 this judgment upon us," i.e. King Charles's murder.
 
 § 1. — Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 
 
 Articles vi. & xx. — " Holy Scripture containeth all things ne- 
 cessary to salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor 
 may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, tliat it 
 should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought 
 
 requisite or necessary to salvation The Church hath 
 
 [power to decree (statuendi) rites and ceremonies, and] authority 
 in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the Church 
 to [ordain (instituere) any thing that is contrary to God's word 
 written, neither may it] so expound one place of Scripture, that 
 it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be 
 a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet [as it ought not to 
 decree (decernere) anything against the same, so] besides the 
 same, ought it not to enforce (obtrudere) anything to be believed 
 for necessity of salvation '." 
 
 Two instruments of Christian teaching are spoken of in these 
 Articles, Holy Scripture and the Church. 
 
 Here then we have to inquire, first, what is meant by Holy 
 Scripture ; next, what is meant by the Church ; and then, what 
 their respective offices are in teaching revealed truth, and how 
 these are adjusted with one another in their actual exercise. 
 
 1. Now what the Church is, will be considered below in 
 Section 4, 
 
 2. And the Books of Holy Scripture are enumerated in the 
 latter part of the Article, so as to preclude question. Still two 
 points deserve notice here. 
 
 First, the Scriptures or Canonical Books are said to be those 
 "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Here 
 it is not meant that there never was any doubt in portions of the 
 Church or particular Churches concerning certain books, which 
 the Article includes in the Canon ; ^or some of them, — as, for 
 
 ' The passages in brackets (all) relate to rites and ceremonies which are not 
 here in question. [From brackets marking the Second Kdition, must be ex- 
 cepted tliose which occur in cjuotations.]
 
 C Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church, 
 
 instance, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse — have 
 been the subject of much doubt in the West or East, as the case 
 may be. But the Article asserts that there has been no doubt 
 about them in the Church Catholic ; that is, at the very first 
 time that the Catholic or whole Church had the opportunity of 
 forming a judgment on the subject, it pronounced in favour of 
 the Canonical Books. The Epistle to the Hebrews was doubted 
 by the West, and the Apocalypse by the East, only while those 
 portions of the Church investigated separately from each other, 
 only till they compared notes, interchanged sentiments, and 
 formed a united judgment. The phrase must mean this, because, 
 from the nature of the case, it can mean nothing else. 
 
 And next, be it observed, that the books which are commonly 
 called Apocrypha, are not asserted in this Article to be destitute 
 of inspiration or to be simply human, but to be not canonical ; 
 in other words, to differ from Canonical Scripture, specially in 
 this respect, viz. that they are not adducible in proof of doc- 
 trine. " The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth 
 read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth 
 not apply them to establish any doctrine." That this is the limit 
 to which our disparagement of them extends, is plain, not only 
 because the Article mentions nothing beyond it, but also from the 
 reverential manner in which the Homilies speak of them, as shall 
 be incidentally shown in Section 1 1 . The compatibility of such 
 reverence with such disparagement is also shown from the feel- 
 ing towards them of St. Jerome, who is quoted in the Article, 
 and by St. Augustine, not to mention other Fathers, both of 
 whom imply more or less their inferiority to Canonical Scripture, 
 yet use them freely and continually, and speak of them as Scrip- 
 ture. St. Augustine says, that '* those books which are received 
 by all the Churches" (the very language of the Article,) *' should 
 be preferred to those which are not received by all, and should 
 be accorded greater authority '." But books which are Canoni- 
 cal cannot have less authority than others ; it follows, according 
 (o St. Augustine, that those books which are not received by all 
 
 ' Dc Doclr. Christ, ii. «.
 
 Iluhj Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 7 
 
 the Cliurches, are not canonical. St. Jerome is more express 
 and pertinent ; for he distinctly names many of the books which 
 he considers not canonical, and virtually names them all by 
 naming what are canonical. For instance, he says, speaking of 
 Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, " As the Church reads Judith, 
 Tobit, and the Maccabees, without receiving them among the 
 Canonical Scriptures, so she reads these two books for the edifi- 
 cation of the people, not for the coniirmation of the authority of 
 ecclesiastical doctrines." (^Prcef. in Libr. Salom.) Again, " The 
 Wisdom, as it is commonly styled, of Solomon, and the book of 
 Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, 
 are not in the Canon." {Prcpf. ad Regcs.) Such is the language 
 of writers who nevertheless are, to say the least, not wanting in 
 reverence to the books they thus disparage. 
 
 A further question may be asked, concerning our received 
 version of the Scriptures, whether it is in any sense imposed on 
 us as a true comment on the original text ; as the Vulgate is 
 upon the Roman Catholics. It would appear not. It was made 
 and authorized by royal command, which cannot be supposed 
 to have any claim upon our interior consent. At the same time 
 every one who reads it in the Services of the Church, does, of 
 course, thereby inip'y that he considers that it contains no deadly 
 heresy or dangerous mistake. And about its simplicity, majesty, 
 gravity, harmony, and venerableness, there can be but one 
 opinion. 
 
 3. Next we come to the main point, the adjustment which 
 this Article effects between the respective offices of the Scripture 
 and Church ; which seems to be as follows. 
 
 It is laid down that, 1 . Scripture contains all necessary articles 
 of the faith; 2. either in its text, or by inference ; 3. The Church 
 is the keeper of Scripture ; 4. and a witness of it ; 5. and has 
 authority in controversies of faith ; G. but may not expound one 
 passage of Scripture to contradict another ; 7. nor enforce as an 
 article of faith any point not contained in Scripture. 
 
 From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and enforces 
 the faith ; for it is forbidden to expound in a particular way, or 
 so to enforce as to obtrude ; next, that it derives the faith
 
 8 Holy Scriplure and the Aulhority of the Church. 
 
 wholly from Scripture ; thirdly, that its office is to educe an 
 harmonious interpretation of Scripture. Thus much the Article 
 settles. 
 
 Two important questions, however, it does not settle, viz. whe- 
 ther the Church judges, first, at her sole discretion, next, on her 
 sole responsibility ; i.e. first, what the media are by which theChurch 
 interprets Scripture, whether by a direct divine gift, or catholic 
 tradition, or critical exegesis of the text, or in any other way ; and 
 next, who is to decide whether it interprets Scripture rightly or 
 not; — what is her method, if any ; and who is her judge, if any. 
 In other words, not a word is said, on the one hand, m favour of 
 Scripture having no rule or method to fix interpretation by, or, 
 as it is commonly expressed, being the sole rule of faith ; nor on 
 the other, of the private judgment of the individual being the ulti- 
 mate standard of interpretation. So much has been said lately 
 on both these points, and indeed on the whole subject of these 
 two Articles, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them ; but 
 since it is often supposed to be almost a first principle of our 
 Church, that Scripture is " the rule of faith," it may be well, 
 before passing on, to make an extract from a paper, published 
 some years since, which shows, by instances from our divines, 
 that the application of the phrase to Scripture is but of recent 
 adoption. The other question, about the ultimate judge of the 
 interpretation of Scripture, shall not be entered upon. 
 
 " We may dispense with the phrase * Rule of Faith,' as applied 
 to Scripture, on the ground of its being ambiguous ; and, again, 
 because it is then used in a novel sense ; for the ancient Church 
 made the Apostolic Tradition, as summed up in the Creed, and 
 not the Bible, the Regula Fidei, or Rule. Moreover, its use as 
 a technical phrase, seems to be of late introduction in the Church, 
 tliat is, since the days of King William the Third. Our great 
 divines use it without any fixed sense, sometimes for Scripture, 
 sometimes for the whole and perfectly adjusted Ciuistian doc- 
 trine, sometimes for the Creed; and, at the risk of being tedious, 
 we will prove this, by quotations, that the point may be put 
 V)eyond dispute. 
 
 " Usslier, after St. Ausiui, idcnufies it with the Creed; — when
 
 Hohj Scripture and the Authority of the Cfiurc/i. U 
 
 speaking of the Article of our Lord's Descent to Hell, he 
 says, — 
 
 "'It having here likewise been further manifested, what different opinions 
 have been entertained by the ancient Doctors of the Church, concerning the 
 determinate place wherein our Saviour's soul did remain during the time of the 
 separation of it from the body, I leave it to be considered by the learned, 
 whether any such controverted matter may fitly be brought in to expound the 
 Rule of Faith, which, being common both to the great and small ones of the 
 Church, must contain such varieties only as are generally agreed upon by the 
 common consent of all true Christians.' — Answer to a Jesuit, p. 362. 
 
 " Taylor speaks to the same purpose : ' Let us see with what 
 constancy that and the following ages of the Church did adhere 
 to the Apostles' Creed, as the sufficient and perfect Rule of 
 Faith.'' — Dissuasive, part 2, i. 4, p. 470. Elsewhere he calls 
 Scripture the Rule : ' That the Scripture is a full and sufficient 
 Rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect decla- 
 ration of the Will of God, is therefore certain, because we have 
 no other.' — Ibid, part 2, i. 2, p. 384. Elsewhere, Scripture and 
 the Creed : * He hath, by His wise Providence, preserved the 
 plain places of Scripture and the Apostles' Creed, in all Churches, 
 to be the Rule and Measure of Faith, by which all Churches are 
 saved.' — Ibid, part 2, i. 1, p. 346. Elsewhere he identifies it 
 with Scripture, the Creeds, and the first four Councils : ' We 
 also [after Scripture] do believe the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene, 
 with the additions of Constantinople, and that which is commonly 
 called the symbol of St. Athanasius ; and the four first General 
 Councils are so entirely admitted by us, that they, together with 
 the plain words of Scripture, are made the Rule and Measure 
 of judging heresies among us.' — Ibid, part 1, i. p. 131. 
 
 •' Laud calls the Creed, or rather the Creed with Scripture, the 
 Rule. 'Since the Fathers make the Creed, the /?M/e of Faith; 
 since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the 
 Two Regular Precepts, by which a divine is governed about his 
 faith,' &c. — Conference with Fisher, p. 42. 
 
 " Bramhall also : * The Scriptures and the Creed are not two 
 different Rules of Faith, but one and the same Rule, dilated in 
 Scripture, contracted in the Creed.' — Works, p. 402. Stilling-
 
 10 Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 
 
 fleet says the same (Grounds, i. 4. 3.) ; as does Thorndike (Z)e 
 Rat. fin. Controv. p. 144, &c.)' Elsewhere, Stillingfleet calls 
 Scripture the Rule (Ibid. i. 6. 2.) ; as does Jackson (vol. i. p. 
 226). But the most complete and decisive statement on the 
 subject is contained in Field's work on the Church, from which 
 shall follow a long extract. 
 
 " * It remained to show,' be says, ' what is the Rule of that judgment whereby 
 the Church discerneth between truth and falsehood, the faith and heresy, and 
 to whom it properly pertaineth to interpret those things which, touching this 
 Rule, are doubtful. The Rule of our Faith in general, whereby we know it to 
 be true, is the infinite excellency of God.... It being pre-supposed in the 
 generality that the doctrine of the Christian Faith is of God. and contalneth 
 nothing but heavenly truth, in the next place, we are to inquire by what Rule 
 we are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of it. 
 
 " ' This Rule is, 1. The summary comprehension of such principal articles of 
 this divine knowledge, as are the principles whence all other things are con- 
 cluded and inferred. These are contained in the Creed of the Apostles. 
 
 "' 2. AH such things as every Christian is bound expressly to believe, by the 
 light and direction whereof he judgeth of other things, which are not absolutely 
 necessary so particularly to be known. These are rightly said to be the Rule 
 of our Faith, because the principles of every science are the Rule whereby we 
 judge of the truth of all things, as being better and more generally known tlian 
 any other thing, and the cause of knowing them. 
 
 " ' 3. The analogy, due proportion, and correspondence, that one thing in this 
 divine knowledge hath with another, so that men cannot err in one of them 
 without erring in another ; nor rightly understand one, but they must likewise 
 rightly conceive the rest. 
 
 " '4. Whatsoever J?oo/« were delivered unto us, as written by them, to whom 
 the first and immediate revelation of the divine truth was made. 
 
 "'5. Whatsoever hath been delivered by all the saints with one consent, 
 which have left their judgment and opinion in writing. 
 
 "'6. Whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, 
 as a matter of faith, no one contradicting, though many other ecclesiastical 
 writers be silent, and say nothing of it. 
 
 " ' 7. That which the most, and most famous in every age, constantly delivered 
 as a matter of faith, and as received of them that went before them, in such sort 
 that the contradictors and gainsayers were in their beginnings noted for singu- 
 larity, novelty, and division, and afterwards, in process of time, if they persisted 
 in such contradiction, charged with heresy. 
 
 " ' These three latter Rules of our Faith we admit, not because they are equal 
 with the former, and originally in tlicmsclvcs contain the direction of our Faith, 
 but because nothing can be delivered, with such and so full consent of the
 
 Holy Scripture and the Author'ily of the Church. 11 
 
 people of God, as in them is expressed; but it must need be from those first 
 authors and founders of our Christian profession. The Ilomanists add unto 
 these the decrees of Councils and determinations of Popes, making these also to 
 be the Rules of Faith ; but because we have no proof of their infallibility, we 
 number them not with the rest. 
 
 " * Thus we see how many things, in several degrees and sorts, are said to be 
 Rules of our Faith. The infinite excellency of God, as that whereby the truth 
 of the heavenly doctrine is proved. The Articles of Faith, and other verities 
 ever expressly known in the Church as the first principles, are the Canon by 
 which we judge of conclusions from thence inferred. The Scripture, as con- 
 taining in it all that doctrine of Faith which Christ the Son of God delivered. 
 The uniform practice and consenting judgment of them that went before us, as 
 a certain and undoubted explication of the things contained in the Scripture. 
 .... So, then, we do not make Scripture the Rule of our Fuith, hut that other 
 things in their kind are Rules likewise ; in such sort that it is not safe, without 
 respect had unto them, to judge things by the Scripture alone,' &c. — iv. 14. 
 pp. 364, 365. 
 
 " These extracts show not only what the Anglican doctrine is, 
 but, in particular, that the phrase * Rule of Faith ' is no symbolical 
 expression with us, appropriated to some one sense ; certainly not 
 as a definition or attribute of Holy Scripture. And it is impor- 
 tant to insist upon this, from the very great misconceptions to 
 which the phrase gives rise. Perhaps its use had better be 
 avoided altogether. In the sense in which it is commonly under- 
 stood at this day, Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican prin- 
 ciples, the Rule of Faith."
 
 12 
 
 § 2. — Justification by Faith only. 
 
 Article xi. — " That we are justified by Faith only, is a most 
 wholesome doctrine." 
 
 The Homilies add that Faith is the sole means, the sole instru' 
 ment of justification. Now, to show briefly what such statements 
 imply, and what they do not. 
 
 1 . They do not imply a denial of Baptism as a means and an 
 instrument of justification ; which the Homilies elsewhere affirm, 
 as will be shown incidentally in a later section. 
 
 " The instrumental power of Faith cannot interfere with the 
 instrumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is the sole 
 justifier, not in contrast to all means and agencies whatever, 
 (for it is not surely in contrast to our Lord's merits, or God's 
 mercy,) but to all other graces. When, then, Faith is called the 
 sole instrument, this means the sole internal instrument, not the 
 sole instrument of any kind. 
 
 " There is nothing inconsistent, then, in Faith being the sole 
 instrument of justification, and yet Bajjlism also the sole instru- 
 ment, and that at the same time, because in distinct senses ; an 
 inward instrument in no way interfering with an outward instru- 
 ment. Baptism may be the hand of the giver, and Faith the hand 
 of the receiver." 
 
 Nor does the sole instrumentality of Faith interfere with the 
 doctrine of Works being a mean also. And that it is a mean, 
 the Homily of Alms-deeds declares in the strongest language, as 
 will also be quoted in Section 11. 
 
 " An assent to the doctrine that Faith alone justifies, does not 
 at all preclude the doctrine of Works justifying also. If, indeed, 
 it were said that Works justify in the same sense as Faith only 
 justifies, this would be a contradiction in terms ; but Faith only 
 may justify in one sense — Good Works in another : — and this is 
 all that is here maintained. After all, does not Cmusr only 
 justify? How is it that the «loclrine of Faith justifying does not 
 
 3
 
 Justification, by Faith only. 13 
 
 interfere with our Lord's being the sole Justifier? It will, of 
 course, be replied, that our Lord is the meritorious cause, and 
 Faith the means; that Faith justifies in a different and subor- 
 dinate sense. As, then, Christ justifies in the sense in which He 
 justifies alone, yet Faith also justifies in its own sense ; so Works, 
 whether moral or ritual, may justify us in their own respective 
 senses, though in the sense in which Faith justifies, it only 
 justifies. The only question is. What is that sense in which 
 Works justify, so as not to interfere with Faith only justifying ? 
 It may, indeed, turn out on inquiry, that the sense alleged will 
 not hold, either as being unscriptural, or for any other reason ; 
 but, whether so or not, at any rate the apparent inconsistency of 
 language should not startle persons ; nor should they so promptly 
 condemn those who, though they do not use their language, use 
 St. James's. Indeed, is not this argument the very weapon of 
 the Arians, in their warfare against the Son of God ? They 
 said, Christ is not God, because the Father is called the 
 • Only God.' " 
 
 2. Next we have to inquire in what sense Faith only does 
 justify. In a number of ways, of which here two only shall be 
 mentioned. 
 
 First, it is the pleading or impetrating principle, or constitutes 
 our title to justification ; being analogous among the graces to 
 Moses' lifting up his hands on the Mount, or the Israelites eyeing 
 the Brazen Serpent, — actions which did not merit God's mercy, 
 but asked for it. A number of means go to effect our justifi- 
 cation. We are justified by Christ alone, in that He has 
 purchased the gift ; by Faith alone, in that Faith asks for it ; by 
 Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it ; and by newness of heart 
 alone, for newness of heart is the life of it. 
 
 And secondly, Faith, as being the beginning of perfect or 
 justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, or 
 ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation to be that which 
 it promises ; just as one might pay a labourer his hire before he 
 began his work. Faith working by love is the seed of divine 
 graces, which in due time will be brought forth and flourish — 
 partly in this world, fully in the next.
 
 14 
 
 § 3. — Works before and after Justification. 
 
 Articles xii. & xiii. — " Works done before the grace of Christ, 
 and the inspiration of His Spirit, [* before justification,' title of 
 the Article,'] are not pleasant to God (minime Deo grata sunt) ; 
 forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither 
 do they make man meet to receive grace, or (as the school 
 authors say) deserve grace of congruity (merentur gratiam de 
 congruo) ; yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath 
 willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they 
 have the nature of sin. Albeit good works, which are the fruits 
 of faith, and follow after justification (justificatos sequuntur), 
 cannot put away (expiare) our sins, and endure the severity of 
 God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable (grata et 
 accepta) to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a 
 true and lively Faith." 
 
 Two sorts of works are here mentioned — works before justifi- 
 cation, and works after ; and they are most strongly contrasted 
 with each other. 
 
 1. Works before justification, are done " before the grace of 
 Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit." 
 
 2. Works before, " do not spring of Faith in Jesus Christ ;" 
 works after are " the fruits of Faith." 
 
 3. Works before " have the nature of sin ;" works after are 
 " good works." 
 
 4. Works before " are not pleasant (grata) to God;" works 
 after " are pleasing and acceptable (grata et accepta) to God." 
 
 Two propositions, mentioned in these Articles, remain, and 
 deserve consideration : First, that works before justification do 
 not make or dispose men to receive grace, or, as the school 
 writers say, deserve grace of congruity ; secondly, that works 
 after " cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of 
 God's judgment." 
 
 1 . As to the former statement, — to deserve dc congruo, or of 
 congruity, is to move the Divine regard, not from any claim upon
 
 JVorks before ami after Justificafion. 15 
 
 it, but from a certain fitness or suitableness ; as, for instance, it 
 might be said that dry wood had a certain disposition or fitness 
 towards heat wliich green wood liad not. Now, the Article 
 denies that works done before the grace of Christ, or in a 
 mere state of nature, in this way dispose towards grace, or 
 move God to grant grace. And it asserts, with or without 
 reason, (for it is a question of historical fact, which need not 
 specially concern us,) that certain schoolmen maintained the 
 affirmative. 
 
 Now, that this is what it means, is plain from the following 
 passages of the Homilies, which in no respect have greater claims 
 upon us than as comments upon the Articles : — 
 
 " Therefore tbey that teach repentance without a lively faith in our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, do teach none other but Judas's repentance, as all the schoolmen 
 do, which do only allow these three parts of repentance, — the contrition of the 
 heart, the confession of the mouth, and the satisfaction of the work. But all 
 these things we find in Judas's repentance, which, in outward appearance, 
 did far exceed and pass the repentance of Peter. . . . This was commonly 
 the penance which Christ enjoined sinners, 'Go thy way, and sin no more;' 
 which penance we shall never be able to fulfil, without the special grace of Him 
 that doth say, ' Without Me, ye can do nothing.' " — On Repentance, p. 4G0. 
 
 To take a passage which is still more clear : 
 
 " As these examples are not brought in to the end that we should thereby 
 take a boldness to sin, presuming on the mercy and goodness of God, but to the 
 end that, if, through the frailness of our own flesh, and the temptation of the 
 devil, we fall into the like sins, we should in no wise despair of the mercy and 
 goodness of God : even so must we beware and take heed, that we do in no 
 wise think in our hearts, imagine, or believe that we are able to repent aright, 
 or to turn effectually unto the Lord by our own might and strength." — 
 Ibid., part i. fin. 
 
 The Article contemplates these two states, — one of justifying 
 grace, and one of the utter destitution of grace ; and it says, that 
 those who are in utter destitution cannot do anything to gain 
 justification ; and, indeed, to assert the contrary would be 
 Pelagianism. However, there is an intermediate state, of which 
 the Article says nothing, but which must not be forgotten, as 
 being an actually existing one. Men are not always either in 
 light or in darkness, but are sometimes between the two ; they are 
 sometimes not in a state of Christian justification, yet not utterly
 
 16 Works before and after Justification. 
 
 deserted by God, but in a state something like that of Jews or of 
 Heathen, turning to the thonght of rehgion. They are not gifted 
 with habitual grace, but they still are visited by Divine influences, 
 or by aciwa^ grace, or rather aid; and these influences are the 
 first-fruits of the grace of justification going before it, and are 
 intended to lead on to it, and to be perfected in it, as twilight leads 
 to day. And since it is a Scripture maxim, that " he that is faith- 
 ful in that which is least, is faithful also in much ;" and " to who- 
 soever hath, to him shall be given ;" therefore, it is quite true that 
 works done with divine aid, and in faith, fee/ore justification, do dis- 
 pose men to receive the grace of justification: — such were Cor- 
 nelius's alms, fastings, and prayers, which led to his baptism. At 
 the same time it must be borne in mind that, even in such cases, 
 it is not the works themselves which make them meet, as some 
 schoolmen seem to have said, but the secret aid of God, vouch- 
 safed, equally with the "grace and Spirit," which is the portion 
 of the baptized, for the merits of Christ's sacrifice. 
 
 [But it may be objected, that the silence observed in the Article 
 about a state between that of justification and grace, and that of 
 neither, is a proof that there is none such. This argument, how- 
 ever, would prove too much ; for in like manner there is a silence 
 in the Sixth Article about a judge of the scripturalness of doctrine, 
 yet a judge there must be. And, again, few, it is supposed, would 
 deny that Cornelius, before the angel came to him, was in a more 
 hopeful state, than Simon Magus or Felix. The difficulty then, 
 if there be one, is common to persons of whatever school of 
 opinion.] 
 
 2. If works before justification, when done by the influence of 
 divine aid, gain grace, much more do works after justification. 
 They are, according to the Article, " grata," " pleasing to God;" 
 and they are accepted, " accepta ;" which means that God 
 rewards them, and that of course according to their degree of 
 excellence. At the same time, as works before justification may 
 nevertheless be done under a divine influence, so works after 
 justification are still liable to the infection of original sin ; and, as 
 not being perfect, " cannot expiate our sins," or " endure the 
 severity of God's judgment."
 
 § 4. — The Visihle Church. 
 
 Art. xix. — "The visible Cliurch of Christ is a congregation of 
 faitlifiil men (ccetus fidelium), in the which the pure Word of 
 God is preached, and tlie Sacraments be duly ministered, accord- 
 ing to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity 
 are requisite to the same." 
 
 This is not an abstract definition of a Church, but a description of 
 the actually existing One Holy Catholic Church diffused throughout 
 the world ; as if it were read, " The Church is a certain society 
 of the faithful," &c. This is evident from the mode of describing 
 the Catholic Church familiar to all writers from the first ages 
 down to the age of this Article. For instance, St. Clement of 
 Alexandria says, " I mean by the Church, not a place, but the 
 congregation of the elect.' Origen : " The Church, the assembly 
 of all the faithful." St. Ambrose : " One congregation, one 
 Church." St. Isidore : " The Church is a congregation of saints, 
 collected on a certain faith, and the best conduct of life." St. 
 Augustin: "The Church is the people q/ Gorf through all ages." 
 Again : " The Church is the multitude which is spread over the 
 whole earth." St. Cyril : "When we speak of the Church, we 
 denote the most holy multitude of the j)ious," Theodoret : " The 
 Apostle culls the Church the assembly of the faithful.^' Pope 
 Gregory : " The Church, a multitude of the faithful collected of 
 both sexes." Bede : " The Ci)urch is the congregation of all 
 saints." Alcuin : " Tiie Holy Catholic Church, — in Latin, the 
 congregation of the faithful." Amalarius : " The Church is the 
 people called together by the Church's ministers." Pope Nicolas 
 I.: " The Church, that is, the congregation of Catholics." St. 
 Bernard : " What is the Spouse, but the congregation of the just ?" 
 Peter the Venerable : " The Church is called a congregation, 
 but not of all things, not of cattle, but of men, faithful, good, 
 just. Though bad among these good, and just among the 
 unjust, are revealed or concealed, yet it is called a Chinch." 
 VOL. VI. — [)0. c
 
 18 The Visible Church. 
 
 Hugo Victorinus : " The Holy Church, that is, the diversity of 
 the faithful." Arnulphus : " The Church is called the congre- 
 gation of the faithful.'" Albertus Magnus: " The Greek word 
 Church means in Latin convocation ; and whereas works and 
 callings belong to rational animals, and reason in man is inward 
 faith, therefore it is called the congregation of the faithful." 
 Durandus : " The Church is in one sense material, in which 
 divers offices are celebrated ; in another spiritual, which is the 
 collection of the faith fid." Alvarus : " The Church is the multi- 
 tude of the faithful, or the university of Christians." Pope 
 Pius n. : " The Church is the mrdtitude of the faithful dispersed 
 through all nations'." [And so the Reformers, in their own way ; 
 for instance, the Confession of Augsburgh. " The one Holy 
 Church will remain for ever. Now the Church of Christ pro- 
 perly is the congregation of the members of Christ, that is, of 
 saints who truly believe and obey Christ ; though with this con- 
 gregation many bad and hypocrites are mixed in this life, till the 
 last judgment." vii. — And the Saxon : " We say then that the 
 visible Church in this life is an assembly of those who embrace 
 the Gospel of Christ and riglitly use the Sacraments," &c. xii.l 
 
 These illustrations of the phraseology of the Article may be 
 multiplied in any number. And they plainly show that it is not 
 laying down any logical definition ivhal a Church is, but is descri- 
 bing, and, as it were, pointing to the Catholic Cliurch diffused 
 throughout the world ; which, being but one, cannot possibly be 
 mistaken, and requires no other account of it beyond this single 
 and majestic one. The ministration of the VV^ord and Sacraments is 
 mentioned as a further note of it. As to the question of it<- 
 limits, whether Episcopal Succession or whether intercommunion 
 with the whole be necessary to each parr of it, — these are ques- 
 tions, most important indeed, but of detail, and are not expressly 
 treated of in the Articles. 
 
 This view is further illustrated by ihr following passage from 
 the Homily for Wliitsunday : — 
 "Our Saviour Christ departing out of the world unto Flis Fattjkr. piomised 
 
 * These instances are from Launoy.
 
 The Visible C/nirclt. 19 
 
 His Disciples to send down anotlierCoMFORTEn, that should continue with them 
 for ever, and direct them into all truth. Which thing, to be faithfully and 
 truly performed, the Scriptures do sufficiently bear witness. Neither must we 
 think that this Comforter was either promised, or else given, only to the Apos- 
 tles, but also to Ihe universal Church of Christ, dispersed through the whole 
 world. ¥or, unless the Holy Ghost had been always present, governing and 
 preserving the Church from the beginning, it could never have suft'ered so 
 many and great brunts of affliction and persecution, with so little damage and 
 harm as it hath. And the words of Christ are most plain in this behalf, saying, 
 that ' the Spirit of Truth should abide with them for ever;' that ' He would 
 be with them always (He meaneth by grace, virtue, and power) even to the 
 world's end.' 
 
 " Also in the prayer that He made to His Father a little before His death, 
 He maketh intercession, not only for Himself and His Apostles, but indifferently 
 for all them that should believe in Him through their words, that is, to wit, for 
 His whole Church. Again, St. Paul saith, ' If any man have not the Spirit of 
 Christ, the same is not His.' Also, in the words following: 'We have 
 received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.' Hereby, then, 
 it is evident and plain to all men, that the Holy Ghost was given, not only to 
 the Apostles, but also to the whole body o/" Christ's congregation, although not 
 in like form and majesty as He came down at the feast of Pentecost. But now 
 herein standeth the controversy, — whether all men do justly arrogate to them- 
 selves the Holy Ghost, or no. The Bishops of Rome have for a long time 
 made a sore challenge thereto, reasoning with themselves after this sort: ' The 
 Holy Ghost,' say they, ' was promised to the Church, and never forsaketh 
 the Church. But we are the chief heads and the principal part of the Church, 
 therefore we have the Holy Ghost for ever : and whatsoever things we decree 
 are undoubted verities and oracles of the Holy' Ghost.' That ye may per- 
 ceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to teach you, first, what the 
 true Church of Christ is, and then to confer the Church of Rome therewith, 
 to discern how well they agree together. The true Church is an nnivcrsal con- 
 gregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the founda- 
 tion of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head 
 corner-stone. And it hath always three notes or marks, whereby it is known : 
 pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ's 
 holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description 
 of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doc- 
 trine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith. 
 Now, if you will compare this with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the 
 beginning, but as it is at present, and hath been for the space of nine hundred 
 years and odd ; you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from 
 the nature of the Church, that nothing can be more." 
 
 This passage is qtioted, not for all it contains, but in iliat re- 
 
 c 2
 
 20 The Visible Church. 
 
 spect in which it claims attention, viz. as far as it is an ilhistration 
 of the Article. It is speaking of the one Catliolic Church, not 
 of an abstract idea of a Church which may be multiplied indefi- 
 nitely in fact ; and it uses the same terms of it which the Article 
 does of" the visible Church." It says that " the true Church is 
 an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and 
 elect people," &c., which as closely corresponds to the coetiis 
 Jidelium, or " congregation of faithful men" of the Article, as the 
 above descriptions from Fathers or Divines do. Therefore, the 
 ccetus jidelium spoken of in the Article is not a definition, which 
 kirk, or connexion, or other communion may be made to fall 
 under, but the enunciation of a fact.
 
 21 
 
 § 5. — General Councils. 
 
 Article xxi. — " General councils may not be gathered together 
 without the commandment and will of princes. And when they 
 be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, 
 whereof all be not governed witli the Spirit and Word of God, 
 they may err, and sometimes have erred, in things pertaining to 
 God." 
 
 That great bodies of men, of different countries, may not meet 
 together without the sanction of their rulers, is plain from the 
 principles of civil obedience and from primitive practice. That, 
 when met together, though Christians, they will not be all ruled 
 by the Spirit or Word of God, is plain from our Lord's parable 
 of the net, and from melancholy experience. That bodies of men, 
 deficient in this respect, may err, is a self-eviflent truth, — unless, 
 indeed, they be favoured with some divine superintendence, which 
 has to be proved, before it can be admitted. 
 
 General councils then may err, [as such ; — may err,] unless in 
 any case it is promised, as a matter of express supernatural pri- 
 vilege, that they shall not err ; a case which lies beyond the scope 
 of this Article, or at any rate beside its determination. 
 
 Such a promise, however, does exist, in cases when general coun- 
 cils are not only gathered together according to " the command- 
 ment and will of princes," but in the Name of Christ, according 
 to our Lord's promise. The Article merely contemplates the 
 human prince, not the King of Saints. While councils are a thing 
 of earth, their infallibility of course is not guaranteed ; when they 
 are a thing of heaven, their deliberations are overruled, and their 
 decrees authoritative. In such cases they are Catholic councils ; 
 and it would seem, from passages which will be quoted in Section 
 11, that the Homilies recognize four, or even six, as bearing 
 this character. Thus Catholic or CEcumenical Councils are 
 general councils, and something more. Some general councils 
 are Catholic, and others are not. Nay, as even Romanists 
 grant, the same councils may be partly Catholic, partly not.
 
 22 General Councils. 
 
 If Catholicity be thus a quality, found at times in general 
 councils, rather than the differentia belonging to a certain class 
 of them, it is still less surprising that the Article should be silent 
 about it. 
 
 What those conditions are, which fulfil the notion of a gather- 
 ing " in the Name of Christ," in the case of a particular council, 
 it is not necessary here to determine. Some have included 
 among these conditions, the subsequent reception of its decrees 
 by the universal Church ; others a ratification by the pope. 
 
 Another of these conditions, however, the Article goes on to 
 mention, viz. that in points necessary to salvation, a council 
 should prove its decrees by Scripture. 
 
 St. Gregory Nazianzen well illustrates the consistency of this 
 Article with a belief in the infallibility of OEcumenical Councils, 
 by his own language on the subject on different occasions. 
 
 In the following passage he anticipates the Article ; — 
 
 " My mind is, if I must write the truth, to keep clear of every conference of 
 bisliops, for of conference never saw I good come, or a remedy so much as an 
 increase of evils. For there is strife and ambition, and these have the upper 
 hand of reason." — Ep. 55. 
 
 Yet, on the other hand, he speaks elsewhere of " the Holy 
 Council in Nicaea, and that band of chosen men whom the Holy 
 Ghost brought together." — Orat. 21.
 
 § 6. — Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, Invocation of Saints. 
 
 Article xxii. — "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, 
 pardons (de indulgentiis), worshipping (de veneratione) and 
 adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of 
 saints, is a fond thing (res est futilis) vainly (inaniter) invented, 
 and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repug- 
 nant (contradicit) to the Word of God." 
 
 Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article is, 
 that the doctrine objected to is " the Romish doctrine.'' For 
 instance, no one would suppose that the Calvinistic doctrine con- 
 cerning })urgatory, pardons, and image-worship, is spoken against. 
 Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the 
 Romish doctrine. Accordingly, the Primitive doctrine is not 
 condemned in it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the 
 Romish, which must not be supposed. Now there ivas a primi- 
 tive doctrine on all these points, — how far Catholic or universal, 
 is a further question, — but still so widely received and so 
 respectably supported, that it may well be entertained as a matter 
 of opinion by a theologian now ; this, then, whatever be its 
 merits, is not condemned by this Article. 
 
 Tliis is clear without proof on the face of the matter, at 
 least as regards pardons. Of course, the Article never meant 
 to make light of evert/ doctrine about pardons, but a certain 
 doctrine, the Romish doctrine, [as indeed the plural form itself 
 shows.] 
 
 And [such an understanding of the Article is supported by] 
 some sentences in the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far 
 as regards relics, a certain " veneration" is sanctioned by its tone 
 in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish veneration. 
 
 The sentences referi'ed to run as follows : — 
 
 "In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book, and Forty-eighth 
 Chapter, is testified, that ' Epiplianius, being yet alive, did work miracles : and 
 that after his death, devils, being expelled at his grave or tomb, did roar.' Thus you 
 see what authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that most 
 ancient history give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius."
 
 24 Purgatory, Pardons, linages, 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the Emperor, 
 baith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it. She worshipped the King, 
 and not the wood, surely (for that is an heathenish error and the vanitj' of the 
 wicked), but she worshipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name 
 was written on the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's fact, and 
 St. Ambrose's judgment at once ; they thought it liad been an heathenish error, 
 and vanity of the wicked, to have worshipped the Cross itself, ivhich was cmbrued 
 with our Saviour Christ's own precious blood."— Pen7 of Idolatry, part 2, 
 circ. init. 
 
 In these passages tlie writer does not positively commit himself 
 to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the discovery of the true 
 Cross, but he evidently wishes the hearer to think he believes iu 
 both. This he would not do, if he thought all honour paid to 
 relics wrong. 
 
 If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine cou- 
 cernins veneration of relics is condemned in the Article before us, 
 but a certain toleration of them is compatible with its wording ; 
 neither is all doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, images, 
 and saints, condemned by the Article, but only " the Romish." 
 
 And further by " the Romish doctrine," is not meant the Tri- 
 dentine [statement], because this Article was drawn up before the 
 decree of tlie Council of Trent. What is opposed is the received 
 doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine 
 of the Uoinun schools ; a conclusion which is still more clear, by 
 considering that there are portions in the Tridentine [statements] on 
 these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning, by antici- 
 pation approves, as far as they go. For instance, the Decree of 
 Trent enjoins concerning purgatory thus : — " Among the un- 
 educated vulgar let difficult and subtle questions, yvhich make not 
 for edification, and seldom conlribiite auglit towards piety, be 
 kept back from popular discourses. Ncithtr let them sudlt^r 
 the public mention and treatment ol' uncertain pomts, or such 
 as look nice falsehood." Session 25. Again, about images : 
 " Due honour and veneration is to be paid unto them, not 
 that rvc believe that any divinity or virtue is in them, for 
 which they should be worshipped (coiendaj) or that we should 
 ask any thing of them, or that trust should be reposed in images,
 
 Relics, invocation of Saints. 25 
 
 as formerly was done by the Gentiles, which used to place their 
 hope on idols." — Ibid. 
 
 If, then, the doctrine condemned in this Article concerning 
 purgatory, pardons, images, relics, and saints, be not the Primi- 
 tive doctrine, nor the Catholic doctrine, nor the Tridentine [state- 
 ment,] but the Romish, doctrina Romanensium, let us next consider 
 what in matter of fact it is. And 
 
 1. As to the doctrine of the Romanists concerning Purgatory. 
 
 Now here there was a primitive doctrine, whatever its merits, 
 concerning the fire of judgment, which is a possible or a probable 
 opinion, and is not condemned. That doctrine is this : that the 
 conflagration of the world, or tlie flames which attend the Judge, 
 will be an ordeal through which all men will pass ; that great 
 saints, such as St. Mary, will pass it unharmed ; that others will 
 suffer loss ; but none will fail under it who are built upon 
 the right foundation. Here is one [purgatorian doctrine] not 
 " Romish." 
 
 Another doctrine, purgatorian, but not Romish, is that said to 
 be maintained by the Greeks at Florence, in which the cleansing, 
 though a punishment, was but a jtcena danini, not a poena sensus ; 
 not a positive sensible infliction, much less the torment of fire, 
 but the absence of God's presence. And another purgatory is 
 that in which the cleansing is but a progressive sanctification, and 
 has no pain at all. 
 
 None of these doctrines does the Article condemn ; any of them 
 may be held by the Anglo-Catholic as a matter o^ private 
 belief ; not that they are here advocated, one or other, but they 
 are adduced as an illustration of what the Article does not mean, 
 and to vindicate our Christian liberty in a matter where the 
 Church has not confined it. 
 
 [For what the doctrine which is reprobated is, we might refer, 
 in the first place, to the Council of Florence, where a decree was 
 passed on the subject, were not that decree almost as vague as 
 the Tridentine ; viz., that deficiency of penance is made up by 
 pcence purgatoriijB.] 
 
 " Now doth St. Augustine say, that those men which are cast into prison 
 after tliis life, on tliat condition, may in no wise be liolpen, though we would 
 help them never so much. And why ? Because the sentence of God is
 
 26 Purgatory. 
 
 unchangeable, and cannot be revoked again. Therefore let us not deceive 
 ourselves, thinking that either we may help others, or others may help us, by 
 their good and charitable prayers in time to come. For, as the preacher saith, 
 ' When the tree falleth, whether it be toward the south, or toward the north, in 
 what place soever the tree falleth, there it lieth :' meaning thereby, that every 
 mortal man dieth either in the state of salvation or damnation, according as the 
 words of the Evangelist John do plainly import, saying, ' He that believeth on 
 the Son of God hath eternal life ; but he that believeth not on the Son, shall 
 never see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him,' — where is then the 
 third place, which they call purgatory ? Or where shall our prayers help and 
 profit the dead ? St. Augustine doth only acknowledge two places after this 
 life, heaven and hell. As for the third place, he doth plainly deny that there 
 is any such to be found in all Scripture. Chrysostom likewise is of this mind, 
 that, unless we wash away our sins in this present world, we shall find no com- 
 fort afterward. And St. Cyprian saith, that, after death, repentance and sorrow 
 of pain shall be without fruit, weeping also shall be in vain, and prayer shall be 
 to no purpose. Therefore he counselleth all men to make provision for them- 
 selves while they may, because, when they are once departed out of this life, 
 there is no place for repentance, nor yet for satisfaction." — Homily concerning 
 Prayer, pp. 282, 283. 
 
 Now it [would seem], from this passage, that the Purgatory con- 
 templated by the Homily, was one for which no one will for an 
 instant pretend to adduce even those Fathers who most favour 
 Rome, viz. one in which our state would he changed, in which 
 God's sentence could be reversed. " The sentence of God," says 
 the writer, "is unchangeable, and cannot be revoked again ; there 
 is no place for repentance." On the other hand, the Council of 
 Trent, and Augustin and Cyprian, so far as they express or 
 imply any opinion approximating to that of the Council, held 
 Purgatory to be a place for believers, not unbelievers, not where 
 men who have lived and died in God's wrath, may gain pardon, 
 but where those who have already been pardoned in this life, 
 may be cleansed and purified for beholding the face of God. 
 The Homily, then, and therefore the Article [as far as the Homily 
 may be taken to explain it], does not speak of the Tridentine 
 purgatory. 
 
 The mention of Prayers for the dead in the above passage, 
 affords an additional illustration of the limited and [relative] 
 sense of the terms of the Article now under consideration. For 
 such prayers are obviously not condemned in it in the abstract, 
 or in every shape, but as oj/'ciedlo rescue the lost from eternal fire.
 
 Purgatory. 27 
 
 [Hooker, in bis Sermon on Pride, gives us a second view of the 
 " Romish doctrine of Purgatory," from the schoolmen. After 
 speaking of the poena darmii, he says — 
 
 " The other punishment, which hath iti it not only loss of joy, but also sense 
 of grief, vexation, and woe, is that whereunto they give the name of purgatory 
 pains, in nothing different from those very infernal torments which the souls of 
 castaways, together with damtied spirits do endure, save only in this, there is an 
 appointed term to the one, to the other none ; but for the time they last they 
 are equal." — Vol. iii. p. 798.] 
 
 Such doctrine, too, as the following may well be included in 
 that which the Article condemns under the name of " Romish." 
 The passage to be quoted has already appeared in these Tracts. 
 
 "In the ' Speculum Exemplorum' it is said, that a certain priest, in an 
 ecstasy, saw the soul of Constantius Turritanus in the eaves of his housCt tor- 
 mented with frosts and cold rains, and afterwards climbing up to heaven upon 
 a shining pillar. And a certain monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like 
 pigs, and some devils basting them with scalding lard ; but a while after, they 
 were carried to a cool place, and so proved purgatory. But Bishop Theobald, 
 standing upon a piece of ice to cool his feet, was nearer purgatory than he was 
 aware, and was convinced of it, when he heard a poor soul telling him, that 
 under that ice he was tormented ; and that he should be delivered, if for thirty 
 days continual, he would say for him thirty masses. And some such thing was 
 seen by Conrade and Udalric in a pool of water ; for the place of purgatory was 
 not yet resolved on, till St. Patrick had the key of it delivered to him, which 
 when one Nicholas borrowed of him, he saw as strange and true things there, as 
 ever Virgil dreamed of in his purgatory, or Cicero in his dream of Scipio, or 
 Plato in his Gorgias, or Phaedo, who indeed are the surest authors to prove 
 purgatory. But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of 
 Trent, there are yet remaining more certain arguments, even revelations made 
 by angels, and the testimony of St. Odilio himself, who heard the devil com- 
 plain, (and he had great reason surely) that the souls of dead men were daily 
 snatched out of his hands, by the alms and prayers of the living; and the sister 
 of St. Dainianus, being too much pleased with hearing of a piper, told her bro- 
 ther, that she was to be tormented for fifteen days in purgatory. 
 
 " We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these 
 narratives ; for if they did. they were not wisej but this we know, that by such 
 stories the people were brought into a belief of it, and having served their turn 
 of them, the master builders used them as false arches and centries, taking them 
 away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by authority." 
 — Jcr. Taylor, Works, vol. x. pp. 151, 152. 
 
 Another specimen of doctrine, which no one will attempt to 
 prove from Scripture, is the following : —
 
 28 Purgatory. 
 
 " Eastwardly, between two walls, was a vast place of purgatory fixed, and 
 beyond it a pond to rinse souls in that had waded through purgatory, the water 
 being salt and cold beyond comparison. Over this purgatory St. Nicholas was 
 the owner. 
 
 " There was a mighty bridge, all beset with nails and spikes, and leading to 
 the mount of joy ; on which mount was a stately church, seemingly capable to 
 contain all the inhabitants of the world, and into which the souls were no sooner 
 entered, but that they forgot all their former torments. 
 
 " Returning to the first Church, there they found St. Michael the Archangel 
 and the Apostles Peter and Paul. St. Michael caused all the white souls to pass 
 through the flames, unharmed, to the mount of joy ; and those that had black 
 and white spots, St. Peter led into purgatory to be purified. 
 
 " In one part sate St. Paul, and the devil opposite to him with his guards, 
 with a pair of scales between them, weighing all such souls as were all over 
 black ; when upon turning a soul, the scale turned towards St. Paul, he sent it 
 to purgatory, there to expiate its sins ; when towards the devil, his crew, with 
 great triumph, plunged it into the flaming pit 
 
 " The rustic likewise saw near the entrance of the town-hall, as it were, four 
 streets ; the first was full of innumerable furnaces and cauldrons filled with flaming 
 pitch and other liquids, and boiling of souls, whose heads were like those of 
 black fishes in the seething liquor. The second had its cauldrons stored with 
 snow and ice, to torment souls with horrid cold. The third had thereof boiling 
 sulphur and other materials, aflPbrding the worst of stinks, for the vexing of 
 souls that had wallowed in the filth of lust. The fourth had cauldrons of a most 
 horrid salt and black water. Now sinners of all sorts were alternately tormented 
 in these cauldrons." — Purgatory jjroved by Miracle, by S. Johnson, pp. 8 — 10. 
 
 [Let it be considered, then, whether on the whole the 
 " Romish doctrine of Purgatory," which the Article condemns, 
 and which was generally believed in the Roman Church three 
 centuries since, as well as now, viewed in its essence, be not 
 the doctrine, that the punishment of unrighteous Christians 
 is temporary, not eternal, and that the purification of the 
 righteous is a portion of the same punishment, together with the 
 superstitions, and impostures for the sake of gain, consequent 
 thereupon.] 
 
 2. Pardons, or Indulgences. 
 
 The history of the rise of the Reformation will interpret " the 
 Romish doctrine concerning pardons," without going further. 
 Burnet thus speaks on the subject, 
 
 " In llic primitive church there were very severe rules made, obliging all that 
 had sinned publicly (and they were afterwards applied to such as had sinned 
 secretly) to continue for many years in a stale of separation from the Sacrament,
 
 Pardons. 29 
 
 and of penance and discipline. But because all such general rules admit of a 
 great variety of circumstances, taken from men's sins, llieir person?, and their 
 repentance, there was a power given to all Bishops, by the Council of Nice, to 
 shorten the time, and to relax the severity of those Canons, and such favour as 
 they saw cause to grant, was called indulgence. This was just and necessary, 
 and was a provision without which no constitution or society can be well go- 
 verned. But after the tenth century, as the Popes came to take this power in 
 the whole extent of it into their own hands, so they found it too feeble to carry 
 on the great designs that they grafted upon it. 
 
 " They gave it high names, and called it a plenary remission, and the pardon 
 of all sins: which the world was taught to look on as a thing of a much higher 
 nature, than the bare excusing of men from discipline and penance. Purgatory 
 was then got to be firmly believed, and all men were strangely possessed with 
 the terror of it: so a deliverance from purgatory, and by consequence an imme- 
 diate admission into heaven, was believed to be the certain effect of it. Multi- 
 tudes were, by these means, engaged to go to the Holy Land, to recover it out 
 of the hands of the Saracens: afterwards they armed vast numbers against the 
 heretics, to extirpate them : they fought also all those quarrels, which their 
 ambitious pretensions engaged them in, with emperors and other princes, by 
 the same pay ; and at last tlicy set it to sale with the same impudence, and 
 almost with the same methods, that mountebanks use in venting of their 
 secrets. 
 
 " This was so gross, even in an ignorant age, and among the ruder sort, that 
 it gave the first rise to the Ileformation: and as the progress of it was a very 
 signal work of God, so it was in a great measure owing to the scandals that tliis 
 shameless practice had given the world." — Burnet on Article XIV. p. 190. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " The virtue of indulgences is the applying the treasure of the Church upon 
 such terms as Popes shall think fit to prescribe, in order to the redeeming souls 
 from purgatory, and from all other temporal punishments, and that for such a 
 number of years as shall be specified in the bulls ; some of which have gone to 
 thousands of years ; one I have seen to ten hundred thousand : and as these in- 
 dulgences are sometimes granted by special tickets, like tallies struck on that 
 treasure ; so sometimes they are afSxed to particular churches and altars, to 
 particular times, or days, chiefly to the year of jubilee ; they are also affixed to 
 such things as may be carried about, to Agnus Dei's, to medals, to rosaries, and 
 scapularies ; they are also affixed to some prayers, the devout saying of them 
 being a mean to procure great indulgences. The granting these is left to the 
 Pope's discretion, who ought to distribute them as he thinks may tend most to 
 the honour of God and the good of the Church ; and he ought not to be too 
 profuse, much less to be too scanty in dispensing them. 
 
 " This has been the received doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome 
 since the twelfth century ; and the Council of Trent, in a hurry, in its last ses- 
 sion, did, in very general words, approve of the practice of the Ciiurcli in tliis
 
 so Pardons. 
 
 matter, and decreed that indulgences should be continued; only thei/ restrained 
 some abuses, in particular that of selluig them." — Burnet on Article XXII. 
 p. 305. 
 
 Burnet goes on to maintain that the act of the Council was in- 
 complete and evaded. If it be necessary to say more on the sub- 
 ject, let us attend to the following passage from Jeremy Taylor : — 
 
 " I might have instanced in worse matters, made by the Popes of Rome to 
 be pious works, the condition of obtaining indulgences. Such as was the 
 bull of Pope Julius the Second, giving indulgence to him that meeting a French- 
 man should kill him, and another for the killing of a Venetian I desire 
 
 this only instance may be added to it, that Pope Paul the Third, he that con- 
 vened the Council of Trent, and Julius the Third, for fear, as I may suppose, 
 the Council should forbid any more such follies, for a farewell to this game, 
 gave an indulgence to the fraternity of the Sacrament of the Altar, or of the 
 Blessed Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of such a vastness and unreasonable 
 folly, that it puts us beyond the question of religion, to an inquiry, whether it 
 were not done either in perfect distraction, or, with a worse design, to make 
 religion to be ridiculous, and to expose it to a contempt and scorn. The condi- 
 tions of the indulgence are, either to visit the Church of St. Hilary of Chartres, 
 to say a ' Pater Noster' and an ' Ave Mary' every Friday, or, at most, to be 
 present at processions and other divine service upon ' Corpus Christi day.' 
 The gift is — as many privileges, indults, exemptions, liberties, immunities, ple- 
 nary pardons of sins, and other spiritual graces, as were given to the fraternity 
 of the Image of our Saviour 'ad Sancta Sanctorum;' the fraternity of the cha- 
 rity and great hospital of St. James in Augusta, of St. John Baptist, of St. Cos- 
 mas and Damianus ; of the Florentine nation ; of the hospital of the Holy 
 Ghost in Saxia ; of the order of St. Austin and St. Champ ; of the fraternities 
 of the said city ; of the churches of our Lady ' de populo et verbo ;" and all 
 those that were ever given to them that visited these churches, or those which 
 should ever be given hereafter — a pretty large gift ! In which there were so 
 many pardons, quarter-pardons, half-pardons, true pardons, plenary pardons, 
 quarantines, and years of quarantines; that it is a harder thing to number 
 them, than to purchase them. I shall remark in these some particulars to be 
 considered. 
 
 " L That a most scandalous and unchristian dissolution and death uf all 
 ecclesiastical discipline, is consequent to the making all sin so cheap and trivial 
 a thing ; that the horrible demerits and exemplary punishment and remotion of 
 scandal and satisfactions to the Church, arc indeed reduced to trifling and mock 
 penances. He that shall send a servant with a candle to attend the holy Sacra- 
 ment, when it shall be carried to sick people, or shall go himself; or, if he can 
 neither go nor send, if he say a ' Pater Noster' and an ' Ave,' he shall have a 
 hundred years of true pardon. This is fair and easy. But then, 
 
 " 2. It would be considered what i<; meant by so many years of pardon, and 
 so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural interpretation of it:
 
 Images and Relics. 81 
 
 and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are but fantastical, 
 and not true ; and in this I find no fault, save only that it ought to have been 
 said, that all of them are fantastical. 
 
 " 3. It were fit we learned how to compute four thousand and eight hundred 
 years of quarantines, and a remission of a third part of all their sins; for so 
 much is given to every brother and sister of this fraternity, upon Easter-day, 
 and eight days after. Now if a brother needs not thus many, it would be con- 
 sidered whether it did not encourage a brother or a frail sister to use all their 
 medicine, and sin more freely, lest so great a gift become useless. 
 
 " 4. And this is so much the more considerable because the gift is vast 
 beyond all imagination. The first four days in Lent they may purchase thirty- 
 three thousand years of pardon, besides a plenary remission of all their sins over 
 and above. The first week of Lent a hundred and three-and-thirty thousand 
 years of pardon, besides five plenary remissions of all their sins, and two third 
 parts besides, and the delivery of one soul out of purgatory. The second week 
 in Lent a hundred and eight-and-fifty thousand years of pardon, besides the 
 remission of all their sins, and a third part besides ; and the delivery of one 
 soul. The third week in Lent, eighty thousand years, besides a plenary remis- 
 sion, and the delivery of one soul out of pin-gatory. The fourth week in Lent, 
 threescore thousand years of pardon, besides a remission of two-thirds of all 
 their sins, and one plenary remission, and one soul delivered. The fifth week, 
 seventy-nine thousand years of pardon, and the deliverance of two souls ; only 
 the two thousand seven hundred years that are given for the Sunday, may be 
 had twice that day, if they will visit the altar twice, and as many quarantines. 
 The sixth week, two hundred and five thousand years, besides quarantines, and 
 four plenary pardons. Only on Palm Sunday, whose portion is twenty-five 
 thousand years, it may be had twice that day. And all this is the price of him 
 that sliail, upon these days, visit the altar in the church of St. Hilary. And 
 this runs on to the Fridays, and many festivals, and other solemn days in the 
 other parts of the year." — Jc.r. Taylm; vol. xi. p. 53 — 50. 
 
 [Tlie doctrine then of pardons, spoken of in the Article, is 
 tlie doctrine maintained and acted on in the Roman Church, that 
 remission of the penalties of sin in the next life may be obtained 
 by the power of the Pope, with such abuses as money pa^'ments 
 consequent thereupon'.] 
 
 3. Veneration and worshipping of Images and Relics. 
 
 That the Homilies do not altogether discard reverence towards 
 relics, has already been shown. Now let us see what they do 
 discard. 
 
 " What meaneth it that Christian men, after the use of the Gentiles idola- 
 ters, cap and kneel before images ? which, if they had any sense and gratitude, 
 
 ' " The pardons then, spoken of in the Article, are large and reckless indul- 
 gences from tile penalties of sin obtained on money payments." 1st ed.
 
 32 Images and Relics. 
 
 would kneel before men, carpenters, masons, plasterers, founders, and gold- 
 smiths, their makers and framers, by whose means they have attained tliis 
 honour, which else should have been evil-favoured, and rude lumps of clay or 
 plaster, pieces of timber, stone, or metal, without shape or fashion, and so with- 
 out all estimation and honour, as that idol in the Pagan poet confesseth, say- 
 ing, ' T was once a vile block, but now I am become a god,' &c. What a 
 fond thing is it for man, who hath life and reason, to bow himself to a dead and 
 insensible image, the work of his own hand! Is not this stooping and kneeling 
 before them, which is forbidden so earnestly by God's word ? Let such as so 
 fall down before images of saints, know and confess that they exhibit that 
 honour to dead stocks and stones, which the saints themselves, Peter, Paul, and 
 Barnabas, would not to be given to them, being alive; which the angel of God 
 forbiddeth to be given to him. And if they say they exhibit such honour not 
 to the image, but to the saint whom it representeth, they are convicted of folly, 
 to believe that they please saints with that honour, which they abhor as a spoil 
 of God's honour." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 191. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Thus far Lactantius, and much more, too long here to write, of candle 
 lighting in temples before images and idols for religion ; whereby appeareth both 
 the foolishness thereof, and also that in opinion and act we do agree altogether 
 in our candle-religion with the Gentiles idolaters. What meaneth it that they, 
 after the example of the Gentiles idolaters, burn incense, offer tip gold to images, 
 hang up crutches, chains, and ships, legs, arms, and whole men and women of 
 wax, before images, as though by them, or saints (as they say) they were deli- 
 vered from lameness, sickness, captivity, or shipwreck ? Is not this ' colere 
 imagines,' to worship images, so earnestly forbidden in God's word? If they 
 deny it, let them read the eleventh chapter of Daniel the Prophet, who saith of 
 Antichrist, ' He shall worship God, whom his fathers knew not, with gold, 
 silver, and with precious stones, and other things of pleasure :' in which place 
 
 the Latin word is colet." "To increase this madness, wicked men, which 
 
 have the keeping of such images, for their great lucre and advantage, after the 
 example of the Gentiles idolaters, have reported and spread abroad, as well by 
 fying tales as written fables, divers miracles of images : as that such an image 
 miraculously was sent from heaven, even like the Palladium, or Magna Diana 
 Ephesiorum. Such another was as miraculously found in the earth, as the 
 man's head was in the Capitol, or the horse's head in Capua. Such an image 
 was brought by angels. Such an one came itself far from the East to the West, 
 as Dame Fortune fled to Rome. Such an image of our Lady was painted by St. 
 Luke, whom of a physician they have made a painter for that purpose. Such 
 an one an hundred yokes of oxen could not move, like Bona Dea, whom the 
 ship could not carry; or Jupiter Olynipius, which laughed the artificers to 
 scorn, that went about to remove him to Rome. Some images, though they 
 were hard and stony, yet, for tender heart and pity, wept. Some, like Castor 
 and Pollux, helping their friends in battle, sweat, as marble pillars do in dank- 
 ish weather. Some spake more monstrously than ever did Balaam's ass, who
 
 Images and Relics. 3^ 
 
 had life and breath in him. Sucli a cripple came and saluted tins saint of oak, 
 and by and by he was made whole ; and, lo I here hangoth his crutch. Such 
 an one in a tempest vowed to St. Christopher, and 'scaped; and behold, here is 
 a ship of wax. Such an one, by St. Leonard's help, brake out of prison, and 
 
 see where his fetters hang." " The Relics we must kiss and offer unto, 
 
 specially on Relic Sunday. And while we offer, (that we should not be weary, 
 or repent us of our cost,) the music and minstrelsy goeth merrily all the offer- 
 tory time, with praising and calling upon those saints, whose relics be then in 
 presence. Yea, and the water also, wherein those relics have been dipped, 
 
 must with great reverence be reserved, as very holy and effectuous." 
 
 " Because Relics were so gainful, few places were there but they had Relics 
 provided for them. And for more plenty of Relics, some one saint had many 
 heads, cne in one place, and another in another place. Some had six arms, 
 and twenty-six fingers. And where our Loud bare His cross alone, if all the 
 pieces of the relics thereof were gathered together, the greatest ship in England 
 would scarcely bear them ; and yet the greatest part of it, they say, doth yet 
 remain in the hands of the Infidels ; for the which they pray in their beads- 
 bidding, that they may get it also into their hands, for such godly use and pur- 
 pose. And not only the bones of the saints, but every thing appertaining to 
 them, was a holy relic. In some place they offer a sword, in some the scab- 
 bard, in some a shoe, in some a saddle that had been set upon some holy horse. 
 In some the coals wherewith St. Laurence was roasted, in some place the tail 
 of the ass which our Lord Jesus Christ sat on, to be kissed and offered unto for 
 a relic. For rather than they would lack a relic, they would offer you a horse 
 bone instead of a virgin's arm, or the tail of the ass to be kissed and offered unto 
 for relics. O wicked, impudent, and most shameless men, the devisers of these 
 things ! O silly, foolish, and dastardly daws, and more beastly than the ass 
 
 whose tail they kissed, that believe such things!" "Of these things 
 
 already rehearsed, it is evident that our image maintainers have not only made 
 images, and set them up in temples, as did the Gentiles idolaters their idols; 
 but also that they have had the same idolatrous opinions of the saints, to whom 
 they have made images, which the Gentiles idolaters had of their false gods; 
 and have not only worshipped their images with the same rites, ceremonies, 
 superstition, and all circumstances, as did the Gentiles idolaters their idols, but 
 in many points have also far exceeded them in all wickedness, foolishness, and 
 madness." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 193 — 197- 
 
 It will be observed that in this extract, as elsewhere in the 
 Homilies, it is implied that the Bishop or the Church of Rome is 
 Antichrist; but this is a statement bearing on prophetical inter- 
 pretation, not on doctrine ; and one besides which cannot be 
 reasonably brought to illustrate or explain any of the positions 
 of the Articles ; and therefore it may be suitably passed over. 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. D
 
 34 Images and Relics. 
 
 In another place tlie Homilies speak as follows : 
 
 " Our churches stand full of such great puppets, wondrously decked and 
 adorned ; garlands and coronets be set on their heads, precious pearls hanging 
 about their necks ; their fingers shine with rings, set with precious stones ; their 
 dead and stiff bodies are clothed with garments stiff with gold. You would 
 believe that the images of our men-saints were some princes of Persia land 
 with their proud apparel ; and the idols of our women-saints were nice and 
 well-trimmed harlots, tempting their paramours to wantonness : whereby the 
 saints of God are not honoured, but most dishonoured, and their godliness 
 soberness, chastity, contempt of riches, and of the vanity of the world, defaced 
 and brought in doubt by such monstrous decking, most differing from their sober 
 and godly lives. And because the whole pageant must thoroughly be played, 
 it is not enough thus to deck idols, but at last come in the priests themselves, 
 likewise decked with gold and pearl, that they may be meet servants for such 
 lords and ladies, and fit worshippers of such gods and goddesses. And with a 
 solemn pace they pass forth before these golden puppets, and fall down to the 
 ground on their marrow-bones before these honourable idols; and then rising 
 up again, offer up odours arid incense unto them, to give the people an example 
 of double idolatry, by worshipping not only the idol, but the gold also, and 
 riclies, wherewith it is garnished. Which thing, the most part of our old 
 Martyrs, rather than they would do, or once Jcneel, or offer up one crumb of 
 incense before an image, suffered most cruel and terrible deaths, as the histories 
 
 of them at large do declare." " O books and scriptures, in the which the 
 
 devilish schoolmaster, Satan, hath penned the lewd lessons of wicked idolatry, 
 for his dastardly disciples and scholars to behold, read, and learn, to God's 
 most high dishonour, and their most horrible damnation ! Have we not been 
 much bound, think you, to those which should have taught us the truth out of 
 God's Book and his Holy Scripture, that they have shut up that Book and Scrip- 
 ture from us, and none of us so bold as once to open it, or read in it? And 
 instead thereof, to spread us abroad these goodly, carved, and gilded books and 
 painted scriptures, to teach us such good and godly lessons ? Have not they 
 done well, after they ceased to stand in pulpits themselves, and to teach the 
 people committed to their instruction, keeping silence of God's word, and be- 
 come dumb dogs, (as the Prophet calleth them,) to set up in their stead, on every 
 pillar and corner of the church, such goodly doctors, as dumb, but more wicked 
 tlian themselves be? We need not to complain of the lack of one dumb parson, 
 having so many dumb devilish vicars (I mean these idols and painted puppets) 
 to teach in their stead. Now in the mean season, whilst the dumb and dead 
 idols stand thus decked and clothed, contrary to God's law and commandment, 
 the poor Christian people, the lively images of God, commended to us so ten- 
 derly by our Saviour Christ, as most dear to Him, stand naked, shivering for 
 cold, and their teeth chattering in their licads, and no man covercth them, are 
 pined with hunger and thirst, and no man givcth them a penny to refresh them ;
 
 Images and Relics. S[) 
 
 whereas pounds be ready at all times (contrary to God's word and will) to deck 
 and trim dead stocks and stones, which neither feel cold, hunger, nor thirst." — 
 Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 219—222. 
 
 Again, with a covert allusion to the abuses of the day, the 
 Homilist says elsewhere, of Scripture, 
 
 " There shall you read of Baal, Moloch, Chamos, Melchom, Baalpeor, Asta- 
 roth, Bel, the Dragon, Priapus, the brazen Serpent, the twelve Signs, and many 
 others, unto whose images the people, with great devotion, invented pilgrimages, 
 precious decking and censing them, kneeling down and offering to thetu, think- 
 ing that an high merit before God, and to be esteemed above the precepts and 
 commandments of God." — Homily on Good Works, p. 42. 
 
 Again, soon after : 
 
 " What man, having any judgment or learning, joined with a true zeal unto 
 God, doth not see and lament to have entered into Christ's religion, such false 
 doctrine, superstition, idolatry, hypocrisy, and other enormities and abuses, so 
 as by little and little, through the sour leaven thereof, the sweet bread of God's 
 holy word hath been much hindered and laid apart ? Never had the Jews, in 
 their most blindness, so many pilgrimages unto images, nor used so much kneel- 
 ing, kissing, and censing of them, as hath been used in our time. Sects and 
 feigned religions were neither the fortieth part so many among the Jews, nor 
 more superstitiously and ungodly abused, than of late years they have been 
 among us: which sects and religions had so many hypocritical and feigned 
 works in their state of religion, as they arrogantly named it, that their lamps, 
 as they said, ran always over, able to satisfy not only for their own sins, but 
 also for all other their benefactors, brothers, and sisters of religion, as most 
 ungodly and craftily they had persuaded the multitude of ignorant people ; 
 keeping in divers places, as it were, marts or markets of merits, being full of 
 their holy relics, images, shrines, and works of overflowing abundance, ready 
 to be sold ; and all things which they had were called holy — holy cowls, holy 
 girdles, holy pardons, holy beads, holy shoes, holy rules, and all full of holiness. 
 And what thing can be more foolish, more superstitious, or ungodly, than that 
 men, women, and children, should wear a friar's coat to deliver them from agues 
 or pestilence ; or when they die, or when they be buried, cause it to be cast 
 upon them, in hope thereby to be saved ? Which superstition, although (thanks 
 be to God) it hath been little used in this realm, yet in divers other realms it 
 hath been, and yet is, used among many, both learned and unlearned." — 
 Homily on Good Works, pp. 45, 4fi. 
 
 [Once more : — 
 
 " True religion then, and pleasing of God, standeth not in making, setting 
 up, painting, gilding, clothing, and decking of dumb and dead images (which be 
 but great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage, and wicked idolatry, to 
 dally and play with), nor in kissing of tliem, capping, kneeling, offering to them, 
 
 d2
 
 36 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 incensing of them, setting up of candles, hanging up of legs, arms, or whole 
 bodies of wax before them, or praying or asking of them, or of saints, things be- 
 longing only to God to give. But all these things be vain and abominable, and 
 most damnable before God." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 223.] 
 
 Now the veneration and worship condemned in these and other 
 passages are such as these : kneeling before images, lighting can- 
 dles to them, offering them incense, going on pilgrimage to them, 
 hanging up crutches, &c. before them, lying tales about them, 
 belief in miracles as if wrought by them through illusion of the 
 devil, decking them up immodestly, and providing incentives by 
 them to bad passions ; and, in like manner, merry music and min- 
 strelsy, and licentious practices in honour of relics, counterfeit 
 relics, multiplication of them, absurd pretences about them. This 
 is what the Article means by *' the Romish doctrine," which, in 
 agreement to one of the above extracts, it calls ** a fond thing," 
 res futilis ; for who can ever hope, except the grossest and most 
 blinded minds, to be gaining the favour of the blessed saints, 
 while they come with unchaste thoughts and eyes, that cannot 
 cease from sin ; and to be profited by " pilgrimage-going," in 
 which " Lady Venus and her son Cupid were rather worshipped 
 wantonly in the flesh, than God the Fatiiek, and our Saviour 
 Christ His Son, truly worshipped in the Spirit?" 
 
 Here again it is remarkable that, urged by the truth of the 
 allegation, tlie Council of Trent is obliged, both to confess the 
 above-mentioned enormities in the veneration of relics and 
 images, and to forbid them : 
 
 " Into these holy and salutary observances should any abuses creep, of these 
 the Holy Council strongly [vehementer] desires the utter extinction ; so that 
 no images of a false doctrine, and supplying to the uninstructed opportunity of 
 
 perilous error, should be set up All superstition also in invocation of saints, 
 
 veneration of relics, and sacred use of images, be put away ; aW filthy lucre be 
 cast out of doors ; and all wantonness be avoided ; so that images be not painted 
 or adorned with an immodest beauty ; or the celebration of Saints and attendance 
 on Relics be abused to revelries and drunkennesses ; as though festival days were 
 kept in honour of saints by luxury and lasciviousness." — Sess. 25. 
 
 [On the whole, then, by the Romish doctrine of the veneration 
 and worshipping of images and relics, the article means all main- 
 tenance of those idolatrous honours which have been and are paid
 
 Invocation of Saints. 37 
 
 them so commonly throughout the church of Rome, witli the 
 superstitions, profanities, and impurities consequent thereupon.] 
 
 4. Invocation of Saints. 
 
 By " invocation" here is not meant the mere circumstance of 
 addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms in our 
 daily service, which are frequent in invocations of Angels to 
 praise and bless God. In the Benedicite too we address " the 
 spirits and souls of the righteous." 
 
 Nor is it a " fond" invocation to pray that unseen beings may 
 bless us ; for this [Bishop Ken does in his Evening Hymn : — 
 
 O may my Guardian, while I sleep, 
 Close to my bed his vigils keep, 
 His love angelical instil, 
 Stop all the avenues of ill, &c.] ' 
 
 On the other hand, judging from the example set us in the 
 Homilies themselves, invocations aie not censurable, and cer- 
 tainly not " fond," if we mean nothing definite by them, ad- 
 dressing them to beings which we know cannot hear, and using 
 them as interjections. The Homilist seems to avail himself of 
 this proviso in a passage, which will serve to begin our extracts 
 in illustration of the superstitious use of invocations. 
 
 " We have left Him neither heaven, nor earth, nor water, nor country, nor 
 city, peace nor war to rule and govern, neither men, nor beasts, nor their dis- 
 eases to cure ; that a godly man might justly, for zealous indignation, cry out, 
 O heaven, earth, and seas -, what madness and wickedness against God are 
 men fallen into ! What dishonour do the creatures to their Creator and 
 Maker! Andif we remember God sometimes, yet, because we doubt of His 
 ability or will to help, we join to Him another helper, as if He were a noun 
 adjective, using these sayings : such as learn, God and St. Nicholas be my 
 speed : such as neese, God help and St. John : to the horse, God and St. Loy 
 save thee. Thus are we become like horses and mules, which have no under- 
 standing. For is there not one God only, who by His power and wisdom made 
 all things, and by His providence governeth the same, and by His goodness 
 maintaineth and saveth them ? Be not all things of Him, by Him, and through 
 Him? Why dost thou turn from the Creator to the creatures ? This is the 
 manner of the Gentiles idolaters : but thou art a Christian, and therefore by 
 Christ alone hast access to God the Father, and help of Him only." — 
 Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 189. 
 
 ' [A passage here occurred in 1st edition upon Rev. i. 4.] 
 ^ O cceluni, o terra, o maria Neptuni. Terenl. Adelph. v. 3.
 
 38 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 Again, just before — 
 
 " Terentius Varro sheweth, that there were three hundred Jupiters in his 
 time : there were no fewer Veneres and Dianae : we had no fewer Christophers, 
 Ladies, and Mary Magdalens, and other saints. CEnomaus and Hesiodus shew, 
 that in their time there were thirty thousand gods. I think we had no fewer 
 saints, to whom we gave the honour due to God. And they have not only 
 spoiled the true living God of his due honour in temples, cities, countries, and 
 lands, by such devices and inventions as the Gentiles idolaters have done before 
 them : but the sea and waters have as well special saints with them, as they 
 had gods with the Gentiles, Neptune, Triton, Nereus, Castor and Pollux, 
 Venus, and such other: in whose places become St. Christopher, St. Clement, 
 and divers other, and specially our Lady, to whom shipmen sing, ' Ave, maris 
 Stella.' Neither hath the fire escaped their idolatrous inventions. For, instead 
 of Vulcan and Vesta, the Gentiles' gods of the fire, our men have placed St. 
 Agatha, and make litters on her day for to quench fire with. Every artificer 
 and profession hath his special saint, as a peculiar god. As for example, 
 scholars have St. Nicholas and St. Gregory : painters, St. Luke ; neither lack 
 soldiers their Mars, nor lovers their Venus, amongst Christians. All diseases 
 
 have their special saints , as gods the curers of them ; the falling-evil St. 
 
 Cornelio, the tooth-ache St. Apollin, &c. Neither do beasts nor cattle lack their 
 gods with us; for St. Loy is the horse-leech, and St. Anthony the swineherd.' 
 —Ibid., p. 188. 
 
 The same subject is introduced in connexion with a lament 
 over the falling off" of attendance on religious worship conse- 
 quent upon the Reformation : 
 
 "God's vengeance hath been and is daily provoked, because much wicked 
 people pass nothing to resort to the Church, either for that they are so sore 
 blinded, that they understand nothing of God and godliness, and care not with 
 devilish example to offend their neighbours ; or else for that they see the 
 Church altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights, as their gross fantasy was 
 greatly delighted with, because they see the false religion abandoned, and the 
 true restored, which seemeth an unsavoury thing to their unsavoury taste ; as 
 may appear by this, that a woman said to her neighbour, ' Alas, gossip, what 
 shall we now do at church, since all the saints are taken away, since all the 
 goodly sights we were wont to have are gone, since we cannot hear the like 
 piping, singittg, chanting, and playing upon the organs, that we could before?' 
 But, dearly beloved, wc ought greatly to rejoice, and give God thanks, that our 
 churches are delivered of all those things which displeased God so sore, and 
 filthily defiled his house and his place of prayer, for the which he hath justly 
 destroyed many nations, according to the saying of St. Paul : ' If any man defile 
 the temple of God, God will him destroy." And this ought we greatly to 
 praise God for, that superstitious and idolatrous manners as were utterly 
 naught, and defaced God's glory, arc utterly abolished, as they most justly 
 deserved ; and yet those things that either God was honoured with, or his
 
 Invocation of ISainls. 39 
 
 people edified, are decently retained, and in our churches comely practised." — 
 On the Place and Time of Prayer, pp. 293, 2J>4. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " There are certain conditions most requisite to be found in every such a one 
 that must be called upon, which if they be not found in Him unto whom we 
 pray, then doth our prayer avail us nothing, but is altogether in vain. 
 
 " The first is this, that He, to whom we make our prayers, be able to help 
 us. The second is, that He will help us. The third is, that He be such a one 
 as may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that He understand better than our- 
 selves what we lack, and how far we have need of help. If these things be to 
 be found in any other, saving only GoD, then may we lawfully call upon some 
 other besides God. But what man is so gross, but he well understandeth that 
 these things are only proper to Him who is omnipotent, and knoweth all 
 things, even the very secrets of the heart ; that is to say, only and to God 
 alone? Whereof it followeth that we must call neither upon angel, nor yet 
 upon saint, but only and solely upon God, as St. Paul doth write: ' How shall 
 men call upon Him, in whom they have not believed V So that invocation or 
 prayer may not be made without faith in Him on whom they call ; but that we 
 must first believe in Him before we can make our prayer unto Him, whereupon 
 we must only and solely pray unto GoD. For to say that we should believe in 
 either angel or saint, or in any other living creature, were most horrible blas- 
 phemy against God and his holy word ; neither ought this fancy to enter into 
 the heart of any Christian man, because we are expressly taught in the word of 
 the Lord only to repose our faith in the blessed Trinity, in whose only name 
 we are also baptized, according to the express commandment of our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, in the last of St. Matthew. 
 
 " But that the truth hereof may better appear, even to them that be most 
 simple and unlearned, let us consider what prayer is. St. Augustine calleth it 
 a lifting up of the mind to God; that is to say, an humble and lowly pouring 
 out of the heart to God. Isidorus saith, that it is an affection of the heart, and 
 not a labour of the lips. So that, by these plans, true prayer doth consist not 
 so much in the outward sound and voice of words, as in the inward groaning 
 and crying of the heart to God. 
 
 " Now, then, is there any angel, any virgin, any patriarch, or prophet, among 
 the dead, that can understand or know the meaning of the heart ? The Scrip- 
 ture saith, ' it is God that searchelh the heart and reins, and that He only 
 knoweth the hearts of the children of men.' As for the saints, they have so 
 little knowledge of the secrets of the heart, that many of the ancient fathers 
 greatly doubt whether they know any thing at all, that is commonly done on 
 earth. And albeit some think they do, yet St. Augustine, a doctor of great 
 authority, and also antiquity, hath this opinion of them ; that they know no 
 more what we do on earth, than we know what they do in heaven. For proof 
 whereof, he allegeth the words of Isaiah the prophet, where it is said, ' Abra- 
 ham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not.' His mind tiiereforc is this,
 
 40 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 not that we should put any religion in worshipping them, or praying unto 
 them ; but that we should honour them by following their virtuous and godly 
 life. For, as he witnesseth in another place, the martyrs, and holy men in 
 time past, were wont, after their death, to be remembered and named of the 
 priest at divine service ; but never to be invocated or called upon. And why 
 so ? Because the priest, saith he, is God's priest, and not theirs : whereby he 
 
 is bound to call upon God, and not upon them O but I dare not (will 
 
 some man say) trouble God at all times with my prayers : we see that in king's 
 houses, and courts of princes, men cannot be admitted, unless they first use the 
 help and means of some special nobleman, to come to the speech of the king, 
 and to obtain the thing that they would have. 
 
 " Christ, sitting in heaven, hath an everlasting priesthood, and always 
 prayeth to His Father for them that be penitent, obtaining, by virtue of His 
 wounds, which are evermore in the sight of God, not only perfect remission of 
 our sins, but also all other necessaries that we lack in this world ; so that this 
 Holy Mediator is sufficient in heaven, and needeth no others to help Him. 
 
 " Invocation is a thing proper unto God, which if we attribute unto the 
 saints, it soundeth unto their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our 
 hands. When Paul healed a certain lame man, which was impotent in his 
 feet, at Lystra, the people would have done sacrifice unto him and Barnabas ; 
 who, rending their clothes, refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true 
 God. Likewise in the Revelation, when St. John/eW before the angel's feet to 
 worship him, the angel would not permit him to do it, but commanded him that 
 he should worship God. Which examples declare unto us, that the saints and 
 angels in heaven will not have us to do any honour unto them, that is due and 
 proper unto God." — Homily on Prayer, p. 272 — 277- 
 
 Whereas, then, it has already been shown that not all invocation 
 is wrong, this last passage plainly tells us what kind of invo- 
 cation is not allowable, or what is meant by invocation in its 
 exceptionable sense : viz. " a thing proper to God," as being part 
 of the " honour that is due and proper unto God." And two 
 instances are specially given of such calling and invocating, 
 viz., sacrificing, and falling down in worship. Besides this, the 
 Homilist adds, that it is wrong to pray to them for " necessaries 
 in this world," and to accompany their services with " piping, 
 singing, chanting, and playing" on the or^an, and of invoking 
 saints ;is patrons of particular elements, countries, arts, or 
 remedies. 
 
 Here again, as before, the Article gains a witness and concur- 
 rence from the Council of Trent. "Though," say the divines there 
 assembled, " the Church has been accustomed sometimes to
 
 Invocation of Saints. 41 
 
 celebrate a few masses to the honour and remembrance of 
 saints, yet she doth not teach that sacrifice is offered to them, but 
 to God alone, who crowned them ; wherefore neither is the 
 priest wont to say, / offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul, 
 but to God." (Sess. 22.) 
 
 Or, to know what is meant by fond invocations, we may refer 
 to the following passage of Bishop Andrews' answer to Cardinal 
 Perron : — 
 
 " This one point is needful to be observed throughout all the Cardinal's 
 answer, that he hath framed to himself five distinctions: — (1.) Prayer direct, 
 and prayer oblique, or indirect. (2.) Prayer absolute, and prayer relative. 
 (3.) Prayer sovereign, and prayer subaltern. (4.) Prayer final, and prayer 
 transitory. (5.) Prayer sacrificial, and prayer out of, or from the sacrifice. 
 Prayer direct, absolute, final, sovereign, sacrificial, that must not be made to the 
 saints, but to God only : but as for prayer oblique, relative, transitory, subaltern, 
 from, or out of the sacrifice, that (saith he) we may make to the saints. 
 
 " For all the world, like the question in Scotland, which was made some 
 fifty years since, whether the Pater noster might not be said to saints. For 
 then they in like sort devised the distinction of — (1.) Ultimate, et non ultimate. 
 (2.) Principaliter, et mimis priricipaliter. (3.) Primarie et secundaria : Ca- 
 piendo stride et capiendo large. And as for ultimate, principaliter, primarie et 
 capiendo stride, they concluded it must go to God : but 7ion ultimate, minus 
 principaliter, secundarie, et capiendo large, it might be allowed saints. 
 
 " Yet it is sure, that in these distinctions is the whole substance of his 
 answer. And whensoever he is pressed, he flees straight to his prayer relative 
 aad prayer transitory ; as if prier pour prier, were all the Church of Rome did 
 hold; and that they made no prayers to the saints, but only to pray for them. 
 The Bishop well remembers, that Master Casaubon more than once told him 
 that reasoning with the Cardinal, touching the invocation of saints, the Car- 
 dinal freely confessed to him that he had never prayed to saint in all his life, 
 save only when he happened to follow the procession ; and that then he sung Ora 
 pro nobis with the clerks indeed, but else iiot. 
 
 "Which cometh much to this opinion he now seemeth to defend: but 
 wherein others of the Church of Rome will surely give him over, so that it is 
 to be feared that the Cardinal will be shent for this, and so7ne censure come out 
 against him by the Sorbonne. For the world cannot believe that oblique rela- 
 tive prayer is all that is sought ; seeing it is most evident, by their breviaries, 
 hours, and rosaries, that they pray directly, absolutely, and finally to saints, 
 and make no mention at all of prier pour prier, to pray to God to forgive 
 them ; but to the saints, to give it themselves. So that all he saith comes to 
 nothing. They say to the blessed Virgin, ' Sancta Maria,' not only ' Ora pro 
 nobis :' but ' Succurrc niiseris, juva pusillanimcs, resolve flebiles, accipe quod 
 ofFerimus, dona quod rogamus, excusa quod timemus,' &c, &c
 
 42 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 " All which, and many more, shew plainly that the practice of the Church 
 of Rome, in this point of invocation of saints is far otherwise than Cardinal 
 Perron would bear the world in hand : and that prier pour prier, is not all, but 
 that ' Tu dona coelum, Tu laxa, Tu sana, Tu solve crimina, Tu due, conduc, 
 indue, perdue ad gloriam ; Tu serva, Tu fer opem, Tu aufer, Tu confer vitam,' 
 are said to them (totidem verbis) : more than which cannot be said to God him- 
 self. And again, ' Hie nos solvat a peccatis. Hie nostros tergat reatus, Hie 
 arma conferat. Hie hostem fuget, Hsec gubernet, Hie aptet tuo conspectui ;' 
 which if they be not direct and absolute, it would be asked of them, what is 
 absolute or direct ?" — Bishop Andrews's Answer to Chapter XX. of Cardinal 
 Perron's Reply, p. 57 — 62. 
 
 Bellarmine's admissions quite bear out the principles laid down 
 by Bishop Andrews and the Homilist : — 
 
 " It is not lawful," he says, " to ask of the saints to grant to us, as if they 
 were the authors of divine benefits, glory or grace, or the other means of bless- 
 edness This is proved, first, from Scripture, ' The Lord will give grace 
 
 and glory.' (Psal. Ixxxiv.) Secondly, from the usage of the Church ; for in 
 the mass-prayers, and the saints' offices, we never ask any thing else, but that 
 at their prayers, benefits may be granted to us by Goo. Thirdly, from reason : 
 for what we need surpasses the powers of the creature, and therefore even of 
 saints ; therefore we ought to ask nothing of saints beyond their impetrating 
 from God what is profitable for us. Fourthly, from Augustine and Theodoret, 
 who expressly teach that saints are not to be invoked as g-orfs, but as able to 
 gain from God what they wish. However, it must be observed, when we say, 
 that nothing should be asked of saints but their prayers for us, the question is 
 not about the words, but the sense of the words. For, as far as words go, it is 
 lawful to say : ' St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven ;' 
 also, 'give me health of body, patience, fortitude,' &c., provided that we mean 
 'save and pity me by praying for me;' 'grant me this or that by thy prayers 
 and merits' For so speaks Gregory Nazianzen, and many others of the 
 ancients, &c." — De Sanct. Beat. i. 17. 
 
 [By the doctrine of the invocation of saints then, the article 
 means all maintenance of addresses to them which entrench upon 
 the incommunicable honour due to Gou alone, such as have been, 
 and are in the church of Rome, and such as, equally with the 
 peculiar doctrine of purgatory, pardons, and worshipping and 
 adoration of images and relics, as actually taught in that 
 church, arc unknown to the; Catholic Church.]
 
 43 
 
 § 7. — The Sacraments. 
 
 Art. XXV. — " Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is 
 to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Ex- 
 treme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the 
 Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt follow- 
 ing (prava imitatione) of the Apostles, partly from states of life 
 allowed in the Scriptures ; but yet have not like nature of 
 sacraments, (sacramentorum eandem rationem,) with Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or 
 ceremony ordained of God." 
 
 This Article does not deny the five rites in question to be 
 sacraments, but to be sacraments in the sense in which Baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper are sacraments ; '• sacraments of the Gos- 
 pel," sacraments with an outward sign ordained of God. 
 
 They are not sacraments in any sense, unless the Church has 
 the power of dispensing grace through rites of its own appoint- 
 ing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and hallowing the 
 " rites or ceremonies" which, according to the twentieth article, 
 it " hath power to decree." But we may well believe that the 
 Church lias this gift. 
 
 If, then, a sacrament be merely an outward sign of an invisible 
 grace given under it, the five rites may be sacraments ; but if it 
 must be an outward sign ordained by God or Christ, then only 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. 
 
 Our Church acknowledges both definitions ; — in the article 
 before us, the stricter ; and again in the Catechism, where a 
 sacrament is defined to be " an outward visible sign of an in- 
 ward spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself." 
 And this, it should be remarked, is a characteristic of our formu- 
 laries in various places, not to deny the truth or obligation of 
 certain doctrines or ordinances, but simply to deny, (what no 
 Roman opponent now can successfully maintain,) that Christ 
 
 6
 
 44 The Sacraments. 
 
 for certain directly ordained them. For instance, in regard to the 
 visible Church it is sufficient that the ministration of the sacra- 
 ments should be " according to Christ's ordinance." Art. xix. — 
 And it is added, " in all those things that of necessity are requisite 
 to the same." The question entertained is, what is the least that 
 God requires of us. Again, " the baptism of young children 
 is to be retained, as most agreeable to the institution 0/ Christ." 
 Art. xxvii. — Again, " the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was 
 not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or 
 worshipped." Art. xxviii. — Who will maintain the paradox that 
 what the Apostles " set in order when they came " had been 
 already done by Christ ? Again, " both parts of the Lord's 
 sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be 
 administered to all Christian men alike." Art. xxx. — Again, 
 " bishops, priests, and deacons, are not commanded by God's larv 
 either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from mar- 
 riage." Art. xxxii, — [In making this distinction, however, it 
 is not here insinuated, though the question is not entered on 
 in these particular articles, that every one of these points, of which 
 it is only said that they are not ordained by Christ, is justifiable 
 on grounds short of His appointment.] 
 
 On the other hand, our Church takes the wider sense of the 
 meaning of the word sacrament in the Homilies ; observing — 
 
 " In the second Book against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, 
 he [St. Augiistin] calleth sacraments Iwly signs. And writing to Bonifacius 
 of the baptism of infants, he saith, * If sacraments had not a certain similitude 
 of those things whereof they be sacraments, they should be no sacraments at 
 all. And of this similitude they do for the most parts receive the names of the 
 self-same things they .signify.' By these words of St. Augustine it ajjpearcth, 
 that he allowetli the common description of a sacrament, which is, that it is a 
 visible sign of an invisible grace ; that is to say, that setteth out to the eyes and 
 other outward senses the inward working of God's free mercy, and doth, as it 
 were, seal in our hearts the promises of God." — Homily on Common Prayer and 
 Sacraments, pp. 29G, 297- 
 
 Accordingly, starting with this definition of St. Augustine's, the 
 writer is necessarily carried on as follows : — 
 
 " You shall hear how many sacraments there l)e, that were instituted by our 
 Saviour Christ, and arc to be continued, and received of every Christian in
 
 The Sacraments. 4r) 
 
 due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them 
 to be received. And as for the number of them, if they should be considered 
 according to the eimt signification of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs 
 expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the pro- 
 mise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, 
 there be but two ; namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although 
 absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin ; yet by the express word of 
 the New Testament, it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible 
 sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of 
 hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in abso- 
 lution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and there- 
 fore absolution is no such sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And 
 tliough the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise ; yet it 
 lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two 
 above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such 
 sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception, 
 the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing, whereby an holy 
 thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers 
 have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken 
 and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments ; but also to 
 divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; 
 not meaning thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the same signification 
 that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighing 
 the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and 
 also in the third Book of Christian Doctrine, affirmeth, that the sacraments of 
 the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few 
 in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament 
 of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. And although there are retained 
 by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and 
 ceremonies, about the institution of ministers in the Church, Matrimony, 
 Confirmation of Children, by examining them of their knowledge in the 
 Articles of the Faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, 
 and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick ; yet no man ought to take these 
 for sacraments, in such signification and meaning as the sacraments of Bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper are: but either for godly states of life, necessary in 
 Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and 
 solemnity, by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances 
 as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church." 
 — Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, pp. 298 — 300- 
 
 Another definition of the word sacrament, which equally suc- 
 ceeds in hmiting it to the two principal rites of the Christian 
 Church, is also contained in the Catechism, as well as alluded to
 
 46 The Sacraments. 
 
 in the above passage : — " Two only, as generally necessary to 
 salvation, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." On this sub- 
 ject the following remark has been made : — 
 
 " The Roman Catholic considers that there are seven [sacra- 
 ments] ; we do not strictly determine the number. We define 
 the word generally to be an 'outward sign of an inward grace,' 
 without saying to how many ordinances this applies. However, 
 what we do determine is, that Christ has ordained two special 
 sacraments, as geiierally necessary to salvation. This, then, is 
 the characteristic mark of those two, separating them from all 
 other whatever ; and this is nothing else but saying in other 
 words that they are the only justifying rites, or instruments of 
 communicating the Atonement, which is the one thing necessary 
 to us. Ordination, for instance, gives power, yet without making 
 the so\x\ acceptable to God; Confirmation gives light and strength, 
 yet is the mere completion of Baptism ; and Absolution may be 
 viewed as a negative ordinance removing the harrier which sin 
 has raised between us and that grace, which by inheritance is 
 ours. But the two sacraments ' of the Gospel,' as they may be 
 emphatically styled, are the instruments of inward life, according 
 to our Lord's declaration, that Baptism is a new birth, and that 
 in the Eucharist we eat the living bread."
 
 47 
 
 § 8. — Transuhstantiatioii. 
 
 Article xxviii. — " Transubstantiation, or the change of the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine, in the supper of the Lord, cannot be 
 proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of 
 Scripture, overthrovveth the nature of a sacrament, and hath 
 given occasion to many superstitions." 
 
 What is here opposed as " Transubstantiation," is the shocking 
 doctrine that " the body of Christ," as the Article goes on to 
 express it, is not " given, taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and 
 spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth;" that It 
 is a body or substance of a certain extension and bulk in space, 
 and a certain figure and due disposition of parts, whereas we 
 bold that the only substance such, is the bread which we see. 
 
 This is plain from Article xxix., which quotes St. Augustine 
 as speaking of the wicked as "carnally and visibly pressing with 
 their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," 
 not the real substance, a statement which even the Breviary in- 
 troduces into the service for Corpus Christi day. 
 
 This is plain also from the words of the Homily ; — " Saith 
 Cyprian, * When we do these things, we need not nhet our teeth, 
 but with sincere faith we break and divide that holy bread. It 
 is well known that the meat we seek in this supper is spiritual 
 food, the nourishment of the soul, a heavenly refection, and not 
 earthly ; an invisible meat, and not a bodily : a ghostly sub- 
 stance, and not carnal.^ " 
 
 Some extracts may be quoted to the same effect from Bishop 
 Taylor. Speaking of what has been believed in the Church of 
 Rome, he says : — 
 
 " Sometimes Christ hath appeared in His own shape, and blood and flesh 
 hath been pulled out of the mouths of the communicants : and Plegilus, the 
 priest, saw an angel, showing Christ to him in form of a child upon the altar, 
 whom iirsthe took in his arms and kissed, but did eat him up presently in liis 
 other shape, in the shape of a wafer. ' Speciosa cerlfi pax nebulonis, ut qui
 
 48 Tr an substantia lion. 
 
 oris praebuerat basium, dentium inferret exitium,' said Berengarius: ' It was 
 but a Judas' kiss to kiss with the lip, and bite with the teeth.' " — Bp, Taylor, 
 vol. X., p. 12. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " Yet if this and the other miracles pretended, had not been illusions or 
 directly fabulous, it had made very much against the present doctrine of the 
 Roman Church ; for they represent the body in such measure, as by their ex- 
 plications it is not, and it cannot be : they represent it broken, a finger, or a 
 piece of flesh, or bloody, or bleeding, or in the form of an infant ; and then, 
 when it is in the species of bread : for if, as they say, Christ's body is present 
 no longer than the form of bread remained, how can it be Christ's body in 
 the miracle, when the species being gone, it is no longer a sacrament ? But 
 the dull inventors of miracles in those ages considered nothing of this; the 
 article itself was then gross and rude, and so were the instruments of proba- 
 tion. I noted this, not only to show at what door so incredible a persuasion 
 entered, but that the zeal of prevailing in it hath so blinded the refiners of it 
 in this age, that they still urge these miracles for proof, when, if they do any 
 thing at all, they reprove the present doctrine." — Bp. Taylor's Works, vol. ix. 
 p. ccccxi. 
 
 Again : the change which is denied in the Article is accurately 
 specified in another passage of the same author : — 
 
 " I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine 
 introduces . . . neither will I make scrutiny concerning Christ's bones, hair, 
 and nails ; nor suppose the Roman priests to be such Kapx'^poSovTig, and to 
 have such ' saws in their mouths :' tliese are appendages of their persuasion, 
 but to be abominated by all Christian and modest persons, who use to eat not 
 the bodies but the flesh of beasts, and not to devour, but to worship the body 
 of Christ in the exaltation, and now in union with His divinity." — On the Real 
 Presence, 11. 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " They that deny the spiritual sense, and affirm the natural, are to remember 
 that Christ reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And 
 by the way let me observe, that the expressions of some chief men among the 
 Romanists are so rude and crass, tliat it will he impossible to excuse them from 
 the undcrstavding the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum ; for, as they 
 understood Christ to mean His ' true flesh natural and proper,' so do tliey : as 
 they thought Christ intended they slioukl tear Him with their teeth and stick 
 His blood, for which they were ofl'ended ; so do these men not only think so, 
 but say so, and are not oflbnded. So said Alanus, ' Assertissime loquimur, 
 corj)us Christi vere a nobis contrectari, manducari, circumgestari, dentihus teri 
 \^ground by the teeth], sensibiliter sacrijicari [sensibly sacrificed], non minus
 
 Transtibslantial'ion . 49 
 
 quam ante consecrationcm panis,' [not less than the bread before consecra- 
 tion] .... I thought that the Romanists had been glad to separate their own 
 opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended 
 disciples .... but I find that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their rude 
 circumstances, for he affirms that ' Christ corrected them not for supposing so, 
 but reproved them for not believing it to be so.' And indeed himself says as 
 much: ' The body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with 
 the body in the Eucharist ;' and to take off the foulness of the expression, by 
 avoiding a worse, he is pleased to speak nonsense : ' A thing may be mandu- 
 cated or chewed, though it be not attrite or broken.' . . . But Bellarmine adds, 
 that if you will not allow him to say so, then he grants it in plain terms, that 
 Christ's body is chewed, is attrite, or broken with the teeth, and that not 
 tropically, but properly. . . . How? under the species of bread, and invisibly." 
 —Ibid. 3. 
 
 Take again the statement of Ussher : — 
 
 " Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first setters forward of this doc- 
 trine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point, wherein he telleth 
 us, that Christ in the sacrament did show himself 'oftentimes in a visible 
 shape, either in the form of a lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood ; so that 
 while the host was a breaking or an offering, a lamb in the priest's hands, and 
 blood in the chalice should be seen as it were flowing from the sacrifice, that 
 what lay hid in a mystery might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in 
 a miracle.' .... The first [tale] was .... of a Roman matron, who found a 
 piece of the sacramental bread turned into the fashion of a finger, all bloody; 
 which afterwards, upon the prayers of St. Gregory, was converted to its former 
 
 shape again. The other two were first coined by the Grecian liars The 
 
 former of these is not only related there, but also in the legend of Simeon 
 Metaphrastes (which is such another author among the Grecians as Jacobus dc 
 Voragine was among the Latins) in the life of Arsenius, .... how that a little 
 child was seen upon the altar, and an angel culling him into small pieces with 
 a knife, and receiving his blood into the chalice, as long as the priest was 
 breaking the bread into little parts. The latter is of a certain Jew, receiving 
 the sacrament at St. Basil's hands, converted visibly into true flesh and blood." 
 — Ussher' s Answer to a Jesuit, pp. f»2 — 64. 
 
 Or the following : — 
 
 " When St. Odo was celebrating the mass in the presence of certain of the 
 clergy of Canterbury, (who maintained that the bread and wine, after consecra- 
 tion, do remain in their former substance, and are not Christ's true body 
 and blood, but of a figure of it:) when he was come to confraction, presently 
 the fragments of the body of Christ which he held in his hands, began to 
 pour forth blood into the chalice. Whereupon he shed tears of joy; and 
 beckoning to them that wavered in their faith, to come near and see the 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. E
 
 50 Transuhstantiation. 
 
 wonderful work of God ; as soon as they beheld it they cried out, ' O holy 
 Prelate ! to whom the Son of God has been pleased to reveal Himself visibly in 
 the flesh, pray for us, that the blood we see here present to our eyes, may again 
 be changed, lest for our unbelief the Divine vengeance fall upon us.' He prayed 
 accordingly ; after which, looking in the chalice, he saw the species of bread 
 
 and wine, where he had left blood 
 
 " St. Wittekundus, in the administration of the Eucharist, saw a child enter 
 into every one's mouth, playing and smiling when some received him, and with 
 an abhorring countenance when he went into the mouths of others ; Christ 
 thus showing this saint in His countenance, who were worthy, and who un- 
 worthy receivers." — Johnson's Miracles of Saints, pp. 27, 28. 
 
 The same doctrine was imposed by Nicholas the Second on 
 Berengarius, as the confession of the latter shows, which runs 
 thus : — 
 
 " I, Berengarius .... anathematize every heresy, and more particularly that 
 of which I have hitherto been accused .... I agree with the Roman Church 
 .... that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after conse- 
 cration, not only a sacrament, but even the true body and blood of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; and that these are sensibly, and not merely sacramentally, 
 but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the priest, and ground by the 
 teeth of the faithful." — Bowden' s Life of Gregory VII., vol. ii. p. 243. 
 
 Another illustration of the sort of doctrine offered in the 
 Article, may be given from Bellarmine, whose controversial state- 
 ments have already been introduced in the course of the above 
 extracts. He thus opposes the doctrine of introsusceptio7t, which 
 the spiritual view of the Real Presence naturally suggests : — 
 
 He observes, that there are " two particular opinions, false and 
 erroneous, excogitated in the schools : that of Durandus, who 
 thought it probable that the substance of the body of Christ in the 
 Eucharist was withoul magnitude; and that of certain ancients, 
 which Occam seems afterwards to have followed, that though it has 
 magnitude, (which they think not really separable from substance,) 
 yet every part is so penetrated by every other, that the body of 
 Christ is iv'ithoul figure, without distinction and order of parts." 
 With this he contrasts the doctrine which, he maintains, is that of 
 the Church of Rome as well as the general doctrine of the schools, 
 that "in the Eucharist whole Christ exists with magnitude and 
 all accidents, except that relation to a heavenly location which He 
 has as He is in heaven, and those things which are concomitants
 
 Transubstantiation. 51 
 
 on His existence in that location; and that the parts and members 
 of Christ's body do not penetrate each other, but are so distinct 
 and arranged one with another, as to have a figure and order 
 suitable to a human body." — De Euchar. iii. 5. 
 
 We see then, that, by transubstantiation, our Article does not 
 confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any definition of 
 the word substance, nor in rejecting it, rejects a word, nor in 
 denying a "mutatio panis ei vini," is denying every kind of 
 change, but opposes itself to a certain plain and unambiguous 
 statement, not of this or that council, but one generally received 
 or taught both in the schools and in the multitude, that the 
 material elements are changed into an earthly, fleshly, and organ- 
 ized body, extended in size, distinct in its parts, which is there 
 where the outward appearances of bread and wine are, and only 
 does not meet the senses, nor even that always. 
 
 Objections against " substance," " nature," " change," " acci- 
 dents," and the like, seem more or less questions of words, and 
 inadequate expressions of the great offence which we find in 
 the received Roman view of this sacred doctrine. 
 
 In this connexion it may be suitable to proceed to notice the 
 Explanation appended to the Communion Service, of our kneel- 
 ing at the Lord's Supper, which requii-es explanation itself, more 
 perhaps than any part of our formularies. It runs as follows : — 
 
 " Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Administration 
 of the Lord's Supper, that the communicants should receive the 
 same kneeling: (which order is well meant, for a signification of 
 our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of 
 Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoid- 
 ing of such profanation and disorder in the holy communion, as 
 might otherwise ensue ;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by 
 any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of 
 malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved, — It is 
 hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought 
 to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there 
 bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu- 
 ral flesh and blood. For the sacramental blood and wine re- 
 
 E 2
 
 52 Transubitaniiation. 
 
 main still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not 
 be adored, (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful 
 Christians ; and the natural body and blood of our Saviour 
 Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of 
 Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." 
 
 Now it may be admitted without difficulty, — 1. That " no 
 adoration ought to be done unto the sacramental bread and wine 
 there bodily received." 2. Nor " unto any corporal {i.e. carnal) 
 presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." 3. Tiiat " the 
 sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural 
 substances." 4. That to adore them " were idolatry to be ab- 
 horred of all faithful Christians;" and 5. That "the natural 
 body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven." 
 
 But "to heaven" is added, *' and not here." Now, though it 
 be allowed that there is no " corporal presence" [i. e. carnal] 
 of " Christ's natural flesh and blood" here, it is a further point to 
 allow that "Christ's natural body and blood" are "not here,'* 
 And the question is, how can there be any jjresence at all of His 
 body and blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here ? How 
 can there be any jiresence, yet not local ? 
 
 Yet that this is the meaning of the paragraph in question is 
 plain, from what it goes on to say in proof of its position : " It 
 being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time 
 in more places than one." It is here asserted then, 1. Generally, 
 " no natural body can be in more places than one;" therefore, 2. 
 Christ's natural body cannot be in the bread and wine, or tliere 
 where the bread and wine are seen. In other words, there is no 
 local presence in the Sacrament. Yet, that there is a presence is 
 asserted in the Honnlies, as quoted above, and the question is, 
 as just now stated, " How can there be a presence, yet not a 
 local one'j" 
 
 Now, flrst, let it be observed that the question to be solved is 
 the truth of a certain philosophical deduction, not of a certain 
 doctrine of Scripture. That there is a real presence, Scripture 
 asserts, and the Homilies, Calechism, and Communion Service 
 confess; but the explanation before us adds, that it is philoso-
 
 Transubslantialion. 53 
 
 phically impossible that it should be a particular kind of presence, 
 a presence of which one can say "it is here," or which is " local." 
 It states then a philosophical deduction ; but to such deduction 
 none of us have subscribed. We have professed in the words of 
 the Canon : " That the Book of Prayer, &c. containeth in it 
 nothing co7itrnry to the word of God." Now, a position like this 
 may not be, and is not, " contrary to tlie word of God," and yet 
 need not be true ; e. g. we may accept St. Clement's Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, as containing nothing contrary to Scripture, nay, 
 as altogether most scriptural, and yet this would not hinder us 
 from rejecting the account of the Phoenix — as contrary, not to 
 God's word, but to matter of fact. Even the infallibility of the 
 Roman see is not considered to extend to matters of fact or points 
 of philosophy. Nay, we coinmonly do not consider that we need 
 take the words of Scripture itself literally about the sun's stand- 
 ing still, or the earth being fixed, or the firmament being above. 
 Those at least who distinguisli between what is theological in 
 Scripture and what is scientific, and yet admit that Scripture is 
 true, have no ground for wondering at such persons as subscribe 
 to a paragraph, of which at the same time they disallow the 
 philosophy ; especially considering they expressly subscribe it 
 only as not " contrary to the word of God." This then is what 
 must be said first of all. 
 
 Next, the philosophical position is itself capable of a very spe- 
 cious defence. The truth is, we do not at all know what is meant 
 by distance or intervals absolutely, any more than we know what 
 is meant by absolute time. Late discoveries in geology have 
 tended to make it probable that time may under circumstances 
 go indefinitely faster or slower than it does at present ; or 
 in other words, that indefinitely more may be accomplished in a 
 given portion of it. What Moses calls a day, geologists wish to 
 prove to be thousands of years, if we measure time by the opera- 
 tions at present effected in it. It is equally difficult to determine 
 what we mean by distance, or why we should not be at this mo- 
 ment close to the throne of God, though we seem far from it. Our 
 measure of distance is our hand or our foot ; but as an object a 
 foot off is not called distant, though the interval is indefinitely
 
 54 Transubslantiation. 
 
 divisible ; neither need it be distant eitlier, after it has been 
 multiplied indefinitely. "Why should any conventional measure of 
 ours — why should the perception of our eyes or our ears, be the 
 standard of presence or distance ? Christ may really be close 
 to us, though in heaven, and His presence in the Sacrament may 
 but be a manifestation to the worshipper of that nearness, not a 
 change of place, which may be unnecessary. But on this subject 
 some extracts may be suitably made from a pamphlet published 
 several years since, and admitting of one or two verbal correc- 
 tions, which, as in the case of other similar quotations above, shall 
 here be made without scruple : — 
 
 " In the note at the end of the Communion Service, it is 
 argued, that a body cannot be in two places at once ; and that 
 therefore the Body of Christ is not locally present, in the sense 
 in which we speak of the bread as being locally present. On 
 the other hand, in the Communion Service itself. Catechism, 
 Articles, and Homilies, it is plainly declared, that the Body of 
 Christ is in a mysterious way, if not locally, yet really present, 
 so that we are able after some ineftable manner to receive It. 
 Whereas, then, the objection stands, ' Christ is not really here, 
 because He is not locally here,' our formularies answer, ' He 
 is really here, yet not locally.' 
 
 " But it may be asked, What is the meaning of saying that 
 Christ is really present, yet not locally ? I will make a sug- 
 gestion on the subject. What do we mean by being 'present ? 
 How do we define and measure it? To a blind and deaf man, 
 that only is present which he touches : give him hearing, and the 
 range of things present enlarges ; every thing is present to him 
 which he hears. Give him at length sight, and the sun may be 
 said to be present to him in the day time, and myriads of stars by 
 night. The fresence, then, of a thing is a relative word, 
 depending, in a popular sense of it, upon the channels of com- 
 munication between it and him to whom it is present ; and thus 
 it is a word of degree. 
 
 " Such is the meaning of presence, when used of material 
 objects ; — very diiETorent from this is the conception wc form of 
 the presence of spirit with spirit. The most intimate presence 
 
 1
 
 Transubstantiation. 53 
 
 we can fancy is a spiritual presence in the soul ; it is nearer to 
 us than any material object can possibly be ; for our body, which 
 is the organ of conveying to us the presence of matter, sets 
 bounds to its approach towards us. If, then, spiritual beings 
 can be brought near to us, (and that they can, we know, 
 from what is told us of the influences of Divine grace, and again 
 of evil angels upon our souls) their presence is something sui 
 generis, of a more perfect and simple character than any presence 
 we commonly call local. And farther, their presence has nothing 
 to do with the degrees of nearness ; they are either present or 
 not present, or, in other words, their coming is not measured by 
 space, nor their absence ascertained by distance. In the case of 
 things material, a transit through space is the necessary condition 
 of approach and presence ; but in things spiritual, (whatever be 
 the condition,) such a transit seems not to be a condition. The 
 condition is unknown. Once more : while beings simply 
 spiritual seem not to exist in place, the Incarnate Son does ; 
 according to our Churcli's statement already alluded to, that ' the 
 natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and 
 not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to 
 be at one time in more places than one.' 
 
 " Such seems to be the mystery attending our Lord and Sa- 
 viour ; He has a body, and that spiritual. He is in place ; and 
 yet, as being a Spirit, His mode of approach — the mode in which 
 He makes Himself present here or there — may be, for what we 
 know, as different from the mode in which material bodies 
 approach and come, as a spiritual presence is more perfect. As 
 material bodies approach by moving from place to place, so the 
 approach and presence of a spiritual body may be in some other 
 way, — probably is in some other way, since in some other way, 
 (as it would appear) not gradual, progressive, approximating, that 
 is, locomotive, but at once, spirits become present, — may be such 
 as to be consistent with His remaining on God's rijjht hand while 
 He becomes present here, — that is, it may be real yet not local, or, 
 in a word, is mysterious. The Body and Blood of Christ may 
 be really, literally present in the holy Eucharist, yet not having 
 become present by local passage, may still literally and really be
 
 56 Transubstantiation. 
 
 on God's right hand ; so that, though they be present in deed 
 and truth, it may be impossible, it may be untrue to say, that 
 they are literally in the elements, or about them, or in the soul of 
 the receiver. These may be useful modes of speech according 
 to the occasion ; but the true determination of all such questions 
 may be this, that Christ's Body and Blood are locally at God's 
 right hand, yet really present here, — present here, but not here in 
 place, — because they are spirit. 
 
 " To assist our conceptions on this subject, I would recur to 
 what I said just now about the presence of material objects, by 
 way of putting my meaning in a different point of view. The 
 presence of a material object, in the popular sense of the word, 
 is a matter of degree, and ascertained by the means of appre- 
 hending it which belong to him to whom it is present. It is in 
 some sense a correlative of the senses. A fly may be as near 
 an edifice as a man ; yet we do not call it present to the 
 fly, because it cannot see it ; and we call it present to the man 
 because he can. This, however, is but a popular view of 
 the matter : when we consider it carefully, it certainly is 
 difficult to say what is meant by the presence of a material 
 object relatively to us. It is in some respects truer to say that 
 a thing is present, which is so circumstanced as to act upon us 
 and influence us, whether we are sensible of it or not. Now 
 this is what the Catholic Church seems to hold concerning 
 our Lord's Presence in the Sacrament, that He then personally 
 and bodily is with us in the way an object is which we call 
 present : how He is so, we know not, but that He should be 
 so, though He be millions of miles away, is not more incon- 
 ceivable than the influence of eyesight upon us is to a blind man. 
 The stars are millions of miles off, yet they impress ideas upon 
 our souls tlirough our sight. We know but of five senses : we 
 know not whether or not human nature be capable of more ; we 
 know not whether or not the soul possesses anything analogous 
 to them. We know nothing to negative the notion that the soul 
 may be capable of having Christ present to it by the stimulating 
 of doiniant, or the development of possible energies. 
 
 " Ah sight for certain purposes annihilates space, so other un-
 
 Transubstantiation. 57 
 
 known capacities, bodily or spiritual, may annihilate it for other 
 purposes. Such a practical annihilation was involved in the ap- 
 pearance of Christ to St. Paul on his conversion. Such a prac- 
 tical annihilation is involved in the doctrine of Christ's ascen- 
 sion; to speak according to the ideas of space and time commonly 
 received, what must have been the rapidity of that motion 
 by which, within ten days, He placed our human nature at the 
 right hand of God ? Is it more mysterious that He should * open 
 the heavens,' to use the Scripture phrase, in the sacramental 
 rite ; that He should then dispense with time and space, in the 
 .sense in which they are daily dispensed with, in the sun's 
 warming us at the distance of 100,000,000 of miles, than that 
 He should liave dispensed with them on occasion of His ascend- 
 ing on high? He who showed what the passage of an incor- 
 ruptible body was ere it had reached God's throne, thereby sug- 
 gests to us what may be its coming back and presence with us 
 now, when at length glorified and become spirit. 
 
 "In answer, then, to the problem, hoiv Christ comes to us 
 while remaining on high, I answer just as much as this, — that He 
 comes by the agency of the Holy Ghost, in and by the Sacra- 
 ment. Locomotion is the means of a material presence ; the 
 Sacrament is the means of His spiritual Presence. As faith is 
 the means of our receiving It, so the Holy Ghost is the Agent 
 and the Sacrament the means of His imparting It ; and therefore 
 we call It a Sacramental Presence. We kneel before His hea- 
 venly Throne, and the distance is as nothing ; it is as if that 
 Throne were the Altar close to us. 
 
 " Let it be carefully observed, that I am not proving or deter- 
 mining anything ; I am only showing how it is that certain pro- 
 positions which at first sight seem contradictions in terms, are 
 not so, — I am but pointing out one way of reconciling them. If 
 there is but one way assignable, the force of all antecedent ob- 
 jection against the possibility of any at all is removed, and then of 
 course there may be other ways supposable though not assign- 
 able. It seems at first sight a mere idle use of words to say that 
 Christ is really and literally, yet not locally, present in the Sa-
 
 58 Transubstardiation. 
 
 crament ; that He is there given to us, not in figure but in truth, 
 and yet is still only on the right hand of God. I have wished to 
 remove this seeming impossibility. 
 
 " If it be asked, why attempt to remove it, I answer that I have 
 no wish to do so, if pei"sons will not urge it against the Catholic 
 doctrine. Men maintain it as an impossibility, a contradiction 
 in terms, and force a believer in it to say why it should not be so 
 accounted. And then when he gives a reason, they turn round 
 and accuse him of subtleties, and refinements, and scholastic 
 trifling. Let them but believe and act on the truth that the con- 
 secrated bread is Christ's Body, as He says, and no officious 
 comment onHiswordswillbeattempted by any well-judging mind. 
 But when they say ' this cannot be literally true, because it is 
 impossible ;' then they force those who think it is literally true, to 
 explain how, according to their notions, it is not impossible. And 
 those who ask hard questions must put up with hard answers." 
 
 There is nothing, then, in the Explanatory Paragraph which 
 has given rise to these remarks, to interfere with the doctrine, 
 elsewhere taught in our formularies, of a real super-local pre- 
 sence in the Holy Sacrament.
 
 59 
 
 § 9. — Masses. 
 
 Article xxxi. — "The sacrifice (sacrificia) of Masses, in wbicli it 
 was commonly said, that the priests did offer Christ for the 
 quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- 
 phemous fables and dangerous deceits (perniciosse iraposturai)." 
 
 Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that the 
 Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman Church, 
 but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken into its 
 system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, 
 in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced ; 
 but "the sacrifice o{ Masses," certain observances, for the most 
 part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew 
 to have been in force in time past, and saw before their eyes, 
 and which involved certain opinions and a certain teaching. Ac- 
 cordingly the passage proceeds, " in which it was commonly said ;" 
 which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking. 
 
 If any testimony is necessary in aid of what is so plain from 
 the wording of the Article itself, it is found in the drift of the 
 following passage from Burnet : — 
 
 " It were easy from all the rituals of the ancients to shew, that they had 
 none of those ideas that are now in the Roman Church. They had but one 
 altar in a Church, and probably but one in a city : they had but one commu- 
 nion in a day at that altar : so far were they from the many altars in every 
 church, and the many masses at every altar, that are now in the Roman Church. 
 They did not know what solitary masses were, without a communion. All the 
 liturgies and all the writings of ancients are as express in this matter as is pos- 
 sible. The whole constitution of their worship and discipline shews it. Their 
 worship always concluded with the Eucharist: such as were not capable of it, 
 as the catechumens, and those who were doing public penance for their sins, 
 assisted at the more general parts of the worship ; and so much of it was called 
 their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it. When that 
 was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of the Eucharist; and at 
 the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed, from whence it came to be 
 called the mass of the faithful. — Burnet 07i the XXXIst Article, p. 482, 
 
 These sacrifices are said to be "blasphemous fables and perni- 
 cious impostures." Now the " blasphemous fable " is the teach-
 
 60 Masses. 
 
 ing that there is a sacrifice for sin other than Christ's death, 
 and that masses are that sacrifice. And the " pernicious im- 
 posture " is the turning this belief into a means of filthy lucre. 
 
 1. That the " blasphemous fable" is the teaching that masses 
 are sacrifices for sin distinct from the sacrifice of Christ's death, 
 is plain from the first sentence of the Article. " The offering 
 of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, j^ropitiation, 
 and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original 
 and actual. And there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that 
 alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, &c." It is observable 
 too that the heading of the Article runs, " Of the one oblation of 
 Christ finished upon the Cross," which interprets the drift of 
 the statement contained in it about masses. 
 
 Our Communion Service shows it also, in which the prayer of 
 consecration commences pointedly with a declaration, which has 
 the force of a protest, that Christ made on the cross " by His 
 one oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient 
 sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world." 
 
 And again in the offering of the sacrifice : " We entirely desire 
 thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept our sacrifice of praise 
 and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching Thee to grant that 
 htj the merits and death of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and through 
 faith in his blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain 
 remission of our sins and all other benefits of His passion." 
 
 [And in the notice of the celebration : " I purpose, through 
 God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously 
 and devoutly disposed, the most comfortable Sacrament of the 
 Body and Blood of Chuist; to be by them received in remem- 
 brance of His meritorious Cross and Passion ; whereby alone we 
 obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the 
 kingdom of heaven."] 
 
 But the popular charge still urged against the Roman system 
 as introducing in the Mass a second or rather continually re- 
 curring atonement, is a sufficient illustration, without further 
 rjuotations, of this part of the Article. 
 
 2. That the " blasphemous and pernicious imposture " is the
 
 Masses. 6 1 
 
 turning the Mass into a gain is plain from sncli passages as the 
 following : — 
 
 "With what earnestness, with what vehement zeal, did our Saviour Christ 
 drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple of God, and hurled down the 
 tables of the changers of money, and the seats of the dove-sellers, and could 
 not abide that a man should carry a vessel through the temple. He told them, 
 that they had made His Father's house a den of thieves, partly through their 
 superstition, hypocrisy, false worship, false doctrine, and insatiable covetous- 
 ness, and partly through contempt, abusing that place with walking and talk- 
 ing, with worldly matters, without all fear of God, and due reverence to that 
 place. What dens of thieves the Churches of England have been made by the 
 blasphemous buying and selling the most precious body and blood of CuRlST in 
 the Mass, as the world was made to believe, at dirges, at months minds, at 
 trentalls, in abbeys and chantries, besides other horrible abuses, (God's holy 
 name be blessed for ever,) which we now see and understand. All these abo- 
 minations they that supply the room of Christ have cleansed and purged the 
 Churches of England of, taking away all such fulsomeness and filthiness, as 
 through blind devotion and ignorance hath crept into the Church these many 
 hundred years." — On repairing and keeping clean of Churches, pp. 229, 230. 
 
 Other passages are as follow : — 
 
 " Have not the Christians of late days, and even in our days also, in like 
 manner provoked the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God; partly 
 because they have profaned and defiled their Churches with heathenish and 
 Jewish abuses, with images and idols, with numbers of altars, too supersti- 
 tiously and intolerably abused, with gross abusing and filthy corrupting of the 
 Lord's holy Supper, the blessed sacrament of His body and blood, with an 
 infinite number of toys and trifles of their own devices, to make a goodly out- 
 ward shew, and to deface the homely, simple, and sincere religion of Christ 
 Jesus ; partly, they resort to the Church like hypocrites, full of all iniquity 
 and sinful life, having a vain and dangerous fancy and persuasion, that if they 
 come to the Church, besprinkle them with holy water, hear a mass, and be 
 blessed with a chalice, though they understand not one word of the whole 
 service, nor feel one motion of repentance in their heart, all is well, all is 
 sure ?" — On the Place and Time of Prayer, p. 293. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " What hath been the cause of this gross idolatry, but the ignorance hereof? 
 What hath been the cause of this mummish massing, but the ignorance hereof? 
 Yea, what hath been, and what is at this day the cause of this want of love and 
 charity, but the ignorance hereof? Let us therefore so travel to understand the 
 Lord's Supper, that we be no cause of the decay of God's worship, of no 
 idolatry, of no dumb massing, of no hate and malice ; so may we the boldlier 
 have access thither to our comfort." — Homily concerning the Sacrament, pp. 377, 
 378.
 
 62 Masses. 
 
 To the same purpose is the following passage from Bishop 
 Bull's Sermons : — 
 
 " It were easy to shew, how the whole frame of religion and doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome, as it is distinguished from that Christianity which we hold 
 in common with them, is evidently designed and contrived to serve the interest 
 and profit of them that rule that Church, by the disservices, yea, and ruin of 
 
 those souls that are under their government What can the doctrine of 
 
 men's playing an aftergame for their salvation in purgatory be designed for, 
 but to enhance the price of the priest's masses and dirges for the dead ? Why 
 must a solitary mass, bought for a piece of money, performed and participated 
 by a priest alone, in a private corner of a church, be, not only against the 
 sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church, but also against common sense 
 and grammar, called a Communion, and be accounted useful to him that buys 
 it, though he never himself receive the sacrament, or but once a year; but for 
 this reason, that there is great gain, but no godliness at all, in this doctrine V 
 — Bp. Bull's Se}-mons, p. 10. 
 
 And Burnet says, 
 
 " Without going far in tragical expressions, we cannot hold saying what our 
 Saviour said upon another occasion, ' My house is a house of prayer, but ye 
 have made it a den of thieves.' A trade was set up on this foundation. The 
 world was made believe, that by the virtue of so many masses, which were to be 
 purchased by great endowments, souls were redeemed out of purgatory, and 
 scenes of visions and apparitions, sometimes of the tormented, and sometimes 
 of the delivered souls, were published in all places: which had so wonderful an 
 effect, that in two or three centuries, endowments increased to so vast a degree, 
 that if the scandals of the clergy on the one hand, and the statutes of mort- 
 main on the other, had not restrained the pvofuseness that the world was 
 wrought up to on this account, it is not easy to imagine how far this might 
 have gone ; perhaps to an entire subjecting of the temporality to the spirituality. 
 The practices by which this was managed, and the effects that followed on it, we 
 can call by no other name than downright impostures ; worse than the making 
 or vending false coin : when the world was drawn in by such arts to plain 
 bargains, to redeem their own souls, and tlie souls of their ancestors and pos- 
 terity, 60 many masses were to be said, and forfeitures were to follow upon their 
 not being said : thus the masses were really the price of the lands. — On Article 
 
 XXII., pp. :jo3, :i04. 
 
 The truth of these representations cannot be better shewn 
 than by extracting the following passage from the Session 22 of 
 the Council of Trent : — 
 
 "Whereas many things appear to have crept in heretofore, whether by 
 the fault of the times or by the neglect and wickedness of men, foreign to llic
 
 Masses. 63 
 
 dignity of so great a sacrifice, in order that it may regain its due honour and 
 observance, to the glory of God and tlie edification of His faithful people, the 
 Holy Council decrees, that the bishops, ordinaries of each place, diligently take 
 care and be bound, to forbid and put an end to all those things, which either 
 avarice, which is idolatry, or irreverence, which is scarcely separable from 
 impiety, or superstition, the pretence of true piety, has introduced. And, to 
 say much in a few words, first of all, as to avarice, let them altogether forbid 
 agreements, and bargains of payment of whatever kind, and whatever is given 
 for celebrating new masses; moreover importunate and mean extortion, rather 
 than petition of alms, and such like practices, which border on simoniacal sin, 
 certainly on filthy lucre.. ..And let them banish from the church those mu- 
 sical practices, when with the organ or with the chant any thing lascivious or im- 
 pure is mingled ; also all secular practices, vain and therefore profane conversa- 
 tions, promenadings, bustle, clamour ; so that the house of God may truly seem 
 and be called the house of prayer. Lastly, lest any opening be given to super- 
 stition, let them provide by edict and punishments appointed, that the priests 
 celebrate it at no other than the due hours, nor use rites or ceremonies and 
 prayers in the celebration of masses, other than those which have been ap- 
 proved by the Church, and received on frequent and laudable use. And let 
 them altogether remove from the Church a set number of certain masses and 
 candles, which has proceeded rather from superstitious observance than from 
 true religion, and teach the people in what consists, and from whom, above 
 all, proceeds the so precious and heavenly fruit of this most holy sacrifice. 
 And let them. admonish the same people to come frequently to their parish 
 Churches, at least on Sundays and the greater feasts," &c. 
 
 On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before us 
 neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being 
 [an offering, though commemorative,] ^ for the quick and the dead 
 for tiie remission of sin ; [(especially since the decree of Trent 
 says, that " the fruits of the Bloody Oblation are through this 
 most abundantly obtained ; so far is the latter from detracting 
 in any way from the former ;")] but against its being viewed, on 
 the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on 
 the Cross, which is blasphemy, and, on the other, its being 
 directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to cele- 
 brate it, which is imposture in addition. 
 
 * "An offering for the quick, &c." — First Editio7i.
 
 G\ 
 
 § 10. — Marriage of Clergy. 
 
 Article xxxii. — " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not com- 
 manded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single life, or 
 to abstain from marriage." 
 
 There is literally no subject for controversy in these words, 
 since even the most determined advocates of the celibacy of the 
 clergy admit their truth. [As far as clerical celibacy is a duty, it] 
 is grounded not on God's law, but on the Church's rule, or on 
 vow. No one, for instance, can question the vehement zeal of 
 St. Jerome in behalf of this observance, yet he makes the follow- 
 ing admission in his attack upon Jovinian : — 
 
 " Jovinian says, ' You speak in vain, since the Apostle appointed Bishops, 
 and Presbyters, and Deacons, the husbands of one wife, and having children.' 
 But, as the Apostle says, that he has not a precept concerning virgins, yet 
 gives a counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord, and urges throughout 
 that discourse a preference of virginity to marriage, and advises what he does 
 not command, lest he seem to cast a snare, and to impose a burden too great for 
 man's nature ; so also, in ecclesiastical order, seeing that an infant Church was 
 then forming out of the Gentiles, he gives the lighter precepts to recent con- 
 verts, lest they should fail under them through fear." — Adv. Jovinian, \. 34. 
 
 And the Council of Trent merely lays down : 
 
 " If any shall say that clerks in holy orders, or regulars, who have solemnly 
 professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid in 
 spite of ecclesiastical laiv or vow, let him be anathema." — Sess. 24 Can. 9. 
 
 Here the observance is placed simply upon rule of the Church 
 or upon vow, neither of which exists in the English Church ; 
 " l/ierejhre," as the Article logically proceeds, " it is lawful for 
 them, as for all otlier Cluistian men, to marry at their own dis- 
 cretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." 
 Our Church leaves the discretion with the clergy ; and most per- 
 sons will allow that, under our circumstanves, she acts wisely in 
 doinT so. That she has power, did she so choose, to take from them 
 this discretion, and to oblige them either to marriage [(as is said 
 to be the case as regards the parish priests of the Greek Church)] 
 or to celibacy, would seem to be involved in the doctrine of the 
 followintr extract from the Homilies ; though, whether an en-
 
 Marriage of Clergy. G5 
 
 forcement either of the one or the other rule would be expedient 
 and pious, is another matter. Speaking of fasting, the Homily 
 says : — 
 
 " God's Church ought not, neither may it be so tied to that or any other 
 order now made, or hereafter to be made and devised by the authority of man, 
 but that it may lawfully, for just causes, alter, change, or mitigate those eccle- 
 siastical decrees and orders, yea, recede wholly from them, and hreah them, when 
 they tend either to superstition or to impiety; when they draw the people from 
 God rather than work any edification in them. This authority Christ Him- 
 self used, and left it to His Church. He used it, I say, for the order or decree 
 made by the elders for washing ofttimes, which was diligently observed of the 
 Jews; yet tending to superstition, our Saviour Christ altered and changed the 
 same in His Church into a profitable sacrament, the sacrament of our regenera- 
 tion, or new birth. This authority to mitigate laws and decrees ecclesiastical, 
 the Apostles practised, when they, writing from Jerusalem unto the congrega- 
 tion that was at Antioch, signified unto them, that they would not lay any fur- 
 ther burden upon them, but these necessaries: that is, 'that they should abstain 
 from things offered unto idols, from blood, from that which is strangled, and 
 from fornication ;' notwithstanding that Moses's law required many other ob- 
 servances. This authority to change the orders, decrees, and constitutions of 
 the Church, was, after the Apostles' time, used of the fathers about the manner 
 
 of fasting, as it appeareth in the Tripartite History Thus ye have 
 
 heard, good people, first, that Christian subjects are bound even in conscience to 
 obey princes' laws, which are not repugnant to the laws of God. Ye have also 
 heard that Christ's Church is not so bound to observe any order, law, or 
 decree made by man, to prescribe a form in religion, but that the Church hath 
 full power and authority from God to change and alter the same, when need 
 shall require ; which hath been shewed you by the example of our Saviour 
 Christ, by the practice of the Apostles, and of the Fathers since that time." — 
 Homily on Fasting, p. 242 — 244. 
 
 To the same effect the 34th Article declares, that, 
 
 " Jt is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and 
 utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed accord- 
 ing to diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be 
 ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, wil- 
 lingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the 
 Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and ap- 
 proved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly." — /Irticle XXXIV. 
 
 -90.
 
 Gfi 
 
 § 1 1 . — The Homilies. 
 
 Art. XXXV. — " The second Book of Homilies doth contain a 
 godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as 
 doth the former Book of Homilies." 
 
 This Article has been treated of in No. 82 of these Tracts, in 
 the course of an answer given to an opponent, who accused its 
 author of not fairly receiving the Homilies, because he dissented 
 from their doctrine, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, and 
 that regeneration was vouchsafed under the law. The passage 
 of the Tract shall here be inserted, with some abridgment. 
 
 " I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed the Homilies, nor 
 was it ever intended that any member of the English Church 
 should be subjected to what, if considered as an extended 
 confession, would indeed be a yoke of bondage. Romanism 
 surely is innocent, compared with that system which should 
 impose upon the conscience a thick octavo volume, written flovv- 
 ingly and freely by fallible men, to be received exactly, sentence 
 by sentence : I cannot conceive any grosser instance of a phari- 
 saical tradition than this would be. No : such a proceeding 
 would render it impossible (I will say) for any one member, 
 lay or clerical, of the Church to remain in it, who was sub- 
 jected to such an ordeal. For instance ; I do not suppose that 
 any reader would be satisfied with the political reasons for 
 fasting, though indirectly introduced, yet fully admitted and 
 dwelt upon in the Homily on that subject. He would not 
 like to subscribe the declaration that eating fish was a duty, not 
 only as being a kind of fasting, but as making provisions cheap, 
 and encouraging the fisheries. He would not like the associa- 
 tion of religion with earthly politics. 
 
 " How, then, arc we bound to the Homilies ? By the Thirty- 
 fifth Article, which speaks as follows : — * The second Book of
 
 The Homilies. 67 
 
 Homilies . . . dotli contain a godly and wliolesome doctrine, and 
 necessary for tiicsc times, as doth the former Book of Homilies.' 
 Now, observe, this Article does not speak of every statement 
 made m them, but of the ^doctrine.' It speaks of the view or 
 cast, or body of doctrine contained in them. In spite of ten 
 thousand incidental propositions, as in any large book, there is, 
 it is obvious, a certain line of doctrine, which may be contem- 
 plated continuously in its shape and direction. For instance ; if 
 you say you disapprove the doctrine contained in the Tracts for 
 the Times, no one supposes you to mean that every sentence and 
 half sentence is a lie. I say then, that, in like manner, when the 
 Article speaks of the doctrine of the Homilies, it does not mea- 
 sure the letter of them by the inch, it does not imply that they 
 contain no propositions which admit of two opinions ; but it 
 speaks of a certain determinate line of doctrine, and moreover 
 adds, it is * necessary for these times.' Does not this, too, show 
 the same thing? If a man said, the Tracts for the Times are 
 seasonable at this moment, as their title signifies, would he not 
 speak of them as taking a certain line, and bearing in a certain 
 way? Would he not be speaking, not of phrases or sentences, 
 but of a ' doctrine' in them tending one way, viewed as a whole? 
 Would he be inconsistent, if after praising them as seasonable, 
 he continued, ' yet I do not pledge myself to every view or 
 sentiment ; there are some things in them hard of digestion, or 
 overstated, or doubtful, or subtle ?' 
 
 " If any thing could add to the irrelevancy of the charge in 
 question, it is the particular point in which it is urged that I 
 dissent from the Homilies, — a question concerning the fulfilment 
 of prophecy; viz., whether Papal Rome is Antichrist! An 
 iron yoke indeed you would forge for the conscience, when you 
 oblige us to assent, not only to all matters of doctrine which the 
 Homilies contain, but even to their opinion concerning the ful- 
 filment of propliecy. Why, we do not ascribe authority in such 
 matters even to the unanimous consent of all the fathers. 
 
 " I will put what I have been saying in a second point of 
 view. The Homilies are subsidiary to the Articles ; therefore 
 they are of authority so far as they bring out the sense of the 
 
 F 2
 
 68 The Homilies. 
 
 Articles, and are not of authority where they do not. For in- 
 stance, they say that David, though unbaptized, was regenerated, 
 as you have quoted. This statement cannot be of authority, 
 because it not only does not agree, but it even disagrees, with 
 the ninth Article, which translates the Latin word ' renatis' by 
 the English ' baptized.' But, observe, if this mode of viewing 
 the Homilies be taken, as it fairly may, you suffer from it ; for 
 the Apocrypha, being the subject of an Article, the comment fur- 
 nished in the Homily is binding on you, whereas you reject it. 
 
 " A further remark will bring us to the same point. Another 
 test of acquiescence in the doctrine of the Homilies is this : — 
 Take their table of contents ; examine the headings ; these 
 surely, taken together, will give the substance of their teaching. 
 Now I hold fully and heartily the doctrine of the Homilies, un- 
 der every one of these headings : the only points to which I 
 should not accede, nor think myself called upon to accede, 
 would be certain matters, subordinate to the doctrines to which 
 the headings refer — matters not of doctrine, but of opinion, as, 
 that Rome is the Antichrist ; or of historical fact, as, that there 
 was a Pope Joan. But now, on the other hand, can you sub- 
 scribe the doctrine of the Homilies under every one of its for- 
 mal headings ? I believe you cannot. The Homily against 
 Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion is, in many of its ele- 
 mentary principles, decidedly uncongenial with your senti- 
 ments." 
 
 This illustration of the subject may be thought enough ; yet 
 it may be allowable to add from the Homilies a number of pro- 
 positions and statements of more or less importance, which are 
 too much forgotten at this day, and are decidedly opposed to the 
 views of certain schools of religion, which at the present moment 
 are so eager in claiming the Homilies to themselves. This is 
 not done, as the extract already read will show, with the inten- 
 tion of maintaining that they are one and all binding on the con- 
 science of those who subscribe the Thirty-fifth Article; but since 
 the strong language of the Homilies against the Bishop of Rome 
 is often quoted, as if it were thus proved to be the doctrine of 
 our Church, it n ay be as well to show that, following the same
 
 / The Homilies. 69 
 
 rule, we shall be also introducing Catholic doctrines, which in- 
 deed it far more belongs to a Church to profess than a certain 
 view of prophecy, but which do not approve themselves to those 
 who hold it. For instance, we read as follows : — 
 
 1. "The great clerk and godly preacher, St. John Chrysos- 
 tom." — 1 B. i. 1. And, in like manner, mention is made else- 
 where of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. 
 Cyprian, St. Hierome, St. Martin, Origen, Prosper, Ecumenius, 
 Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, Didymus, Theophylactus, TertuUian, 
 Athanasius, Lactantius, Cyrillus, Epiphanius, Gregory, Ire- 
 naeus, Clemens, Rabanus, Isidorus, Eusebius, Justinus Martyr, 
 Optatus, Eusebius Emissenus, and Bede. 
 
 2. " Infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy, are by 
 this Sacrifice washed from their sins . . . and they, which in act 
 or deed do sin after this baptism, when they turn to God un- 
 feignedly, they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice," &c. — 1 B. 
 iii. 1. init. 
 
 3. '• Our office is, not to pass the time of this present life un- 
 fruitfuUy and idly, after that we are baptized or justified " &c. — 
 1 B. iii. 3. 
 
 4. " By holy promises, we be made lively members of Christ, 
 receiving the sacrament of Baptism. By like holy promises 
 the sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual 
 love." — 1 B. vii. 1. 
 
 5. " Let us learn also here [in the Book of Wisdom] by the 
 infallible and undcceivahle Word of Gob, that," &c. — 1 B. x. 1. 
 
 6. " The due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood, under 
 the form of bread and wine." — N^ote at end ofB. i. 
 
 7. " In the Primitive Church, which ivas most holy and godly 
 . . . open offenders were not suffered once to enter into the 
 house of the Lord . . . until they had done open penance . . . 
 but this was practised, not only upon mean persons, but also 
 upon the rich, noble, and mighty persons, yea, upon Theodosius, 
 that puissant and mighty Emperor, whom ... St. Ambrose . . . 
 did . . . excommunicate." — 2 B. i. 2. 
 
 8. "Open offenders were not . . . admitted to common 
 prayer, and the use of the holy sacraments." — Ibid.
 
 70 The Homilies. 
 
 9. "Let us amend this our negligence and contempt in coming 
 to the house of the Lord ; and resorting thither diligently 
 together, let us there . . . celebrating also reverently the 
 Lord's holy sacraments, serve the Lord in His holy house." 
 —Ibid. 5. 
 
 10. " Contrary to the . . . most manifest doctrine of the 
 Scriptures, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive Church, 
 which was most jiure and uncorrupt, and contrary to the sentences 
 and judgments of the most ancient, learned, and godly doctors of 
 the Church."— 2 B. ii. 1 . inil. 
 
 11. "This truth . . . was believed and taught by the old 
 holy fathers, and most ancient learned doctors, and received by 
 the old Primitive Church, which was most uncorrupt and pure." 
 — 2 B. ii. 2. init. 
 
 12. '* Athanasius, a very ancient, holy, and learned bishop 
 and doctor." — Ibid. 
 
 13. " Cyrillus, an old and holy doctor." — Ibid. 
 
 14. " Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamine, in Cyprus, a very holy 
 and learned man." — Ibid. 
 
 15. "To whose (Epiphanius's) judgment you have . . . all 
 the learned and godly bishops and clerks, yea, and the whole 
 Church of that age," [the Nicene] " and so upward to our 
 Saviour Christ's time, by the space of about four hundred 
 years, consenting and agreeing." — Ibid. 
 
 IG. "Epiphanius, a bishop and doctor of such antiquity, holi- 
 ness, and authority." — Ibid. 
 
 17. "St. Augustine, the best learned of all ancient doctors." 
 —Ibid. 
 
 18. " That ye may know why and when, and by whom images 
 were first used privately, and afterwards not only received into 
 Christian churches and temples, but, in conclusion, worshipped 
 also ; and how the same was gainsaid, resisted, and forbidden, 
 as well by godly bishops and learned doctors, as also by sundry 
 Christian princes, 1 will briefly collect," &c. [The bisliops and 
 doctors which follow are :] " St. .Jerome, Serenus, Gregory, 
 the Ealliers of the Council of l-lliberis." 
 
 1 !). " Constanlinc, Bishop of Koujc, assembled a Council of
 
 The Homilies. 71 
 
 bishops of the West, and did condemn Philippicus, Ihe Emperor, 
 and John, Bishop of Constantinople, of the heresy of the Mono- 
 thelites, not without a cause indeed, but very justly." — Ibid. 
 
 20. " Those six Councils, which were allo7ved and received of 
 all men." — Ibid. 
 
 21. " There were no images publicly by the space of almost 
 seven hundred years. And there is no doubt but the Primitive 
 Church, next the Apostles' times, was most pure .'' — Ibid. 
 
 22. " Let us beseech God that we, being warned by His holy 
 Word . . . and by the writings of old godly doctors and eccle- 
 siastical histories," &c. — Ibid. 
 
 23. " It shall be declared, both by God's Word, and the sen- 
 tences of the ancient doctors, and judgment of the Primitive 
 Church," &c.— 2 B. ii. 3. 
 
 24. " Saints, whose souls reign in joy with God." — Ibid. 
 
 25. " That the law of God is likewise to be understood against 
 all our images . . . appeareth further by the judgment of the 
 old doctors and the Primitive Church." — Ibid. 
 
 2G. " The Primitive Church, which is specially to be followed, 
 as most incorrupt and pure." — Ibid. 
 
 27. " Thus it is declared by God's Word, the sentences of the 
 doctors, and ihe judgment of the Primitive Church." — Ibid. 
 
 28. " The rude people, who specially as the Scripture teacheth, 
 are in danger of superstition and idolatry ; viz. Wisdom xiii. 
 ^\v."—Ibid. 
 
 29. " They [the ' learned and holy bishops and doctors of the 
 Churcli ' of the eight first centuries] were the preaching bishops 
 . . . And as they were most zealous and diligent, so were they of 
 excellent learning and godliness of life, and by both of great 
 authority and credit with the people." — Ibid. 
 
 SO. " The most virtuous and best learned, the most diligent 
 also, and in number almost infinite, ancient fathers, bishops, and 
 doctors .... could do nothing against images and idolatry." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 31. " As the Word of God testifieth. Wisdom ■ii'iv."—Ibid. 
 
 32. " The saints, now reigning in heaven with God." — Ibid.
 
 72 The Homilies. 
 
 33. " The fountain of our regeneration is there [in God's house] 
 presented unto us." — 2 B. iii. 
 
 36. " Somewhat shall now be spoken of one particular good 
 work, whose commendation is both in the law and in the Gospel 
 [fasting]."— 2 B. iv. 1. 
 
 37. " If any man shall say.. . . we are not now under the yoke 
 of the law, we are set at liberty by the freedom of the Gospel ; 
 therefore these rites and customs of the old law bind not us, 
 except it can be showed by the Scriptures of the New Testament, 
 or by examples out of the same, that fasting, now under the Gos- 
 pel, is a restraint of meat, drink, and all bodily food and pleasures 
 from the body, as before : first, that we ought to fast, is a truth 
 
 more manifest, then it should here need to be proved .... Fasting, 
 even by Christ's assent, is a withholding meat, drink, and all 
 natural food from the body, &c." — Ibid. 
 
 38. " That it [fasting] was used in the Primitive Church, ap- 
 peareth most evidently by the Chalcedon council, one of the 
 
 four first general councils. The fathers assembled there 
 
 decreed in that council that every person, as well in his private 
 as public fast, should continue all the day without meat and 
 
 drink, till after the evening prayer This Canon teacheth 
 
 how fasting was used in the Primitive Church." — Ibid. [The 
 Council was A.D. 452.] 
 
 39. " Fasting then, by the decree of those 030 fathers, grounding 
 their determinations in this matter upon the sacred Scriptures . . . 
 is a withholding of meat, drink, and all natural food from the 
 body, for the determined time of fasting." — Ibid. 
 
 40. " The order or decree made by the elders for washing oft- 
 times, tending to superstition, our Saviour Christ altered and 
 changed the same in His Church, into a profitable sacrament, the 
 sacrament of our regeneration or new birth.'' — 2 B. iv. 2. 
 
 41. "Fasting thus used with prayer is of great efficacy and 
 rvcigheth much with God, so the angel Raphael told Tobias." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 42. "Ashe" [St. Augustine] " witnesseth in anotlier place, 
 the martyrs and holy men in times past, were wont after their
 
 The Homilies. 73 
 
 death to be remembered and named of tlie priest at divine service ; 
 but never to be invocated or called upon." — 2 B.vii. 2. 
 
 43. " Thus you see that the authority both of Scripture and also 
 of Augustine, doth not permit that we should pray to them." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 44. " To temples have the Christians customably used to resort 
 from time to time as to most meet places, where they might . . . 
 receive His holy sacraments ministered unto them duly and 
 purely." — 2 B. viii. 1. 
 
 45. " The which thing both Christ and His apostles, with all 
 the rest of the holy fathers, do sufficiently declare so." — Ibid. 
 
 46. " Our godly i)^^decessors, and the ancient fathers of the 
 Primitive Church, spared not their goods to build churches." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 47. *' If we will show ourselves true Christians, if we will be 
 followers of Christ our Master, and of those godly fathers that 
 have lived before us, and now have received the reward of true 
 and faithful Christians," &c. — Ibid. 
 
 48. " We must . . . come unto the material churches and 
 temples to pray .... whereby we may reconcile ourselves to 
 God, be partakers of His ho\y sacraments, and be devout hearers 
 of His holy Word," &c.—Ibid. 
 
 49. ** It [ordination] lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all 
 other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore 
 neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as 
 Baptism and the Communion are." — 2 Horn. ix. 
 
 50. " Thus we are taught, both by the Scriptures and ancient 
 doctors, that," &c. — Ibid, 
 
 51. " The holy apostles and disciples of Christ . . . the godly 
 fathers also, that were both before and since Christ, endued with- 
 out doubt with the Holy Ghost, . . . they both do most earnestly 
 
 exhort us, &c that we should remember the poor .... 
 
 St. Paul crieth unto us after this sort .... Isaiah the Prophet 
 teacheth us on this wise .... And the holy father Tobit giveth 
 this counsel. And the learned afid godly doctor Chrysoslom 
 giveth this admonition But what mean these olteii admoni-
 
 74 The Homilies. 
 
 tions and earnest exliortations of the prophets, apostles, fathers, 
 and holy doctors?" — 2 B. xi. 1. 
 
 52. " The holy fathers, Job and Tobit."— /6ic?. 
 
 53. " Christ, whose especial favour we may be assured by 
 this means to obtain" [viz. by almsgiving] — 2 B. xi. 2. 
 
 54. " Now will I . . . show unto you how profitable it is for us 
 to exercise them [alms-deeds] . . . [Christ's saying] serveth to 
 . . . prick us forwards ... to learn . . . how we may recover our 
 health, if it be lost or impaired, and how it may be defended and 
 maintained if we have it. Yea, He teacheth us also therefore to 
 esteem that as a precious medicine and an inestimable jewel, that 
 hath such strength and virtue in it, that can either procure or pre- 
 serve so incomparable a treasure." — Ibid. 
 
 55. *' Then He and His disciples were grievously accused of 
 the Pharisees, . . . because they went to meat and washed not 
 their hands before, . . . Christ, answering their superstitious com- 
 plaint, teacheth them an especial remedy how to keep clean their 
 souls, . . . Give alms," &c. — Ibid. 
 
 56. "Merciful alms-dealing h profitable io j)urge the soul from 
 the infection andflthy spots of sin." — Ibid, 
 
 57. " The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in sundry 
 places of the Scripture, saying, ' Mercifulness and alms-giving,' 
 &c. [Tobit iv.] . . . The wise preacher, the son of Sirach, con- 
 (irmeth the same, when he says, that ' as water quencheth burn- 
 ing fire,' " &c. — Ibid. 
 
 58. "A great confidence may they have before the high God, 
 that showmercy and compassion to them that are afflicted." — Ibid. 
 
 51). " If ye have by any infirmity or weakness been touched 
 and annoyed with them . . . straightway shall mercifulness wijie 
 and wash them away, as salves and remedies to heal their sores and 
 grievous diseases." — Ibid. 
 
 GO. " And therefore that holy father Cyprian admonisheth to 
 consider how wJiolesovie and 'profitable it is to relieve the needy, 
 
 &c by the rvhich we may purge our sins and heal our 
 
 wounded souls." — Jbid. 
 
 CI. " We be therefore washed ia our baptism from thcfilthiness
 
 The Homilies. 75 
 
 of sin, that we should live afterwards in the pureness of life." — 
 2 B. xiii. 1. 
 
 62. " By these means [by love, compassion, &c.] shall wemove 
 God to be merciful to our sins" — Ihid. 
 
 QS. " ' He was dead,' saith St. Paul, ' for our sins, and rose 
 again for our justijication' . . . He died to destroy the rule of the 
 devil in us, and He rose again to send down His Holy Spirit 
 to rule in our hearts, to endue us with perfect righteousness." 
 —2 B. xiv. 
 
 C4. " The ancient Catholic fathers," [in marg.] Irenaeus, Igna- 
 tius, Dionysius, Origen, Optatus, Cyprian, Athanasius, .... 
 " were not afraid to call this supper, some of them, the salve of 
 immortality and sovereign preservative against death ; other, the 
 sweet dainties of our Saviour, the pledge of eternal health, the 
 defence of faith, the hope of the resurrection ; other, the food of 
 immortality, the healthful grace, and the conservatory to everlast- 
 ing life."— 2 B. XV. 1. 
 
 65. " The meat we seek in this supper is spiritual food, the 
 nourishment of our soul, a heavenly refection, and not earthly ; 
 an invisible meat, and not bodily; a ghostly substance, and not 
 carnal." — Ibid. 
 
 66. " Take this lesson ... of Emissenus, a godly father that 
 .... thou look up with faith upon the holy body and blood of thy 
 God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it with thy mind, 
 thou receive it with the hand of thy heart, and thou take it 
 fully with thy inward man." — Ibid. 
 
 67. "The saying of the holy martyr of God, St. Cyprian." 
 
 2 B. XX. 3. 
 
 Thus we see the authority of the Fathers, of the six first 
 councils, and of the judgments of the Church generally, the 
 holiness of the Primitive Church, the inspiration of the Apo- 
 crypha, the sacramental character of Marriage and other or- 
 dinances, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the Church's 
 power of excommunicating kings, the profitableness of fasting, 
 the propitiatory virtue of good works, the Eucharistic commemo- 
 ration, and justification by a righteousness [within us,] ' arc taught 
 ' " JJy inherent righteousness," First Edition.
 
 76 The Homilies. 
 
 in the Homilies. Let it be said again, it is not here asserted that 
 a subscription to all and every of these quotations is involved 
 in the subscription of an Article which does but generally approve 
 the Homilies ; but they who insist so strongly on our Church's 
 holding that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist because the 
 Homilies declare it, should recollect that there are other doctrines 
 contained in them beside it, which they should be understood to 
 hold, before their argument has the force of consistency.
 
 77 
 
 § \2.—The Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Article xxxviii. — " The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction 
 in tliis realm of England." 
 
 By *' hath" is meant " ought to have," as the Article in the 36th 
 Canon and the Oath of Supremacy show, in which the same doc- 
 trine is drawn out more at length. " No foreign prince, person, 
 prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, 
 power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or 
 spiritual, within this realm." 
 
 This is the profession which every one must in consistency 
 make, who does not join the Roman Church. If the Bishop of 
 Rome has jurisdiction and authority here, why do we not acknow- 
 ledge it, and submit to him ? To say then the above words, is 
 nothing more or less than to say *' I am not a Roman Catholic ;" 
 and whatever reasons there are against saying them, are so far 
 reasons against remaining in the English Church. They are 
 a mere enunciation of the principle of Anglicanism. 
 
 Anglicans maintain that the supremacy of the Pope is not 
 directly from revelation, but an event in Providence. All things 
 may be undone by the agents and causes by which they are done. 
 What revelation gives, revelation takes away ; what Providence 
 gives. Providence takes away. God ordained by miracle. He 
 reversed by miracle, the Jewish election ; He promoted in the 
 way of Providence, and He cast down by the same way, the 
 Roman empire. " The powers that be, are ordained of God," 
 while they be, and have a claim on our obedience. When they 
 cease to be, they cease to have a claim. They cease to be, when 
 God removes them. He may be considered to remove them 
 when He undoes what He had done. The Jewish election did 
 not cease to be, when the Jews went into captivity : this was an 
 event in Providence ; and what miracle had ordained, it was mi- 
 racle that annulled. But the Roman power ceased to be when 
 the barbarians overthrew it ; for it rose by the sword, and it 
 therefore perished by the sword. The Gospel Ministry began in 
 
 7
 
 78 The Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Christ and His Apostles ; and what they began, they only can 
 end. The Papacy began in the exertions and passions of man ; 
 and what man can make, man can destroy. Its jurisdiction, while 
 it lasted, was "ordained of God;" when it ceased to be, it ceased 
 to claim our obedience ; and it ceased to be at the Reformation. 
 The Reformers, who could not destroy a Ministry, which the 
 Apostles began, could destroy a Dominion which the Popes 
 founded. 
 
 Perhaps the following passage will throw additional light upon 
 this point : — 
 
 " The Anglican view of the Church has ever been this : that its 
 portions need not otherwise have been united together for their 
 essential completeness, than as being descended from one original. 
 They are like a number of colonies sent out from a mother- 
 country Each Church is independent of all the rest, and is 
 
 to act on the principle of what may be called Episcopal inde- 
 pendence, except, indeed, so far as the civil power unites any 
 number of them together Each diocese is a perfect inde- 
 pendent Church, sufficient for itself; and the communion of 
 Christians one with another, and the unity of them altogether, 
 lie, not in a mutual understanding, intercourse, and combination, 
 not in what they do in common, but in what they are and have 
 in common, in their possession of the Succession, their Episcopal 
 form, their Apostolical faith, and the use of the Sacraments. . . . 
 Mutual intercourse is but an accident of the Church, not of its 
 
 essence Intercommunion is a duty, as other duties, but is 
 
 not the tenure or instrument of the communion between the 
 unseen world and this ; and much more the confederacy of sees 
 and churches, the metropolitan, patriarchal, and papal systems, 
 are matters of expedience or of natural duty from long custom, 
 or of propriety from gratitude and reverence, or of necessity from 
 voluntary oaths and engagements, or of ecclesiastical force from 
 the canons of Councils, but not necessary in order to the convey- 
 ance of grace, or for fulfilment of the ceremonial law, as it may 
 be called, of unity. Bishop is superior to bishop only in rank, 
 not in real power ; and the Bishop of Rome, the head of the 
 Catholic world, is not the centre of unity, except as having a
 
 The Bishop of Rome. 79 
 
 primacy of order. Accordingly, even granting for argument's 
 sake, that the English Church violated a duty in the 1 Gth 
 century, in releasing itself from the Roman supremacy, still 
 it did not thereby commit that special sin, which cuts off from it 
 the fountains of grace, and is called schism. It was essentially 
 complete without Rome, and naturally independent of it ; it had, 
 in the course of years, whether by usurpation or not, come under 
 the supremacy of Rome ; and now, whether by rebellion or not, 
 it is free from it : and as it did not enter into the Church invisible 
 by joining Rome, so it was not cast out of it by breaking from 
 Rome. These were accidents in its history, involving, indeed, 
 sin in individuals, but not affecting the Church as a Church, 
 
 ** Accordingly, the Oath of Supremacy declares ' that no foreign 
 prelate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, pre- 
 eminence, or authority within this realm.' In other words, there 
 is nothing in the Apostolic system which gives an authority to the 
 Pope over the Church, such as it does not give to a Bishop. It 
 is altogether an ecclesiastical arrangement ; not a point de fide, 
 but of expedience, custom, or piety, which cannot be claimed as 
 if the Pope ought to have it, any more than, on the other hand, 
 the King could of Divine right claim the supremacy ; the claim 
 of both one and the other resting, not on duty or revelation, 
 but on specific engagement. We find ourselves, as a Church, 
 under the King now, and we obey him ; we were under the Pope 
 formerly, and we obeyed him. ' Ought' does not, in any degree, 
 come into the question."
 
 80 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 One remark may be made in conclusion. It may be objected 
 that the tenor of the above explanations is anti-Protestant, 
 whereas it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Pro- 
 testants, and intended for the establishment of Protestantism ; 
 accordingly, that it is an evasion of their meaning to give them 
 any other than a Protestant drift, possible as it may be to do so 
 grammatically, or in each separate part. 
 
 But the answer is simple : 
 
 1. In the first place, it is a duty which we owe both to the 
 Catholic Church and to our own, to take our reformed confes- 
 sions in the most Catholic sense they will admit ; we have no 
 duties toward their framers. [Nor do we receive the articles 
 from their original framers, but from several successive convoca- 
 tions after their time ; in the last instance, from that of 1662.] 
 
 2. In giving the Articles a Catholic interpretation, we bring 
 them into harmony with the Book of Common Prayer, an object 
 of the most serious moment in those who have given their assent 
 to both formularies. 
 
 3. Whatever be the authority of the [Declaration] prefixed to 
 the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, it sanctions the 
 mode of interpreting them above given. For its injoining the 
 " literal and grammatical sense," relieves us from the necessity 
 of making the known opinions of their framers, a comment upon 
 their text ; and its forbidding any person to " affix any new sense 
 to any Article," was promulgated at a time when the leading men 
 of our Church were especially noted for those Catholic views 
 which have been here advocated. 
 
 4. It may be remarked, moreover, that such an interpretation is 
 in accordance with the well-known general leaning of Melanch- 
 thon, from whose writings our Articles are principally drawn, and 
 whose Catholic tendencies gained for him that same reproach of 
 popery, which has ever been so freely bestowed upon members of 
 our own reformed Churcli.
 
 Conclusion, 81 
 
 " Melanchtlion was of opinion," says Mosheim, "that, for the sake of peace 
 and concord many things might be given up and tolerated in the Church of 
 Rome, which Luther considered could by no means be endured. ... In the class 
 of matters indifferent, this great man and his associates placed many things 
 which had appeared of the highest importance to Luther, and could not of con- 
 sequence be considered as indifferent by his true disciples. For he regarded 
 as such, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the necessity of good works 
 to eternal salvation ; the number of the sacraments; the jurisdiction claimed by 
 the Pope and the Bishops ; extreme unction ; the observation of certain reli- 
 gious festivals, and several superstitious rites and ceremonies." — Cent. XVL 
 § 3. part 2. 27, 28, 
 
 5. Further : the Articles are evidently framed on the principle 
 of leaving open large questions, on which the controversy hinges. 
 They state broadly extreme truths, and are silent about their 
 adjustment. For instance, they say that all necessary faith must 
 be proved from Scripture, but do not say who is to prove it. 
 They say that the Church has authority in controversies, they 
 do not say what authority. They say that it may enforce nothing 
 beyond Scriptstre, but do not say where the remedy lies when it 
 does. They say that works before grace and justification are 
 worthless and worse, and that works after grace a«ci justification 
 are acceptable, but they do not speak at all of works with God's 
 aid, before justification. They say that men are lawfully called 
 and sent to minister and preach, who are chosen and called by 
 men who have public authority given them in the congregation to 
 call and send ; but they do not add by whom the authority is to 
 be given. They say that councils called by j)^^^^^^ ^^^y ^i"*' ! 
 they do not determine whether councils called in the name of 
 Christ will err. 
 
 [6. The variety of doctrinal views contained in the Homilies, as 
 above shown, views which cannot be brought under Protestantism 
 itself, in its greatest comprehension of opinions, is an additional 
 proof, considering the connexion of the Articles with the Ho- 
 milies, that the Articles are not framed on the principle of ex- 
 cluding those who prefer the theology of the early ages to that of 
 the Reformation ; or rather let it be considered whether, con- 
 sidering both Homilies and Articles appeal to the Fathers and 
 Catholic antiquity, in interpreting them by these, we are not 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. G
 
 82 Conclusion. 
 
 going to the very authority to which they profess to submit 
 themselves. 
 
 7. Lastly, their framers constructed them in such a way as 
 best to comprehend those who did not go so far in Protestantism 
 as themselves. Anglo-Catholics then are but the successors and 
 representatives of those moderate reformers ; and their case 
 has been directly anticipated in the wording of the Articles. 
 It follows that they are not perverting, they are using them, for 
 an express purpose for which among others their authors framed 
 them. The interpretation they take was intended to be admis- 
 sible ; though not that which their authors took themselves. 
 Had it not been provided for, possibly the Articles never would 
 have been accepted by our Church at all. If, then, their framers 
 have gained their side of the compact in effecting the reception 
 of the Articles, let Catholics have theirs too in retaining their 
 own Catholic interpretation of them. 
 
 An illustration of this occurs in the history of the 28th 
 Article. In the beginning of Elizabeth's reign a paragraph 
 formed part of it, much like that which is now appended to the 
 Communion Service, but in which the Real Presence was denied 
 in words. It was adopted by tb.e clergy at the first convocation, 
 but not published. Burnet observes on it thus : — 
 
 " When these Articles were at first prepared by the convocation in Queen 
 Elizabeth's reign, this paragraph was made a part of them ; for the original 
 subscription by both houses of convocation, yet extant, shews this. But the 
 design of the government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the 
 body of the nation to the Reformation, in whom the old leaven had gone deep; 
 and no part of it deeper than the belief of the corporeal presence of Christ in 
 the Sacrament ; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so 
 particular a definition in tliis matter ; in vvhicli the very word Real Presence 
 was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also suggested, that here a definition was 
 made that went too much upon the principles of natural philosophy; which how 
 true soever, they might not be the proper subject of an article of religion. 
 Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this paragraph ; though it was a part 
 of the Article that was subscribed, yet it was not published, but the paragraph 
 that follows, ' The Body of Christ,' ."vc, was put in its stead, and was re- 
 ceived and published by the next convocation ; which upon the matter was a 
 full explanation of the way of Ciikist's presence in this Sacrament; that 'He 
 is present in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the mean by
 
 Conclusion. 83 
 
 which He ts received.' This seemed to be more theological; and it does in- 
 deed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we see what was the sense 
 of the first convocation in Queen Elizabeth's reign ; it differed in nothing from 
 that in King Edward's time : and therefore though this paragraph is now no 
 part of our Articles, yet we are certain that the clergy at that time did not at 
 all doubt of the truth of it; we are sure it was their opinion ; since they sub- 
 scribed it, though they did not think fit to publish it at first ; and though it was 
 afterwards changed for another, that was the same in sense." — Burnet on 
 Article XXVIII., p. 410. 
 
 What has lately taken place in the political world will afford 
 an illustration in point. A French minister, desirous of war, 
 nevertheless, as a matter of policy, draws up his state papers in 
 such moderate language, that his successor, who is for peace, 
 can act up to them, without compromising his own principles. 
 The world, observing this, has considered it a circumstance for 
 congratulation ; as if the former minister, who acted a double 
 part, had been caught in his own snare. It is neither decorous, 
 nor necessary, nor altogether fair, to urge the parallel rigidly ; 
 but it will explain what it is here meant to convey. The Pro- 
 testant Confession was drawn up with the purpose of includiuL'" 
 Catholics ; and Catholics now will not be excluded. What 
 was an economy in the reformers, is a protection to us. What 
 would have been a perplexity to us then, is a perplexity to Pro- 
 testants now. We could not then have found fault with their 
 words ; they cannot now repudiate our meaning. 
 
 [J. H. N.] 
 Oxford. 
 The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. 
 1811. 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 These Tracts are continued in Numbers, and sold at the price of 
 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50 copies. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church yard, and waterlog place. 
 
 1841. 
 
 Gilbert & Rivinoton, Printers, St. John's Square, London.
 
 The following works, all in single volumes, or pamphlets, and recently 
 jmhlished, will be found more or less to uphold or elucidate the general 
 doctrines inculcated in these Tracts : — 
 
 Bp. Taylor on Repentance, by Hale. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Bp. Taylor's Golden Grove. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Vincentii Lirinensis Commouitoriura, with translation. — Parke?, 
 Oxford. 
 
 Pusey on Cathedrals and Clerical Education. — Roake and Varty. 
 
 Hook's University Sermons. — Talboys, Oxford. 
 
 Pusey on Baptism (published separately) . — Rivingtons. 
 
 Newman's Sermons, 5 vols. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Newman on Romanism, &c. — Rivingtons. 
 
 The Christian Year. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Lyra A])ostolica. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Perceval on the Roman Schism. — Leslie. 
 
 Bishop Jebb's Pastoral Instructions. — Duncan. 
 
 Dodsworth's Lectures on the Church. — Burns. 
 
 Cary on the Apostolical Succession. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Newman on Suffragan Bishops. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Keble's Sermon on National Apostasy. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Keble's Sermon on Tradition. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Memoir of Ambrose Bonwick. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Hymns for Children on the Lord's Prayer. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Law's first and second Letters to Hoadley. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Bp. Andrews' Devotions. Latin and Greek. — Pickering. 
 
 Hook's Family Prayers. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Herbert's Poems and Country Pastor. 
 
 Evans's Scripture Biography. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Le Bas' Life of Archbishop Laud. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Jones (of Nayland) on the Church. 
 
 Bj). Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration. — Rivingtons. 
 
 B]). Beveridge's Sermons on the Ministry and Ordinances. — Parker, 
 Oxford. 
 
 Bp. Jolly on the Eucharist. 
 
 Fulford's Sermons on the Ministry, &c. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Rose's Sermons on the Ministry. — Rivingtons. 
 
 A Catechism on the Church. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Russell's Judgment of the Anglican Church. — Baily. 
 
 Poole's Sermons on the Creed. — Grant, Edinburgh. 
 
 Sutton on the Eucharist. Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Leslie on the Regale and Pontificate. — Leslie. 
 
 Pusey's Sermon on November 5. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 The Cathedral, a Poem. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Palmer's Ecclesiastical History. — Burns. 
 
 Larger Works which may be profitably studied. 
 Bishop Bull's Sermons. — Parker, Oxford. 
 Bisho]) Bull's Works. — University Press. 
 Waterland's Works. — Do. 
 Wall on Infant Baptism. — Do. 
 Pearson on the Creed. — Do. 
 Leslie's Works. — Do. 
 Bingham's Works. — Straker, London. 
 Palmer on the Liturgy. — University Press. 
 Palmer on the Church. — Rivingtons. 
 Hooker, ed. Keble. — University Press.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 T II E Vx E Y. U. W. J E L E, D. D 
 
 CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, 
 
 IN EXPLANATION OF TRACT No. 90, 
 
 IN THE SERIES CALLED 
 
 THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER : 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 OXFOKI): l-RINTF.D BY I. SIIRIMHTON.
 
 A [. E T T E R , 
 
 My Dear Dr. Jelf, 
 
 I have known you so many years that I trust 
 I may fitly address the present pages to you, on the 
 subject of my recent Tract, without its being sus-* 
 pected in consequence that one, who from circum- 
 stances has taken no share whatever in any of the 
 recent controversies in our Church, is implicated in 
 any approval or sanction of it. It is merely as a 
 friend that I write to you, through whom I may 
 convey to others some explanations which seem 
 necessary at this moment. 
 
 Four Gentlemen, Tutors of their respective Col- 
 leges, have published a protest against the Tract in 
 question. I have no cause at all to complain of 
 their so doing, though as I shall directly say, I con- 
 sider that they have misunderstood me. They do 
 not, I trust, suppose that I feel any offence or sore- 
 ness at their proceeding ; of course I naturally 
 think that I am right and they are wrong ; but this 
 persuasion is quite consistent both with my honouring 
 their zeal for Christian truth and their anxiety for 
 the welfare of our younger members, and with my 
 very great consciousness that, even though I be right 
 in my principle, I may have advocated truth in a 
 wrong way. Such acts as theirs when done honestly, 
 as they have done them, must benefit all parties, 
 and draw them nearer to each other in good will, if
 
 not in opinion. But to proceed to the subject of 
 this Letter. 
 
 I propose to offer some explanation of the Tract 
 in two respects, — as to its principal statement and 
 its object. 
 
 1. These Four Gentlemen, whom I have men- 
 tioned, have misunderstood me in so m.aterial a 
 point, that it certainly is necessary to enter into the 
 subject at some length. They consider that the 
 Tract asserts that the Thirty-Nine Articles 
 
 " do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines of 
 Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images 
 and Rehcs, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they 
 are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only 
 of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent 
 Romanists repudiate as much as we do." 
 
 Now in this statement I understand ^*^tauQ'ht 
 
 o 
 
 authoritatively" to mean " taught by the mdhorities" 
 of the Church of Rome. So I find it to be under- 
 stood by others. It conveys the impression that the 
 Tract holds that the Articles contain no condemna- 
 tion of the doctrine of Purgatory and the rest as 
 taught at present by the authorised teachers of the 
 Church of Rome. On the contrary, I consider that 
 they do contain a condemnation of the teaching of 
 the present Roman authorities ; I only say, that, 
 whereas they were written before the decrees of 
 Trent, they were not directed against those decrees.* 
 
 * The phrase " authoritative teaching" may also mean teachinji; which is of 
 itself of authority, and from which no one may lawfully dissent, e. g. the deci'ees 
 of Councils. In this sense, of course, the statement of tlie four Tutors is 
 correct, hut it involves no very heavy accusntion, and I have in ihcse pages 
 joined issue upon it.
 
 The Church of Rome taught authoritatively before 
 those decrees, as well as since. Those decrees ex- 
 pi'essed her authoritative teaching, and they will 
 continue to express it, while she so teaches. The 
 simple question is, whether taken by themselves in 
 their mere letter, they need express it ; whether 
 they go so far as the teaching of the present authori- 
 ties ; whether they may not be held by members of 
 the Roman Church even at this day, in a sense short 
 of that which existing authority attributes to them. 
 
 As to the present authoritative teaching of the 
 Church of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in 
 public, I think it goes very far indeed to substitute 
 another Gospel for the true one. Instead of setting 
 before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven and 
 Hell ; it does seem to me, as a popular system, to 
 preach the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, and Pur- 
 gatory. If there ever was a system which required 
 reformation, it is that of Rome at this day, or in 
 other words (as I should call it) Romanism or 
 Popery. Or, to use words in which I have only a year 
 ago expressed myself, when contrasting Romanism 
 with the teaching of the ancient Church, — 
 
 "In antiquity, the main aspect in the economy of redemp- 
 tion contains Christ, the Son of God, the Author and 
 Dispenser of all grace and pardon, the Church His living 
 representative, the Sacraments her instruments, Bishops 
 her rulers, their collective decisions her voice, and Scripture 
 her standard of truth. In the Roman Schools we find 
 St. Mary and the Saints the prominent objects of regard 
 and dispensers of mercy, Purgatory or Indulgences the 
 means of obtaining it, the Pope the ruler and teacher of the 
 Church, and miracles the warrant of doctrine. As to the
 
 doctrines of Christ's merits and eternal life and death, these 
 are points not denied (God forbid), but taken for granted 
 and passed by, in order to make way for others of more — 
 present, pressing, and lively interest. That a certain change 
 then in objective and external religion has come over the 
 Latin, nay, and in a measure the Greek Church, we con- 
 sider to be a plain historical fact; a change suffi- 
 ciently startling to recal to our minds, with very unpleasant 
 sensations, the awfiil words, 'Though we, or an Angel 
 from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that 
 ye have received, let him be accursed.'" 
 
 On the doctrine qf Purgatory, this received 
 Romanism goes beyond the Decrees of Trent thus : 
 the Council of Trent says, 
 
 " There is a Purgatory, and the souls there detained are 
 helped by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the 
 acceptable sacrifice of the Altar." 
 
 This definition does not explain the meaning of 
 the word Purgatory — and it is not incompatible 
 with the doctrine of the Greeks ; — but the Catechism 
 of Trent, which expresses the existing Roman 
 doctrine says, 
 
 " There is a Purgatorial fire, in which the souls of the 
 pious are tormented for a certain time, and expiated, in order 
 that an entrance may lie open to them into their eternal 
 home, into which nothing defiled enters." 
 
 And the popular notions go very far beyond this, 
 as the extracts from the Homily, Jeremy Taylor, 
 &c. in the Tract shew. 
 
 Again, the doctrine of Pardons is conveyed by the 
 Divines of Trent in these words : — 
 
 " The use of Indulgences, which is most salutary to the
 
 Christian people, and approved by the authority of Councils, 
 is to be retained in the Church ;" 
 
 it does not explain what the word Indulgence 
 means : — it is unnecessary to observe how very 
 definite and how monstrous is the doctrine which 
 Luther assailed. 
 
 Again, the Divines at Trent say that " to Images 
 are to be paid due honour and veneration ;" and to 
 those who honour the sacred volume, pictures of 
 friends and the like, as we all do, I do not see that 
 these very words of themselves can be the subject of 
 objection. Far otherwise when we see the com- 
 ment which the Church of Rome has put on them 
 in teaching and practice. I consider its existing 
 creed and popular worship to be as near idolatry as 
 any portion of that Church can be, from which it is 
 said that " the idols" shall be " utterly abolished." 
 
 Again, the Divines of Trent say that " it is good 
 and useful suppliantly to invoke the Saints ;" they 
 do not even command the practice. But the actual 
 honours paid to them in Roman Catholic countries, 
 are in my judgment, as I have already said, a sub- 
 stitution of a wrong object of worship for a right one. 
 
 Again, the Divines at Trent say that the Mass is 
 *'a sacrifice truly propitiatory :" words which (con- 
 sidering they add, " The fruits of the Bloody Oblation 
 are through this most abundantly obtained^ — so far 
 is the latter from detracting in any way from the 
 former,") to my mind have no strength at all com- 
 pared with the comment contained in the actual 
 teaching and practice of the Church, as regards 
 private masses.
 
 This distinction between the words of the Tri- 
 dentine divines and the authoritative teaching of 
 the present Church, is made in the Tract itself, and 
 would have been made in far stronger terms, had I 
 not so very often before spoken against the actual 
 state of the Church of Rome, or could I have antici- 
 pated the sensation which the appearance of the 
 Tract has excited. I say, 
 
 " By ' the Romish doctrine' is not meant the Trldentine 
 doctrine, because this article was drawn up before the 
 deci'ce of the Council of Trent. What is opposed is the 
 received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or 
 the doctrine of the Roman Schools.''^ — p. 24. 
 
 This doctrine of the Schools is at present, on the 
 whole, the established creed of the Roman Church, 
 and this I call Romanism or Popery, and against this 
 I think the Thirty-nine Articles speak. I think they 
 speak, not of certain accidental practices, but of a 
 body and siihstance of divinity, and that traditionary, 
 an existing ruling spirit and view in the Church ; 
 which, whereas it is a corruption and perversion of 
 the truth, is also a very active and energetic prin- 
 ciple, and, whatever holier manifestations there may 
 be in the same Church, manifests itself in ambition, 
 insincerity, craft, cruelty, and all such other grave 
 evils as mre connected with these. 
 
 Further, I believe that the decrees of Trent, though 
 not necessarily in themselves tending to the corrup- 
 tions which we see, yet considering these corrup- 
 tions txist, will ever tend to foster and produce 
 them, as if principles and elements of them, — that is.
 
 while these decrees remain unexplained in any truer 
 and more Catholic way. 
 
 The distinction I have been making, is familiar 
 with our controversialists. Dr. Lloyd, the late 
 Bishop of Oxford, whose memory both you and 
 myself hold in affection and veneration, brings it 
 out strongly in a review which he wrote in the 
 British Critic in 1825. Nay he goes further than 
 any thing I have said on one point, for he thinks the 
 Roman Catholics are not what they once were, at 
 least among ourselves. I pronounce no opinion on 
 this point ; nor do I feel able to follow his revered 
 guidance in some other things which he says, but 
 I quote him in proof that the Reformers did not 
 aim at decrees or abstract dogmas, but against 
 a living system, and a system which it is quite pos- 
 sible to separate from the formal statements which 
 have served to represent it. 
 
 " Happy was it," he says, " for the Protestant contro- 
 versialist, when his own eyes and ears could bear witness 
 to the doctrine of Papal satisfactions and meritorious works, 
 when he could point to the benighted wanderer, working 
 his way to the shrine of our Lady of Walsingham or 
 Ipswich, and hear him confess with his o-svn mouth, that he 
 trusted to such works for the expiation of his sins ; or 
 when every eye could behold ' our churches full of images, 
 wondrously decked and adorned, garlands and coronets set 
 on their heads, precious pearls hanging about their necks, 
 their fingers shining with rings, set witli precious stones ; 
 their dead and still bodies, clothed with garments stiff with 
 gold.'" Horn. 3. ag. Idol p. 97. 
 
 On the other hand he says : 
 
 " Our full belief is that the Roman Catholics of the
 
 10 
 
 United Kingdom, from their long residence among 
 Protestants, their disuse of processions and other Romish 
 ceremonies, have been brought gradually and almost un- 
 knowingly to a more spiritual religion and a purer faith, — that 
 they themselves see with sorrow the disgraceful tenets and 
 principles that were professed and carried into practice by 
 their forefathers, — and are too fond of removing this 
 disgrace from them, by denying the former existence of 
 these tenets, and ascribing the imputation of them to the 
 calumnies of the Protestants. This we cannot allow ; and 
 while we cherish the hope that they are now gone for ever, 
 we still assert boldly and fearlessly, that they did once 
 exist." p. 148. 
 
 Again : 
 
 "That latria is due only to the Trinity, is con- 
 tinually asserted in the Councils; but the terms of dulia 
 and hyperdulia, have not been adopted or acknowledged by them 
 in their public documents; they are, however, employed 
 unanimously by all the best ivriters of the Romish Church, 
 and their use is maintained and defended by them." 
 p. 101. 
 
 T conceive that what " all the best writers" say is 
 authoritative teaching, and a sufficient object for the 
 censures conveyed in the Articles, though the decrees 
 of Trent, taken by themselves, remain untouched. 
 
 " This part of the enquiry" [to define exactly the acts 
 peculiar to the different species of worship] "however 
 is more theoretical than useful ; and, as every thing that 
 can be said on it must be derived, 7iot from Councils, but 
 from Doctors of the Romish Church, whose authority would 
 be called in question, it is not worth while to enter upon it 
 now. And therefore, observing only that the Catechism of 
 Trent still retains the term of, adoratio anyelorum, we pass 
 on, &c." p. 102.
 
 11 
 
 Again : 
 
 " On the question whether the Invocation of Saints, 
 professed and practised by the Church of Rome, is 
 idolatrous or not, our opinion is this ; that in the public 
 Formularies of their Church, and even in the bcHef and 
 practice of the best informed among them, there is Jiothing 
 of idolatry, although, as we have said, we deem that 
 practice altogether unscriptural and unwarranted ; but we 
 do consider the principles relating to the worship of the 
 Virgin, calculated to lead in the end to positive idolatry ; 
 and wc are Avell convinced, and we have strong grounds 
 for our conviction, that a large portion of the lower classes 
 are in this point guilty of it. Whether the Invocation of 
 Angels or of Saints has produced the same effect, we are 
 not able to decide." p. 113. 
 
 I accept this view entirely with a single expla- 
 nation. By " principles" relating to the worship of 
 the Blessed Virgin, I understand either the received 
 principles as distinct from those laid down in the 
 Tridentine statements ; or the principles contained 
 in those statements, viewed as practically operating 
 on the existing feelings of the Church. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " She [the Church of England] is unwilling to fix upon 
 the principles of the Romish Church the charge of positive 
 idolatry ; and contents herself with declaring that ' the 
 Romish doctrine concerning the Adoration as well of Images 
 as of Relics, is a fond thing, &c. &c.' But in regard to 
 the universal practice of the Romish Church, she adheres to 
 the declaration of her Homilies ; and professes her conviction 
 that this fond and unwarranted and unscriptural doctrine 
 has at all times produced, and will hereafter, as long 
 as it is suffered to prevail, produce the sin of practical 
 idolatry." p. 121.
 
 12 
 
 I will add my belief that the only thing which 
 can stop this tendency in the decrees of Rome, as 
 things are, is its making some formal declaration the 
 other way. 
 
 Once more : 
 
 " We reje.ct the second [Indulgences] not only because 
 they are altogether unwarranted by any word of Holy 
 Writ, and contrary to every principle of reason, but 
 because we conceive the foundations on which they rest 
 to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous and absurd. 
 These principles are, 1. that the power of the Pope, 
 great as it is, does not properly extend bej'ond the limits 
 of this present world. 2. That the power which he pos- 
 sesses of releasing souls from Purgatory arises out of 
 the treasure committed to his care, a treasure consisting 
 of the supererogatory merits of our blessed Saviour, the 
 
 Virgin, and the Saints This is the treasure of which 
 
 Pope Leo, in his Bull of the present year, 1825, speaks in 
 the following terms : ' We have resolved, in virtue of the 
 authority given to us by Heaven, fully to unlock that 
 sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and 
 virtues of Christ our Lord, and of His Virgin Mother, and 
 of all the Saints, which the Author of human salvation has 
 entrusted to our dispensation.'" p. 143. 
 
 This is what our Article means by Pardons ; but it 
 is more than is said in the Council of Trent. 
 
 I add a passage from Bramhall : 
 
 "A comprecation [with the Saints] both the Grecians 
 and we do allow ; an ultimate invocation l)oth tlic Grecians 
 and we detest ; so do the Church of Rome in their doctrine, 
 ])ut they vary from it in their practice." Works, p. 418. 
 
 And from Rnll : 
 
 " This Article [the Tridentine] of a Purgatory after this 
 life, as it is understood and taiujht by the Roman Church
 
 13 
 
 {that is, to be a place and state of misery and torment, 
 whereunto many faithful souls go presently after death, and 
 there remain till they are thoroughly purged from their 
 dross, or delivered thence by Classes, Indidgences, &c.) is con- 
 trary to Scripture, and the sense of the Catholic Church for 
 at least the first four Centuries, &c." Corrupt, of Rom. §. 3. 
 
 And from Wake : 
 
 " The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this 
 point [of Merits] as plainly shews that they in this did not 
 know themselves, what they would establish, or were un- 
 wilhng that others should. Def. of Expos. 5. 
 
 I have now said enough on the point of distinc- 
 tion between the existing creed, or what I understand 
 the Gentlemen who signed the protest to call the ''^au- 
 thoritative teaching" of the Church of Rome, and its 
 decrees. And while this distinction seems acknow- 
 ledged by our controversialists, it is a fact that our 
 Articles were written before those decrees, and there- 
 fore are levelled not against them, but against the 
 authoritative teaching. 
 
 I will put the subject in another way, which will 
 lead us to the same point. If there is one doctrine 
 more than another which characterizes the present 
 Church of Rome, and on which all its obnoxious 
 tenets depend, it is the doctrine of its infaUibility. 
 Now I am not aware that this doctrine is any where 
 embodied in its formal decrees. Here then is a 
 critical difference between its decrees and its re- 
 ceived and established creed. Any one who believed 
 that the Pope and Church of Rome are the essence 
 of the infallibility of the Catholic Church, ought to 
 join their Communion. If a person remains in our
 
 14 
 
 Church,, he thereby disowns the infallibility of Rome 
 — and is its infallibility a slight characteristic of the 
 Romish, or Romanistic, or Papal system, by whatever 
 name we call it ? is it not, I repeat, that on which 
 all the other errors of its received teaching depend ? 
 
 The Four Gentlemen 
 " are at a loss to see what security would remain, were his 
 [the writer's] principles generally recognised, that the most 
 plainly erroneous doctrines and practices of the Chm"ch of 
 Rome might not be inculcated in the Lecture Rooms of 
 the University and from the Pulpits of our Churches." 
 
 Here is a doctrine, which could not enter our 
 Lecture Rooms and Pulpits — Rome's infallibility — 
 and if this is excluded, then also are excluded 
 those doctrines which depend, I may say, solely 
 on it, not on Scripture, not on reason, not on 
 antiquity, not on Catholicity. For who is it 
 that gives the doctrine of Pardons their existing 
 meaning which our Article condemns ? The Pope ; 
 as in the words of Leo in 1825, as above quoted 
 from Bishop Lloyd. Who is it that has exalted the 
 honour of the Blessed Virgin into worship of an 
 idolatrous character ? The Pope ; as when he sanc- 
 tioned Bonaventura's Psalter. In a word, who is 
 the recognised interpreter of all the Councils but 
 the Pope ? 
 
 On this whole subject I will qudtc from a work, 
 in which, with some little variation of wording, I 
 said the very same thing four years ago without 
 offence. , 
 
 " There arc in fact two elements in o{)cration within the 
 system. As far as it is Catholic and Scriptural, it appeals
 
 15 
 
 to the Fathers; as far as it is a corruption, it finds it neces- 
 sary to supersede them. Viewed in its formal principles 
 and authoritative statements, it professes to be the champion 
 of past times ; viewed as an active and political power, 
 as a ruling, grasping, and ambitious principle, in a word, 
 what is expressly called Popery, it exalts the will and 
 pleasure of the existing Church above all authority, whether 
 of Scripture or Antiquity, interpreting the one and dis- 
 posing of the other by its absolute and arbitrary decree . . . 
 We must deal with her as we would towards a friend w^ho 
 is visited by derangement . . . she is her real self only in 
 name. . . . Viewed as a practical system, its main tenet, 
 which gives a colour to all its parts, is the Church's infalli- 
 bility, as on the other hand the principle of that genuine 
 theology out of which it has arisen, is the authority of 
 Catholic antiquity." — On Romanism, pp. 102 — 4. 
 
 Nothing more then is implied in the Tract 
 than that Rome is capable of a reformation ; its 
 corrupt system indeed cannot be reformed ; it can 
 only be destroyed ; and that destruction is its refor- 
 mation. I do not think that there is any thing- 
 very erroneous or very blameable in such a belief ; 
 and it seems to be a very satisfactory omen in its 
 favour, that at the Council of Trent such protests, 
 as are quoted in the Tract, were entered against so 
 many of the very errors and corruptions which our 
 Articles and Homilies also condemn. I do not 
 think it is any great excess of charity towards the 
 largest portion of Christendom, to rejoice to detect 
 such a point of agreement between them and us, as 
 a joint protest against some of their greatest cor- 
 ruptions, though they in practice cherish them, 
 though they still diifcr from us in other points
 
 16 
 
 besides. That I have not always consistently kept 
 to this view in all that I have written, I am well 
 aware : yet I have made very partial deviations 
 from it. 
 
 I should not be honest if I did not add, that I con- 
 sider our own Church, on the other hand, to have in 
 it a traditionary system, as well as the Roman, 
 beyond and beside the letter of its Formularies, and 
 to be ruled by a spirit far inferior to its own nature. 
 And this traditionary system, not only inculcates 
 what I cannot receive, but would exclude any differ- 
 ence of belief from itself. To this exclusive modern 
 system, I desire to oppose myself; and it is as doing 
 this, doubtless, that I am incurring the censure of 
 the Four Gentlemen who have come before the 
 public. I want certain points to be left open wliich 
 they would close. I am not speaking for myself in 
 one way or another : I am not examining the 
 scripturalness, safety, propriety, or expedience of 
 the points in question ; but I desire that it may not 
 be supposed to be utterly unlawful for such private 
 Christians as feel they can do it with a clear con- 
 science, to allow a comprecation with the Saints as 
 Bramhall does ; or to hold with Andrewes that, taking 
 away the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the 
 Mass, we shall have no dispute about the Sacrifice ; 
 or with Hooker to treat even Transubstantiation as 
 an opinion which bv itself need not cause separation ; 
 or to hold with Hammond that no general Council, 
 truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of 
 Faith : or witli Bull, that man was in a supernatural 
 state of gi-ace before the fall, by which he could
 
 17 
 
 attain to immortality, and that he has recovered it 
 in Christ ; or witli Thorndike, that works of humi- 
 liation and penance are requisite to render God 
 again propitious to those who fall from the grace of 
 Ba})tism ; or with Pearsoii, that the Name of Jesus 
 is no otherwise given under Heaven than in the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 In thus maintaining that we have open questions, 
 or as I have expressed it in the Tract " ambiguous 
 Formularies," I observe, first, that I am introducing 
 no novelty. For instance, it is commonly said that 
 the Articles admit both Arminians and Calvinists ; 
 the principle then is admitted, as indeed the Four 
 Gentlemen, whom I have several times noticed, 
 themselves observe. I do not think it a greater 
 latitude than this, to admit those who hold, and 
 those who do not hold, the points above specified. 
 
 Nor, secondly, can it be said that such an inter- 
 pretation throws any uncertainty upon the primary 
 and most sacred doctrines of our religion. These are 
 consigned to the Creed ; the Articles did not define 
 them ; they existed before the Articles ; they are 
 referred to in the Articles as existing /«c^5, just as 
 the broad Roman errors are referred to ; but the 
 decrees of Trent were drawn up after the Articles. 
 
 On these two points, I may be allowed to quote 
 what I said four years ago in a former Tract. 
 
 " The meaning of the Creed ... is known; there is no op- 
 portunity for doubt here ; it means but one thing, and he 
 who does not hold that one meaning, does not hold it at 
 all. But the case is different (to take an illustration) 
 
 H
 
 18 
 
 in the drawing up of a Political Declaration or a Petition 
 to Parliament. It is composed by persons, difFerino; in 
 matters of detail, agreeing together to a certain point and for 
 a certain end. Each narrowly watches that nothing is 
 inserted to prejudice his own particular opinion, or stipu- 
 lates for the insertion of what may rescue it. Hence 
 general words are used, or particular words inserted, which 
 by superficial enquirers afterwards are criticised as vague 
 and indeterminate on the one hand, or inconsistent on the 
 other ; but in fact, they all have a meaning and a history 
 could we ascertain it. And if the parties concerned in 
 such a document are legislating and determining for 
 posterity, they are respective representatives of corre- 
 sponding parties in the generations after them. Now the 
 Thirt^'-Nine Articles lie between these two, between a 
 Creed and a mere joint Declaration ; to a certain point 
 they have one meaning, beyond that they have no one 
 meaning. They have one meaning so far as they embody 
 the doctrine of the Creed ; they have different meanings, 
 so far as they are dr^wn up by men influenced by the 
 discordant opinions of the day." Tract 82. 
 
 These two points — that our Church allows (1) a 
 great diversity in doctrine, (2.) except as to the 
 Creed, — are abundantly confirmed by the following 
 testimonies of Bramhall, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bull, 
 and Stillingflect, which indeed go far beyond any 
 thing I have said. 
 
 . For instance, Bull, Bramhall, and Hall : 
 
 " What next he [a Roman Catholic olyector] saith con- 
 cerning our notorious prevarication from the Articles of our 
 (Jhurch, I do not perfectly understand. He very well 
 knows, that all our ('Icrgy doth still subscribe them: and if 
 any man hath dared openly to oppose the declaied sense of 
 the Church of England in any one of those Articles, he is 
 liable to ecclesiastical censure, which would be more duly
 
 19 
 
 passed and executed, did not the divisions and fanatic 
 disturbances, first raised and still fomented by the blessed 
 emissaries of the A})ostolic See, hinder and blunt the ed<re 
 of our discipline. But possibly he intends that latitude of 
 sense, which oin- Church, as an indulgent mother, allows 
 her sons in some abstruser points, (such as Predestination, 
 &c.) not particularly and precisely defined in her Articles, 
 but in general words capable of an indifferent construction. 
 If this be his meaning, this is so far from being a fault, that 
 it is the singular praise and commendation of our Church. 
 As for our being concluded by the Articles of our Church, 
 if he means our being obliged to give our internal assent to 
 every thing delivered in them upon peril of damnation, it 
 is confessed that few, yea, none of us, that are well advised, 
 will acknowledge ourselves so concluded by them, nor did 
 our (Church ever intend we should. For she professeth 
 not to deliver all her Articles (all I say, for some of them 
 are coincident with ihe fundamental joint's, of Christianity ) 
 as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man 
 can be saved ; but only propounds them as a body of safe 
 and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to he 
 subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And 
 therefore she requires subscription to them only from 
 the Clergy, and not from the laity, who yet are obliged to 
 acknowledge and profess all the fundamental Articles of 
 the Christian faith, no less than the most learned Doctors. 
 This hath often been told the Papists by many learned 
 writers of our Church. I shall content myself (at present) 
 only wuth two illustrious testimonies of two famous Prelates. 
 The late terror of the Romanists, Dr. Usher, [Bramhall ?] 
 the most learned and reverend Primate of L'eland, thus 
 expresseth the sense of the Church of England, as to the 
 Subscription required to the Thirty-Nine Articles ; ' We 
 do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-Nine Articles 
 of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither 
 do w^e look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 legacies of (Christ and His Apostles : but in a mean, 
 as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and 
 unity; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, 
 but only not to contradict them.' So the excellent 
 Bishop Hall, in his Catholic Propositions, (truly so called,) 
 denieth, in general, that any Church can lawfully propose 
 any Articles to her sons, besides those contained in the 
 common rule of Faith, to be believed under pain of damna- 
 tion. His third proposition is this ; ' The sum of the 
 Christian faith are those principles of the Christian reli- 
 gion, and fundamental grounds and points of faith, which 
 are undoubtedly contained and laid down in the canonical 
 Scriptures, whether in express terms or by necessary con- 
 sequence, and in the ancient Creeds universally received 
 a.nd allowed by the whole Church of God.' " 
 
 And then in the seventh and eighth Propositions, 
 he speaks fully to our purpose. — Prop. 7. ' There 
 are and may be many theological points, which are 
 wont to be believed and maintained, and so may law- 
 fully be, of this or that particular Church, or the Doctors 
 thereof^ or their followers, as godly doctrines and profitable 
 truths, besides those other essential and main matters of 
 Faith, without any prejudice at all of the common peace of 
 the Church.' — Prop 8. ' Howsoever it may be lawful for 
 learned men and particular Churches to believe and main- 
 tain those probable or (as they may think) certain points 
 of theological verities, yet it is not lawful for them to 
 impose and obtrude the same doctrines upon any Church 
 or person, to be believed and held, as upon the necessity of 
 salvation ; or to anathematize or eject out of the Church 
 any person or company of men that think otherwise.' 
 
 "As for the fundamental principles of the ('hristian 
 religion, midojibtcdly delivered in the Scriptiu'cs, and 
 allowed (except the llonianisls, who have so affected 
 singularity, as to frame to themselves a new Christianity) 
 by the whole Church of CJod, they are l)y the consent of all
 
 21 
 
 Christians acknowledged to be contained in that called the 
 Creed, or rule of Faith. 
 
 " This rule of Faith, and that also as it is more fully ex- 
 plained by the first General Councils, our Church heartily 
 enibraceth, and hath made a part of her Liturgy, and so 
 hath obliged all her sons to make solemn profession thereof. 
 To declare this more distinctly to your ladyship, our 
 Church receiveth that which is called the Aposdes' Creed, 
 and enjoins the public profession thereof to all her sons in 
 her Daily Service. And if this Creed be not thought express 
 enough fully to declare the sense of the Catholic Church 
 in points of necessary belief, and to obviate the precise in- 
 terpretations of heretics, she receiveth also that admirable 
 summary of the Christian faith, which is called the Nicene 
 Creed, (but is indeed the entire ancient Creed of the 
 Oriental Churches, together with the necessary additional 
 explications thereof, made by Fathers both of the Council 
 of Nice against Arius, and the Council of Constantinople 
 against Macedonius,) the public profession whereof she also 
 enjoins all her sons (without any exception) to make in the 
 Morning Service of every Sunday and Holy-day. This 
 creed slie professeth (consentaneously to her own prin- 
 ciples) to receive upon this ground primarily, because she 
 finds that the articles thereof may be proved by most 
 evident testimonies of Scripture ; although she deny not, 
 that she is confirmed in her belief of this Creed, because she 
 finds all the articles thereof, in all ages, received by the 
 Catholic Church." Vindication of the Church of Eng- 
 land, 27. 
 
 And Stillingiieet : 
 
 " The Church of England makes no Articles of Faitli, 
 but such as have the testimony and approbation of the 
 whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged 
 to be such by Rome itself, and in other things she require?
 
 22 
 
 suhscriptio7i to them not as Articles of Faith, hut as Inferior 
 Truths which she expects a submission to, in order to her 
 Peace and Tranquillity. So the late learned L. Primate 
 of Ireland [Bramhall] often expresseth the sense of the 
 Church of England, as to her Thirty-Nine Articles. 
 ' Neither doth the Church of England,' saith he, ' define 
 any of these questions, as necessary to be believed, either 
 necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti, which is much 
 less ; but only bindeth her sons for peace sake, not to oppose 
 them.'' And in another place more fully. We do not 
 suffer any man to reject the Thirty-Nine Articles of the 
 
 * Church of England at his pleasure; yet neither do we look 
 upon them as Essentials of saving Faith, or Legacies of 
 Christ and His Apostles : but in a mean, as pious Opinions 
 
 fitted for the preservation of Unity ; neither do tee oblige 
 any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.' 
 By which we see, what a vast difference there is between 
 those things which are required by the Church of England, 
 in order to Peace; and those which are imposed by the 
 Church of Rome, as part of that Faith, extra quam non est 
 salus, without the belief of which there is no salvation. In 
 which she hath as much violated the Unity of the Catholic 
 Church, as the Church of England by her Prudence and 
 Moderation hath studied to preserve it." Grounds of Pro- 
 testant Rel. part i. chap. 11. 
 
 And Laud : 
 
 "A. C. will prove the Church of England a Shrew, and 
 such a Shrew. For in her Book of Canons she excommu- 
 nicates every man, who shall hold any thing contrary to 
 any part of the said Articles. • So A. C. But surely these 
 are not the very words of the Canon nor perhaps the sense. 
 Not the words ; for they arc : Whosoever shall affirm that 
 the Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous, &c. 
 And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man 
 to hold an opinion privately rvithin himself, and another thing
 
 23 
 
 boldly and pubUcly to affirm it. And again, 'tis one thing 
 to hold contrary to some part of an Article, wliich perhaps 
 may be but in the manner of Expression, and another thing 
 positively to affirm, that the Articles in any part of them 
 are superstitious, and erroneous. On Tradition, xiv. 2. 
 
 And Taylor : — 
 
 " I will not pretend to believe that those doctors who 
 first framed the Article, did all of them mean as I mean ; I 
 am not sure they did, or that they did not ; but this I am 
 sure, that they framed the words with much caution and 
 prudence, and so as might abstain from grieving the 
 contrary minds of differing men It is not un- 
 usual for Churches, in matters of difficulty, to frame 
 their articles so as to serve the ends of peace, and yet 
 not to endanger truth, or to destroy liberty of im- 
 proving truth, or a further reformation. And since there 
 are so very many questions and opinions in this point, 
 either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the 
 Article and their opinion, or must refuse her communion ; 
 which whosoever shall enforce, is a great schismatic and 
 an uncharitable man. This only is certain, that to tie the 
 article and our doctrine together, is an excellent art of 
 peace, and a certain signification of obedience ; and yet is 
 a security of truth, and that just liberty of understanding, 
 which, because it is only God's subject, is then sufficiently 
 submitted to men, when we consent in the same form of 
 words." — Further Explic. Orig. Sin. § 6. 
 
 This view of the Articles conveyed in these ex- 
 tracts evidently allows, as I have said above, of much 
 greater freedom in the private opinions of indivi- 
 duals, subscribing them, than I have contended for. 
 
 While I am on this subject, I will make this remark 
 in addition : — That though I consider that the
 
 24 
 
 wording of the Articles is wide enough to admit 
 ^ persons of very different sentiments from each other 
 in detail,, provided they agree in some broad gene- 
 ral sense of them^ (e. g. differing from each other 
 whether or not there is cmi/ state of purification 
 after death, or whether or not a?ii/ addresses are 
 allowable to Saints departed, so that they one and 
 all condemn the Roman doctrine of Purgatory and of 
 Invocation as actually taught and carried into effect,) 
 yet I do not leave the Articles without their one 
 legitimate sense in preference to all other senses. The 
 only peculiarity of the view 1 advocate, if I must so 
 call it, is this, — that, whereas it is usual at this day 
 to make the particular belief of their zarifers their true 
 interpretation, I would make the belief of the Catholic 
 Church such. That is, as it is often said that infants 
 are regenerated in Baptism, not on the faith of their 
 parents but of the Church, so in like manner I 
 would say the Articles are received, not in the sense 
 of their framers, but (as far as the wording will admit 
 or any ambiguity requires it,) in the one Catholic 
 sense. For instance as to Purgatory, I consider 
 (with the Homily) that the Article opposes the 
 main idea really encouraged by Rome, that tempo- 
 rary punishment is a substitute for hell in the case 
 of the unholy, and all the superstitions consequent 
 thereupon. As to Invocation, that the Article op- 
 poses, not every sort of calling on beings short of 
 God, (for certain passages in the Psalms are such,) 
 but all that trendies on worship, (as the Homily 
 puts it,) the question whether ora pro nobis be such, 
 being open, — not indifferent indeed, but a most grave
 
 2;5 
 
 and serious one for any individual who feels drawn 
 to it, but still undecided by the Article. As to 
 Images, the Article condemns all approach to idola- 
 trous regard, such as Rome does in point of fact 
 encourage. As to the Mass, all that impairs or 
 obscures the doctrine of the one Atonement, once 
 offered, which Masses, as in use in the Church of 
 Rome, actually have done. 
 
 2. And now, if you will permit me to add a few 
 words more, I will briefly state z&hy I am anxious 
 about securing this liberty for us. 
 
 Every one sees a different portion of society ; and, 
 judging of what is done by its effect upon that por- 
 tion, comes to very different conclusions about its 
 utility, expedience, and propriety. That the Tract 
 in question has been very inexpedient as addressed 
 to one class of persons is quite certain ; but it was 
 meant for another, and I sincerely think is necessary 
 for them. And in giving the reason, I earnestly 
 wish even those who do not admit or feel it, yet to 
 observe that I had a reason. 
 
 In truth there is at this moment a great progress 
 of the religious mind of our Church to something 
 deeper and truer than satisfied the last century. I 
 always have contended, and will contend, that it is 
 not satisfactorily accounted for by any particular 
 movements of individuals on a particular spot. 
 The poets and philosophers of the age have borne 
 witness to it many years. Those great names in 
 our literature. Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Wordsworth, 
 Mr. Coleridge, though in different ways and with
 
 26 
 
 essential differences one from another, and perhaps 
 from any Church system, still all hear witness to it. 
 Mr. Alexander Knox in Ireland bears a most sur- 
 prising witness to it. The system of Mr. Irving is 
 another witness to it. The age is moving towards 
 something, and most unhappily the one religious 
 communion among us which has of late years been 
 practically in possession of this something, is the 
 Church of Rome. She alone, amid all the errors 
 and evils of her practical system, has given free 
 scope to the feelings of awe, mystery, tender- 
 ness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings 
 which may be especially called Catholic. The 
 question then is, whether we shall give them up 
 to the Roman Church or claim them for ourselves, 
 as we well may, by reverting to that older system, 
 which has of late years indeed been superseded, 
 but which has been, and is, quite congenial, (to say 
 the least,) I should rather say proper and natural, 
 or even necessary to our Church. But if we do 
 give them up, then we must give up the men who 
 cherish them. We must consent either to give up 
 the men, or to admit their principles. 
 
 Now, I say, I speak of what especially comes 
 under my eye, when I express my conviction that 
 this is a very serious question at this time. It is 
 not a theoretical question at all. I may be wrong 
 in my conviction, I may be wrong in the mode I 
 adopt to meet it, but still the Tract is grounded on 
 the belief that the Articles need not be so closed as 
 the received method of teaching closes them, and 
 ou<r/tf not to !)(' for the sake of many persons. If
 
 27 
 
 we will close them, we run the risk of subjecting 
 persons whom we should least like to lose or dis- 
 tress, to the temptation of joining the Church of 
 Rome, or to the necessity of withdrawing from 
 the Church as established, or to the misery of 
 subscribing with doubt and hesitation. And, as to 
 myself, I was led especially to exert myself with 
 reference to this difficulty, from having had it 
 earnestly urged upon me by parties I revere, to do 
 all I could to keep members of our Church from 
 straggling in the direction of Rome ; and, not being 
 able to pursue the methods commonly adopted, 
 and being persuaded that the view of the Articles 
 I have taken is true and honest, I was anxious to 
 set it before them. I thought it would be useful to 
 them, without hurting any one else. 
 
 I have no wish or thought to do more than to 
 claim an admission for these persons to the right 
 of subscription. Of course I should rejoice if the 
 members of our Church were all of one mind ; but 
 they are not ; and till they are, one can but submit 
 to what is at present the will, or rather the chastise- 
 ment, of Providence. And let me now implore my 
 brethren to submit, and not to force an agreement 
 at the risk of a schism. 
 
 In conclusion, I will but express my great sorrow 
 that I have at all startled or offended those for 
 whom I have nothing but respectful and kind feel- 
 ings. That I am startled myself in turn, that 
 persons, who have in years past and present borne 
 patiently disclaimers of the Athanasian Creed, or of 
 the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, or of belief
 
 28 
 
 in many of the Scripture miracles, should now be 
 alarmed so much, when a private Member of the 
 University, without his name, makes statements in 
 an opposite direction, I must also avow. Nor can I 
 repent of what I have published. Still, whatever has 
 been said, or is to be done in consequence, is, I am 
 sure, to be ascribed to the most conscientious feel- 
 ings ; and though it may grieve me, I trust it will 
 not vex me, or make me less contented and peaceful 
 in myself. 
 
 Ever yours most sincerely, 
 
 J. II. N. 
 Saturday, 
 
 March Uth, 1841. 
 
 It may be necessary to notice one or two inaccuracies in 
 the Tract. Such is a quotation from Bp. Andrewes, instead of 
 one from Bp. Ken ; and the word Anxjel for Spirit, in page 36, 
 (though the passage itself perhaps had, as a matter of expedience, 
 better have been omitted,) and Ratification for Declaration, in 
 page 80. 
 
 ^ Since the above was in type, it has been told me that the 
 Hebdomadal Board has recorded its opinion about the Tract.
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I am led by circumstances, in order to explain the Tract 
 more fully, to add : 
 
 1. That I have most honestly stated in the above Letter 
 vphat was intended, though not expressed in the Tract, 
 about the actual dominant errors of the Church of Rome. 
 The Tract was no feeler, as it is called, put forth to see how 
 far one might go without notice, nor is the Letter a re- 
 tractation. Those who are immediately about me, know 
 that in the interval between the printing and publication of 
 the Tract, I was engaged in writing some Letters about 
 Romanism, in which I spoke of the impossibility of any 
 approach of the English towards the Roman Church, arising 
 out of the present state of the latter, as strongly as I did a 
 year ago, or as I do now in my Letter. 
 
 2. Again as to the object of my Pamphlet. I can 
 declare most honestly that my reason for writing and pub- 
 lishing it, without which I should not have done it, and 
 which was before my mind from first to last, was, as I have 
 stated it in my Letter, the quieting the consciences of 
 persons who considered (falsely as I think) that the Articles 
 prevent them holding views found in the Primitive Church. 
 That while I was writing it, I was not unwilling to shew- 
 that the Decrees of Trent were but partially, if at all, com- 
 mitted to certain popular errors, I fully grant ; but even 
 this I did with reference to others. 
 
 In explanation of the sensation which the Tract has 
 caused, (<is far as it arises from the Tract itself,) I observe : 
 
 1. The Tract was addressed to one set of persons, and 
 has been used and commented on by another. 
 
 2. As its Author had very frequently and lately entered 
 his protest against many things in the Roman system, he
 
 30 
 
 did not see that it was necessary to repeat them, when that 
 system .did not form the direct object of the Tract ; and 
 the consciousness how strongly he had pledged himself 
 against Rome, as it is, made him, as persons about him 
 know full well, quite unsuspicious of the possibility of any 
 sort of misunderstanding arising out of his statements in it. 
 
 3. Those who had happened to read his former publica- 
 tions, understanding him to identify rather than cofinect 
 the decrees of Trent with the peculiar Roman errors, were 
 led perhaps to think, that in speaking charitably of those 
 decrees he was speaking tenderly of those eiTors. And it 
 must be confessed that, though he has uniformly main- 
 tained the existence of the errors in the Church of Rome 
 both before and after th'e Tridentine Council, yet he has 
 sometimes spoken of the decrees rather as the essential 
 development, than the existing symbol and index of the 
 errors. 
 
 4. There was, confessedly, a vagueness and deficiency in 
 some places as to the conclusions he would draw from the 
 premises stated, and a consequent opening to the charge 
 of a disingenuous understatement of the contrariety be- 
 tween the Articles and the actual Roman system. This 
 arose in great measure from his being more bent on laying 
 down his principle than defining its results. 
 
 5. It arose also from the circumstance that, the main drift 
 of the Tract being that of illustrating the Articles from the 
 Homilies, the doctrines of the Articles are sometimes 
 brought out only so fiir as the Homilies explain them, 
 which is in some cases an inadequate representation. 
 
 I will add, moreover, 1. That in the ex])ression "ambigu- 
 ous Formularies," I did not think of referring to the Prayer 
 Book. And I suppose all persons will grant, that if the 
 Articles treat of Predestination, and yet can be signed by 
 Arminians and (^alvinists, they are not clear on all points. 
 But I gladly withdraw the phrase. And I express now, as
 
 31 
 
 I often have done before, my great veneration for those 
 ancient forms of worship which, by God's good providence, 
 are preserved to us. 
 
 2. That I did not mean at all to assert that persons 
 called High-Churchmen have a difficulty in holding Catho- 
 lic principles consistently with a subscription to the Arti- 
 cles; on the contrary, I observe in the Tract, that "the 
 objection" on this score " is groundless ;" yet that there are 
 many who have felt it, however causelessly, I know, and 
 certainly have said. 
 
 3. That I had no intention whatever of implying that 
 there are not many persons of Catholic views in our 
 Church, and those more worthy of consideration than my- 
 self, who deny that the Reformers were uncatholic. I con- 
 sider the question quite an open one. 
 
 4. That, in implying that certain modified kinds of 
 Invocation, veneration of Relics, &c. might be Catholic, I 
 did not mean to rule it, that they were so ; but considered 
 it an open question, whether they were or not, which 
 I did not wish decided one way or the other, and which I 
 considered the Articles left open. At the same time it is 
 quite certain, that such practices as the Invocation of 
 Saints, cannot justly be called Catholic in the same sense 
 in which the doctrine of the Incarnation is, or the Episcopal 
 principle. 
 
 5. That my mode of interpreting the Articles is not of a 
 lax and indefinite character, but one which goes upon a 
 plain and intelligible princij)le, viz. that of the Catholic 
 sense ; or, in the words of the Tract, "in the most Catholic 
 sense they will admit." 
 
 OXFORD : PRINTED HY I. SIIRIMPTON.
 
 H^.f. W^J 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 
 
 RICHARD, 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, 
 ON OCCASION OF No. 90, 
 
 IN THE SERIES CALLED 
 
 THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY J. H. NEWMAN, B. D. 
 
 VICAR OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIn's, OXFORD. 
 
 I 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER : 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 OXFORD: PRINTED BV I. SIIRIMPTON.
 
 A L E T T E R, 
 
 8fc. 
 
 My dear Lord, 
 
 It may seem strange that, on receipt of a 
 message from your Lordship, I should proceed at 
 once, instead of silently obeying it, to put on paper 
 some remarks of my own on the subject of it ; yet, 
 as you kindly permit me to take such a course, with 
 the expectation that I may thereby succeed in ex- 
 plaining to yourself and others my own feelings and 
 intentions in the occurrence which has given rise to 
 your Lordship's interference, I trust to your Lord- 
 ship's indulgence to pardon me any discursiveness 
 in my style of writing, or appearance of familiarity, 
 or prominent introduction of myself, which may be 
 incidental to the attempt. 
 
 Your Lordship's message is as follows : That your 
 Lordship considers that the Tract No. 90. in the 
 Series called the Tracts for the Times, is "objection- 
 able, and may tend to disturb the peace and tran- 
 quillity of the Church," and that it is your Lord- 
 ship's " advice that the Tracts for the Times should 
 be discontinued." 
 
 Your Lordship has, I trust, long known quite 
 enough of my feelings towards any such expression 
 of your Lordship's wishes, to be sure I should at
 
 once obey it, though it were ever so painful to me, 
 or contrary to the course I should have taken if left 
 to myself. And I do most readily and cheerfully 
 obey you in this instance; and at the same time 
 express my great sorrow that any writing of mine 
 should be judged objectionable by your Lordship, 
 and of a disturbing tendency, and my hope that in 
 what I write in future I shall be more successful in 
 approving myself to your Lordship. 
 
 I have reminded your Lordship of my willingness 
 on a former occasion to submit myself to any wishes 
 of your Lordship, had you thought it advisable at 
 that time to signify them. In your Lordship's 
 Charge in 1838, an alltision was made to the Tracts 
 for the Times. Som.e opponents of the Tracts said 
 that your Lordship treated them with undue indul- 
 gence. I will not imply that your Lordship can 
 act otherwise than indulgently to any one, but cer- 
 tainly I did feel at the time, that in the midst of the 
 kindness you shewed to me personally, you were 
 exercising an anxious vigilance over my publication, 
 which reminded me of my responsibility to your Lord- 
 ship. I wrote to the Archdeacon on the subject, sub- 
 mitting the Tracts entirely to your Lordship's dis- 
 posal. What I thought about your Charge will a})pear 
 from the words I then used to him. I said, " A Bishop's 
 lightest word ex Cathedra, is heavy. His judgment 
 on a book cannot be light. It is a rare occurrence." 
 And I offered to withdraw any of the Tracts over 
 which I had control, if I were informed which were 
 those to which your Lordship had objections. I after- 
 wards wrote to your I.ordship to this effect : tliat
 
 " I trusted I iniglit say sincerely, tluit I should feel 
 a more lively pleasure in knowing that T was sub- 
 mitting myself to your Lordship's expressed judg- 
 ment in a matter of that kind, than I could have 
 even in the widest circulation of the volumes in 
 question." Your Lordship did not think it necessary 
 to proceed to such a measure, hut I felt, and always 
 have felt, that, if ever you determined on it, I was 
 bound to obey. 
 
 Accordingly on the late occasion, directly I heard 
 that you had expressed an unfavourable opinion of 
 Tract 90, I again placed myself at your disposal, 
 and now readily submit to the course on which your 
 Lordship has finally decided in consequence of it. T 
 am quite sure that in so doing I am not only ful- 
 filling a duty I owe to your Lordship, but consulting 
 for the well-being of the Church, and benefiting 
 myself. , 
 
 And now, in proceeding to make some explana- 
 tions in addition, which your Lordship desires of me, 
 I hope I shall not say a word which will seem like 
 introducing discussion before your Lordship. It 
 would ill become me to be stating private views of 
 my own, and defending them, on an occasion like 
 this. If I allude to what has been maintained in 
 the Tracts, it will not be at all by way of maintain- 
 ing it in these pages, but in illustration of the 
 impressions and the drift with which they have been 
 written. I need scarcely say they are thought 
 by many to betray a leaning towards Roman Catho- 
 lic error, and a deficient appreciation of our own 
 truth ; and your Lordship wishes me to shew that
 
 these apprehensions have no foundation in fact. This 
 I propose to do, and that by extracts from what I 
 have before now written on the subject, which, while 
 they can be open to no suspicion of having been 
 provided to serve an occasion, will, by being now 
 cited, be made a second time my own. 
 
 2. First, however, I hope to be allowed to make 
 one or two remarks by way of explaining some 
 peculiarities in the Tracts which at first sight might 
 appear, if not to tend toward Romanism, at least to 
 alienate their readers from that favoured com- 
 munion in which God's good providence has placed 
 us. 
 
 I know it is a prevalent idea, and entertained by 
 persons of such consideration that it cannot be 
 lightly treated, that many of the Tracts are the 
 writing of persons who either are ignorant of what 
 goes on in the world, and are gratifying their love 
 of antiquarian research or of intellectual exercise at 
 any risk ; or, who are culpably reckless of con- 
 sequences, or even find a satisfaction in the sensation 
 or disturbance which may result from such novelties 
 or paradoxes as they may find themselves in a con- 
 dition to put forward. It is thought, that the writers 
 in question often have had no aim at all in what 
 they have hazarded, that they did not mean what 
 they said, that they did not know the strength of 
 their own words, and that they wert putting forth 
 the first crude notions which came into their minds ; 
 or that they were pursuing principles to their 
 consequences as a sort of pastime, and de- 
 veloping their own theories in grave practical mat-
 
 ters, in wliich no one sliould move without a deep 
 sense of responsibility. In fact, that whatever 
 incidental or intrinsic excellence there may be in the 
 Tracts, and whatever direct or indirect benefits have 
 attended them, there is much in them which is 
 nothing more or less than mischievous, and convicts 
 its authors of a wanton inconsiderateness towards 
 the feelings of others. 
 
 I am very far from saying that there is any one 
 evil temper or motive which may not have its share 
 in any thing that I write myself; and it does not 
 become me to deny the charge as far as it is brought 
 against me, though I am not conscious of its justice. 
 But still I would direct attention to this circum- 
 stance, that what persons who are not in the position 
 of the writers of the Tracts set down to wantonness, 
 may have its definite objects, though those objects 
 be not manifest to those who are in other positions. 
 I am neither maintaining that those objects are 
 real, or important, or defensible, or pursued wisely or 
 seasonably ; but if they exist in the mind of the 
 writers, I trust they will serve so far as to relieve 
 them from the odious charge of scattering firebrands 
 about without caring for or apprehending con- 
 sequences. 
 
 May I then, without (as I have said) at all assuming 
 the soundness of the doctrines to be mentioned, or 
 by mentioning them seeking indirectly a sanction 
 for them from your Lordship, be allowed to allude 
 to one or two Tracts, merely in illustration of what 
 I have said ? 
 
 One of the latest Tracts is written upon " The
 
 Mysticism attributed to the Early Fathers of the 
 Church." It discusses the subject of the mystical 
 interpretation of nature and Scripture with a 
 learning and seriousness which no one will wish to 
 deny ; but the question arises, and has actually been 
 asked, why discuss it at all ? why startle and 
 unsettle the Christian of this age by modes of 
 thought which are now unusual and strange ; and 
 which being thus fixed upon the Fathers, serve 
 but to burden with an additional unpopularity an 
 authority which the Church of England has ever 
 revered, ever used in due measure to support her 
 own claims upon the attachment of her children ? 
 But the state of the case has been this. For some 
 years the argument in favour of our Church drawn 
 from Antiquity has been met by the assertion, that 
 that same Antiquity held also other opinions which 
 no one now would think of maintaining ; that if it 
 were mistaken in one set of opinions, it might be in 
 the other; that its mistakes were of a nature 
 which argued feebleness of intellect, or unsoundness 
 of judgment, or want of logical acumen in those who 
 held them, which would avail against its authority 
 in the instance in which it was used, as well as in 
 that in which it was passed over. Moreover it was 
 said that those who used it in defence of the Church 
 knew this well, but were not honest enough to con- 
 fess it. They were challenged to confess or deny 
 the charges thus brought against the Fathers ; and, 
 since to deny the fact was supposed impossible, 
 they were bid to draw out a case, such, as either to 
 admit of a defence of the fact on grounds of reason,
 
 or of its surrender without surrendering the 
 authority of the Fathers altogether. 
 
 Such challenges, and they have not been unfrequent, 
 afford, I conceive, a sufficient reason for any one 
 who considers that the Church of England derives 
 essential assistance from Christian antiquity in her 
 interpretation of Scripture, to enter upon the ex- 
 amination of the particular objections by which cer- 
 tain authors have assailed its authority. Yet it is 
 plain that by those who had not heard of their 
 writings, such an examination would be considered 
 a wanton mooting of points which no one had called 
 in question. 
 
 Again, much animadversion has been expressed, 
 and in quarters which claim the highest deference, 
 upon the Tract upon '' Reserve in Communicating 
 Religious Knowledge." Yet I do not think it will be 
 called a wanton exercise of ingenuity. Not only 
 does it bear marks, which no reader can mistake, of 
 deep earnestness, but it in fact originated in a con- 
 viction in the mind of the writer of certain actual 
 evils at present resulting from the defective appre- 
 ciation with which the mass of even religious men 
 regard the mysteries and privileges of the Gospel. 
 
 And another Tract, which has experienced a 
 great deal of censure, is that which is made up of 
 Selections from the Roman Breviary. I will not here 
 take upon me to say a word in its defence, except 
 to rescue its author from the charge of wantonness. 
 He had observed what a very powerful source of 
 attraction the Church of Rome possessed in her 
 devotional Services, and he wished, judiciously or
 
 10 
 
 not, to remove it by claiming it for ourselves. He 
 was desirous of shewing, that such Devotions would 
 be but a continuation in private of those public 
 Services which we use in Church ; and that they 
 might be used by individuals with a sort of fitness, 
 (removing such portions as were against the Angli- 
 can creed or practice,) because they were a continua- 
 tion. He said, in the opening of the Tract, 
 
 " It will be attempted to wrest a weapon out of our 
 adversaries' hands ; who have in this, as in many other 
 instances, appropriated to themselves a treasure which was 
 
 om's as much as theirs. ... It may suggest character and 
 
 matter for our private devotions, over and above what our 
 Reformers have thought fit to adopt into our public Ser- 
 vices ; a use of it which will be but carrying out and com- 
 pleting what they have begun." Tract 75. 
 
 I repeat it, that I have no intention here of 
 defending the proceeding except from the charge of 
 wantonness ; and with that view I would add, that 
 though there is a difference not to be mistaken 
 between a book published by authority and an 
 anonymous Tract, yet, as far as its object is con- 
 cerned, it is not very unlike the publication of 
 Bishop Cosin's Hours of Prayer, of which I hope 
 I may be permitted to remind your Lordship in the 
 words of the recent Editor. 
 
 " At the first coming of the Queen Henrietta into Eng- 
 land, she and her French ladies, it appears, were equally sur-' 
 prised and dissatisfied at the disregard of the hours of 
 Prayer, and the want of Breviaries. Their remarks, and per- 
 haps the strength of their arguments, and the beauty of many 
 of their books, induced tlie Protestant ladies of the house-
 
 11 
 
 liold, to apply to King Charles. The King consulted Bishop 
 White as to the best plan of supplying them with Forms of 
 Prayer, collected out of already approved Forms. The 
 Bishop assured him of the ease and the great necessity of 
 such a work, and chose Cosin as the fittest person to frame 
 the Manual. lie at once undertook it, and in three months 
 finished it and brought it to the King. The Bishop of 
 London (Mountain), who was commanded to read it over 
 and make his report, is said to have liked it so well, that 
 instead of employing a Chaplain as was usual, he gave it an 
 '^' imprimatur''^ under his own hand. There were at first only 
 two hundred copies printed. There was, as Evelyn tells 
 us, nothing of Cosin's own composure, nor any name 
 set as author to it, but those necessary prefaces, &c., 
 touching the times and seasons of Prayer, all the rest being 
 entirely translated and collected out of an Office published 
 by authority of Queen Elizabeth and out of our own Liturgy. 
 ' This,' adds Evelyn, ' I rather mention to justify that in- 
 dustrious and pious Dean, who had exceedingly suffered by 
 it, as if he had done it of his own head to introduce Popery, 
 from which no man was more averse, and who was one 
 who, in this time of temptation and apostasy, held and con- 
 firmed many to our Church.' 
 
 " The book soon grew into esteem, and justified the 
 judgment which had been passed upon it, so that many who 
 were at first startled at the title, ' found in the body of it so 
 much piety, such regular forms of divine w^orship, such 
 necessary consolations in special exigencies, that they 
 reserved it by them as a jewel of great price and value.' 
 ' Not one book,' it was said, ' was in more esteem with the 
 Church of England, next to the Office of the Liturgy 
 itself.' It appears, in fact, to have become exceedingly 
 popular, and ran through ten editions, the last of which was 
 published in 1719." Preface to Cosin s Devotions, ji. xi. — xiii. 
 
 3. There has been another, and more serious pecu-
 
 12 
 
 liarity in the line of discussion adopted in the Tracts, 
 which, whatever its merits or demerits, has led to 
 their being charged, I earnestly hope groundlessly, 
 with wanton innovation on things established. I mean 
 the circumstance that they have attempted to defend 
 our Ecclesiastical system upon almost first principles. 
 The immediate argument for acquiescing in what is 
 established is that it is established : but when what 
 has been established is in course of alteration, (and 
 this evil was partly realized, and feared still more, 
 eight years since,) the argument ceases, and then one 
 is driven to considerations which are less safe because 
 less investigated, which it is impossible at once to sur- 
 vey in all their bearings, or to have confidence in, that 
 they will not do a disservice to the cause we are de- 
 fending as well as a benefit. It seemed safe at the 
 period in question, when the immediate and usual 
 arguments failed, to recur to those which were used 
 by our divines in the seventeenth century, and by the 
 most esteemed in the century which followed, and 
 down to this day. But every existing establishment, 
 whatever be its nature, is a fact, a thing sui simile, 
 which cannot be resolved into any one principle, 
 nor can be defended and built up upon one idea. 
 Its position is the result of a long history, which 
 has moulded it, and stationed it, in the form and 
 place which characterize it. It has grown into 
 what it is by the influence of a number of concur- 
 rent causes in time past, and in consequence no one 
 first principle can be urged in its defence, but what 
 in some other respect or measure may also possibly 
 ])e urged against it. This applies, I conceive, as to
 
 13 
 
 all «ocial institutions, so to the case of our religious 
 establishment and system at this day. It is a 
 matter of extreme difficulty and delicacy, to say the 
 least, so to defend them in an argumentative dis- 
 cussion in one respect as not to tend to unsettle 
 them in another. And all but minds of the greatest 
 powers, or even genius, will find nothing left to them, 
 if they do attempt it, but to strike a balance between 
 gain and loss, and to attempt to do the most good 
 on the whole. 
 
 I hope I shall not be misunderstood as if, in thus 
 speaking, I meant to justify to your Lordship the 
 consequences which have followed under these cir- 
 cumstances from the attempts of the Tracts for 
 the Times in defence of the Church. I am but 
 shewing that, even though evil has resulted, it need 
 not have been Avanton evil. Nor am I at all in- 
 sinuating, that our established system is necessarily 
 in fault, because it was exposed to this inconvenience ; 
 rather, as I have said, the cause lies in the nature 
 of things, abstract principles being no sufficient 
 measure of matters of fact. There cannot be a 
 clearer proof of this than will be found in a 
 reference to that antagonist system, which it has 
 been the object of the Tracts in so great a measure 
 to oppose. I do not put the case of Rome and 
 her defenders as parallel to that betAveen the Tracts 
 and our own Church, of course ; it would be pre- 
 posterous to do so ; but it may avail as an a fortiori 
 argument, considering how systematic and complete 
 the Roman system is, and what transcendent ability 
 is universally allowed to Bossuet. Yet even Bossuet,
 
 14 
 
 so great a controversialist, could not defend 
 Romanism, so perfect a system, without doing a 
 harm while he did a service. At least we may 
 fairly conclude, that what the authorities of the 
 Church of Rome thought to be a disservice to it, 
 really was so at the time, though in the event it 
 might prove a benefit. Dr. Maclaine in a note on 
 his translation of Mosheim, observes of Bossuet's 
 Exposition : '^ It is remarkable that nine years 
 passed before this book could obtain the Pope's 
 approbation. Clement X. refused it positively. 
 Nay, several Roman Catholic Priests were rigorously 
 treated and severely persecuted for preaching the 
 doctrine contained in the Exposition of Bossuet, 
 which was moreover formally condemned by the 
 University of Louvain in the year 1685, and 
 declared to be scandalous and pernicious. The 
 Sorbonne also disavowed the doctrine contained in 
 that book." (Vol. v.p. 126.) 
 
 I am not presuming to draw an illustration from 
 the history of Bossuet, except as regards his in- 
 tention and its result. No one can accuse him of 
 wantonness. What happened to him in spite of 
 great abilities, may happen to others in defect of 
 them. 
 
 Several obvious illustrations may be given from 
 the controversies to which the Tracts for the Times 
 have given rise. Much attention, for instance, has 
 of late years been paid by learned men to the 
 question of the origin of our public Services. The 
 Tracts have made use of the results of their inves- 
 tigations with a view of exalting our ideas of the
 
 15 
 
 sacredncss of our Eucharlstical Rite; but in propor- 
 tion as they have discerned what may be truly called 
 an awful light resting on its component parts, they 
 have discovered also that those parts have expe- 
 rienced some change in their disposition and cir- 
 cumstances by the hand of time ; and accordingly, 
 the higher appreciation the Tracts tend to create of 
 the substance of the Service in the minds of their 
 readers, the greater regret do they incidentally in- 
 fuse, were they ever so unwilling to do so, that any 
 external causes should have interfered with the 
 shape in which we at this day receive it. The 
 effect then has been to raise our reverence tow ards 
 the whole indefinitely, yet to fling around that 
 reverence somewhat of a melancholy feeling. I am 
 not defending either process or result, but shewing 
 how good and evil have gone together. 
 
 Again, as regards the doctrine of Purgatory, that 
 the present Roman doctrine was not Catholically 
 received in the first ages, is as clear as any fact of 
 history. But there is an argument which Roman 
 controversialists use in its favour, founded on a fact 
 of very early antiquity, the practice of praying for 
 the faithful departed. To meet this objection, the 
 Tracts gave a reprint of Archbishop Usshcr's chapter 
 on the subject in his Answer to a Jesuit, in which he 
 shews that the objects of those prayers were very 
 different from those which the Roman doctrine of 
 Purgatory requires. Thus the argument in ques- 
 tion is effectually overthrown, but at the expense 
 of incidentally bringing to light a primitive practice 
 confessedly uncongenial to our present views of rcli-
 
 16 
 
 gion. In other words, if the Churchman is by the 
 result of the discussion confirmed against Romanism, 
 he has been incidentally, and for the moment, (I 
 cannot deny it,) unsettled in some of his existing 
 opinions. 
 
 Or again, the charge brought against the 
 defenders of Baptismal Regeneration has commonly 
 been, that such a doctrine explained away regenera- 
 tion, and made a mere name and a shadow of that gift 
 of which Scripture speaks so awfully. We answer, 
 " So far from it, every one is in a worse condition 
 for being regenerate, if he is not in a better. If he 
 resist the grace he has received, it is a burden to 
 him, not a blessing. He cannot take it for granted, 
 that all is right with his soul, and think no more 
 about it ; for the gift involves responsibilities as 
 well as privileges." And thus, while engaged in 
 maintaining the truth, that all Christians are in a 
 state of grace, we incidently elicit the further truth, 
 that sin after Baptism is a heavier matter than sin 
 before it ; or, in maintaining the doctrine of Baptismal 
 Regeneration, we introduce the doctrine of repent- 
 ance. We fortify our brethren in one direction ; and 
 may be charged with unsettling them in another. 
 
 Or again, in defending such doctrines and prac- 
 tices of the Church as Infant Baptism or the Epis- 
 copal Succession, the Tracts have argued that they 
 rested on substantially the same basis as the Canon 
 of Scripture, viz. the testimony of ancient Chris- 
 tendom. But to those who think this basis weak, 
 the argument becomes a disparagement of the 
 Canon, not a recommendation of the Creed.
 
 17 
 
 My Lord, I have not said a word to imply that 
 this disturbing and unsettling process is indissolubly 
 connected with argumentative efforts in defence of 
 our own system. I only say, that the good naturally 
 runs into the evil ; and so, without entering into 
 the question whether or how they might have been 
 kept apart in the Tracts, I am accounting for what 
 looks like wantonness, yet I trust is not. 
 
 And perhaps I may be permitted to add, that our 
 difficulties are much increased in a place like this, 
 where there are a number of persons of practised 
 intellects, who with or without unfriendly motives 
 are ever drawing out the ultimate conclusions in 
 which our principles result, and forcing us to 
 affirm or deny what we would fain not consider or 
 not pronounce upon. I am not complaining of this 
 as unfair to us at all, but am shewing that we may 
 have said extreme things, yet not from any wanton 
 disregard of the feelings and opinions of others. 
 The appeal is made to reason, and reason has its 
 own laws, and does not depend on our will to take 
 the more or less ; and this is not less the case as 
 regards the result, even though it be false reason 
 which we follow, and our conclusions be wrong from 
 our failing to detect the counteracting considera- 
 tions which would avert the principles we hold from 
 the direction in which we pursue them. And a con- 
 scientious feeling sometimes operates to keep men 
 from concealing a conclusion which they think they 
 see involved in their principles, and which others see 
 not ; and moreover a dread of appearing disingenuous 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 to others, who are directing their minds to the same 
 subjects. 
 
 An instance has occurred in point quite lately as 
 regards a subject introduced into Tract 90, which 
 I am very glad to have an opportunity of mention- 
 ing to your Lordship. I have said in the Postscript 
 of a Letter which I have lately addressed to Dr. Jelf, 
 that the 'Sagueness and deficiency" of some parts of 
 the Tract, in the conclusions drawn from the 
 premises stated, arose in great measure from the 
 author's being "more bent on laying down his 
 principle than defining its results." In truth I was 
 very unwilling to commit the view of the Articles 
 which I was taking, to any precise statement of 
 the ultimate approaches towards the Roman system 
 allowed by our own. To say Iiozafar a person may 
 go, is almost to tempt him to go up to the boundary 
 line. I am far from denying that an evil arose 
 from the vagueness which ensued, but it arose 
 mainly from this feeling. Accordingly I left, for 
 instance, the portion which treated of the Invocation 
 of Saints without any definite conclusion at all, 
 after bringing together various passages" in illus- 
 tration. However, friends and opponents discovered 
 that my premises required, what I was very un- 
 willing to state categorically, for various reasons, 
 that the o?yi pro nobis was not on my shewing 
 necessarily included in the invocation of Saints 
 wliich the Article condemns. And in my Letter to 
 Dr. Jelf, I have been obliged to declare this, under 
 a representation that to pass it over would be con- 
 sidered disingenuous. I avail myself, however, of
 
 19 
 
 the opportunity which this Letter to your Lordship 
 affords me, without any suggestion as your Lordship 
 knows, from yourself, or from any one else, to state 
 as plainly as I can, lest my brethren should mistake 
 me, my great apprehension concerning the use even 
 of such modified invocations. Every feeling which 
 interferes with God's sovereignty in our hearts, is 
 of an idolatrous nature ; and, as men are tempted 
 to idolize their rank and substance, or their talent, 
 or their children, or themselves, so may they easily 
 be led to. substitute the thought of Saints and 
 Angels for the one supreme idea of their Creator 
 and Redeemer, which should fill them. It is nothing 
 to the purpose to urge the example of such men as 
 St. Bernard in defence of such invocations. The 
 holier the man, the less likely are they to be 
 injurious to him ; but it is another matter entirely 
 Avhen ordinary persons do the same. There is much 
 less of awe and severity in the devotion which rests 
 upon created excellence as its object, and worldly 
 minds will gladly have recourse to it, to be saved the 
 necessity of lifting up their eyes to their Sanctifier 
 and Judfire. And the multitude of men are in- 
 capable of many ideas ; one is enough for them, 
 and if the image of a Saint is admitted into their 
 heart, he occupies it, and there is no room for 
 Almighty God. And moreover there is the addi- 
 tional danger of pi-esumpfuousiiess in addressing 
 Saints and Angels ; by which I mean cases when 
 men do so from a sort of curiosity, as the heathen 
 might feel towards strange and exciting rites of 
 
 worship, not with a clear conscience and spontanea 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 ously, but rather with certain doubts and mis- 
 givings about its propriety, and a secret feeling that 
 it does not become them, and a certain forcing of 
 themselves in consequence. 
 
 4. Unless your Lordship had ordered me to 
 speak my mind on these subjects, I should feel that 
 in these reflections I was adopting a tone very unlike 
 that which becomes a private Clergyman addressing 
 his Diocesan ; but, encouraged by the notion that I 
 am obeying your wishes, I will proceed in what I 
 feel it very strange to allow myself in, though I 
 do so. And, since I have been naturally led into 
 the subject of Romanism, I will continue it, and 
 explain the misapprehension which has been en- 
 tertained of my views concerning it. 
 
 I do not wonder that persons who happen to fall 
 upon certain writings of mine, and are unacquainted 
 with others, and, as is natural, do not understand the 
 sense in which I use certain words and phrases, 
 should think that I explain away the differences 
 between the Roman system and our own, which I 
 hope I do not. They find in what I have writ- 
 ten, no abuse, at least I trust not, of the individual 
 Roman Catholic, nor of the Church of Rome, viewed 
 abstractedly as a Church. I cannot speak against the 
 Church of Rome, viewed in her formal character, as a 
 true Church, since she is '' built upon the foundation 
 of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself 
 being the chief Corner-stone." Nor can I speak against 
 her private members, numbers of whom, I trust, 
 are God's people, in the way to Heaven, and one 
 with us in heart, though not in profession. But what
 
 21 
 
 I have spoken, and do strongly speak against is, that 
 energetic system and engrossing influence in the 
 Church bij xvh'ich it acts towards us, and meets our 
 eyes, like a cloud filling it, to the eclipse of all that 
 is holy, whether in its ordinances or its members. 
 This system I have called in what I have written, 
 Romanism or Popery, and by Romanists or Papists 
 I mean all its members, so far as they are under the 
 power of these principles ; and while^ and so far as 
 this system exists, and it does exist now as fully as 
 heretofore, I say that we can have no peace with that 
 Church, however we may secretly love its particular 
 members. I cannot speak against its private mem- 
 bers ; I should be doing violence to every feeling of 
 my nature if I did, and your Lordship would not 
 require it of me. I wish from my heart we and 
 they were one ; but we cannot, without a sin, sacri- 
 fice truth to peace ; and, in the words of Archbishop 
 Laud, "till Rome be other than it is" we must be 
 estranged from her. 
 
 This view which, not inconsistently, I hope, with 
 our chief divines, I would maintain against the 
 Roman errors, seems to me to allow at once of zeal 
 for the truth, and charity towards individuals and 
 towards the Church of Rome herself. It presents her 
 under a twofold aspect, and while recognizing her 
 as an appointment of God on the one hand, it leads 
 us practically to shun her, as beset with heinous and 
 dangerous influences on the other. It is drawn out 
 in the following extracts, under which I have 
 thought it best to set it before your Lordship, rather 
 than in statements made for the occasion, for the
 
 22 
 
 reason I have given above. I think they will serve 
 to shew, consistently with those which I made in my 
 Letter to Dr. Jelf, both the real and practical stand 
 I would make against Romanism, yet the natural 
 opening there is for an unfounded suspicion that I 
 feel more favourably towards it than I do. 
 
 " Our controversy widi Romanists," I say, " tm*ns more 
 upon facts than upon first principles; with Protestant secta- 
 ries it is more about principles than about facts. This general 
 contrast between the two religions, which I would not seem 
 to extend beyond what the sober truth warrants, for the sake 
 of an antithesis, is paralleled in the common remark of our 
 most learned controversialists, that Romanism holds the 
 foundation, or is the truth overlaid ivith corruptions. This is 
 saying the same thing in other words. They discern in it 
 the great outlines of primitive Christianity, but they find 
 them touched, if nothing worse, touched and tainted by 
 error, and so made dangerous to the multitude, — dangerous 
 except to men of spiritual minds, who can undo the evil, 
 arresting the tendencies of the system by their own purity, 
 and restoring it to the sweetness and freshness of its original 
 state. The very force of the word corruption, implies that 
 this is the peculiarity of Romanism. All error indeed of 
 whatever kind, may be called a corruption of truth ; still we 
 properly apply the term to such kinds of error as are not 
 denials but perversions, distortions, or excesses of it. Such 
 is the relation of Romanism towards true Catholicity. .... 
 
 "The same view of Romanism is implied, when we call our 
 ecclesiastical changes in the sixteenth century a Reforma- 
 tion. A building has not been reformed or repaired, when 
 it has been pulled down and built up again ; but the word 
 is used when it has been left substantially what it was 
 before, only amended or restored in detail. In like manner 
 we Anglo-Catholics do not profess a different religion from
 
 23 
 
 the Romanists, we profess their Faith all but their cor- 
 ruptions. 
 
 "Again, this same character of Romanism as a perversion, 
 not a contradiction of Christian Truth, is confessed as often 
 as members of our Church in controversy with it contend, 
 as they may rightly do, that it must be judged, not by the 
 formal decrees of the Council of Trent, as its advocates are 
 fond of doing, but by its practical working and its existing 
 state in the countries which profess it. Romanists would 
 fain confine us in controversy to the consideration of the 
 bare and acknowledged principles of their Church; we 
 consider this to be an unfair restriction ; why ? because we 
 conceive that Romanism is far more faulty in its details 
 than in its formal principles, and that Councils, to which its 
 adherents would send us, have more to do with its abstract 
 system than with its practical working ; that the abstract 
 system contains, for the most part, tendencies to evil, which 
 the actual working brings out, thus supplying illustrations 
 of that evil which is really though latently contained in 
 principles capable in themselves of an honest interpretation. 
 Thus for instance, the decree concerning Purgatory might 
 be charitably made almost to conform to the doctrine of 
 St. Austin, or St. Chrysostom, were it not for the comment 
 on it afforded by the popular belief as existing in those 
 countries which hold it, and by the opinions of the Roman 
 schools." On Romanism, p. 50 — 54. 
 
 Again, 
 
 " I have been speaking of Romanism, not as an existing 
 political sect among us, but considered in itself, in its 
 abstract system, and in a state of quiescence. Viewed 
 indeed in action, and as realized in its present partisans, it 
 is but one out of the many denominations which are the 
 disgrace of our age and country. In temper and conduct 
 it docs but resemble that unruly Protestantism which lies on 
 our other side, and it submits without reluctance to be
 
 24 
 
 allied and to act with it towards the overthrow of a purer 
 rehgion .... The reproach of the present Romanists, is 
 that they are inconsistent ; and it is a reproach which is 
 popularly felt to be just. They are confessedly unlike the 
 loyal men who rallied round the throne of our first 
 Charles, or who fought, however ill-advisedly, for his exiled 
 descendants .... I have here considered Romanism in its 
 abstract professions for two reasons. First, I would wil- 
 lingly believe, that in spite of the violence and rancour of 
 its public supporters, there are many individuals in its com- 
 munion of gentle, affectionate, and deeply religious minds; 
 and such a belief is justified when we find that the necessary 
 difference between us and them is not one of essential 
 principle, that it is the difference of superstition, and not of 
 unbelief, from religion. Next, I have insisted upon it, by 
 way of shewing what must be the nature of their Reforma- 
 tion, if in God's merciful counsels a Reformation awaits 
 them. It will be far more a reform of their popular usages 
 and opinions, and Ecclesiastical policy, or a destruction of 
 what is commonly called Popery, than of their abstract 
 principles and maxims." On Romanism, p. 5Q, 57. 
 
 And again, 
 
 "They profess to appeal to primitive Christianity; we 
 honestly take their ground, as holding it ourselves ; but 
 when the controversy grows animated, and descends into 
 details, they suddenly leave it, and desire to finish the 
 dispute on some other field. In like manner in their 
 teaching and acting, they begin as if in the name of all the 
 Fathers at once, but will be found in the sequel to prove, 
 instruct, and enjoin, simply in tbeir own name. Our differ- 
 ences from them, considered not in ^heory but in fact, are in 
 no sense makers of detail and questions of degree. In 
 truth, there is a tenet in their theology which assumes quite a 
 new position in relation to the rest, when we pass from the 
 abstract and quiescent theory to the practical workings of the
 
 25 
 
 system. The infallibility of the existing Church is then 
 found to be its first principle, whei'eas, before, it was a 
 necessary, but a secondary doctrine. Whatever principles 
 they profess in theory, resembling or coincident with our 
 own, yet when they come to particulars, when they have to 
 prove this or that article of their creed, they supersede the 
 appeal to Scripture and Antiquity by the pretence of the 
 infallibility of the Churcli, thus solving the whole question, 
 by a summary and final interpretation both of Antiquity and 
 of Scripture." On Romanism, 2>- 59, GO. 
 
 In the following passage the Anglican and Roman 
 systems are contrasted with each other. 
 
 " Both we and Romanists hold that the Church Catholic is 
 unerring in its declarations of Faith, or saving doctrine ; but 
 we differ from each other as to what is the faith, and what 
 is the Church Catholic. They maintain that faith depends 
 on the Church, we that the Church is built on the faith. 
 By Church Catholic, we mean the Church Universal, as 
 descended from the Apostles ; they those branches of it 
 which are in communion with Rome. They consider the 
 see of St. Peter, to have a promise of permanence ; we the 
 Church Catholic and Apostolic. Again, they understand by 
 the Faith, whatever the Church at any time declares to be 
 faith ; we what it has actually so declared from the begin- 
 ning. We hold that the Church Catholic will never depart 
 from those outlines of doctrine, which the Apostles formally 
 published ; they that she will never depart in any of her acts 
 from that entire system, written and oral, public and private, 
 explicit and implicit, which they received and taught; we 
 that she has a gift of fidelity, they of discrimination. 
 
 "Again, both they and we anathematize those who deny 
 the Faith; but they extend the condemnation to all who 
 question any decree of the Roman Church ; we apply it to 
 those only who deny any article of the original Apostolic 
 Creed. The creed of Romanism is ever subject to
 
 26 
 
 increase; ours is fixed once for all. We confine our 
 anathema to the Athanasian Creed; Romanists extend it to 
 Pope Pius's. They cut themselves off from the rest of 
 Christendom ; we cut ourselves off from no branch, not 
 even from themselves. We are at peace with Rome as 
 regards the essentials of faith ; but she tolerates us as little 
 as any sect or heresy. We admit her Baptism and her 
 Orders ; her custom is" [conditionally] " to re-baptize and 
 re-ordain our members who chance to join her." On 
 Romanism, p. 259, 260. 
 
 And I shew, in one of the Tracts, the unfairness 
 of detaching the Canons of Trent from the actual 
 conduct of the Roman Church for any practical 
 purposes, while things are as they are, as follows : — 
 
 " An equally important question remains to be discussed ; 
 viz. What the sources are, whence we are to gather our 
 opinions of Poper}^ Here the Romanists complain of their 
 opponents, that, instead of referring to the authoritative 
 documents of their Church, Protestants avail themselves 
 of any errors or excesses of individuals in it, as if the 
 Church were responsible for acts and opinions which it 
 does not enjoin. Thus the legends of relics, superstitions 
 about images, the cruelty of particular Prelates or Kings, 
 or the accidental fury of a populace, are unfairly imputed 
 to the Church itself. . . . Accordingly they claim to be judged 
 by their formal documents, especially by the decrees of the 
 Council of Trent. 
 
 "Now here we shall find the truth to lie between the two 
 contending parties. Candour will oblige us to grant thaf 
 the mere acts of individuals should not be imputed to the 
 body ; . . . yet not so much as they themselves desire. For 
 though the acts of individuals ai-c not the acts of the 
 Church, yet they may be the results, and therefore illustra- 
 tions, of its principles. We cannot consent then to confine 
 ourselves to a mere reference to the text of the Tridentine
 
 27 
 
 decrees, as Romanists would have us, apart from the teach- 
 hi"- of their Doctors, and the practice of the Church, which 
 are surely the legitimate comment upon them. The case 
 stands as follows. A certain system of teaching and prac- 
 tice has existed in the Churches of the Roman Communion 
 for many centuries; this system was discriminated and fixed 
 in all its outlines at the Council of Trent. It is therefore 
 not unnatural, or rather it is the procedure we adopt in any 
 historical research, to take the general opinions and con- 
 duct of the Church in elucidation of their Synodal 
 decrees; just as we take the tradition of the Church 
 Catholic and Apostolic as the legitimate interpreter of 
 Scripture, or of the Apostles' Creed. On the other hand, 
 it is as natural that these decrees, heing necessarily concise 
 and guarded, should be much less objectionable than the 
 actual system they represent. It is not wonderful then, 
 yet it is unreasonable, that Romanists should protest 
 against our going beyond these decrees in adducing evi- 
 dence of their Church's doctrine, on the ground that 
 nothing more than an assent to them is requisite for com- 
 munion with her: e, g. the Creed of Pope Pius, which is 
 framed upon the Tridentine decrees, and is the Roman 
 Creed of Communion, only says, ' I firmly hold that there is 
 a Pui'gatory, and that souls therein detained are aided by 
 the prayers of the faithful,' nothing being said of its being 
 a place of punishment, nothing, or all but nothing, which 
 does not admit of being explained of merely an interme- 
 diate state. 
 
 " Now supposing we found ourselves in the Roman Com- 
 munion, of course it would be a great relief to find that we 
 were not bound to believe more than this vague statement, 
 nor should we (I conceive) on account of the received in- 
 terpretation about Purgatory superadded to it, be obliged 
 to leave our Church. But it is another matter entirely, 
 whether we who are external to that Church, are not bound 
 to consider it as one whole system, written and unwritten,
 
 28 
 
 defined indeed and adjusted by general statements, but not 
 limited to them or coincident with them. 
 
 " The conduct of the Catholics during the troubles of 
 Arianism, affords us a parallel case and a direction in this 
 question. The Arian Creeds were often quite unexception- 
 able, differing from the orthodox only in this, that they 
 omitted the celebrated word Homo'usion, and in consequence 
 did not obviate the possibility of that perverse explanation 
 of them, which in fact their framers adopted. Why then 
 did the Catholics refuse to subscribe them? Why did 
 they rather submit to banishment from one end of the 
 Roman world to the other ? Why did they become Con- 
 fessors and Martyrs? The answer is ready. They in- 
 terpreted the language of the creeds by the professed 
 opinions of their framers. They would not allow error to 
 be introduced into the Church by an artifice. On the other 
 hand, when at Ariminum they were seduced into a sub- 
 scription of one of these creeds, though unobjectionable in 
 its wording, their opponents instantly triumphed, and 
 circulated the news that the Catholic world had come over 
 to their opinion. It may be added that, in consequence, 
 ever since that era, phrases have been banished from the 
 language of theology which heretofore had been innocently 
 used by orthodox teachers. 
 
 " Apply this to the case of Romanism. We are not indeed 
 allowed to take at random the accidental doctrine or 
 practice of this or that age, as an explanation of the decrees 
 of the Latin Church ; but when we see clearly that certain 
 of these decrees have a natiu*al tendency to produce certain . 
 evils, when we see those evils actually existing far and wide 
 in that Church, in different nations and ages, existing 
 especially where the system is allowed to act most freely, 
 and only absent where external checks are present, 
 sanctioned moreover by its celebrated teachers and ex- 
 positors, and advocated by its controversialists with the 
 tacit consent of the whole body, under such circumstances
 
 29 
 
 surely it is not unfair to consider our case parallel to that 
 of the Catholics during the ascendancy of Arianism. 
 Surely it is not unfair in such a case to interpret the formal 
 document of belief by the realized form of it in the Church, 
 and to apprehend that, did we express our assent to the 
 creed of Pope Pius, we should find ourselves bound hand 
 and foot, as the Fathers at Ariminum, to the corruptions of 
 those who profess it. 
 
 "To take the instances of the Adoration of Images and the 
 Invocation of Saints. The Tridentine Decree declares that 
 it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the Saints, and 
 that the Images of Christ, and the Blessed Virgin, and the 
 other Saints should ' receive due honour and veneration ;' 
 words, which themselves go to the very verge of what could 
 be received by the cautious Christian, though possibly 
 admitting of a honest interpretation. Now we know in 
 matter of fact that' in various parts of the Roman Church, 
 a worship approaching to idolatrous is actually paid to 
 Saints and Images, in countries very different from each 
 other, as for instance, Italy and the Netherlands, and has 
 been countenanced by eminent men and doctors, and that 
 without any serious or successful protest from any quarter : 
 further that, though there may be countries where no 
 scandal of the kind exists, yet these are such as have, in 
 their neighbourhood to Protestantism, a practical restraint 
 upon the natural tendency of their system. \; 
 
 " Moreover, the silence' which has been observed, age after 
 age, by the Roman Church, as regards these excesses, is a 
 point deserving of serious attention ; — for two reasons : first, 
 because of the very solemn warnings pronomiced by our 
 Lord and His Apostle, against those who introduce scandals 
 into the Church, warnings which seem almost prophetic of 
 such as exist in the Latin branches of it. Next it must be 
 considered that the Roman Church has had the power to 
 denounce and extirpate them. Not to mention its use of 
 its Apostolical powers in other matters, it has had the civil
 
 30 
 
 power at its command, as it has shewn in the case of errors 
 which less called for its interference; all of which shews it 
 has not felt sensitively on the subject of this particular evil." 
 ^Tracts for the Times, No. 71. p. 14—18. 
 
 And in the following passage, written in the 
 course of last year, the contrariety between the 
 Primitive and Roman systems is pointed out. 
 
 " Allowing the Church Catholic ever so much power over 
 the faith, allowing that it may add what it will, so that it 
 does not contradict what has been determined in former 
 times, yet let us come to the plain question, Does the 
 Church, according to Romanists, know more now than the 
 Apostles knew ? Their theory seems to be that the whole 
 faith was present in the minds of the Apostles, nay, of all 
 Saints at all times, but in great measure as a matter of mere 
 temper, feeling, and unconscious opinion, or implicitly, not 
 in the way of exact statements and in an intellectual form. 
 All men certainly hold a number of truths and act on them, 
 without knowing it; when a question is asked about them, 
 then they are obliged to reflect what their opinion has ever 
 been, and they bring before themselves and assent to doc- 
 trines which before were but latent within them. We have 
 all heard of men changing to so-called Unitarianism, and 
 confessing on a review of themselves that they had been 
 Unitarians all along without knowing it, till some accident 
 tore the bandage off their eyes. In like manner the 
 Roman (Catholics, we suppose, would maintain that the 
 Apostles were implicit Tridentines ; that the Church held 
 in the first age what she holds now ; only that heresy, by 
 raising questions, has led to her throwing her faith into 
 dogmatic shape, and has served to precipitate truths which 
 before were held in solution. Now this is all very well in 
 the abstract, but let us return to the point, as to what the 
 Apostles held and did, and what they did not. Does the 
 Romanist mean, for instance, to tell us that St. Paul the
 
 31 
 
 Apostle, when he was in perils of robbers or perils by the 
 sea, offered up his addresses to St. Mary, and vowed some 
 memorial to her, if she would l)e pleased 'deprecari pro illo 
 Filium Dei?' Does he mean to say that the same Apostle, 
 during that period of his life when as yet he was not 
 ' perfect' or had ' attained,' was accustomed to pray that 
 the merits of St. John the Baptist should be imputed to 
 him ? Did he or did he not hold that St. Peter could give 
 indulgences to shorten the prospective sufferings of the 
 Corinthians in purgatory ? We do not deny that St. Paul 
 certainly docs bring out his thoughts only in answer to 
 express questions asked, and according to the occasion; 
 that St. John has written a Gospel, as later, so also more 
 dogmatic, than his fellow-Evangelists, in consequence of 
 the rise of heresy. We do not at all mean to affirm, that 
 the sacred writers said out at one time all they had to say. 
 There are many things we can imagine them doing and 
 holding, which yet, in matter of fact, we believe they did 
 not do, or did not hold. We can imagine them administering 
 extreme unction or wearing copes. Again, there are many 
 things which they could neither hold nor do, merely from 
 the circumstances of the times or the moment. They 
 could not determine whether e-eneral councils miffht or 
 might not be held without the consent of Princes, or deter- 
 mine the authority of the Vulgate before it was written, or 
 enjoin infant baptism before Christians had children, or 
 decide upon the value of heretical baptism before there 
 were heretics, and before those heretics were baptized. 
 But still there are limits to these concessions; we cannot 
 imagine an Apostle saying and doing what Romanists say 
 and do: can they imagine it themselves? Do they them- 
 selves, for instance, think that St. Paul was in the habit of 
 saying what Bellarmine and others say, — Laus Deo Vir- 
 ginique Matri? Would they not pronounce a professed epistle 
 of St. Paul's which contained these words spurious on this 
 one ground?"
 
 32 
 
 It is commonly urged by Romanists, that the Notes 
 of their Church are sufficiently clear to enable the 
 private Christian to dispense with argument in 
 joining their Communion in preference to any other. 
 Now in the following passage it is observed, that that 
 Communion has Notes of error upon it, serving 
 in practice quite as truly as a guide from it, as the 
 Notes which it brings forward can ,be made to tell 
 in its favour. 
 
 " Our Lord said of false prophets, * By their fruits shall 
 ye know them;' arid, however the mind may be entangled 
 theoretically, yet surely it will fall upon certain marks in 
 Rome which seem intended to convey to the simple and 
 honest enquirer a solemn warning to keep clear of her, 
 while she carries them about her. Such are her denying 
 the Cup to the laity, her idolatrous worship of the Blessed 
 Virgin, her Image-worship, her recklessness in anathema- 
 tizing, and her schismatical and overbearing spirit. Surely 
 we have more reason for thinking that her doctrines con- 
 cerning Images and tlie Saints are false, than that her 
 saying they are Apostolical is true. I conceive, then, on 
 the whole, that while Rome confirms by her accordant wit- 
 ness our own teaching in all 'greater things, she does not 
 tend by her novelties, and violence, and threats, to disturb the 
 practical certainty of Catholic doctrine, or to seduce from 
 us any sober and conscientious enquirer." On Romanism, 
 p. 324, S25. 
 
 And in one of the Tracts for the Times, speaking 
 of certain Invocations in the Breviary, I say, 
 
 "These portions of the Breviary carry with them their 
 own plain condemnation, in the judgment of an English 
 Christian ; no commendation of the general structui'e and 
 matter of the Breviary itself will have any tendency to 
 reconcile him to them ; and it has been the strong feeling
 
 33 
 
 that this is really the case, that has led the writer of these 
 pages fearlessly and securely to admit the real excellencies, 
 and to dwell upon the antiquity of the Roman Ritual. 
 He has felt that, since the Romanists required an unquali- 
 fied assent to the whole of the Breviary, and that there were 
 passages which no Anglican ever could admit, praise the 
 true Catholic portion of it as much as he might, he 
 did not in the slightest degree approximate to a recom- 
 mendation of Romanism." Tract 75. p. 9, 10. 
 
 " They" [the Antiphons to the blessed Virgin] " shall be 
 here given in order to shew clearly, as a simple inspection 
 of them will suffice, to do, the utter contrariety between the 
 Roman system, as actually existing, and our own ; which, 
 however similar in certain respects, are in others so at 
 variance, as to make any attempt to reconcile them together 
 in their present state, perfectly nugatory. Till Rome 
 moves towards us, it is quite impossible that we should 
 move towards Rome ; however closely we may approxi- 
 mate to her in particular doctrines, principles, or views." 
 Tract 75. p. 23. 
 
 In the foregoing passages, protests will be found 
 against the Roman worship of St. Mary, Invoca- 
 tion of Saints, Worship of Images, Purgatory, 
 Denial of the Cup, Indulgences, and Infallibility ; 
 besides those which are entered against the funda- 
 mental theory out of which these errors arise. 
 
 5. And now having said, I trust, as much as your 
 Lordship requires on the subject of Romanism, I 
 will add a few words, to complete my explanation, 
 in acknowledgment of the inestimable privilege I 
 feel in being a member of that Church over which 
 your Lordship, with others, presides. Indeed, did I 
 not feel it to be a privilege which I am able to seek no 
 
 c
 
 where else on earth, why should I be at this moment 
 writing to your Lordship ? What motive have I 
 for an unreserved and joyful submission to your 
 authority, but the feeling that the Church which 
 your Lordship rules is a divinely-ordained channel 
 of supernatural grace to the souls of her members ? 
 Why should I not prefer my own opinion, and 
 my own way of acting, to that of the Bishop's, ex- 
 cept that I know full well that in matters indifferent 
 I should be acting lightly towards the Spouse of 
 Christ and the Awful Presence which dwells in her, 
 if I hesitated a moment to put your Lordship's will 
 before my own ? I know full well that your Lord- 
 ship's kindness to me personally, would be in itself 
 quite enough to win any but the most insensible 
 heart, and, did a clear matter of conscience occur 
 in which I felt bound to act for myself, my feelings 
 towards your Lordship would be a most severe trial 
 to me, independently of the higher considerations 
 to which I have alluded ; but I trust I have shewn 
 my dutifulness to you prior to the influence of per- 
 sonal motives ; and this I have done because I think 
 that to belong to the Catholic Church is the first of 
 all privileges here below, as involving in it heavenly 
 privileges, and because I consider the Church over 
 which your Lordship presides to be the Catholic 
 Church in this country. Surely then I have no 
 need to profess in words, I will not say my attach- 
 ment, but my deep reverence towards the Mother 
 of Saints, when I am shewing it in action ; yet that 
 words may not be altogether wanting, I beg to lay 
 before your Lordship the following extract from a
 
 35 
 
 defence of the English Churcli, which I wrote 
 against a Roman controversiahst in the course of 
 the last year. 
 
 " The Church is emphatically a living hotly, and there 
 can be no greater proof of a particular communion being 
 part of the Church, than the appearance in it of a continued 
 and abiding energy, nor a more melancholy proof of its 
 being a corpse than torpidity. We say an energy con- 
 tinued and abiding, for accident will cause the activity of 
 a moment, and an external principle give the semblance of 
 self-motion. On the other hand, even a living body may 
 for a while be asleep. And here we have an illustration 
 of what we just now urged about the varying cogency of 
 the Notes of the Church according to times and circum- 
 stances. No one can deny that at times the Roman 
 Churcli itself, restless as it is at most times, has been in a 
 state of sleep or disease, so great as to resemble death ; the 
 words of Baronius, speaking of the tenth century, are well 
 known : " Dormiebat tunc plane alto, ut apparet, sopore 
 Christus in navi, cum hisce flantibus validis ventis, navis 
 ipsa fluctibus operiretur. Una ilia reliqua consolatio piis, 
 quia etsi Dominus dormivit, in eadem tamen navi dormivit." 
 It concerns then those who deny that we are the true 
 Church, because we have not at present this special Note, 
 intercomramiion with other Christians, to shew cause why 
 the Roman Church in the tenth century should be so ac- 
 counted, with profligates, or rather the profligate mothers of 
 profligate sons, for her supreme rulers. And still notwith- 
 standing life is a note of the Church; she alone revives, 
 even if she declines ; heretical and schismatical bodies 
 cannot keep life ; they gradually become cold, stiff, and 
 insensible. They may do some energetic work at first 
 from excitement or remaining warmth, as the Arians con- 
 verted the Goths, though even this seems, as the history 
 shews us, to have been an accident, for which they can claim 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 no praise ; or as the Nestorians spread in the East, from 
 circumstances which need not here be noticed. But wait 
 awhile, and 'see the end of these men.' 'I myself,' 
 says the Psalmist, ' have seen the ungodly in great power, 
 and flourishing hke a green bay-tree. I went by, and lo, 
 he was gone ; I sought him, but his place could no where 
 be found.' Heresies and schisms, whatever be their promise 
 at first, and whatever be their struggles, yet gradually and 
 surely tend not to be. Utter dissolution is the scope to 
 which their principles are directed from the first, and 
 towards which for the most part they steadily and con- 
 tinually move. Or, if the principle of destruction in 
 them, be not so living as to hurry them forward in their 
 career, then they remain inert and motionless, where they 
 first are found, kept together in one by external circum- 
 stances, and going to pieces as soon as air is let in upon 
 them. Now if there ever Avere a Church on whom the 
 experiment has been tried, whether it had life in it or not, 
 the English is that one. For three centuries it has en- 
 dured all vicissitudes of fortune. It has endured in trouble 
 and prosperity, under seduction and under oppression. 
 It has been practised upon by theorists, browbeaten b}' 
 sophists, intimidated by princes, betrayed by false sons, 
 laid waste by tyranny, corrupted by wealth, torn by 
 schism, and persecuted by fanaticism. Revolutions 
 have come upon it sharply and suddenly, to and fro, hot 
 and cold, as if to try what it was made of. It has been a 
 sort of battle-field on which opposite principles have been 
 tried. No opinion, however extreme any way, but may be 
 found, as the Romanists arc not slow to reproach us, among 
 its Bishops and Divines. Yet what has been its career 
 upon the whole ? Which way has it been moving through 
 three hundred years ? Where docs it find itself at the end ? 
 Lutherans have tended to Rationalism ; Calvinists have 
 become Socinians ; but what has it become ? As far as its 
 Formularies arc concerned, it may be said all along to have
 
 37 
 
 grown towards a more perfect Catliolicism than that with 
 wliich it started at the time of its estrangement ; every act, 
 every crisis, which marks its course, has been upward. It 
 never was in so miserable case as in the reigns of Edward and 
 ■ EHzabeth. At the end of Elizabeth's there was a conspicu- 
 ous revival of the true doctrine. Advancements were 
 made in the Canons of 1603. How much was done vinder 
 Charles the First, need not be said; and done permanently, 
 so as to remain to this day in spite of the storm which im- 
 mediately arose, s\veeping off the chief agents in the work, 
 and for a time levelling the Church to the ground. More 
 was done than even yet appears, as a philosophical writer 
 has lately remarked, in the Convocation of 1661. One 
 juncture there was of a later date (1688) which seemed to 
 threaten a relapse ; yet it w^as the only crisis in which no 
 Ecclesiastical act took place. The temper, however, of the 
 Church, certainly did go back ; a secular and semi- sceptical 
 spirit came in. Now then was the time when the Church 
 lay open to injury; yet, by a wonderful providence, the 
 Convocation being, during this period, suspended, there 
 was no means of making permanent impressions on its 
 character ; and thus civil tyranny was its protection against 
 itself. That very Convocation too expired in an act of zeal 
 and faith. In our own times, temporal defences have been 
 removed which the most strenuous political partisans of the 
 Church considered essential to its well-being, and the loss 
 of which they deplored as the first steps towards its ruin. 
 To their surprise these well-intentioned men have beheld 
 what they thought a mere establishment, dependent on 
 man to create and destroy, rise up and walk with a hfe of its 
 own, such as it had before they and their constitution came 
 into being. How many learned Divines have we had, even 
 our enemies being judges ! and in proportion as they were 
 learned, so on the whole have they approximated towards 
 the full ancient truth. Or takd again those whom by a 
 natural instinct ' all the people count as Prophets,' and will
 
 38 
 
 it not be found that eitlier altogether or in those works 
 which are most popular, those writers are ruled by primi- 
 tive and Catholic principles ? No man, for instance, was 
 an abler writer in the last century than Warburton, or more 
 famous in his day; yet the glare is over, and noAV Bishops 
 Wilson and Home, men of far inferior powers, but of 
 Catholic temper and principles, fill the doctor's Chair in 
 the eves of the manv. What a note of the Chvu-ch is the 
 mere production of a man like Butler, a pregnant fact 
 much to be meditated on ! and how strange it is, if it be as 
 it seems to be, that the real influence of his work is only just 
 now beginning ! and who can prophecy in what it will end ? 
 Thus our Divines grow with centuries, expanding after their 
 death in the minds of their readers into more and more 
 exact Catholicism as years roll on. Nay even our errors 
 and heterodoxies turn to good. Wesleyanism in itself 
 tends to heresy, if it was not heretical in the outset ; 
 but so far as it has been in the Church, it has been 
 overruled to rouse and stimulate us, when we were asleep. 
 Moreover look at the internal state of the Church 
 at this moment ; much that is melancholy is there, 
 strife, division, error. But still on the whole, enlarge on 
 the evils as you will, there is life there, perceptible, visible 
 life ; rude indeed, undisciplined, perhaps self-willed, but 
 life ; and not the life of death, not that heretical restless- 
 ness, which, as we have observed, only runs out the quicker 
 for its activity, and hastens to be no more, but, we may 
 humbly trust, a heavenly principle after all, which is 
 struggling towards development, and gives presage of truth 
 and holiness to come. Look across the Atlantic to the 
 daughter Churches of England in the States; shall one that 
 is barren bear a child in her old age? yet 'the barren hath 
 borne seven.' Schismatic branches put out their leaves 
 at once in an expiring effort ; our Church has waited three 
 centuries, and then blossoms, like Aaron's rod, budding and 
 blooming and yielding fruit, while the rest are dry. And
 
 39 
 
 lastly look at the present })osition of the Chureh at home ; 
 thei-e too we shall find a Note of the true city of God, the 
 Holy Jerusalem. She is in warfare with the world as the 
 Church Militant should be ; she is rebuking the world, she 
 is hated, she is pillaged by the world. And as if it were 
 providentially intended to shew this resemblance between 
 her and the sister branches, what place she has here, that 
 they have there ; the same enemies encompassing both them 
 and her, and the same trials and exploits lying in prospect. 
 She has a common cause with them, as far as they are 
 faithful, if not a common speech and language ; and is 
 together with them in warfare, if not in peace. 
 
 "Much might be said on this subject At all times, since 
 Christianity came into the world, an open contest has been 
 going on between religion and irreligion; and the true 
 Church, of course, has ever been on the religious side. 
 This then is a sure test in every age, where the Christian 
 should stand. . . . Now applying this simple criterion to the 
 public parties of this day, it is very plain that the English 
 Church is at present on God's side, and therefore so far 
 God's Church ; — we are sorry to be obliged to add that 
 there is as little doubt on which side English Romanism is. 
 It must be a very galling thought to serious minds who 
 profess it, to feel that they are standing with the enemies of 
 God, cooperating with the haters of truth and haters 
 of the light, and thereby prejudicing religious minds even 
 against those verities which Rome continues to hold. 
 
 "As for the English Chm*ch, surely she has Notes enough, 
 * the signs of an Apostle in all patience, and signs and 
 wonders and mighty deeds.' She has the Note of posses- 
 sion, the Note of fi-eedom from party-titles ; the Note of 
 life, a tough life and a vigorous; she has ancient 
 descent, unbroken continuance, agreement in doctrine 
 with the ancient Church. Those of Bellarmine's Notes, 
 which slie certainly has not, are intercommunion with 
 Christendom, the glory of miracles, and the prophetical
 
 40 
 
 light, but the question is, whether she has not enough of 
 divinity about her to satisfy her sister Churches on their 
 own principles, that she is one body with them." 
 
 6. This may be sufficient to shew ray feelings 
 towards my Church, as far as statements on paper 
 can shew them. I have already, however, referred 
 to what is much more conclusive, a practical evidence 
 of them ; and I think I can shew your Lordship besides 
 without difficulty that my present conduct is no 
 solitary instance of such obedience, but that I have 
 observed an habitual submission to things as they 
 are, and have avoided in practice, as far as might 
 be, any indulgence of private tastes and opinions, 
 which left to myself perhaps I should have pursued. 
 
 And first, as regards my public teaching; though 
 every one has his peculiarities, and I of course in 
 the number, yet I do hope that it has not on the • 
 whole transgressed that liberty of opinion which is 
 allowed on all hands to the Anglican Clergyman. 
 Nay I might perhaps insist upon it, that in the 
 general run of my Sermons, fainter and fewer traces 
 will be found than might have been expected of those 
 characteristics of doctrine, with which my name is 
 commonly associated. I might without offi^nce 
 have introduced what is technically called High- 
 Church doctrine in much greater fulness ; since 
 there are many who do not hold it to my own 
 extent, or with my own eagerness, whose teaching 
 is more prominently coloured by it. My Sermons 
 have been far more practical than doctrinal ; and 
 this, from a dislike of introducing a character and 
 tone of preaching very different from that which is
 
 41 
 
 generally to be found. And I hope this circum- 
 stance may serve as my reply to an apprehension 
 which has been felt, as if what I say in Tract 90 
 concerning a cast of opinions which is not irre- 
 concileable with our Articles, involves an introduction 
 of those opinions into the pulpit. Yet who will 
 maintain, that what merely happens not to be for- 
 bidden or denied in the Articles, may at once be 
 made the subject of teaching or observance ? 
 There is nothing concerning the Inspiration of 
 Scripture in the Articles ; yet would a Bishop allow 
 a Clergyman openly to deny it in the pulpit ? May 
 the Scripture Miracles be explained away, because 
 the Articles say nothing about them ? Would your 
 Lordship allow me to preach in favour of duelhng, 
 gaming, or simony ? or to revile persons by name 
 from the pulpit ? or be grossly and violently poli- 
 tical ? Every one will surely appreciate the im- 
 portance and sacredness of Pulpit instruction ; and 
 will allow, that though the holding certain opinions 
 may be compatible with subscription to the Articles, 
 the publishing and teaching them may be inconsis- 
 tent with ecclesiastical station. ' 
 
 Those who frequent St. Mary's, know that the 
 case is the same as regards the mode in which 
 worship is conducted there. I have altered no- 
 thing I found established ; when I have increased 
 the number of the Services, and had to determine 
 points connected with the manner of performing 
 them for myself, if there was no danger of offend- 
 ing others, I have followed my own judgment, but 
 not otherwise. I have left many things, which I
 
 42 
 
 did not like, and which most other persons would 
 have altered. And here, with your Lordship's 
 leave, I will make allusion to one mistake con- 
 cerning me which I beheve has reached your Lord- 
 ship's ears, and which I only care to explain 
 to my Bishop. The explanation, I trust, will be 
 an additional proof of my adherence to the prin- 
 ciple of acquiescing in the state of things in which 
 I find myself. It has been said, I believe, that in 
 the Communion Service I am in the practice of 
 mixing water with the wine, and that of course on 
 a religious or ecclesiastical ground. This is not 
 the case. We are in the custom at St. Mary's of 
 celebrating the Holy Communion every Sunday, 
 and most weeks early in the morning. When I 
 began the early celebration, communicants repre- 
 sented to me that the wine was so strong as to 
 distress them at that early hour. Accordingly I 
 mixed it with water in the bottle. However, it be- 
 came corrupt. On this I mixed it at the time. I 
 speak honestly when I say that this has been my 
 only motive. I have not mixed it when the Service 
 has been in the middle of the day. 
 
 If I were not writing to my Bishop, I should feel 
 much shame at writing so much about myself; but 
 confession cannot be called egotism. Friend and 
 stranger have from time to time asked for my 
 cooperation in the attempt to gain additional power 
 for the Church. I have been accustomed to answer 
 that it was my duty to acquiesce in the state of 
 things under which I found myself, and to serve 
 God, if so be, in it. New precedents indeed, con-
 
 43 
 
 firming or aggravating our present Ecclesiastical 
 defects, I have ever desired to oppose ; but as regards 
 changes, persons to whom I defer very much, know 
 that, rightly or wrongly, I have discountenanced, 
 for instance, any movement tending to the repeal 
 even of the Statutes of Prccmiinire, which has 
 been frequently agitated, under the notion that 
 such matters were not our business, and that we 
 had better "remain in the calling wherein we were 
 called." Of course I cannot be blind to the fact that 
 "time is the great innovator ;" and that the course 
 of events may of itself put the Church in posses- 
 sion of greater hberty of action, as in time past it 
 has abridged it. This would be the act of a higher 
 power; and then I should think it a duty to act 
 according to that new state in which the Church 
 found itself. Knowledge and virtue certainly are 
 power. When the Church's gifts were doubled, 
 its influence would be multiplied a hundred fold ; 
 and influence tends to become constituted autho- 
 rity. This is the nature of things, which I do not 
 attempt to oppose ; but I have no wish at all to 
 take part in any measures which aim at changes. 
 
 And in like manner I have set my face altogether 
 against suggestions which zealous and w^arm- 
 hearted persons sometimes have made of reviving 
 the project of Archbishop Wake, for considering 
 the differences between ourselves and the foreign 
 Churches with a view to their adjustment. Our 
 business is with ourselves — to make ourselves more 
 holy, more self-denying, more primitive, more 
 worthy our high calling. Let the Church of Rome
 
 44 
 
 do the same, tind it will come nearer to us, and 
 will cease to be what we one and all mean, when 
 we speak of Rome. To be anxious for a composi- 
 tion of differences, is to begin at the end. Did God 
 visit us with large measures of His grace, and the 
 Roman Catholics also, they would be drawn to us, 
 and would acknowledge our Church as the Catholic 
 Church in this country, and would give up what- 
 ever offended and grieved us in their doctrine and 
 worship, and would unite themselves to us. This 
 would be a true union ; but political reconcilia- 
 tions are but outward and hollow, and fallacious. 
 And till they renounce political efforts, and manifest 
 in their public measures the light of holiness and 
 truth, perpetual warfare is our only prospect. It 
 was the prophetic announcement concerning the 
 Elijah of the first Advent, that he should *'turn the 
 hearts of the fathers to the children, and the heart 
 of the children to their fathers." This is the only 
 change which promises good and is worth an 
 effort. 
 
 What I have been saying as regards Roman 
 Catholics, I trust I have kept steadily before me 
 in ecclesiastical matters generally. While I have 
 considered that we ought to be content with the 
 outward circumstances in which Providence has 
 placed us, I have tried to feel that the great busi- 
 ness of one and all of us is, to endeavour to raise 
 the moral tone of the Church. It is sanctity of 
 heart and conduct which commends us to God. 
 If we be holy, all will go well with us. External 
 things are comparatively nothing ; whatever be a
 
 45 
 
 religious body's relations to the State — whatever 
 its regimen — whatever its doctrines — whatever its 
 worship — if it has but the hfe of hohness within it, 
 this inward gift will, if I may so speak, take care 
 of itself. It will turn all accidents into good, it 
 will supply defects, and it will gain for itself from 
 above what is wanting. I desire to look at this 
 first, m all persons and all communities. Where 
 Almighty God stirs the heart, there His other gifts 
 follow in time ; sanctity is the great Note of the 
 Church. If the Established Church of Scotland 
 has this Note, I will hope all good things of it ; if 
 the Roman Church in Ireland has it not, I can 
 hope no good of it. And in like manner, in our 
 own Church, I will unite with all persons as 
 brethren, who have this Note, without any distinc- 
 tion of party. Persons who know me can testify 
 that I have endeavoured to cooperate with those who 
 did not agree with me, and that again and again I 
 have been put aside by them, not put them aside. 
 I have never concealed my own opinions, nor 
 wished them to conceal theirs ; but have found 
 that I could bear them better than they me. And 
 I have long insisted upon it, that the only way in 
 which the members of our Church, so widely dif- 
 fering in opinion at this time, can be brought 
 together in one, is by a " turning of heart" to one 
 another. Argumentative efforts are most useful 
 for this end under this sacred feeling ; but till we 
 try to love each other, and what is holy in each 
 other, and wish to be all one, and mourn that we
 
 46 
 
 are not so, and pray that we may be so, I do not 
 see what good can come of argument. 
 
 7. Before concluding, there is one more subject on 
 which I wish briefly to address your Lordship, 
 though it is one which I have neither direct 
 claim nor encouragement to introduce to your 
 Lordship's notice. Yet our Colleges here being 
 situated in your Lordship's diocese, it is natural for 
 me to allude to the lately expressed opinion of the 
 Heads of Houses upon the Tract which has given 
 rise to this Letter. I shall only do so, however, 
 for the purpose of assuring your Lordship of the 
 great sorrow it gives me to have incurred their 
 disapprobation, and of the anxiety I have felt for 
 some time past from the apprehension that I was 
 incurring it. I reverence their position in the 
 country too highly to be indifferent to their good 
 opinion. 1 never can be indifferent to the opinion 
 of those who hold in their hands the education of 
 the classes on which our national well-being, 
 spiritual and temporal, depends ; who preside over 
 the foundations of "famous men" of old, whose 
 " name liveth for evermore ;" and from whom are 
 from time to time selected the members of the 
 sacred order to which your Lordship belongs. Con- 
 sidering my own peculiar position in the University, 
 so much have these considerations pressed upon me 
 for a long while, that, as various persons know, 1 
 seriously contemplated, some time since, the resig- 
 nation of my Living, and was only kept from it by 
 the advice of a friend to whom I felt I ought to 
 submit myself. I say this, moreover, in explanation
 
 47 
 
 of a Letter I lately addressed to the Vice-Cbancellor, 
 lest it should seem dictated either by a mere percep- 
 tion of what was becoming in my situation, or 
 from some sudden softening of feeUng under an 
 unexpected event. It expressed my habitual defer- 
 ence to persons in station. 
 
 And now, my Lord, suffer me to thank your 
 Lordship for your most abundant and extraor- 
 dinary kindness towards me, in the midst of the 
 exercise of your authority. I have nothing to be 
 sorry for, except having made your Lordship 
 anxious, and others whom I am bound to revere. 
 I have nothing to be sorry for, but every thing to 
 rejoice in and be thankful for. I have never taken 
 pleasure in seeming to be able to move a party, 
 and whatever influence I have had has been found 
 not sought after. I have acted because others did 
 not act, and have sacrificed a quiet which I prized. 
 May God be with me in time to come, as He has 
 been hitherto ! and He will be, if I can but keep 
 my hand clean and my heart pure. I think I can 
 bear, or at least will try to bear, any personal 
 humihation, so that I am preserved from betraying 
 sacred interests, which the Lord of grace and power 
 has given into my charge. 
 
 I am. My dear Lord, 
 Your Lordship's faithful and affectionate Servant, 
 
 JOHN HENRY NEWMAN. 
 
 Oriel College, 
 March 29th, 1841.
 
 *• 
 > ^ 
 
 ■'■r. 
 
 oxford: rniNTED by i. surimpton.
 
 FEW WORDS 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF No. 90 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, 
 
 PARTLY \YITH UKKKRKNCK TO 
 
 MR. WILSON'S LETTER. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 70HN HHNRV PARKER ; 
 
 J, G. F. AND J. KIVINGTOIVf, I.OXDON. 
 
 1841.
 
 BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.
 
 A 
 
 FEW WORDS, 
 
 Acquiescing as I do in the general principles 
 advocated in Tract XC, and deeply grateful to its 
 author for bringing forward in it a view of our 
 formularies, full of comfort to myself and many 
 others with whom 1 am acquainted, I am induced 
 to say a i'ew words with regard to Mr. Wilson's 
 recently published Letter ; not as being unmindful 
 of the great evils to which direct theological contro- 
 versy, unless great care be used on both sides, is 
 apt to lead, but still considering that in the present 
 case a view of part of our Articles, new in great 
 measure at least to the present generation, will 
 hardly meet with general acceptance till after full 
 and fair discussion, and that those who feel diffi- 
 culties in that view have a fair claim on those who 
 advocate it that their objections shall at least be 
 considered. I should not do justice to my own 
 feelings if I did not add, that another reason which
 
 would less disincline one to controversy on the 
 present occasion than on most others, is the most 
 remarkably temperate and Christian tone of the 
 paper to which Mr. Wilson was a party, and which 
 began the contest: a tone which may well encourage 
 in us sanguine hopes, that the beginning having 
 been made in such a spirit, whatever may be said 
 on either side may be said on the whole in a temper 
 not unworthy of the grave importance of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. Wilson begins with considering the use of 
 the word ' authoritative teaching' in the Letter of 
 the Four Tutors. On this point t do not deny that 
 Mr. Newman seems to have misunderstood them, 
 but still they also appear first to have misunderstood 
 him. I think the Tract did imply, that on the 
 points mentioned in their i^etter, the Articles do 
 not condemn the decrees of the Council of Trent, 
 and that in point of fact there is no necessity for 
 any Roman Catholic either then or at the present 
 day to hold on these points opinions which the 
 Articles condemn. And this view of what the Tract 
 implied is made certain by the following passage of 
 Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, ' The simple 
 ' question is, whether taken by themselves in their 
 ' mere letter, they (the decrees of Trent) express it, 
 ' (the present corrupt teaching of the Church of 
 ' Home,) whether in fact other senses short of the 
 
 ' sense conveyed in (her) present teaching 
 
 "■ will not fulfil their letter, and may not even now in
 
 ' point of fact be held in that Church.' On the other 
 hand, when the Four Tutors consider that the 
 Tract ' suggests' that the XXXIX Articles ' do not 
 ' contain any condemnation of the doctrines of 
 ' Purgatory &c., as they are taught authoritatively 
 
 * by the Church of Rome, but only of certain absurd 
 ' practices and opinions which intelligent Romanists 
 
 * repudiate as much as we do,' they seem to have 
 misunderstood the Tract which actually says, as 
 quoted by Mr. Newman in his Letter, p. 10. 
 
 * What is opposed is the received doctrine of the day 
 
 * and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine of the 
 
 * Roman Schools.' As things have turned out, it is 
 perhaps to be lamented that Mr. Newman did not 
 repeat this caution in each head of Art. xxii. and he 
 says himself, (Letter, p. 9.) * this distinction .... 
 ' would have been made in far stronger terms had I 
 ' not often before spoken against the actual state of 
 ' the Roman Church, or could I have anticipated the 
 ' sensation which the appearance of the Tract has 
 ' excited.' And in the second edition, the Tract seems 
 as explicit on the subject as can possibly be desired. 
 Let me quote successively its statement on the first 
 four of the five subjects mentioned in the Tutor's 
 Letter. 
 
 ' Let it be considered then, whether on the whole the 
 ' Romish doctrineof purgatory' which the Article condemns, 
 and which ivas yeiierally heliiced in the Roman Church 
 three centuries since as well as now, viewed in its essence, 
 be not the doctrine that the punishment of unrighteous
 
 6 
 
 Christians is temporary not eternal, and that the purifi- 
 cation of the righteous is a portion of the same punish- 
 ment : together with the superstitions and impostures, 
 for the sake of gain, consequent thereupon.' p. 28. 
 
 •• The doctrine then of Pardons spoken of in the Article 
 is the doctrine maintained and acted on in the Roman 
 Church, that remission of the penalties of sin in the next 
 life may be obtained by the power of the Pope, with such 
 abuses as money-payments consequent thereupon \' p. 31. 
 
 ' On the whole, then, by the Romish doctrine of the 
 veneration and worshipping of images and relics, the 
 Article means all maintenance of those idolatrous honours 
 which have been and are paid them so commonly through- 
 out the Church of Rome, with the superstitions, pro- 
 fanities, and impurities consequent thereupon.'' p. 3C. 
 
 ' By the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, then, the 
 Article means all maintenance of addresses to them which 
 entrench upon the incommunicable honour of God alone, 
 such as have been, atid are in the Church of Rome, and 
 
 ^ This would seem one of the passages alluded to in Mr. 
 Newman's Postscript, in Avhich the apparent A'agueness arose 
 ' from the circumstance, that, the main drift of the Tract being 
 ' that of illustrating the Articles from the Homilies, the doc- 
 ' trines of the Articles are sometimes brought out only so far 
 * as the Homilies explain them, which is in some cases an 
 ' inadequate representation.' In the first edition it stood. ' the 
 ' pardons then spoken of in the y\rticle are large and reckless 
 ' indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money- 
 ' payments:' which not unnaturally seems to have given many 
 persons the impression, that the Tract did not consider the 
 doctrine of tlie Pope claiming ])ower to remit tlie penalties 
 of sin in the next life, condemned by the Article, when such 
 remission was not * obtained on money-payments.'
 
 such as equally with the peculiar doctrine of purgatory, 
 pardons, and worshipping and adoration of images and 
 relics, as actually taught in that Churchy are unknown 
 to the Catholic Church.' p. 42. 
 
 Mr. Newman's opinion then is, that the 
 doctrines on these subjects condemned by the 
 Articles are not taught authoritatively by the 
 Church of Rome in the sense of heing obligatory on 
 the belief of each individual member of the Church, 
 or so that that Church is irrevocably bound to them ; 
 they are taught authoritatively in that they are not 
 merely ' practices and opinions which intelligent 
 ' Romanists repudiate as much as we do,' but, 
 ' maintained and acted on in the Roman Church,' 
 
 * actually taught in that Church,' ' an existing 
 
 * ruling spirit and view in the Church,^ which is ' a 
 
 * corruption and perversion of the truth,' and, 
 ' against which I think the XXXIX Articles 
 
 * speak.' (Letter, p. 10.) The whole passage in 
 Mr. N.'s Letter, p. 26. from ' for instance,' to 
 
 * actually have done,' would make all this still more 
 clear if there were room to quote it. Authoritative 
 teaching may naturally mean the teaching of those in 
 authority : but then individuals, members of the 
 Roman Church, are not bound to believe such 
 teaching, except so far as it is borne out by t/mt 
 Church's authoritative statements : the Tract con- 
 siders the Articles as directed against the authorita- 
 tive teaching so lamentably prevalent throughout 
 the Roman Church, not the authoritative statements 
 of that Church herself.
 
 And now for the more important part of Mr. 
 Wilson's Letter. The point which most people 
 will perhaps feel to be brought out most forcibly in 
 Mr. Wilson's Letter, he has expressed as follows ; 
 
 * I am not inclined either to restrain or to expand the 
 sense of the Articles, as men may think the Homilies 
 expound them ; nor do I recognise the Homilies as the 
 sole or best interpreter of their sense, though they are 
 most valuable historical documents, and contain a doctrine 
 necessary for the times when they were composed. But 
 Mr. N. undertook to make out his principles as applied 
 to the XXn. and XXXI. Articles, chiefly by a reference 
 to them as representing the sense of the Articles. " The 
 Homily and therefore the Article," p. ^26. He rested his 
 case on ground chosen by himself; his own ground even 
 betrays him.' p. 17. 
 
 And we are thus led to two topics for discussion; 
 first, Are the Homilies legitimate interpreters of 
 these Articles ? and, secondly, Has the Tract fairly 
 represented the teaching of the Homilies with respect 
 to them's* and 1 will take the two Articles (the twenty- 
 second and thirty-first), to which Mr. Wilson confines 
 his observations, separately. 
 
 Before proceeding however with the subject, 
 let me beg persons to consider, that the mere 
 fact of an interpretation appearing at first to 
 them a forced interpretation, is no argument 
 whatever that it is really so, but only that it is 
 new to them. I suppose many of us may re- 
 member doctrines or opinions on various subjects 
 which when first broached appeared to us quite ex-
 
 travagant, and which we now hold almost as first 
 truths. Any thing which takes us quite by surprise 
 appears forced. I am not denying that in parts of 
 the Tract interpretations are given which to me do not 
 seem the most obvious, (see post, p. 26.) but I can- 
 not consider that of the twenty-second Article as 
 in the number. On the contrary, it does seem 
 that nothing but long habit could have made 
 us imagine, e. g. that * doctrina Romanensium de 
 
 * Purgatorio' means all teaching of Purgatory, or 
 
 * doctrina Romanensium de invocatione Sanctorum' 
 means all invocation of Saints. I have heard it 
 said in the last fortnight, that the same principles 
 which reconcile subscription to the twenty-second 
 Article with the opinions maintained in the Tract, 
 might reconcile subscription to the second Article 
 with the Socinian heresy. Now I would almost stake 
 the whole case on the fair issue of that question. 
 Can any thing be more dissimilar in manner and tone 
 than those two Articles ? The second contains an 
 accurately drawn up dogmatic positive statement 
 of the high mystery on which it treats, such as 
 the Church has ever had recourse to for the preserv- 
 ation of the Faith committed to her, and such as 
 it is the tendency of the present day to consider 
 subtle and overstrained. The twenty-second con- 
 tains no one positive statement : it puts together four 
 or five topics, which cannot be said to be all very 
 closely connected with each other, and declares 
 that ' doctrina Romanensium' on those topics is
 
 10 
 
 a fond thing, &c. Would not any one naturally 
 infer from this opposition what Mr. Newman does 
 infer? that the framers of the Articles see two 
 things before their eyes, the Creeds which have 
 come down to them from the early ages of the 
 Church, and the corrupt system in existence practi- 
 cally to a great extent overlaying these Creeds ; that 
 the former they hand down as they have received 
 them, the latter they protest against, as they see 
 it, generally and in the mass : not being careful 
 to draw up accurate statements of those true prin- 
 ciples which are contradictory to the existing abuses, 
 nor again tracing up the latter to their ultimate 
 principles and condemning them ; but without busy- 
 ing themselves with such investigations, requiring 
 as they would leisure, accuracy of thought, and 
 unity of opinion, condemning what they saw as they 
 saw it, energizing and practically active through- 
 out the Church. Such would, I feel convinced, 
 be the natural impressions made on our minds by 
 this Article, but for long habit of viewing it in a 
 different lii^ht. Still did statements of a different 
 character exist in the HomiUes, serious doubt 
 would be thrown over such a conclusion. The 
 Homihes are the sole contemporary document re- 
 cognised by our Church in addition to the Prayer 
 Book and Articles ; and did they contain, what 
 the Articles do not, carefully drawn up dogmatic 
 statements on the subjects mentioned in this twenty- 
 second Article, we might well consider them as our
 
 11 
 
 Church's authoritative explanation of her words 
 ' doctrinaRomanensium.' These are words so general 
 and indeterminate, as to compel us to resort for an 
 explanation of them elsewhere : were there no other 
 contemporary document sanctioned by our Church, 
 then to history ; but there being such, to that docu- 
 ment. Such then is the force as regards this Article 
 of an appeal to the Homilies : not of course that we 
 are bound to every sentence and paragraph in them, 
 (see Tract, p. 66.) but that the general scope and 
 tone of them on this subject will give us at least the 
 nearest approach to our Church's authoritative 
 explanation of what has absolutely no meaning 
 without such explanation, the words ' doctrina 
 ' Romanensium.' And that on the whole the tone 
 of the Homilies is precisely what we should k 
 priori have expected from the wording of the 
 Article, I think few will deny : we find there long and 
 detailed protests against the existingpractical system, 
 but no attention given to the task of drawing up a 
 consistent antagonist view : their tone is as negative 
 as that of the Article. 
 
 Nor does Mr. Wilson on the whole seem to deny 
 this, for he rather joins issue on detached sentences 
 from the quotations in the Tract, than on the 
 general tendency of the teaching of the Homilies''. 
 Still I cannot agree in his criticisms on the parti- 
 cular passages he does criticize. Let us first take 
 
 '' There is one exception in p. If), to which I shall presently 
 allude
 
 12 
 
 his extract from the quotation in the Tract on the 
 subject ol' purgatory. 
 
 ' Where is, then, the third place which they call pur- 
 gatory ? or, where shall our prayers help and profit the 
 dead ? S, Augustin doth only acknowledge two places 
 after this life, heaven and hell. As for the third place, 
 he doth plainly deny that there is any such in all 
 Scripture.' p. 8. 
 
 Now even taking this sentence by itself, surely 
 it is rather straining it to imply that the writer 
 disbelieved any intermediate state in which the 
 souls of the just should remain between death 
 and the day of judgtnent. Yet if it do not mean 
 this, it can mean nothing to Mr. Wilson's purpose ; 
 for if the wording of it will admit the belief of any 
 intermediate state for those who die in God's faith 
 and fear, it will admit the belief of a state of 
 gradual purification, whether with pain or without: 
 and if it be supposed to deny any intermediate state 
 whatever, we must impute to the homilist not only 
 a strange ignorance of what is so commonly con- 
 nected with St. Augustine's name, viz. his advocacy 
 of a doctrine very much resembling the received 
 Roman doctrine of purgatory, but also we must 
 suppose that his own belief was (for I can think of 
 no other alternative) that the soul is in a state of 
 insensibility, from the time of its leaving the mortal 
 body until the Great Day: a belief far from being 
 common surely in our Church from that day to
 
 13 
 
 this, and formally condemned in the Articles put 
 forth in the time of Edward the Sixth'. But 
 whatever comes of the criticism on this sentence 
 by itself, take the whole passage together, and 
 the account given of it by the Tract will I really 
 think commend itself to most minds as a very fair 
 account- We need not of course suppose, that the 
 homilist kept distinctly before his mind from first to 
 last any definite doctrinal view : see p. 11. But the 
 very words which follow, ' Chrysostom likewise is of 
 this mind, that unless we wash away our sins in this 
 present world, we shall find no comfort afterward : 
 and St. Cyprian saith, &^c.' shew what the writer 
 had in his mind in the sentence before us. Here 
 then shall follow the quotation from the Homily as 
 made in the Tract, and the Tract's comment upon 
 it : the summing up in the second edition of the 
 Tract, as to the doctrine concerning purgatory 
 which it is supposed the Articles condemn, has 
 been already introduced. 
 
 " Now doth St. Augustine say, that those men which are cast 
 into prison after this life, on that condition, may in no wise be 
 holpen, though we would help them never so much. And why? 
 Because the sentence of God is uncharigcable, and cannot be re- 
 voked again. Therefore let us not deceive ourselves, thinking 
 that either we may help others, or others may help us, by their 
 good and charitable prayers in time to come. For, as the 
 preacher saith, ' When the tree falleth, whether it be toward the 
 south, or toward the north, in what place soever the tree falleth, 
 
 <^ ' Qui'animas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii 
 absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corpo- 
 ribus mori . . . . ab orthodoxa fide .... prorsus dissentiunt.'
 
 14 
 
 there it lieth :' meaning thereby, that every mortal man dieth 
 either in the state of salvation or damnation, according as the 
 words of the Evangelist John do plainly import, saying, ' He 
 that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; but he that 
 believeth not on the Son, shall never see life, but the wrath of 
 God abideth upon him,' — where is then the third place, which 
 they call purgatory? Or where shall our prayers help and 
 profit the dead? St. Augustine doth only acknowledge two 
 places after this life, heaven and hell. As for the third place, 
 he doth plainly deny that there is any such to be found in all 
 Scripture. Chrysostom likewise is of this mind, that, unless we 
 wash away our sins in this present world, we shall find no comfort 
 afterward. And St. Cyprian saith, that, after death, repentance 
 and sorrow of pain shall be without fruit, weeping also shall be 
 in vain, and prayer shall be to no purpose. Therefore he coun- 
 selleth all men to make provision for themselves while they may, 
 because, when they are once departed out of this life, there is no 
 place for repentance, nor yet for satisfaction." — Homily concern- 
 ing Prayer, pp. 282, 283. 
 
 " Now it would seem, from this passage, that the 
 Purgatory contemplated by the Homily, was one for which 
 no one will for an instant pretend to adduce even those 
 Fathers who most favour Rome, viz. one in which our 
 state would be changed, in wliich God's sentence could be 
 reversed. ' The sentence of God,' says the writer, ' is un- 
 changenhlBf and cannot be revoked again ; there is no place 
 for repentance*.' " 
 
 On the subject of pardons, the introduction 
 made in the 2d edition of the Tract as quoted 
 (p. 6.) will perhaps be a sufficient explanation of 
 the author's meaning. 
 
 On the subject of * worshipping and adoration as 
 
 •" See Appendix.
 
 15 
 
 well of images as of relics,' Mr. Wilson com- 
 plains of the Tract as doing the same thing 1 had 
 just now occasion to complain of him for doing, 
 taking a passage apart from its context, and so 
 laying undue stress upon it. But it will still 
 perhaps appear to many people, that the additional 
 passages quoted by Mr. Wilson do not really alter 
 the state of the case. To do justice to both sides, 
 it will be necessary to make rather a long extract 
 from Mr. Wilson's Letter, (p. 14, 15.) 
 
 " Here 1 wish to draw your attention to the passage 
 referred to, with the quotations from the Homilies. 
 
 Tract, p. 23. " And a verification of such an under- 
 standing of the Article is afforded us in some sentences in 
 the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far as 
 regards relics, a certain ' veneration' is sanctioned by its 
 tone in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish 
 veneration. 
 
 " The sentences referred to run as follows : — 
 
 " In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book, 
 and Forty-eighth Chapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being 
 yet alive, did work miracles : and that after his death, devils, 
 being expelled at his grave or tomb, did roar." Thus you see what 
 authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that 
 most ancient history give unto the holy and learned Bishop 
 Epiphanius." 
 
 " Here the quotation in the Tract ends, but the Homily 
 goes on. 
 
 " Thus you see what authority St. Jerome, and that most 
 ancient history, give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epipha- 
 nius, whose judgment of images in churches and temples, then 
 beginning by stealth to creep in, is worthy to be noted."
 
 16 
 
 *' His judgment having been shewn in 
 
 " That when he entered into a certain church to pray, 
 he found there a linen cloth hanging on the church door 
 painted, and having in it the image of Christ as it were, or 
 of some other saint; therefore when I did see the image of 
 a man hanging in the Church of Christ, contrary to the 
 authority of the Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel 
 to the keepers of the church that they should wind a poor 
 man that was dead in the said cloth, and so bury him/' 
 Hom. ib. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 *' St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the 
 Emperor, saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it, 
 Slie worshipped the King, and not the wood, surely (for that is 
 an heathenish error and the vanity of the wicked) but she wor- 
 shipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name was 
 written on the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's 
 fact, and St. Ambrose's judgment at once; they thought it had 
 been an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have wor- 
 shipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our Saviour 
 Christ's own precious blood." — Peril of Idolatry, part 2, circ. 
 init. 
 
 " In these passages the writer does not positively com- 
 mit himself to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the 
 invention of the true Cross, but he evidently wishes the 
 hearer to think he believes in both. This he would not 
 do, if he thought all honour paid to relics wrong.'' — 
 Tr. p. 24. 
 
 But if the latter passage is finished to the end of its 
 paragraph, it stands thus: — 
 
 " They thought it had been an heathenish error to have 
 worshipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our 
 Saviour Christ's own precious blood. And we fall down before 
 every cross piece of timber, which is but an image of that cross." 
 — Hom.
 
 17 
 
 " This is but an argument a fortiori^ by no means 
 shewing that the writer wished the hearer to think he 
 behevcs in the invention of the true Cross, but — if they 
 who thought they had found it would not worship even 
 that, much less, &c. Neither does the Homilist at all 
 concern himself as to his hearers believing in the miracle at 
 Epiphanius's tomb. The miracles (he says) were believed 
 of old, which shows in what great estimation he was held. 
 And if he of so great estimation tore a cloth painted with 
 an image &c. neitiier of the passages bear upon the 
 question of relics, much less convey any judgment of the 
 Homilist. 
 
 " This is a very small matter in itself, that in extracting 
 a quotation, a hne or two of the succeeding context should 
 have escaped the eye; but in this case these few lines 
 would give a totally different character to the passages 
 taken, and to the thread of the argument of the writer. 
 The inference from these citations was very material ; an 
 inference which depends solely on the places, and which I 
 do not believe could be derived from any other extracts 
 from the Homilies, unless equally incomplete." 
 
 But ' the thread of the argument of the writer' in 
 these passages is surely of no importance. Who 
 denies that it is an a fortiori argument ? The plain 
 question is, would he have expressed himself in the 
 course of it as he did in the two passages quoted 
 by the Tract, had he considered all veneration of 
 relics forbidden by the Church of England, ' as a 
 fond thing .... rather repugnant to the word of 
 God?' Few surely will think so. As to the first 
 quotation, what veneration of relics can the Tract 
 be supposed to advocate as lawful, beyond that
 
 18 
 
 implied in a belief that relics may work miracles : 
 ' that most ancient history' professes such belief, 
 and, as all must feel, is not spoken of in a tone 
 which w^ould be adopted in speaking of a venera- 
 tion forbidden by the Church of England. As 
 to the second quotation, not to lay stress on the 
 miracle by which tradition reports the discovery 
 of the true cross to have been made, (which would 
 make the case stronger,) at all events, to feel 
 an interest in such discovery shews a certain 
 ' veneration of relics.' Nay what force in saying 
 they did not worship the true Cross unless they 
 paid it some veneration. Are St. Ambrose then and 
 the ' godly empress' spoken of as if entertaining 
 a feeling condemned by our Articles ? rather as 
 the continuation cited by Mr. Wilson makes still 
 more clear, they are spoken of as authorities to be 
 deferred to. Consider too the very tone of the 
 passage, ' the cross which was embrued with our 
 Saviour Christ's own precious blood.' 
 
 Mr. Wilson's next quotation from the Homilies 
 is the following, (p. 17.) cited by him to 
 shew ' that the homilist would deem even the 
 ' having of images if not Popish, unlawful:' but 
 of course the enquiry is, what light do the 
 Homilies throw on the phrase in the Articles 
 ' doctrina Romanensium ?' and therefore the only 
 pertinent question is, what veneration of images 
 they consider ' Popish ?' But indeed the passage 
 shews plainly, that what the writer considers doc-
 
 19 
 
 trinally forbidden '\?> idolatry, and gives as his opinion 
 that to have images in churches is (not in itself 
 wrong, but) most dangerous for the peril of 
 idolatry. 
 
 ' Wherefore the Images of God, our Saviour Christ, the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, Martyrs, and others of 
 notable holiness, are, of all other images, most dangerous 
 for the peril of idolatry, and therefore greatest heed to be 
 taken that none of them be suffered to stand in Churches 
 and Temples." — Peril Idol. 3rd part. 
 
 In the last passage Mr. Wilson has quoted, 
 he has pointed out that Mr. Newman's tran- 
 scriber or printer has made a mistake ; but the 
 introduction of the words omitted only makes the 
 summing up in the Tract more closely accurate. 
 The passage in the Homily, which had been ac- 
 cidentally mutilated in the Tract, when read in full 
 is this : ' Is not this stooping and kneeling before 
 
 * them, adoration of them, which is forbidden so 
 
 * earnestly by God's word?' And the summing up in 
 the Tract is as follows ; ' Now the veneration and 
 ' worship condemned in these and other passages 
 ' are such as these, kneeling before them, Sfc' p. 36. 
 ' Kneeling before them' is mentioned in the Tract as 
 being part of that adoration of them condemned by 
 the Article. 
 
 It should be added in fairness, that there 
 remains a passage quoted by Mr. Wilson in p. 14, 
 against which nothing has been said : let it have 
 its weight : it seems certainly to speak of having 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 images as ' contrary to the authority of the 
 Scriptures.' But let me also cite a passage from 
 the Homilies quoted by Mr. Wilson in a different 
 connexion, but drawing the same distinction we 
 have seen before between ' having' them and 
 ' worshipping' them. p. 30. 
 
 * And thus you see how, from having of images privately, 
 it came to public setting of them up in churches and 
 temples, although without harm at the Hr>;, as was then 
 of some Avise and learned men jii ged : and from simply 
 having them there, it came at the last to worshipping of 
 them.' 
 
 On the whole then, does not the case seem 
 made out by the ' four close pages from the 
 Homilies' quoted by the Tract, that the main 
 tendency of their teaching is a vehement protest 
 against the corruptions they saw around them, 
 not the assertion of any one systematic view in 
 opposition ? Nay, let it be asked, who is there 
 among us all in any degree religiously-minded, who 
 having in his possession a piece of sculpture on a 
 religious subject, would treat it as though it were a 
 common ornament? and if not, what does he 
 shew but a certain ' veneration of images,' * though 
 ' of course not the Romish ?' 
 
 The last subject under the twenty-second Article 
 is the Invocation of Saints. And in this too the 
 quotations from the Homilies introduced in the 
 Tract do seem to shew, that the writers had not in 
 view the task of assigning the exact limits within
 
 which the realizing of our Communion with 
 departed Saints may be lawful to the spiritually- 
 minded Christian, but, as before, that of bearing 
 witness against the practical corruptions they found 
 actually in existence ■'. As to the three first quota- 
 tions, any reader must surely grant this ; and as to 
 the fourth from which Mr. Wilson has introduced an 
 extract, (p. 20.) an attentive perusal of the whole 
 will, I think, lead to the conclusion expressed in 
 the Tract : that the idea in the mind of the writer 
 as to what he was attacking, was what he saw in 
 men's practice on all sides of him : a habit of 
 addressing Saints in such a manner as to make 
 them at the time the ultimate object of thought. The 
 passages put in italics in the Tract would seem 
 to my mind to put this beyond fair doubt. Of 
 course it is not necessary to maintain that the 
 Catholic Christian will readily go along with the line 
 of argument adopted in the Homily ; the mere 
 question is, what was the religious practice against 
 which he was writing as corrupt and ' Romish ?' 
 Mr. Wilson has introduced another quotation from 
 the Homilies which shall here be inserted, (the 
 italics are not Mr. Wilson's :) p. 21. 
 
 * For it is evident, that our image-maintainers have the 
 same opinion of saints which the Gentiles had of their 
 false gods, and thereby are moved to make them images, 
 as the Gentiles did. If answer he made, that they make 
 saints but intercessors to God, and means for such things 
 as they would obtain of God ; that is, even after the 
 « See also p. 30.
 
 2i> 
 
 Gentiles' idolatrous usage, to make Ihem of saints, gods, 
 called Dii Medioximi, to be mean intercessors and 
 helpers to God, as though he did not hear, or should be 
 weary if he did all alone. So did the Gentiles teach, 
 that there was one chief power working by other, as 
 means; and so they made all gods subject to fate or 
 destiny ; as Lucian in his Dialogues feigneth, that 
 Neptune made suit to Mercury, that he might speak 
 with Jupiter. And therefore in this also, it is most 
 evident, that our image-maintainers be all one in opinion 
 with the Gentile idolaters.' Against Peril of Idolatry, ^axi 3. 
 
 Now does the drift of this passage seem fairly 
 applicable to the case of any holy and self-denying 
 man whose thoughts are in Heaven, ever resting 
 upon God his Supreme Good, and who may feel him- 
 self drawn to the practice of asking the prayers of 
 departed Saints to that God, as he does the prayers of 
 his living brethren ? does the idea of such a person 
 seem to have been for a moment present to the mind 
 of the writer? On the other hand, to one kind 
 of error (which certainly exists, perhaps to a very 
 great extent, as matter of opinion in the Roman 
 Church at the present day, and most probably at 
 that day also,) it is remarkably applicable : viz. 
 such as the opinion that the Blessed Virgin is 
 appointed by our Lord the sole necessary channel 
 through which His grace shall flow" to His Church, 
 so that in fact addresses to her are more immediate 
 applications for a supply of grace than to our Lord 
 Flimself: and opinions which are far from going to 
 
 •^ The following passages, taken from Archbishop Ussher's 
 answers to a .Jesuit, have been shewn me since the above was
 
 23 
 
 this shocking extent, but which tend in the same 
 direction, may well be aimed at in this passage ; as 
 
 written ; and they will serve both to make my meaning clearer, 
 and also to shew the existence at that period (S. Bernardinus 
 lived in the 15th century) of writings which would be altogether 
 adequate objects for the strictures in this passage of the 
 Homily. The quotations are given on the authority of the 
 Cambridge edition of Ussher, 1 835. 
 
 A tempore enim quo Virgo mater concipit in utero Vei'bum 
 Deij quandam, ut sic dicam, jurisdictionem seu auctoritatem in 
 omni Spiritus sancti processione temporali, ita quod nulla 
 creatura aliquam a Deo obtinuit gratiam vel virtutem, nisi 
 secundum ipsius piae matris dispensationem. Bernardin. 
 Senens. Serm. Ixi. Artie, i. cap. 8. 
 
 Et quia talis est mater Filii Dei qui producit Spiritum 
 sanctum, ideo omnia dona virtutis et gratiae ipsius Spiritus 
 sancti, quibus vult, quando vult, quomodo vult, et quantum 
 vult, per raanus ipsius administrantur. Id. ibid. 
 
 Nulla gratia de coelo nisi ea dispensante ad nos descendit. 
 Hoc enim singulariter officium divinitus ab aeterno adepta est, 
 sicut Proverb, viii. ipsa testatur, dicens, Ab aeterno ordinata 
 sum; scilicet dispensatrix caelestium gratiarum. Id. ibid. Artie, 
 iii. cap. 3. 
 
 In Christo fuit plenitudo gratiae sicut, in capite influente, in 
 Maria vero, sicut in collo transfundente. Unde Cantic. vii. de 
 Virgine ad Christum Saloinon ait, Coll urn tuum sicut turris 
 eburnea. Nam sicut per collum vitales spiritus a capite 
 descendunt in corpus, sic per Virginera a capite Christo vitales 
 gratiae in ejus corpus mysticum transfunduntur. Id. ibid. 
 Artie, i. cap. 8. Artie, ii. et cap. 10. ex Pseudo-Hieronymi 
 Sermone de Assumpt. Mariae. Sicut enim a capite, mediante 
 collo, descendunt omnia nutrimenta corporis, sic a Christo per 
 beatam Virginem in nos veniunt omnia bona et beneficia quae 
 Deus nobis confert. Nam ipsa est dispensatrix gratiarum et 
 beneficiorum Dei. Joan. Herolt. in Sermon. Discipuli de
 
 24 
 
 certainly no one will doubt that to whatever extent 
 they did exist, to whatever extent Saints were 
 allowed to obscure in the nnind the vision of the 
 one God, such opinions would be part of the 
 ' doctrina Romanensium' condeained by the 
 Article. 
 
 On the subject of the thirty-first Article, I hardly 
 know what to say. If Mr. Wilson considers that 
 the doctrine is condemned in it of the Eucharist 
 
 Tempore, Serm. clxiii. Per colliim Virginis apud Deum 
 gratia et intercessio intelligitur, ita ut ejus intercessio sit 
 veluti collum, per quod a Deo omnes gratiae praesidiaque 
 in homines transfunduntur. Bias. Viegas in Apocalyps. 
 cap. xii. Comment, ii. sect. 10. num. 1. Collum enim dicitur, 
 quia per Virginem universa in nos a Deo, tanquam a capite, 
 beneficia derivantur. Id. ibid. num. 2. 
 
 Quasi sublato Virginis patrocinio, perinde atque halitu 
 intercluso, peccator vivere diutius non possit. Viegas, ibid, 
 sect. ii. num. 6. 
 
 Tot creaturae serviunt gloriosse Virgini Mariae, quot serviunt 
 Trinitati. Oranes nempe ceaturae, quemcunque gradum 
 teneant in creatis, sive spirituales ut angeli, sive rationales ut 
 homines, sive corporales ut co; pora ccelestia vel elementa, et 
 omnia quae sunt in ccelo et in terra, sive damnati sive beati, 
 quae omnia sunt divino imperio subjugata, gloriosae Virgini 
 sunt subjec:a. llle enim qui Dei FjHus est et Virginis 
 benedictae, volens, ut sic dic;:m, paterno principatui quodam- 
 modo principatum aequiparare maternum, ipse qu Deus erat 
 matri famulabatur in terra. Unde Lucae ii. scriptum est de 
 Virgine et glorioso Joseph, Erat subditus illis. Pra;terea haec 
 est vera, Divino imperio omnia famulantur et Virgo ; et iterum 
 haec est vera, Imperio Virginis omnia famulantur et Deus. 
 Id. ibid. cap. 6.
 
 25 
 
 being an offering tor the quick and dead, lie must 
 condemn some ot our most respected Divines almost 
 from that day to this. But the whole scope of the 
 Article, as is plai i from "both its title and wording, 
 is to vindicate thj soleness and all-sufficiency of 
 the One Sacritice. 
 
 Of the one Oblation of Christ Jinished upon the Cross. 
 
 " The Offerinor of Christ once made is that perfect 
 redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins 
 of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is 
 none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore 
 the 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, were blasphemous 
 fables, and dangerous deceits." 
 
 The ' sacrifices of masses' are only introduced as 
 bearing upon this point : they saw that practically 
 ' masses as observed in the Church of Rome 
 • actually impaired or obscured the doctrine of the 
 ' one Atonement ;' (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27.) and 
 condemned them as so doing'': they considered 
 most justly any thing which did so as a ' blas- 
 ' phemous fable,' and we find from the Homilies as 
 well as other sources that the particular observances 
 which had this effect, were also so full of other 
 shameful abuses, as to deserve the name of ' per- 
 niciosse impostur?e' as well. With regard to Mr. 
 Wilson's quotation from Bishop Jewel, it is only 
 necessary to remark that no one has niaintained 
 
 ** See page 30.
 
 26 
 
 that belief in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is required 
 of those who subscribe our formularies ; and that 
 Bishop Jewel's writings have never been recognized 
 by our Church as of authority. 
 
 I trust I have now succeeded in vindicating the 
 Tract's interpretation of the twenty-second and 
 thirty-first Articles from the difficulties which have 
 prevented Mr. Wilson from receiving it. As ray 
 object in writing is to support the Tract, not to 
 engage in controversy with him, no further remarks 
 on his Letter seem necessary : but I am naturally 
 led on to consider what seems certainly to me a 
 more difficult question than those which Mr. 
 Wilson has raised, and which has been alluded 
 to in a very unassuming and pleasing spirit, by 
 ' one who owes much to the Tracts for the Times:' 
 I mean the Article on General Councils. I fear 
 that what may be said on it may possibly displease 
 some whom it is most painful to displease ; I mean 
 that most highly respected class of our living 
 divines, who consider the spirit in which the English 
 Reformation was carried on by its human agents not 
 to have been on the whole uncatholic. Such persons 
 do not feel the difficulty which some others may 
 feel: they would join issue with those who claim 
 the Articles as ruling matters on the Protestant 
 side, by denying that any powerful party at the 
 time could have wished so to rule them : to them it 
 will have never occurred to doubt, 1 quote the words 
 used in a private letter by one deeply venerated
 
 27 
 
 person, ' that General Councils were never meant to 
 include (Ecumenical.' Some will probably carry this 
 principle still further, and consider our Articles 
 to exclude the adherents of Protestantism, (or as 
 they would rather call it ultra Protestantism,) such 
 as we find them at the present day. 
 
 But still as several persons remain who, with all 
 their anxiety to follow such revered authorities, can- 
 not bring themselves to acquiesce in this view of the 
 case, and as their feelings have met with sanction not 
 less high than that of the editors of Mr. Froude's 
 Remains, (see preface to the 2d part of that work,) 
 it seems no wanton outrage on feelings which must 
 ever command our highest respect, but direct 
 necessity which compels them in self-defence to 
 express their view of our formularies, and of the 
 ground on which such as they consider they may 
 honestly subscribe them. They cannot deny, that to 
 them there appears an obvious leaning to Protestant- 
 ism in the wording of some few of the Articles ; the 
 point on which they join issue being, whether this 
 leaning has actually been allowed to have its full 
 effect. Two alternatives are open to them : either 
 we may consider, that those who drew up the 
 Articles had before their minds all through their 
 task the thought of an opposite party in the Church 
 whom they must not offend, and whose views if 
 they actually contradicted in the Articles, the sanc- 
 tion of Convocation (the sole Church authority of 
 the time) was not to be expected, (Tract, p. 82.
 
 28 
 
 second edition): or it remains that God's merciful 
 providence watched over this branch of His Church, 
 (favoured as she has ever been far beyond our 
 deserts, and all the dearer to us her faithful children 
 from her present captivity, and from the imminent 
 dangers which have threatened her,) so watched over 
 her, I say, amidst all the excesses of that period, as 
 without the intervention of human agency to protect 
 her from herself, and graciously save her from any 
 formal admission of the unhappy errors then preva- 
 lent. But I think that without falling back on the 
 latter of these suppositions, there is abundant 
 internal evidence in our formularies themselves 
 (without going to the historical question which 
 well deserves an attentive investigation) to convince 
 us of the former. If persons will not reject this 
 notion at once as forced and sophistical, but allow 
 themselves to carry it with them as they look at 
 the Articles, I am persuaded they will see more 
 and more probability of its truth ; they will see in 
 the Articles in dispute (which at last are but few) a 
 remarkable attempt on the part of the framers to 
 present an imposing external appearance of Protest- 
 antism, while nothing is really decided which might 
 prevent those who deferred more really than they 
 did to primitive authority from subscribing. This 
 of course is the meaning of tlie last paragraph in 
 the Tract, and it well deserves our careful attention. 
 For instance (see Tract, p. 44.) the passage in 
 the 28th Article, ' The Sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
 
 29 
 
 * per was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried 
 ' about, lifted up, or worshipped;' in the 25th, ' the 
 ' Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed 
 ' upon or to be carried about ;' and in the 32d, 
 ' Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by 
 
 * God's law, either to vow the estate of single life 
 ' or to abstain from marriage;' would bear an appear- 
 ance to Foreign Protestants of a spirited protest 
 against what they considered corruptions, (part of 
 them of course really were so); but when those at 
 home who were more nearly concerned, as having 
 to sign them, came to look more closely, they would 
 find nothing asserted beyond the very plain truth, 
 that such ordinances were not ordained by Christ, 
 and so might lawfully (even the question of expedi- 
 ency being waived) be discontinued by the Church. 
 And so again the 14th Article, w^hile it bears on 
 its surface the mark of a loud protest against Rome, 
 as actually worded is barely more than a truism: 
 the question of course being, not whether we can 
 do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required^ 
 which no orthodox believer ever dreamt of holding, 
 (God forbid !) but whether it is possible for His sake 
 to do more, to make higher advances in holiness, 
 than the least which in His great mercy for the 
 merit of Christ's death, He will accept as sufficient 
 to salvation. And to deny this, seems necessarily 
 either to deny that holiness as such is required for 
 salvation, (I mean independently of that degree of 
 holiness which will in the judgment of some neces-
 
 30 
 
 sarily result from the news of forgiveness, appre- 
 hended by faith,) or to assert that the least faUing 
 short of holiness, attainable by us through the in- 
 dwelling of the Holy Spirit, will entail on us eternal 
 ruin. Now on all these Articles if persons of different 
 sentiments protested, they might be triumphantly 
 challenged to point out the statement to which 
 they objected : they could find none, any more 
 than we can at the present day. Indeed it is 
 worth the consideration of any person studying 
 the Homilies, especially as illustrating part of the 
 Articles, whether there is not in a large number 
 of passages a remarkable union of truth in point of 
 doctrine, and error in point of fact, (of course on such 
 points they have no claim upon us) ; truth of doctrine 
 in declaring certain opinions condemnable, error in 
 fact in considering them held by the more religious 
 Roman Catholics''. Great part of what appears to 
 have struck some persons as disingenuousness in 
 
 ' Even as to the Articles there is nothing to interfere with 
 the supposition (not an impossible one) that both in the 14th 
 and 31st the framers were mistaken as to the matter of fact, 
 what was the doctrine held by serious Roman Catholics. Such 
 a mistake would seem a natural result, from their apparent 
 tendency to view religious opinions fi-om tvilhoul, rather look- 
 ing at them in their effects on the mass of men, than applying 
 themselves to the enquiry, what might be their meaning, and 
 what place they might legitimately hold in the mind of the 
 more religious. Of course mistakes of this sort no more pre- 
 vent subscription, than their ascribing the Athanasian Creed to 
 St. Athanasius, or a passage to St. Augustine in the 29th Article, 
 which Porson pronounces spurious.
 
 31 
 
 portions of the Tract, is I am persuaded referable to 
 this cause. 
 
 Accordingly, to come nearer our present more 
 immediate purpose, notwithstanding the strong pro- 
 tests made in favour of Holy Scripture in the sixtli and 
 twentieth Articles, as well as the one before us, a very 
 remarkable silence is maintained on the question, who 
 is to be judge of the scripturalness of a doctrine alleged 
 as necessary: a silence which there seems absolutely 
 no way of accounting for, except some such desire 
 of comprehension as I have spoken of. Another 
 thing very much to be observed, and perfectly in- 
 explicable on the hypothesis of Protestant principles 
 having had their full freedom in the reconstruction 
 of our formularies, is, that the necessity of proof 
 from Scripture is every where confined to truths 
 necessarij to salvation : this is so not only in the 
 sixth, twentieth, and twenty-first Articles, but also 
 in the Ordination Service ; so that it cannot 
 possibly be the result of accident. 
 
 The Bishop. ' Are you persuaded that the Holy 
 ' Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrines required 
 ' of necessity for eternal salvation .... and are you 
 ' determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct 
 ' the people committed to your charge, and to 
 
 * teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal 
 ' salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded 
 ' may be concluded and proved by the Scrip- 
 
 * ture?' It is needless to point out how very 
 unlike such a form as this is to what would 
 be the free and unrestrained expression of
 
 32 
 
 persons, who held either that the individual 
 or that the local Church had no authority to 
 guide them on doctrinal points, except the letter 
 of Scripture. The qualification as to truths ' ne- 
 ' cessary to salvation' would have actually no 
 meaning in the mouths of such persons. On the 
 other hand, the result has been that the later 
 English Church, as distinguished from other 
 Churches, has borne a most remarkable witness to 
 the truth which appears to have been altogether 
 Catholic, that all points of necessary faith are con- 
 tained (whether on the surface or latently) in 
 Scripture, and that it is the duty of the Church to 
 draw them from thence for the edification of her 
 children : not merely to say to them, ' believe this 
 ' for the Church believes it,' but ' believe this, for the 
 ' Church has ever seen it in these certain passages of 
 ' Scripture; dwell on them carefully and reverently 
 ' yourselves, that you may go on more and more to 
 ' see it there too.' 
 
 For the proof of the Catholicity of this doc- 
 trine the reader is referred to the thirteenth 
 of Mr. Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical 
 Office of the Church : and it is one which it seems 
 to have been the peculiar office of the English 
 Church to preserve in these later ages. To say so, 
 it may be hoped, involves no uncharitableness to 
 other Churches ; it is consistent with a full and 
 grateful acknowledgment, that on other Catholic 
 truths they have borne a more explicit testimony 
 than we have, nor is it meant to imply that they
 
 33 
 
 have formally denied this, (of course we are speak- 
 ing of the formal statements of each Church, not 
 of the practical corruptions in either) : but has there 
 not been a tendency in the later Roman Church, 
 arising naturally from the absence of a full and 
 prominent statement on her part of this truth, to 
 teach saving truth more exclusively on her own 
 authority than the example of the early Church 
 would warrant, and so to be remiss in the duty of 
 encouraging in the laity the reverent study of the 
 Sacred Volume ? and may we not by the way 
 allude to this as one out of the numberless marks 
 we have on us of being a living branch of Christ's 
 Church, that the Roman Church and ours together'' 
 make up so far more an adequate representation 
 of the early Church, (our several defects and 
 practical corruptions as it were protesting against 
 each other,) than either separately^'? 
 
 Having then so far cleared our way, let us 
 enter upon the consideration of the twenty-first 
 Article ; and see whether any thing more Pro- 
 
 ' The Greek Church is not mentioned, because its practice 
 on such matters is understood to be much the same with the 
 Roman. 
 
 ' It is much to be wished that Roman Catholic writers 
 would remember that it is not incumbent on any member of 
 our Church to maintain our superiority to them either in 
 formal statement or in practice. We do not deny their Com- 
 munion to be part of the Universal Church, though they deny 
 ours to be so. 
 
 C
 
 34 
 
 testant has really been introduced into it than 
 this characteristic, and most honourable feature 
 of the English Church ? I suppose most people on 
 reading it first are struck with this impression, that 
 it is contrasting the authority of General Councils 
 with that of Scripture ; and saying that the former 
 being composed of fallible men, are themselves 
 fallible; and therefore claim at our hands, or else at 
 the hands of the local Church, no deference beyond 
 the point to which w^e can see that Scripture bears 
 out their decrees ; nor is it necessary to deny either 
 that this would be the private opinion of the 
 framers, or that they wished it should at first sight 
 convey this impression. 
 
 ' General Councils may not be gathered together without 
 the commandment and will of princes. And when they be 
 gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men 
 whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of 
 God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in 
 things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained 
 by them have neither strength nor authority, unless it may 
 be declared (nisi ostendi possint) that they be taken out 
 of holy Scripture.' 
 
 Perhaps most readers will agree, that this cer- 
 tainly at first sight seems to run very smoothly 
 according to the purport I have mentioned ; but 
 1 have omitted a few words, which when introduced 
 spoil the natural course of the argument altogether; 
 nay it is not too much to say make it impossible
 
 35 
 
 to construct the argument out of the Article as it 
 really stands. 
 
 * Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have 
 neither strength nor authority, &:c.' 
 
 Now as these words are just the introduction of 
 what has been mentioned as the characteristic 
 excellence of the later English Church, so on the 
 other hand have they not every appearance of 
 being introduced in consideration of the wishes 
 of men more Catholicly minded than the framers ? 
 That they found their way there accidentally, no 
 one will for an instant think, who observes the 
 very same clause in the sixth and twentieth Articles, 
 and also in the Ordination Service. Yet on what 
 Protestant principle, on what principle denying 
 authority on reliyious doctrines to all General 
 Councils, have they any meaning whatever ? No 
 one will maintain that all religious truths are 
 necessary to salvation; why then on those not neces- 
 sary have General Councils authority independ- 
 ently of Scripture, according to the words of the 
 Article, and not on others ? No ! I feel persuaded 
 that fair minded men will see in this Article the 
 result of a compromise with the opposite party, 
 and an intentional abstinence from determining the 
 question whether some General Councils have given 
 them authority by Cnrist to determine religious doc- 
 trine with infallible truth ; ruling at the same time 
 so much as this, that any General Council which 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 determined that to be a point of necessary faith 
 which should not be contained and able to be pointed 
 out (ostendi possint) in Holy Scripture, would err 
 in so doing, and therefore would not be so far 
 such infallible Council. And if it be asked, what 
 remains in that case as the force of the Article at 
 all? an obvious answer is found in the very general 
 opinion, that the Roman Church had considered 
 those to be CEcumenical Councils which were not 
 so ; and with regard to which one mark of their 
 not being so was, that they seemed to rule as points 
 necessary to salvation, what they did not even 
 profess to see in Scripture ; while on the other hand 
 practically doctrines which the Reformers desired to 
 oppose were grounded (with or without reason) on 
 the decrees of such General Councils : against which 
 they declare ' General Councils may err and have 
 erred, &c.' For the importance of this test of the 
 Catholicity of a General Council, see Newman's 
 Prophetical office of the Church, Lect. viii. where he 
 brings out the fact, that the first General Council 
 ' which professed to ground its decrees not on 
 ' Scripture sanction but mainly on tradition,' was 
 ' the first which framed as an Article of faith what 
 ' was beside and beyond the Apostles' Creed,' was 
 * the Council which decreed the worship of images,' 
 and was the first which took place certainly after 
 the schism had taken place between the East and 
 West. 
 
 It will perhaps be hardly cogent in arguing
 
 37 
 
 on this subject to bring forward the names 
 of our divines who have held the infalhbihty of 
 some General Councils, as they will only be in- 
 cluded in the charge of inconsistency with their 
 subscription : but it will be very cogent to intro- 
 duce the canon of the Convocation of 1571, the 
 very same Convocation which sanctioned our 
 Articles, as shewing that that assembly was little 
 likely to have assented to formularies which 
 taught the Protestant rule of Private Judgment. 
 ' Preachers shall be careful that they never teach 
 ' ought in a sermon to be religiously held and 
 ' believed by the people except that which is 
 ' agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New 
 ' Testament, and which the Catholic Fathers and 
 ' Ancient Bishops have collected from that very 
 ' doctrine.' It may be added, that in the second 
 edition of the Tract the writer has made more 
 clear his method of reconciling the wording of the 
 Article with those opinions which I have just been 
 arguing were intended to be admitted by it, by 
 introducing into the passage which follows the 
 words in brackets, ' General Councils then may 
 ' err [as such — may err] unless in any case it is 
 * promised,' &c. 
 
 Before leaving the subject of this Article, it 
 may be as well to add, that the first clause so 
 congenial in its wording with the prevalent 
 Erastianism of that day, is nevertheless strictly 
 in accordance with priaiitive usage, as the Tract
 
 38 
 
 observes ; and with regard to a difficulty telt 
 by Uie anonymous writer of the few pages to 
 which I have before alluded, it will be seen by an 
 attentive reader, that wdien the Tract speaks of 
 those General Councils which are gathered together 
 in the name of Christ, it plainly does not mean 
 those Councils which profess to be so gathered 
 together, but wdiich are really so ; for as it implies 
 afterwards, it is an important question and not an 
 easy one ' to determine — lohat 'those conditions are 
 ' which fulfil the notion of a gathering in the name 
 ' of Christ.' p. 22. 
 
 The same writer has found a difficulty in the 
 Tract's explanation of the twenty-eighth Article, 
 and considers that the Article ' denies that the 
 ' elements are altered at all.' Controversy is not 
 necessary on the word ' altered,' if he will bear in 
 mind that the following paragraph was added m the 
 XXXIX Articles, not having been in the forty- 
 two, and must therefore be taken as explanatory 
 of the former. ' The Body of Christ is given, taken, 
 ' and eaten, &c.' the inference from which is 
 obvious. Again, this paragraph about transub- 
 stantiation, as urged I think quite successfully in 
 the Tract, is plainly of the same nature with the 
 twenty-second Article, and directed in a general 
 way against the existing superstitions of the time. 
 
 On the thirtieth Article (to which hf)wever I am 
 not aware of o'bjection having been as yet ex- 
 pressed) the Tract has not altogether satisfied me :
 
 39 
 
 ' The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay- 
 people : for both tlie parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by 
 Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be minis- 
 tered to all Christian men alike.' 
 
 This certainly seems to contain a protest against 
 the habit in the Roman Church of denying the cup 
 to the laity, in the indiscriminate and unnecessary 
 manner she has adopted for so many years ; so that 
 if a person considered that point of discipline in 
 her comnaunion a legitimate or justifiable use of 
 that power which the Church of course has, 
 I should have doubts of his being able to sign 
 the Article h. It is very comforting to know, 
 that it is a mere point of discipline which she 
 might revoke at any moment : nor on the other 
 hand does the Article seem to determine the 
 question whether there may not be individual 
 cases in which administration in one kind would be 
 a pious procedure. Persons of infirm health (to 
 whom the wine might be seriously prejudicial) 
 afford one example; the ancient solitaries, to whom 
 the Consecrated Bread was carried out, afford 
 another ; a case where the danger of profanation 
 from the Wine becoming corrupted, had the Cup 
 also been brought them, is obvious'. And indeed 
 
 *' At the same time it is certainly possible to take the first 
 clause of the Article in a sense parallel to Art. XXXII, ' non 
 'est denegandus, as Ihiiigs are in our Church, since (without 
 ' judging others) we prefer ha\ ing it according to Christ's 
 * ordinance and commandment.' 
 
 ' ' As to the other part of the (luestion, — whether the
 
 40 
 
 this latter, recognized as it was in the Church in 
 the ages which the Convocation of 1571 must 
 certainly have contemplated when it speaks of the 
 Ancient Fathers and Bishops, cannot be considered 
 as condemned in the Articles which that Convoca- 
 tion sanctioned. 
 
 Before concluding, it may be as well to add a 
 few words in explanation of such expressions as 
 the following in the Tract ; ' in such a sense Scrip- 
 ' ture is not on Anglican principles a rule of faith,' 
 p. 11. the Article is ' as it were pointing to the 
 ' Catholic Church diffused throughout the world, 
 ' which being but one cannot be mistaken,' &c. 
 p. 18. ' Another of these conditions,' (viz. of a 
 General Council being Catholic) the Article goes on 
 to mention, p. 22. ' Therefore,' as the Article 
 * logically proceeds,' p. 64 ; and so a still stronger 
 expression in Tract 82, (the same Tract from which 
 a large quotation is made u\ Tract 90, p. 66.) * I 
 ' look forward to success not by compelling others 
 ' to take my view of the Articles, but by convinc- 
 ' ing them that mine is the right one.' vol. iv. p. xxxi. 
 
 ' ancients did not in some private or extraordinary cases 
 ' administer the Sacrament in one kind, we have no dispute 
 ' with Bona.' ' Bona himself tells us that there are xome 
 ' instances of the Communion being carried in both kinds to 
 ' hermits and recluses.' ' As to the other instances of the sick, 
 ' or infants, or men in a journey, who communicate only in one 
 ' kind, (if they were never so true, as we see maui/ of them are 
 ' false,) they are private and extraordinai-y cases,' &c. Bingham, 
 book XV. chap. 5.
 
 41 
 
 Many persons seem to consider that such statements 
 imply that persons, who subscribe the Articles in a 
 different sense, do what in point of fact (of course 
 dishonesty is not supposed to be imputed to them) 
 they are not warranted in doing. And such further 
 ways of speech as ' the Church of England teaches^ 
 certain doctrines, or ' toe hold against the Roman 
 * controversialist such a point,' are often considered 
 to imply, that our formularies as we have them 
 really are sufficient, if people would take them 
 fairly, to witness this alleged truth. But these 
 expressions need not be taken to imply so much ; 
 and if they need not be, it is important to state this, 
 not only from the great desirableness that persons 
 of opposite opinions should not consider their con- 
 duct to be spoken against when it is not, (the one 
 great hope of our Church's well doing at the present 
 time and escape from her ' unhappy divisions,' is 
 a loving and temperate consideration of the points 
 at issue with as little as may be of reproach and 
 imputation on either side,) but also from the light 
 it throws on such parts of Mr. Newman's Letter to 
 Dr. Jelf, as the following : ' I should rejoice if the 
 ' members of our Church were all of one mind, but 
 ' they are not ; and till they are, one can hut submit 
 ' to what is at present the will or rather the chas- 
 ' tisement of Providence.' p. 29. 
 
 Such statements then as the preceding do not 
 necessarily (I believe do not in the mind of the 
 writer really) mean more than this : that if our
 
 42 
 
 Church be looked upon as a branch of the Church 
 Catholic, (in our sense of the words,) she must 
 be considered to mean certain doctrines when 
 she uses certain statements. It is not impUed 
 that our formularies rule it that we are a branch 
 of the Church CathoHc in this sense : many 
 persons it is well known consider the English 
 Church to be a Protestant Establishment, dating 
 from the time of Edward VI. : and of these, some 
 lay great stress on our being governed by Bishops ; 
 others consider the form of ' Church Government' 
 to be a matter of very small importance : there is 
 no necessity for denying that either class may sub- 
 scribe our formularies, that is a point for their serious 
 consideration, on which we are not called on to 
 form an opinion''. If they do so, they will receive 
 them in a very different sense from that to which 
 they give utterance in our ears. To us they come 
 as the words of some old and revered friend, whom 
 we have known long and well, and who has long 
 
 f It is much to be wished that persons, wlio, from the apolo- 
 getic air which to them the Tract may ap})ear to wear, are led 
 to consider it a sophistical attempt at explaining away our 
 formal statements of docti'ine, would consider the appearance 
 which would be presented in their own case if (hey placed on 
 paper one qflcr anolher the passages in our fonnidaries (whether 
 Prayer Book or Article?,) wliich give them (lijjicidties, without 
 explicit allusion to the many parts which seem to them to be 
 of an opposite tendency, and then put down in words the 
 explanation of them in Avhich they acquiesce, and by help 
 of which they subscribe.
 
 43 
 
 taught us high and holy lessons ; and if after such 
 long experience we hear from iiim words which at 
 first sound strangely, we interpret them if possible 
 in accordance with his well-known spirit. If they 
 absolutely refuse to be so explained, we recognise 
 with sorrow that we have mistaken his character ; 
 but in proportion to our experience of the precious- 
 ness of his former counsels, in proportion to our 
 perception of the plain traces he still bears upon 
 him of his former self, are we unwilling to believe 
 that any of his expressions may not be so inter- 
 preted. This of course is Mf. Newman's meaning 
 when he speaks of giving the Articles ' the most 
 Catholic sense they will admit.' Tract, p. 80. In a 
 word then, we raise no question about others who 
 interpret our formularies by the spirit of Cranmer 
 and Jewel, why are they found fault with who 
 interpret them by St. Gregory and St. Augustin'V 
 or why are we to be suspected of lukewarmness 
 in affection for our own Church, because, to- 
 gether with far higher feelings of the awfulness 
 of privilege entrusted to it than others have, we 
 
 ' If evei" there were a point not determined by our Church, 
 it is that she takes her date from the Reformation. The very 
 name Protestant is not once vsed in our ivhole Services or Articles. 
 The Prayer Book, no insignificant part of our formularies, 
 dates for the most part from a far earlier period. The temporal 
 rights of our Bishops, of our Chapters, the external framework 
 of our Church, the divisions of our Dioceses, &c. &c. all 
 call us back to St. Angustin rather than to Crannicr.
 
 44 
 
 also add a far longer train of sympathies with 
 her, and give her a far more extensive catalogue 
 of saints ? 
 
 One reason in addition may be mentioned, why 
 to remain in our own Church, and by God's 
 help endeavour to elevate its tone, cannot be 
 looked on by the Catholic Christian as the cold 
 performance of a duty, (though a plain duty of 
 course it is,) but a labour of love. Many persons, 
 who have been by God's grace led into what they 
 deem the Truth, are most deeply sensible, that in the 
 number of those who think otherwise, are still very 
 many persons, so much their superiors in religious 
 attainment, that the idea of even a comparison is 
 most painful. Yet religious truth is the especial 
 inheritance of such persons, who nevertheless, whe- 
 ther by the prepossessions of education, or the 
 inadequate way in which that Truth has been 
 brought before them, have hitherto failed to recog- 
 nise God's mark upon it. Can there be a task 
 more full of interest and hope, than in all possible 
 ways, especially by the careful ordering of our own 
 lives and conversations, to do what in us lies to set 
 before such persons in a manner which may over- 
 come their adverse impressions, that one image of 
 the Catholic Church, which, could they but see it, 
 is the real satisfaction for their restless cravings, 
 and the fit reward for their patient continuance in 
 well doing? yet such a task is exclusively ours as 
 members of the English Church, and may well
 
 -45 
 
 add one to the many associations and bonds of 
 love which binds us to that Holy Mother, through 
 whom we received our new-birth. May we all have 
 grace to labour worthily in the pious task of 
 building her up in truth and purity, with loving 
 tenderness indeed towards all branches of the 
 Catholic Church, but with an especial and dutiful 
 attachment to her. 
 
 W. G. W. 
 
 Balliol College.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 An additional quotation of Mr. Wilson's on purgatory 
 from the Homilies, p. 24. escaped my notice in writing 
 what goes before. In the Homily it immediately follows 
 the quotation in the Tract: a few further extracts from the 
 same passage, while they seem to require some little modi- 
 fication of the argument I had grounded on the previous 
 passage, still on the whole will tend perhaps to shew more 
 clearly the points I have insisted on : first, that the homilist 
 was not writing with a determined and accurate view of his 
 own any way ; and secondly, that the general drift of the 
 passage is to deny a ' place of repentance' for those who 
 die in sin ; though incidentally he takes up several positions 
 the soundness of which we may well doubt. And let it 
 never be forgotten, that the more inconsistency of general 
 view we find in the Homilies, the stronger becomes the 
 argument urged in the foregoing pages : viz. that the 
 Reformers did not occupy themselves with the investigation 
 of principles on these subjects, but with vigorous attacks 
 on the existing corrupt creed of the mass of men '. 
 
 ' Let these and such other places be sufficient to take away 
 the gross error of purgatory out of our heads ; 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, passing out of the body, goeth 
 slraighlways either to Heaveii, or else to Hell, whereof the one 
 needeth no prayer, and the other is without redemption. The 
 
 » See p. 30.
 
 48 
 
 only purgatoi'y wherein we must trust lo be saved is the death 
 
 and blood of Christ, &c This then is that purgatory 
 
 wherein all Christian men put their whole trust and confidence, 
 nothing doubting, but if they truly repent them of their sins, 
 and die in perfect faith, that then they shall forthwith pass 
 from death to life. If this kind of purgatory will not serve 
 them, let them never hope to be released by men's prayers. . . . 
 . . . He that cannol be saved by faith in Christ's Blood, how shall 
 
 he look to be delivered by man's intercessions ? But we 
 
 must take heed that we call upon this Advocate while we have space 
 given us in this life, lest when we are once dead, there be no 
 hope of salvation left unto us. For as every man sleepeth with 
 his own cause, so every man shall rise again with his own 
 cause' [^compare ' goeth straightways either to Heaven or to 
 Heir just before,] ' and look in what state he dieth, in the 
 same state he shall be also judged, whether it be to salvation or 
 damnation. Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or 
 of prayer for the souls of them that be dead,' &c. 
 
 In this short passage then the writer is in a formal 
 contradiction with himself, on a subject not less closely 
 connected with purgatory, than the question whether 
 there is any intermediate state : he first states, and 
 afterwards denies, that the soul goes at once to Heaven 
 or Hell. The former statement being in positive contra- 
 diction to the doctrine of a. Day of Judgment. He waives 
 the question as to those who die in imperfect faith ; he 
 seems to speak of a purgatory, the believers in which so far 
 renounce their trust in Christ's Atonement, &c. &c. At 
 the same time the other words in Italics, especially the 
 final ' therefore,"' seem to shew what is all the time the 
 current of his thoughts, 
 
 THE END. 
 
 IfAXTKU, PniNTKR, OXF')RD.
 
 FEW MORE WORDS 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF No. 90 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 184L 
 
 ^
 
 HAXTEll, PRINTER, OXFORD.
 
 A 
 
 FEW MORE WORDS, 
 
 On most theological subjects, such as those which 
 the " Tracts for the Times" have treated, direct 
 controversy with opponents seems especially unde- 
 sirable. All religious truths are addressed to the 
 conscience rather than the reason ; and the points at 
 issue, to speak generally, are much rather those opi- 
 nions which the consciences of persons on either side 
 propound to them as principles to start from, than 
 the results which by reasoning are derived from 
 those principles. The object of their advocates is 
 to state them in such a manner, as that they may 
 best commend themselves to those who by a strict 
 life and the diligent following after whatever light 
 may seem to them to be from Heaven, are proceed- 
 ing along the path which in God's ordinary dealings 
 is the one appointed access to religious truth. To 
 draw out this principle, and guard against miscon- 
 ceptions, which on either side have clouded or per- 
 verted it,isfar from my present purpose ; that purpose 
 being rather to contrast with such subjects the espe- 
 cial subject which forms the matter of Tract 90. 
 
 A 2
 
 Here, as in our controversy with Roman Ca- 
 tholics, the question is not one of principle 
 but of detail ; it is not what doctrines are from 
 God, but what are ruled by a certain document. 
 Direct and explicit reasoning then has a far more 
 natural place, and may be admitted with far less 
 suspicion, than on most religious controversies: and 
 this may perhaps be received as an excuse in behalf 
 of one who, having already written on this particular 
 controversy, is now about to return to it with the 
 hope of making some points more clear than he was 
 able to do in his former publication. 
 
 An article in the Edinburgh Review for April, 
 and a pamphlet called " the Articles construed by 
 themselves," will afford what may be called the 
 text for the following remarks; which will however 
 extend to some points beyond the range of either 
 of those writings. Indeed, when both parties are 
 really in earnest, and anxious for the truth, and 
 when the subject is one on which, as has been said, 
 more than on most others, direct argument will 
 lead to that truth, it is to be expected that every 
 week will throw light upon the real points at issue ; 
 remarks thrown out in conversation, or in private 
 letters, as well as in print, will be continually tend- 
 ing to make more obvious to the mind the real 
 difficulties which oppose the reception of what 
 we fully believe to be true, and so will not un- 
 naturally augment our hope of being able to 
 remove them. New difficulties too will be brought
 
 forward : the range of subjects embraced in the 
 Tract is very extensive ; some are painfully struck 
 with one part, some with another ; and it is only 
 very gradually that these different impressions tind 
 their way to the knowledge of those who support it. 
 Another reason which may at least be my excuse, 
 if, from over-anxiety, I am mistaken as to the 
 desirableness of coming forward again, is the deep 
 grief which all must feel who reverence the Oxford 
 writers, at the impression apparently produced on 
 some very rehgious minds by their last movement. 
 It is a most bitter thought, that the principal advo- 
 cates of what we are well convinced is God's holy 
 truth, should be really imagined by serious men 
 to advocate a Jesuitical (in the popular sense of 
 that word) and disingenuous principle, by which 
 any thing may mean any thing, and forms may 
 be subscribed at the most solemn period of our life, 
 only to be dishonestly explained away. And it is 
 still more miserable, that men of low worldly habits, 
 on whom it is most important to injiict examples 
 of a course of life steadily pursued on religious 
 motives, should be even confirmed in their un- 
 principled disbelief of real consistent holiness, by 
 fancying themselves to see in men of high preten- 
 sions to sanctity, marks of the same worldly and 
 low spirit, though in a different form, which they 
 indeed own in their own case, but which they 
 know to be condemned by the parties in question 
 as inconsistent, when indulged, with final accept-
 
 ance. To this may be added, what has been said 
 on a former occasion, the novelty to so many 
 individuals of these interpretations ; and the con- 
 sequent certainty that, till full explanation has been 
 given, what is new will seem disingenuous. It 
 does appear, then, that full and free discussion on 
 this particular subject is called for, and if conducted 
 on both sides in a right spirit, must tend eventually 
 to elicit the truth. 
 
 I. 
 
 First, then, let us consider what is the point 
 now at issue. The pamphlet I have alluded to 
 speaks of Mr. Newman's ' alternate rejection and 
 adoption of the opinions of tiie framers of the 
 Articles.' 1 cannot see such inconsistency. The 
 Tract says, p. 82. ' The interpretation they (Anglo- 
 Catholics) take ivas intended to be admissible, 
 though not that which the authors took them- 
 selves,' and from first to last consistently advocates 
 that position. And I apprehend that to be the 
 point now at issue. Was it intended by the very 
 compilers of the Articles not to rule any thing contra- 
 dictory to the views of " Anglo-Catholics?" and few, 
 1 apprehend, will doubt that, if this be acknowledged 
 true, the controversy is at an end. Tf it was not 
 intended by those who framed the Articles that 
 certain opinions should be excluded, and if, as all 
 allow, no subsequent changes have been made in the 
 Articles, there is no prima facie case to force us on
 
 the consideration of difficult and doubtful questions ; 
 what the Articles were not meant to exclude they 
 do not exclude. But, for the sake of those who 
 may not go with him to this extent, Mr. Newman 
 has certainly in the Tract mentioned other con- 
 siderations which may yet lead to his conclusion : 
 and, in order to understand these, we are compelled 
 to enter upon the question, far from an easy one, 
 who is the ' imponens' of the Articles? as the 
 ' animus imponentis' must be our rule in sub- 
 scribing them. Tke question itself too is one of 
 no shght interest, and the true solution of it 
 seems likely to have in many ways important 
 bearings. This subject then 1 shall now proceed 
 to treat, and afterwards return to the original 
 question, on which itself for my own part I believe 
 Mr. Newman's ground to be altogether impregnable. 
 1. The first view which it occurs to mention as 
 to the ' imponens' of the Articles is that which re- 
 gards their framers in this light. This seems to have 
 been frequently esteemed almost as a ruled point, 
 and quotations from Cranmer and Ridley have 
 frequently been made, as though their opinions 
 were the authorized commentary on the texf*. 
 But a moment's consideration is sufficient to refute 
 this opinion : as well might a committee of the 
 House of Commons who are employed to draw up 
 
 * ' The well-kuown sentiments of the Church of England, 
 that is, of the Reformers of Edward the Sixth's reign.' Arnold's 
 Sermons, vol. iii. p. 423.
 
 8 
 
 a bill be imagined to be the * imponens' instead 
 of the whole legislative body. 
 
 2. Shall we look then upon the Convocation of 
 1571 in this hght? How can we do so? what 
 claim can that have, which the last Convocation 
 (of 1662) has not much more ? 
 
 3. But has that real claim ? By what right can 
 a Convocation, which ceased to exist more than 
 150 years ago, be considered as the present ' im- 
 ponens' of our formularies ? 
 
 4. Dismissing then these notions as plainly 
 untenable, we come to that which appears the 
 true one, for those who look upon our Church as 
 Protestant and founded at the Reformation ; viz. 
 that the State is the ' imponens.' To such persons 
 it would seem that the Articles must naturally 
 present themselves as the terms on which the State 
 transfers to the English Church the property it has 
 taken from the ' Romish,' and the security it exacts 
 from the teachers whom it pays, that they shall 
 teach doctrines it approves. There being of course 
 a further question behind, into which we need not 
 enter, viz. whether the ' animus imponentis' upon 
 this view will be the wishes of the existing legisla- 
 ture, so far as we can arrive at them, or is to be de- 
 termined, like Acts of Parliament, by the authorita- 
 tive interpretation of the judicial tribunals. A view 
 somewhat similar to this appears at one time to have 
 also apj)r()ved itself to persons of very different 
 sentiments. ' The view which the Author would
 
 take of his own position was probably this, that he 
 was a minister .... of the one Holy Cliurch 
 Catholic, which, among other places, is allowed by 
 her Divine Master to manifest herself locally in 
 England, and has in former times been endowed 
 by the piety of her members : that the State has 
 but secured by law those endowments which it 
 could not seize without sacrilege, and in return for 
 this supposed form has encumbered the rightful 
 possession of them by various conditions calculated 
 to bring the Church into bondage : that her 
 ministers in consequence are in no way bound to 
 throw themselves into the spirit of such enact- 
 ments, rather to observe only such a literal 
 
 acquiescence as is all that the laiv requires in 
 any case, all that an external oppressor has a right 
 to ask. Their loyalty is already engaged to the 
 Church Catholic, and they cannot enter into the 
 drift and intentions of her oppressors without 
 betraying her.' Pref. to Froude's Rem. part 1. 
 p. XV. 
 
 5. Another very natural opinion looks to the ex- 
 isting Church, whether represented by her Bishops 
 or otherwise, as the tribunal to be referred to ; and 
 there are two branches of this opinion. Some per- 
 sons seem to consider that the actual woiding of 
 \\\e formularies themselves has no claim upon them 
 whatever, and is only to be looked upon as the 
 exponent of the feeling of the existing Church. 
 One of the most intrepid supporters of this opinion
 
 10 
 
 is Dr. Hey, the third book of whose Divinity 
 Lectures, from the fourth to the eighth chapter, will 
 well repay the careful perusal of any one interested 
 in this question. He so fully considers the feeling 
 of the present Church every thing, and the wording 
 of her formularies nothing, as not only to justify 
 a body of Clergy for making a distinct promise 
 to teach doctrines the very opposite to those they 
 intend to teach ^, but to accuse a Clergyman of 
 falsehood who should sign an Article in its natural 
 sense, when the body of the Church held opinions 
 contradictory to it ^ This view is certainly not 
 without some plausibility ; yet it seems impossible 
 
 ^ " The Genevese have now in fact quitted their Calvin- 
 " istic doctrines, though in form they retain them : one reason 
 '■'■for retaining the form is lest they should be thought heretics 
 
 " b'y the Dutch Churches When the minister is admitted, 
 
 " he takes an oath of assent to the Scriptures, and professes to 
 '* teach them ' according to the Catechism of Calvin ;' but this 
 " last clause about Calvin he makes a separate business ; speaking 
 " lower or altering his posture or speaking after a considerable 
 '* interval." Chap. vi. " This shews how a minister of the 
 " Church of Geneva is now clear of the crime of prevarication, 
 " thougli there is so strong an appearance of it in the manner of 
 " assenting." Chap. vii. 
 
 ■" " Supposing the third Article of 1552 had been tacitly 
 " instead of expressly repealed," (he means" had it been retained" 
 as the context shews,) " and a Minister had been of opinion that 
 " 1 Pet. iii. 19. was there rightly applied, yet if he declared his 
 " assent to the Article in that sense to a Church in ivhich it was 
 " unanimously agreed that it was lorongly applied, 1 should say he 
 " was guilty of falsehood." Chap. viii.
 
 11 
 
 that it should eVer become extensively prevalent. 
 All our notions of honesty and openness are 
 shocked by the idea of subscribing Articles in a 
 sense which we do not even profess that their 
 wording will bear. It is not necessary then to 
 enter into all that might be said (and it is a great 
 deal) in proof of its untenableness ; rather we 
 would contine our attention to the modification 
 of it, which seems at first sight very near to the 
 truth, and which has been advocated in a lately 
 printed " Letter." According to this theory, we 
 should not indeed be justified by any amount of 
 Episcopal laxity in signing words which we could 
 not ourselves honestly adopt, but neither are we 
 justified in signing our formularies in a sense which 
 the existing Bishops, as far as we can in any way 
 discover, consider (not indeed untrue but) inadmis- 
 sible. U I rightly understand the theory, we are 
 not to wait for a formal condemnation ; the 
 moment we honestly entertain the conviction that 
 the Episcopal Synod considers our opinions con- 
 demned by the Articles, we lose our power of 
 honestly signing them. How much this leaves at 
 the discretion of a particular body of Bishops, what 
 power it gives them over the very formularies to which 
 in the ordinary view they are subject, need not be 
 stated : nor shall we be able to estimate rightly the 
 arguments for or against this opinion, till we have 
 drawn out as clearly as we can what appears its 
 rival theory.
 
 12 
 
 6. Before doing this, let me beg the reader's 
 careful attention to the following passage from 
 Mr. Newman's Sermons, in which he expresses 
 doctrine held by every Catholic : ' Christ by 
 coming in the flesh provided an external or appa- 
 rent unity, such as had been under the Law. He 
 formed His Apostles into a visible society. But, 
 when He came again in the person of His Spirit, 
 He made them all in a real sense one, not in name 
 only. For they were no longer arranged merely in 
 the form of unity, as the limbs of the dead may be, 
 but they were parts and organs of one unseen poiver ; 
 they really depended upon, and were off- shoots of 
 that which was One. . . . Christ came not to make 
 us one, but to die for us: the Spirit came to make 
 us one in Him who had died and was alive, that is, 
 to form the Church. This then is the special glory 
 of the Christian Church, that its members do not 
 depend merely on what is visible, they are not mere 
 stones of a building piled one on another and bound 
 together from without, but they are one and all the 
 births and manifestations of one and the same 
 unseen spiritual principle or power, " living stones," 
 internally connected as branches from a tree, not as 
 
 the parts of a heap Before (the Spirit came) 
 
 God's servants were as the dry bones of the 
 Prophet's vision, connected by profession not by 
 inward principle; but since, they are all the organs 
 as i/ of one invisible governing Soul, the hands or 
 the tongues or the feet or the eyes of one and
 
 13 
 
 * the same directing Mind Such is the 
 
 * Christian Church ; a living body and one, not a 
 
 * mere framework artificially arranged to look like 
 ' one''.' 
 
 Now, in proportion as we realize the full force of 
 this great doctrine, we shall necessarily be compelled 
 to consider every external development of any 
 living branch of Christ's Church, as the language 
 of that Holy Spirit who resides within her. If the 
 expression be not irreverent, the ' imponens' of every 
 statement which she is guided to put forth, Whose 
 are really the words which she utters, Who quickens 
 the forms which she ordains, is none other than the 
 Holy Ghost diuelling in the Catholic Church. Let 
 it be observed, I am not deciding what amount of 
 error a local Church might superadd to the faith 
 without losing her life ; much less what amount of 
 apparent error she may present to the eye of a 
 superficial observer, the memorial of past sin in her 
 governors, and a heavy bondage restraining her acti- 
 vity and free development. I am saying only so 
 much as this, that if we believe the Church to be the 
 dwelling-place of the Holy Ghost, and to have been 
 founded for the very purpose of bearing witness to 
 ' the Faith, once (for all) delivered to the Saints,' (and 
 if we cease to believe this, vve cease to be Catholics,) 
 we cannot but interpret every general and ambiguous 
 expression in her formularies in accordance, so far 
 
 '' Vol. iv. Serm. xi.
 
 14 
 
 as the wording will allow, with that body of doc- 
 trine, which, from the first, the Spirit as by His 
 overruling power He had caused it to be con- 
 tained as to essentials within the words of Holy 
 Scripture, so also has openly declared through 
 the instrumentality of His organ the Church 
 Catholic ^ Nor am I at all sure that this is 
 not the fairest statement of the practical way in 
 which the author of the Letter alluded to would 
 look at the subject. It is far indeed, of course, 
 
 ' A principle has been lately advocated, if I rightly understand 
 it, the direct opposite to this ; viz. that we are to interpret not 
 our formularies by Christian Antiquity but Christian Antiquity 
 by our formularies. Were it only meant that, where there is no 
 means of knowing the judgment of Antiquity, the decisions of 
 our own Church interpreted by herself deserve deference at our 
 hands, no one could quarrel with so wise and practical a state- 
 ment; but to advocate an ultimate claim on our interior assent 
 on the part of a local Church separated from by far the greatest 
 part of Christendom, ' at a distance of from fifteen to eighteen 
 ' centuries from the pure fountains of tradition, and exposed to 
 ' political influences of a highly malignant character,' sounds an 
 extravagant notion indeed, and one to which our Church herself 
 has never made any pretension. It is interesting also to observe, 
 in this as in many other cases, what natural temptation members 
 of our Church have to the very faults they so strongly condemn in 
 members of the Roman. What so common ground of attack on 
 Roman Catholics as that they look at Antiquity through the 
 medium of the existing Church, rather than directly? And the 
 Roman Church claims infallibility, which makes the practice, in 
 her case, at least plausible : the English Clnirch repudiates any 
 such claim.
 
 16 
 
 from making of little importance the existing 
 Bishops; on the contrary, the formal decision of 
 the successors to the Apostles have, next to the 
 Church's fixed formularies, the strongest claims on 
 us, as the Voice of the Holy Ghost. From the 
 lowest to the highest, from the " godly admo- 
 nition" of the individual Bishop to the private 
 Clergyman, up to the authoritative statements of 
 the whole Episcopal Synod, each in its sphere and 
 measure comes with God's delegated authority. 
 Only, if this be the true way of regarding it, as, on 
 the one hand, we interpret all and each of these de- 
 cisions in the most Catholic sense which their woi'ding 
 will admit, so, on the other, we are exempt from the 
 necessity, or duty, of looking for the opinions of in- 
 dividual Bishops in any other quarter than in those 
 formal decisions of theirs which may come with 
 authority to us. They do not speak as organs of 
 the Spirit residing in the Church, unless when they 
 speak formally as Bishops ^ 
 
 This, if I may be allowed to repeat my own 
 
 ^ Over the Faith the existing Church has no power except to 
 define and declare it : ' rites and ceremonies' she has the ' power to 
 decree,' (Art. xx.) From this it would seem to follow that, as am- 
 biguities in doctrinal statements are to be interpreted (if possible) 
 according to the " semper, ubiqueet ab omnibus," so ambiguities 
 in matters of ritual and positive ordinance, where our governors 
 express no wish any way, are most fitly interpreted according to 
 the existing usage of other brandies of the Church, especially 
 the Western, by how much she is united to us by closer bonds 
 and long standing claims.
 
 16 
 
 words, was the meaning of the following passage in 
 my last pamphlet. " To us, they (our formularies) 
 come as the words of some old and revered friend, 
 whom we have known long and well, and who has 
 long taught us high and holy lessons ; and if, after 
 such long experience, we hear from him words 
 which at first sound strangely, we interpret them, if 
 possible, in accordance with his well-known spirit. 
 If they absolutely refuse to be so explained, we 
 recognise with sorrow that we have mistaken his 
 character ; but in proportion to our experience of 
 the preciousness of his former counsels, in pro- 
 portion to our perception of the plain traces he 
 still bears upon him of his former self, are we 
 unwilUng to believe that any of his expressions 
 may not be so interpreted." It may be added 
 also that, if this be so, the Feasts and Fasts in our 
 calendar, the Daily Service, &c. will have a certain 
 claim on our observance, even though unhappily at 
 any time there were no reason to believe that the 
 Bishops in general wished to enforce them. 
 
 But here we are met by the Edinburgh Reviewer 
 with the allegation that we have cast ourselves off 
 from the Ancient Church : and if this be once 
 granted, certainly the foregoing argument falls to 
 the ground. Considering indeed the complete over- 
 throw to the pretensions of all English Catholics 
 which would ensue could that position be success- 
 fully maintained, one is not a little surprised that 
 the writer treats it in so superficial and popular a
 
 17 
 
 manner. For it is plain that all Englishnoen of 
 what are commonly called high-church principles, 
 whatever be the shade and complexion of their 
 doctrinal views, in whatever degree of intensity 
 they hold those principles, all, I say, would have 
 the very ground cut from under their feet, were 
 it to be proved against them, that the present 
 English Church is other than that which existed 
 before Henry VIII. Great varieties of opinion 
 with regard to the Reformation are perfectly con- 
 sistent, and do in fact co-exist with Catholic opi- 
 nions : some may think it a purification, some 
 a corruption, some partly one and partly the 
 other ; all these are open questions, which no one 
 can profess that our formularies decide either way, 
 any more than whether we have gained or lost by 
 the movement of 1688. But there are two extreme 
 opinions which cannot possibly be called open 
 questions with Anglo-Catholics: 1. if we consider 
 the Church to have been so corrupt before the 
 Reformation as to lose the essence of a Church, 
 our Apostolical Succession which has passed through 
 those times will be valueless, and high-church 
 opinions an impossibility : 2. if we suppose the 
 English Reformation to have severed us from the 
 ancient body of the English Church, we shall be 
 bound in consistency to leave our own communion 
 and join the Church of Rome. The latter of 
 these alternatives the Reviewer urges that we are 
 thus bound to adopt . on our principles, he says, 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 " the Church of England is the offspring of an 
 " unjustifiable schism and revolution." Alter the 
 wording of this a little, and Mr. Newman, at 
 least, would appear not unwilling to admit it. He 
 intimates, not very obscurely, (Tract, p. 79.) that, 
 in releasing her from the Roman supremacy, her 
 then governors were guilty of rebellion ; and con- 
 sidering they had also sworn obedience to the Pope, 
 for my own part 1 see not how we can avoid adding, 
 of perjury. The point on which Mr. Newman would 
 take his stand is this ; that, estimating the sin at the 
 highest, it was not "that special sin which cuts off from 
 the fountains of grace, and is called schism," and this 
 position (no one can deny that it is a difficult one) 
 he maintained, in an article he has since acknow- 
 ledged, in the British Critic a year ago. If the 
 Reviewer is willing to discuss the arguments of 
 that Article, he is at perfect liberty to do so : one 
 does not see how any thing but good can come 
 from a fair and acute consideration of it. But what 
 does seem surprising is, that, while he labours and 
 makes quotations to shew what Mr. N. not only 
 does not deny, but expressly maintains, that Cranmer 
 and Ridley were of different sentiments from him- 
 self on most subjects, (p. 280.) he treats the very 
 question on which the whole position of his op- 
 ponents depends in the following strain. " Every 
 '* one must he astonished that men, professing (these 
 " opinions), should continue to hold appointments 
 " in a Church, which is generally understood to have
 
 19 
 
 " been founded on the most positive denial of most 
 " of these doctrines, and on a consequent secession 
 ''from the great society which continued to hold 
 " them. It is a notorious historical fact, that the 
 " doctrines in question ... as a whole . . . have been 
 '* rejected by all Protestant communities." (p. 273.) 
 Let him prove to us that the Church of England is a 
 Protestant community ; that it was founded on the 
 denial of Catholic doctrines; that it seceded from 
 the Ancient English Church which witnessed these 
 doctrines ; let him prove this ; and, though the 
 Articles were as obviously on our side as he con- 
 siders them overwhelmingly against us, our con- 
 science could not allow us to remain one moment 
 in a communion which had thus forfeited the gifts 
 of grace. 
 
 7. This seems the proper place for noticing the 
 view professed in the pamphlet I have alluded to, 
 which would dispense with the ' animus imponentis' 
 altogether, and lead us to ' construe the Articles by 
 themselves.' The writer considers, ' that to a candid 
 and impartial inquirer the Articles require no inter- 
 pretation at all, and that the anxiety sometimes 
 shewn to call in collateral assistance when it is not 
 needed, is more frequently symptomatic of a wish 
 to evade than to explain.' (p. 5.) He conceives 
 that ' our subscription to the Articles implies that 
 we respect as well as adopt them.' (p. 9.) Here 
 one cannot but express surprise at the attempt, pro- 
 ceeding apparently from quarters where we should 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 least expect it, to close open questions. It is at 
 least paradoxical, and requires proof, that subscrip- 
 tion to a test involves more than agreement to it, 
 and implies approval of its imposition, or respect 
 for its phraseology, viewed by itself, and as to its 
 human origin. I am not of course expressing any 
 opinion on the Articles in this particular ; but 
 claiming their Christian liberty for those who may 
 desire it, on a subject in which our Church has 
 allowed liberty. He adds, that our ' subscription 
 implies that they are things to be believed, not to 
 be cavilled at, or explained away,' which of course 
 we fully acknowledge ; but concludes, that they are 
 * our belief itself .' If by this latter clause he means, 
 what he seems to imply in other parts of the 
 pamphlet, that subscription to the Articles involves 
 our reception of them as an adequate expression of 
 our belief, as a system of theology into which we 
 throw ourselves to catch its spirit, and which places 
 divine truths in that relative degree of prominence 
 which we conceive them to claim, it is much to be 
 lamented that he has not occupied himself in 
 proving this position : lor here too I apprehend 
 most persons of high- church principles would be 
 ready to acknowledge that they could not sign them 
 on that understanding. Mr. Newman has argued 
 with considerable force against any such view in 
 Tract 82, p. xxxiii. One passage maybe extracted 
 to explain his own account of the matter. ' The 
 ' English Church holds all that the primitive Church
 
 21 
 
 * held, even in ceremonies, except there be some 
 ' particular reason for not doing so in this or that 
 
 * instance ; and only does not hold the modern 
 
 * corruptions maintained (he means 1 presume j}r«c- 
 ' tically) by Romanism. In these corruptions it 
 
 * departs from Rome ; therefore these are the points 
 ' in which it thinks it especially necessary to declare 
 ' its opinion. To these were added the most sacred 
 ' points of faith, in order to protest against those 
 
 * miserable heresies to which Protestantism had 
 ' already given birth.' 
 
 Bit as to the general view of the pamphlet, it 
 seems to have much force. Those of course who 
 believe concerning our Church what Anglo-Catho- 
 lics do believe, cannot, as I have said, possibly 
 accept it : but with those who consider our Church 
 Protestant, this view may be a fair rival to what 
 was mentioned above as the fourth opinion on the 
 ' animus imponentis.' At the same time, I should 
 wish to urge the writer on to his legitimate conclu- 
 sions. Let him remember, that the Clergy not only 
 ' ex animo subscribe' the Articles, but ' give their 
 assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer,' 
 and profess ' that there is nothing in it contrary 
 to the word of God.' And though the pamphlet 
 maintains the Articles to be Protestant, its author 
 will hardly deny the Prayer Book to be Catholic. 
 Yet if this be so, he must explain the letter of 
 the one, as far as may be, hy the spirit of the 
 other. Whichever he chooses as the foundation.
 
 22 
 
 the spirit of the other, on his own shewing must be 
 neglected, and the letter explained drily, and (what 
 he would call) disingenuously. For instance, he 
 considers that Article VI. determines as to Holy 
 Scripture, ' that the person who reads therein is the 
 person who is meant to prove thereby,' (p. 19.) i. e. 
 that the private Christian is at liberty to follow on all 
 points his own judgment on the text of Scripture, 
 though it differ from the Church's judgment. 
 Now the Prayer Book contains the Athanasian 
 Creed, (which indeed the Articles also recognise,) 
 and this Creed, if words have meaning, condemns 
 as in itself a mortal sin (of course no judgment 
 need be passed on individual cases) the holding 
 any other doctrine of the Sacred Verities on which 
 it treats than the detailed and specific one which it 
 draws out. Most naturally, if it be the duty of the 
 individual Christian to receive the Church's decision 
 on such points ; for then in declining to do so, he 
 violates a plain duty ; and the deliberate violation 
 of a plain duty is in itself mortal sin. But most 
 cruel indeed would be the decision, that a private 
 individual may, or rather indeed ought, on such 
 subjects, to draw his own opinion from Scripture, 
 and yet if he fail to see in the Sacred Writings this 
 definite statement, he is subject to so severe a 
 sentence. This sort of enumeration, were it worth 
 while, might be drawn out to alnjost any length : 
 ' the Article on Baptism savours of a Calvinistic 
 source.' (jranted, yet the service for Baptism is so
 
 23 
 
 plain that none can mistake. ' The Article on the 
 Holy Communion is vague and indeterminate :' * 
 well — the statement in the Catechism will explain 
 the ambiguity. ' The Article on the Visible Church 
 seems anti-Catholic ;' supposing it so for argument's 
 sake, still the Ordination Service in itself affords 
 little doubt of its meaning. ' The Articles on 
 Justification seem Lutheran ;' let us consider the 
 whole tone of the Prayer Book, the Confessions, 
 (written, as is remarkable, by the Reformers them- 
 selves,) Prayers, Psalms, the appointment of Fast- 
 days, &c. If then the opinion professed in the 
 pamphlet as to the natural spirit of the Articles 
 be true, (and 1 am not disposed to dispute it,) 
 according to the writer's own principles by which of 
 the two is he to hold ? and when he proceeds to 
 explain the words of the other according to the 
 spirit of that one, how will he rescue himself, 
 according to his own statements, from the charge 
 of ' dethroning conscience from her tribunal, and 
 ' setting himself strong in all the soul-destroying 
 ' arts of verbal subtlety and mental reservation?' 
 (p. 23.) 
 
 II. 
 
 Having then brought out what appears the most 
 accurate analysis of the view maintained in the 
 Tract as to the " imponens," we may go on to the 
 question now more immediately in controversy.
 
 24 
 
 For let me again remind the reader, that the 
 discussion we have hitherto pursued is ex abun- 
 danti ; at present we are maintaining that the 
 Articles were never drawn up ivith the view of 
 excluding those whose opinions we should follow. 
 Of course the prima facie objection to this hypo- 
 thesis is, that, whatever may be made of their logic, 
 as it has been most happily expressed, " their 
 rhetoric is Protestant." And in my last pamphlet 
 I said, that, while many English Catholics would 
 strongly oppose any such admission, Mr. Newman 
 and those who think with him on the subject could 
 not feel able to do so. This seemed as plainly 
 implied in the Tract as words can imply it ; and I 
 ventured to state the sense in which those ex- 
 pressions seemed intended which at first sight looked 
 the other way : viz. " if the Church be in our sense 
 of the words a branch of the Church Catholic, 
 she must be understood to mean certain doctrines 
 by certain statements." Nor does this seem at all 
 an unnatural way of speaking in persons who are 
 far from maintaining that those who think other- 
 wise cannot subscribe our formularies ; much less 
 that every jjart of our Prayer-book and Articles 
 witnesses harmoniously to the same line of doc- 
 trine. For instance, Dr. Arnold, whom I should 
 be sorry indeed to speak of in other terms than 
 those of high respect, in the appendix to his third 
 volume of Sermons, speaks as follows; " the 
 '* twenty-first Article .... effectually asserts the
 
 25 
 
 " supremacy of Christian governors all over the 
 " world, over Christian Ministers thus distinctly 
 " denying that the government of the Church is con- 
 *' vcyed by the so-called Apostolical succession," &c. 
 p. 436. " Those who think with the Church of 
 " England that the Christian Ministry is not a 
 " Priesthood," p. 432. I am far from supposing 
 that Dr. Arnold means tl at so many of our Clergy 
 from that day to this are really not justified in sub- 
 scribing our formularies, because of their difference 
 from him in this particular ; rather I imagine he 
 considers the particular form, into which Cranmer 
 and Ridley moulded our doctrine and discipline, 
 a remarkable testimony to what he conceives the 
 truth ; and thinks himself at liberty to interpret 
 difficult parts of our formularies by the light of 
 their opinions. For instance, in his interpretation 
 of the words in the Ordinat'on Service, he cannot 
 suppose that he is expressing the fair and natural 
 sense of the words ; but rather mentioning the sense 
 in which he subscribes them, and by which he brings 
 them into harmony with what in his view is the 
 general spirit of the Church of England. Mutatis 
 mutandis this is exactly what the Tract does as to 
 the Articles on which it treats. 
 
 However, as so much has been said about forced 
 constructions, it may be as well to add the passage 
 in our formularies, with Dr. Arnold's explanation. 
 
 " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and 
 *• work of a Priest in the Church of God, now
 
 26 
 
 ' committed unto thee by the imposition of our 
 ' hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive they are 
 ' forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain they 
 ' are retained." 
 
 Dr. Arnold says, " These words undoubtedly 
 ' would be ' superstitious and ungodly' in our 
 ' mouths, if the well-know^n sentiments of the 
 
 * Church of England, that is, of the reformers of 
 ' Edward the Sixth's reign, as to the Priestly 
 ' power, did not lead us in fairness to put a true 
 ' construction on them. And this construction 
 
 * seems to be the following. The Bishop says to 
 ' the candidate for Orders, 
 
 " You have expressed your hope that you were 
 ' moved by the Holy Ghost to enter on this Ministry. 
 
 * We are confident that He who has begun a good 
 ' work in you, will complete it to the end; that, as 
 
 * He has given you the will, so also will He give 
 ' you the power to do. May His help and blessing 
 ' be with you, that by wisdom and goodness you 
 ' may shew yourself a true Minister of Christ. 
 
 * Your office is to preach God's word. Whoso- 
 
 * ever listens to your preaching, God will justify ; 
 ' and whoever despises it, him God will con- 
 ' demn'\" Sermons, vol. iii. p. 4''23. 
 
 "• There is no quality more remarkable to the most casual 
 observer in Dr. Arnold's writings, than their very great frank- 
 ness and openness. There need be the less scruple then in 
 drawing attention to a curious omission in this part of his 
 essay ; for a reader must be prejudiced indeed who can attribute
 
 27 
 
 Still, after all, it seems to be considered in some 
 quarters, (I could hardly have thought it possible 
 had 1 not good authority for knowing it,) that the 
 Tract represents the Articles on which it treats 
 as exhibiting, by their own wording and natural 
 spirit, that sense in which Anglo-Catholics subscribe 
 them. And the Reviewer complains accordingly, 
 that * Mr. Newman . . . attempts to pass off his in- 
 terpretation ... as the genuine sense of the Articles,' 
 (p. 288.) meaning apparently the same thing. Yet 
 
 to him any degree whatever of wilful disingenuousness. He says, 
 
 (p. 422.) ' the words of our Lord to His Apostles must 
 
 ' necessarily, when addressed by the Bishop to any man now 
 * ordained Minister, be interpreted in the first place as a prayer, 
 ' as a charitable hope, rather than as signifying the actual and 
 ' certain conveyance of any gift or grace at that very time, and 
 ' by the virtue of the laying on of hands, ^ &c. And just after- 
 wards he explains, as we have seen, the words used by the 
 Bishop in the Ordination of Priests : but he takes no notice 
 whatever of the form used in the Consecration of Bishops, which 
 contains the following passage ; ' Receive the Holy Ghost, &c. 
 ' . . . . And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which 
 ' is given thee by this imposition of hands.' 
 
 Is it uncharitable to say, that, had such an omission, with 
 regard to so critical a doctrine, been found in the Tract, it 
 would have raised in many persons a suspicion of wilful suppres- 
 sion which could hardly have been got over? Let me repeat, 
 the very idea of such suppression in Dr. Arnold's case would 
 never for an instant cross my mind : I am only anxious to 
 enforce the consideration on those whom it may concern, from 
 such an example in so very open and plain-spoken a writer, how 
 careful they should be, without the clearest evidence, in charging 
 their brethren with unfair dealinar.
 
 28 
 
 it is difficult to think how the opposite can have 
 been more clearly implied than it is in the Tract. 
 In the conclusion it is alleged as an objection, 
 " that it is an evasion of their meaning to give 
 " them any other than a Protestant drift, possible 
 " as it may be to do so grammatically, or in each 
 " separate part." And the answers Mr. Newman 
 gives imply no denial whatever, that their natural 
 drift is Protestant ; indeed many highly respected 
 persons have been much grieved at the Tract for 
 conceding so much more than they could concede, 
 with regard to the apparent Protestantism of parts 
 of the Articles. And in the introduction he speaks 
 of our being " in a disadvantageous state," " in 
 prison, with Christ for our keeper," as " having 
 betrayed His sacred truth," (p. 3.) as being " in 
 bondage," " in chains ;" " let us submit," it says, 
 " to our imperfection s as a punishment ; let us go 
 " on teaching through the medium of indeter- 
 " minate confessions (with the stammering lips 
 " of ambiguous formularies, 1st ed.) and incon- 
 " sistent precedents and principles but partially 
 
 " developed Let us not faint under that 
 
 •' body of death .... nor sh ink frou) the penalty 
 " of sins which tbey inherited from the age before 
 " them." And in the note it not obscurely instructs 
 us to look at " the judgment of King Charles's 
 " murder," as " I roughi down by the crying sins" 
 of the Reformation, (p. .5.) Is Mr. Newman, (so 
 cautious and guarded in his statements as all admit him
 
 ?9 
 
 to be,) is he to be supposed to use words of such 
 unprecedented strength as these without meaning 
 and at random ? Or is it conceivable that he 
 could use them if he thought our Articles fair 
 and adequate exponents of Catholic Truth ? How 
 could he speak and think as he does of the English 
 Reformation, if he supposed that the formulary then 
 originated was even as naturally susceptible of 
 Catholic as of Protestant interpretation ? No ! he 
 would acknowledge, 1 apprehend, that as it has been 
 expressed, while it is patient of a Catholic, it is 
 ambitious of a Protestrnt, sense ; that, while it was 
 never intended to exclude Cathohcs, it was written 
 by, and in the spirit of, Protestants ; that, in con- 
 sequence of it, the English Church seems at least 
 to give an uncertain sound ; that she fails in one 
 of her very principal duties, that of witnessing 
 plainly and directly to Catholic truth ; that she 
 seems to include whom she ought to repel, to teach 
 what she is bound to anathematize ; and that it 
 is difficult to estimate the amount of responsibility 
 she year by year incurs on account of those (claim- 
 ing, as many of them do, our warm love for a zeal 
 and earnest piety worthy of a purer faith) who 
 remain buried in the darkness of Protestant error, 
 because she fails in her duty of holding clearly forth 
 to them the light of Gospel truth. 
 
 If it appears undutiful in a member of the 
 English Church to speak so strongly of her de- 
 fective state, let it be imputed to a strong convic-
 
 30 
 
 tion, that, till we have the grace of humility in a far 
 greater degree than we seem in general, since the 
 schism of the sixteenth century, to have had it, 
 there is little hope of our Church taking its proper 
 place, whether in England or in Christendom. Let 
 those whose love for her is lukewarm, content 
 themselves with mourning in private over her de- 
 cayed condition, her true and faithful children 
 will endeavour to waken the minds of their bre- 
 thren to a sense of her present degradation*. 
 
 * It may be thought that such statements, at all events, have 
 a tendency to encourage the secession of our members to Rome. 
 The opposite will I think be found true. Those whose tendency 
 is that way are sure enough to find out and feel of themselves, 
 and that the more keenly the more holy and self-denying their 
 daily walk, our defects and corruptions. If they find no sym- 
 pathy in our Church, they will leave it; if they find that English 
 Churchmen of high repute and authority do sympathize fully 
 with tlieir feelings and wishes, and yet enforce the duty of 
 remaining where they are, this and this only is likely to retain 
 them. Nor can Mr. Newman be charged with any neglect of 
 the task of pointing out the miserable practical corruptions of 
 the Churches in the Roman obedience ; (see his Letters to 
 Dr. Jelf and the Bishop of Oxford ;) corruptions which, whether 
 or not so grievous as our own, (for this is no business of ours,) are 
 sufficiently shocking and repulsive to aftbrd the strongest argu- 
 ment against their claim to make up of themselves the whole 
 Catholic Church. And if they do not; that is, if the English 
 also be a branch, this is enough to make it a plain sin for any- 
 one of us to leave it. Mr. Newman's own opinion of the present 
 state of Christendom may be gathered from the following passage 
 in the British Critic. 
 
 " It is impossible to read the history of the Church, up to the
 
 31 
 
 * We can have no accord in action,* says the 
 Tract, ' till we agree together in heart,' and * till 
 
 * we seek one another as brethren, not lightly 
 ' throwing aside our private opinions, which we 
 
 * seem to feel we have received from above, from 
 ' an ill-regulated untrue desire of unity, but re- 
 
 * turning to each other in heart:' and this cannot 
 be, till we say plainly and openly, yet lovingly, 
 what we think ; bearing with those who think 
 otherwise, and endeavouring on each side to realize 
 
 " last four or Jive hundred years, with an unprejudiced mind, 
 *' without perceiving that, whatever were tlie faults of her servants 
 " and the corruptions of her children, she has on the whole been 
 " the one element of civilization, light, moral improvement, peace, 
 
 " and purity, in the world In the darkest times she 
 
 " will be found, when contrasted with other powers, to be fighting 
 " the cause of truth and right against sin, to be a witness for God, 
 " or defending the poor, or purifying or reforming her own func- 
 " tionaries, or promoting peace, or maintaining the holy Faith 
 " committed to her. This she was, till she quarrelled with her- 
 " self and divided into parts; what she has been since, luhat she 
 " is now, a future age must decide ; we can only trust in faith 
 " that she is what she ever has been, and was promised ever to 
 " be, one amid her divisions, and holy amid her corruptions. 
 " But returning to the thought oi former and happier times, &c." 
 May I repeat also from my last pamphlet that our own Church 
 is " all the dearer to us her faithful children from her present 
 " captivity, and from the imminent dangers which have threat- 
 •' ened her," and that " to remain in our own Church and by 
 " God's help endeavour to elevate its tone, cannot be looked upon 
 " by the Catholic Christian as (only) the cold performance of a 
 ♦' duty, but (as) a labour of love."
 
 32 
 
 our mutual feelings and impressions ; in the hope 
 that the full truth, whatever it may be, may 
 thus the more perfectly be elicited and recognized 
 by us all. 
 
 And if it give pain to any persons that the 
 English Reformers, whose memory they have so 
 long been taught to cherish and revere, should 
 be spoken of in a harsh and disrespectful manner, 
 let them consider how necessary it is in self-defence 
 to do so. Any thoughtful person of late years 
 must have observed, that, whenever a fair discussion 
 of our Articles should come on, a degree of plain 
 speaking would be necessary, which before would 
 have been wanton and cruel. That any disparaging 
 language should be used of those persons, where it 
 it is likely to give pain, in a light careless way 
 or without plain and direct cause, is of course quite 
 indefensible : but it is come to this, that either 
 plain words must be put forth about them, or all 
 who agree with Mr. Froude and his editors in their 
 estimate of them, and yet subscribe the Articles, 
 must be accused, without the power of self-defence, 
 of dishonesty and unfair dealing. And let it be 
 remembered, that at least we are not without ex- 
 perience ourselves of the pain we unwillingly inflict 
 on others. Not to dwell on the harsh and unkind 
 manner in which our sister Churches are spoken 
 of even by Catholic-minded and most highly re- 
 spected persons, a manner more painful, perhaps, 
 than they imagine to many an English Churchman,
 
 33 
 
 refer only to the severe language in which those 
 whom we revere as eminent saints, the Popes and 
 others of the middle ages, are popularly spoken 
 of. Think too, which is much to our present pur- 
 pose, of the language used by Bishop Jewel, for 
 instance, and other writers of that era themselves, 
 with regard to those who went before them, and we 
 shall hardly think they have much claim on the 
 forbearance of posterity. 
 
 III. 
 
 This then is the point for our present discussion. 
 Did the framers of the Articles intend to draw 
 them up so as to exclude those who would think as 
 Mr. Newman and his friends think ? We do not 
 deny that they meant also to include others, nay 
 that the Articles taken by themselves more na- 
 turally and easily include others ; and thus we 
 have an obvious answer to an objection not 
 unfrequently made, viz. that by the fact of our 
 Prayer-book omitting, e. g. Invocation of Saints 
 and Prayers for the Dead, a tacit condemnation is 
 pronounced on such practices. Whereas it is 
 plain that to admit them into our public services, 
 would be to require belief in their lawfulness and 
 propriety ; and we only contend that such belief is 
 not forbidden. 
 
 The ground on which I proceeded in my last 
 pamphlet, and purpose again to proceed, is exclu- 
 sively that of the internal evidence arising from 
 

 
 34 
 
 the known public documents of the period. 1 said 
 also that the historical fact well deserved an atten- 
 tive investigation, whether persons of undoubtedly 
 Catholic sentiments did not subscribe ; and any 
 qualified person would perform a most important 
 service by undertaking the enquiry. Of course the 
 probability would remain untouched that it was 
 much desired they should do so, even were the 
 fact discovered to be doubtful ; and it seems prima 
 facie plain, that the circumstances of the time 
 would make them exceedingly anxious to preserve 
 as much union as possible within the Church. 
 Now we have the testimony of Mr. Gladstone 
 in the same direction, the more valuable from being 
 so wholly irrespective of the present controversy. 
 ' The main subject of contention between the State 
 
 * and the Romanists, or recusants, as they were 
 ' called, ivas not their adhesion to this or that 
 ' popish doctrine, but their acknowledgment of an 
 
 * un-national and anti-national head.' ' The 
 
 * British government required of its subjects the 
 ' renunciation not of Romish doctrines, but of the 
 ' ecclesisatical supremacy of the Pope *.' The tend- 
 ency of the reasoning in the Tract, proceeding from 
 altogether independent considerations, is exactly in 
 the same tvay, viz. that the Articles also were not di- 
 rected against those who retained the old doc- 
 trines, so that they were willing to join in a 
 protest against the shameful practical corruptions 
 
 * ' State in its relations witli tlie Climcli,' p. 190, 1.
 
 35 
 
 in existence, and also to give up their allegiance to 
 the Pope. Mr. Gladstone, in proceeding to give 
 the possible account of this procedure on the part 
 of the government, mentions as one of two alterna- 
 tives (he appears himself equally balanced between 
 them) that " it was not the existing Church as 
 " a religious institiUion, but the secular ambition 
 •' of the papal See, against which security was 
 '* sought by renouncing its jurisdiction," " and we 
 " perceive," he adds, " the more clearly how far 
 " the idea of our reformers was from any thing like 
 " alteration of essence, or the overthrow of an old 
 " church and the erection of a new one." The 
 author of a pamphlet called " Strictures on No. 90 
 " of the Tracts for the Times/' says, I know not 
 on what authority, " History informs us of the fact, 
 " that many did truly sign the Articles who were 
 " not only Catholics, ' men who did not go so far 
 *' in Protestantism as the framers,' but Romanists, 
 " absolute Papists." (Part ii. p. 87.) Papists, that 
 is, of course,who agreed to give up the Pope, and I 
 suppose, who further would protest against the prac- 
 tical " Romish" corruptions. This is plainly the 
 point to which the reasoning in the Tract leads. 
 
 How then do we reconcile our two positions, 
 that the Articles in themselves breathe a Protestant 
 spirit, and yet were intended to admit persons of 
 Anti-Protestant feeling? 
 
 1. The Articles were written by Protestants, and 
 yet were written with the intention of being sub- 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 mitted to a Convocation, and with the wish that they 
 should be signed by a clergy, great numbers of whom 
 were more or less Catholic If this be so, the 
 spirit will naturally be that of the framerst and yet 
 the wording carefully adjusted so as to admit 
 others. Add to this, that verbal alterations would 
 naturally be introduced in the course of the dis- 
 cussion in Convocation, and so a fresh contrast 
 added between the spirit of the w^hole composition, 
 and the wording of the individual parts. Now in 
 proof of this difference in sentiment between the 
 framers and others to whose wishes they were 
 obliged to defer, we may mention : 
 
 I. On what the Pamphlet calls " the leading 
 " doctrine of Protestantism, that all things neces- 
 " sary to salvation are to be found from the Scrip- 
 " tures by an ordinary intellect, ^^ (p. 7.) on what 
 the Review^er considers " the great principle of the 
 " Reformation," that " the Bible is the sole oracle 
 " of God," (p. 278.) it is a plain undeniable fact, 
 that if the leading Reformers were Protestant, were 
 faithful sons of the Reformation, they differed from 
 the Convocation which sanctioned the Articles. 
 (See post, p. 46.) 
 
 IT. The same conclusion that either the framers 
 of the Articles were not Protestant, or that whatever 
 their own tendency to Erastianism, or to toleration 
 of Presbyterianism, or to considering the ancient 
 Church Apostate, or to denial of the Church's 
 office as the appointed channel for dispensing the
 
 37 
 
 fruits of Christ's atonement, they intended to retain 
 as Clergytnen of the Church those who thought 
 otherwise, follows from the very fact of the Prayer 
 Book remaining untouched hy that Convocation. 
 To what purpose the Ordination Service with the 
 introduction forbidding any man to be " accounted 
 a lawful Clergyman of the Church of England 
 without Episcopal Ordination," unless it was wished 
 to include those who thought such Ordination 
 essential? for what reason the habit, which has 
 lasted up to the present time, of re-ordaining a 
 Protestant Teacher and 7iot re-ordaining a Roman 
 Priest on joining us, if it were intended to rule 
 that we were a Protestant Church ? to what end 
 the marked omission of the word " Protestant," in 
 both Prayer Book and Articles ? the strong lan- 
 guage in the Baptismal and Communion Service ? 
 the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick? the 
 retention of all the old frame-work of the Church, 
 of the temporal rights of Bishops, of Chapters, &c. ? 
 indeed the catalogue is almost endless of the exter- 
 nal works of agreement with the Ancient System 
 which were retained. 
 
 III. " The variety of doctrinal views contained in 
 *' the Homilies, views which cannot be brought under 
 " Protestantism itself in its greatest comprehension 
 *' of opinions, is an additional proof, considering 
 *• the connexion of the Articles with the Homilies, 
 " that the Articles were not framed on the prin- 
 *' ciple of excluding those who prefer the theology
 
 38 
 
 " of the early ages to that of the Reformation." 
 (Tract, p. 81.) It is astonishing how so acute a 
 writer as the Author of the Pamphlet should have 
 so entirely missed the force of this argument. He 
 quotes Mr. Newman's words, " I have not sub- 
 scribed the Homilies, &c." and adds, " and yet 
 " this yoke, which he is so unwilling to wear 
 "himself, he would impose upon the Articles:" 
 (p. 20.) as though it were intended to claim the 
 latter as authoritatively Catholic, The plain scope 
 of the reasoning is this, if the Articles were framed 
 on the principle of excluding Catholics, would not 
 Catholic doctrines have been to a certainty carefully 
 excluded from the Homilies ? yet they are far from 
 being so excluded. " The authority of the Fathers, 
 " of the six first Councils, and of the judgments of 
 " the Church generally, the holiness of the Primi- 
 " tive Church, the inspiration of the Apocrypha, 
 " the sacramental character of Marriage and other 
 " Ordinances, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, 
 " the Church's power of excommunicating kings, 
 " the profitableness of fasting, the propitiatory 
 " virtue of good works, the Eucharistic com- 
 " memoration, and justification by inherent righte- 
 " ousness (1st ed.) are taught in the Homilies," 
 Tract, p. 75 ; therefore the Articles were (not in- 
 tended to teach Catholicism, the Tract no where 
 asserts that, but) not Iramed on the principle 
 of excluding Catholics. The pamphlet in reply 
 to the question, ' whether we ought to con-
 
 39 
 
 ' strue the Articles inclusively or exclusively,' 
 says, ' Honestly. Take care of that, and let 
 
 * inclusion or exclusion .... take care of itself.' 
 (p. 11.) Yet this is no adequate answer to the 
 doubt stated. The meaning of those who ask 
 the question, is to ask, are we to look at the 
 Articles as ' of the nature of a creed, intended to 
 teach doctrine, or of the nature of a joint declara- 
 tion^' intended to be vague and to include persons 
 of discordant sentiments? Here shall follow Mr. 
 Newman's opinion on this subject, which will the 
 more shew the total inadequacy of the answer 
 given in the pamphlet. ' The meaning of the 
 
 * Creed (and again of the -Liturgy) is known ;' there 
 
 * is no opportunity for doubt here : it means but 
 
 * one thing ; and he who does not hold that one 
 
 * meaning, does not hold it at all. But the case is 
 
 * different, (to take an illustration,) in the drawing 
 'up of a political declaration or of a petition to 
 ' Parliament. It is composed by persons, differing 
 
 * in matters of detail, agreeing together to a certain 
 
 * point and for a certain end. Each narroirly watches 
 
 * that nothing is inserted to prejudice his own 
 
 * particular view, or stipulates for the insertion of 
 ' what may rescue it. Hence general words are 
 
 * used, or particular words inserted, which by 
 
 * superficial enquirers afterwards are criticised as 
 
 * vague and indeterminate on the one hand, or 
 
 * inconsistent on the other : but in fact they all 
 
 * have a meaning and a history could we ascertain
 
 40 
 
 * it. And if tlie parties concerned in such a 
 ' document are legislating and determining for pos- 
 ' terity, they are respective representatives of cor- 
 ' responding parties in the generations after 
 ' them. Now the Thirty-nine Articles lie between 
 ' these two, betw^een a Creed and a mere joint 
 ' Declaration : to a certain point they have mean- 
 ' ing, so far as they embody the doctrine of the 
 ' Creed ; they have different meanings so far as 
 ' they are drawn up by men influenced by the 
 
 * discordant opinions of the day.' Tract 82. p. xxx. 
 
 Thus, then, we have one reason to give for the 
 phenomenon we are discussing. The Articles 
 were written by Protestants, and therefore naturally 
 breathe the Protestant spirit ; yet those Protestants 
 either carefully worded them at the time or admit- 
 ted modifications of them afterwards, with the very 
 intention of not excluding those of an opposite 
 spirit. 
 
 2. A second reason why they appear to us more 
 Protestant than they really are, is that from long 
 habit in some cases we have come to look on 
 Roman doctrines as condemned, when only the 
 corruptions of those doctrines, fostered by so many 
 of the priests and received by the people at large, 
 were aimed at. This in my last pamphlet I enforced 
 at some length with regard to the twenty-second 
 Article, by he)}) of quotations from the Homilies 
 and in elucidation of the reasoning in the Tract. 
 Nor am 1 aware of any attempt to invalidate the
 
 41 
 
 reasoning 1 there used, or which calls for further 
 remark on the subject. Such also is perhaps the 
 account of the thirty-first Article^. 
 
 3. A third consideration to be borne in mind 
 is, that they really seem in some cases to have 
 confused the popular superstitions with doctrines 
 maintained by holy and religious men ; so that they 
 considered themselves to be condemning opinions 
 seriously maintained by the latter, when in fact 
 these last would join in the condemnation as readily 
 as they could themselves. This seems the more 
 probable account of the thirty-first Article^', and 
 the true account of the twelfth and thirteenth^. 
 Somewhat similar is the account of the condemna- 
 tion of the word ' trahsubstantiation' in the twenty- 
 eighth Article : on which such gross and impious 
 superstitions seem to have existed among the 
 people, nay, such startling statements to have been 
 made even by writers of repute and spiritually- 
 minded men, (see Tract, p. 47 — 51.) that it is not 
 to be wondered at that the word should be supposed 
 necessarily to involve more than it really does. 
 Mr. Palmer on the Church, (vol. ii. p. 224.) con- 
 siders ' it very probable that Innocentius in the 
 synod of Lateran,' (in introducing the term ' tran- 
 substantiation,') ' did not intend to establish any 
 thing except the doctrine of the real presence.' 
 In the case of the fourteenth Article we are not 
 left in uncertainty ; they explicitly state the doc- 
 trine they condemn, viz. that by which ' men do 
 
 ^ On these Articles more will be said presently.
 
 42 
 
 * declare that they do not only render unto God as 
 ' much as they are bound to do, but that they do 
 ' more for his sake than of bounden duty is required.' 
 I apprehend such a notion as this, if put forth by 
 any in conspicuous position, would have been 
 anathematized in any age of the Christian Church. 
 Luther seems to have been the first who taught in 
 public, and founded a sect on the position, that the 
 whole Law of God is not binding on the Christian's 
 conscience ; and if the remark do not appear para- 
 doxical, he really seems in some of his writings to 
 take the view condemned in the Article'', 'i hat 
 doctrine of orthodox believers, as I stated in my 
 last pamphlet, which seems popularly supposed to 
 be here condemned and yet which so plainly is not, 
 is truly stated thus, viz. that ' it is possible for His 
 ' sake to do more, to make higher advances in holi- 
 ' ness, than the least which in His great mercy for 
 
 * the merit of Christ's death. He will accept as 
 ' sufficient to salvation'.' 
 
 h e. g. ' Hanc [justifiam Christi] cum intus liabeo, descendo 
 ' de coelo .... hoc est prodeo foras \naliudrcgnum et facio bona 
 ' opera qucecum/ue mild occurrent.' Luther Arg. in Gal. quoted 
 by Newman on Justif. p. 31. 
 
 ' There is (I beh'eve) no doctrine on works of supererogation 
 authoritatively taught by the Church of Rome: and the com- 
 monly received account of them in that Communion is altogether 
 on a distinct subject, and connected with the temporal sufferings 
 due to sin. In defence of the latter truth (that afflictions in this 
 world do come as punishments for past sin in the justified) 
 which has lately been impugned, see Newman's Sermons, vol. iv. 
 Serm, vii. viii.
 
 43 
 
 4. So far then, there is nothing which many 
 admirers of the Reformers need hesitate to admit ; 
 nothing at all disparaging to their honesty and 
 open deahng. But in the mind of the Author 
 of the Tract (and many feel with him) there still 
 remain peculiarities in the phraseology of the 
 Articles which cannot be accounted for without 
 going further. * Some there are/ says the 
 Pamphlet very truly, ' who hold that the Reformers 
 ' deliberately drew up the Articles with a view 
 ' of presenting an appearance of Protestantism 
 * which a more minute examination will not bear 
 ' out ; thus taking a distinction between their 
 ' prima facie and their literal sense.' (p. 21.) By 
 help of this view I followed the Tract in my last 
 publication in endeavouring to throw light on the 
 twenty-eighth, twenty-fifth, and thirty-second Ar- 
 ticles. It will not be necessary to say more on the 
 subject, than that if true it cuts very deep, 
 and the consideration of it will relieve many 
 minds of perplexities on several kindred sub- 
 jects which much distress them. There is do- 
 cumentary evidence to shew that Bishop Jewel 
 at least was exceedingly anxious that our Church 
 should appear to foreign Protestants as agreeing 
 with themselves ; but indeed in their position, 
 whether in Elizabeth's or Edward the Sixth's 
 time, it must have been of the highest im- 
 portance to them that the English Church should 
 have the appearance in the eyes of Christendom 
 of being united in Protestant opinions. To adjust
 
 44 
 
 between this consideration and the last with ac- 
 curacy is of course not possible nor at all im- 
 portant : on the one hand, that they w^ere really 
 and honourably zealous against many practical 
 corruptions, cannot be doubted ; and their failing 
 to think of the distinction between such corrup- 
 tions and the truth of which they were perversions, 
 * w^ould seem a natural result from their apparent 
 ' tendency to view religious opinions /rom without, 
 ' rather looking at them in their effects on the 
 ' mass of men, than applying themselves to the 
 ' enquiry, what might be their meaning, and what 
 ' place they might legitimately hold, in the mind of 
 ' the more religious.' On the other hand, such 
 wish of our Church's appearing externally Pro- 
 testant, would disincline them to any very careful 
 and pains-taking attempts to master the real doc- 
 trine, in order that by help of what sounded like a 
 condemnation of Ancient doctrine the apparent 
 difference between our own Church and Rome 
 might be the greater. 
 
 The writer of the pamphlet proceeds,, with ap- 
 parent reference to myself individually ; * Such 
 ' men are fallen on evil days ; they should have 
 ' lived in times when they might have originated 
 ' the pious frauds they are now only able to benefit 
 ' by.' Is not this rather hard ? The view in 
 question may be true or false; but if true, is it 
 not a strange notion of poetical justice that Pro- 
 testant ' pious frauds' of three centuries since, 
 should injure now nol Protestants but Catholics ?
 
 45 
 
 Let us now then proceed at once to the Article 
 on General Councils : for the Reviewer and many 
 other persons seem to think the interpretation 
 of this Article in the Tract to he so flagrant a case, 
 that till it is disposed of, one can hardly expect 
 fair attention to the subject of other Articles. 
 
 " XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. 
 
 *' General Councils may not be gathered together with- 
 " out the commandment and will of Princes. And when 
 " they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an 
 " assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the 
 " Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes 
 " have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Where- 
 " fore things ordained by them as necessary to salvatioa 
 " have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be 
 " declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture." 
 
 Now it will at once be said, as it has been so 
 often, that at first sight the natural spirit and drift 
 of this Article seems to deny any infallible authority 
 to aiiy General Councils, and to declare that no 
 General Council has any claim on the consciences 
 whether of local churches or of individuals, except 
 so far as its decrees approve themselves to their 
 judgments as accordant with Scripture. Now 1 not 
 only do not deny that this seems on reading it the 
 natural drift of the Article, but I strongly maintain 
 it ; I maintain it, in order that if it be shewn quite 
 impossible that this can have been the sense in 
 which it was sanctioned, any j)roposed interpreta-
 
 46 
 
 tion may be free from the a priori objection, that it 
 appears rather a strain upon the words. If the 
 words, unless rather a strain be put upon them, 
 seem naturall}' to determine what it is quite certain 
 they were never meant to determine, then they must 
 have rather a strain put upon them. Nor do I 
 decide how far the consideration spoken of in the 
 last paragraph may serve to account for its strong 
 prima facie appearance of decreeing what it cer- 
 tainly does not decree. Let me make then rather 
 large quotations from Mr. Perceval's late pamphlet, 
 with the view of shewing not only the amount 
 of deference paid in the public documents of our 
 Church to primitive antiquity as interpreting Scrip- 
 ture with authority, but even the deference which 
 the Reformers themselves (whether honestly and 
 heartily or not is another matter) professed for it in 
 this particular. 
 
 •' Let us hear Cranmer speaking: 
 
 " ' I protest that it was never in my mind to 
 *' write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to 
 " the most holy Word of God, or else against the 
 " holy Catholic Church of Christ, but purely and 
 " simply to imitate and teach those things only 
 " which I had learned of the Sacred Scripture, 
 " and of the Catholic Church of Christ from the 
 " beginning, and also according to the exposition 
 ' ' of the most holy and learned fathers and martyrs 
 " of the Church. And if any thing, peradventure, 
 " hath chanced otherwise than T thought, I may
 
 47 
 
 " err; but heretic I cannot be, forasmuch as I am 
 " ready in all things to follow the judgment of the 
 " most sacred Word of God, and of the holy Catholic 
 *' Church.' — Appeal to a General Council. 
 
 " Ridley speaks thus: ' When I perceive the 
 *' greatest part of Christianity to be infected with 
 ** the poison of the See of Rome, I repair to the 
 *' usage of the primitive Church.^ 
 
 " Farrar, Hooker, Taylor, Philpot, Bradford, 
 ** and Coverdale, speak thus: ' We doubt not, by 
 " God's grace, but we shall be able to prove all our 
 '* confession here to be most true, by the verity of 
 '• God's word, a7id consent of the Catholic Church.' — 
 " Confession at Oxford, 1554. 
 
 " Philpot still more plainly speaks thus, at his 
 " fourth examination: — The Bishop of Gloucester 
 " asked him, ' I pray you, by whom will you be 
 ** judged in matters of controversy which happen 
 "daily?' Philpot answered, 'By the Word of 
 *' God, for Christ saith in St. John, the Word that 
 '* He spake shall be judge in the latter day.' The 
 " Bishop then asked him, ' What if you take the 
 " Word one way, and I another way, who shall 
 " judge then V Mark Philpot's answer : ' The 
 " PRIMITIVE Church.' " 
 
 Mr. Perceval next alludes to " the decision of 
 " the Church of England in the time of the 
 " Reformation," " a decision pronounced in open 
 " Synod, and propounded to the Clergy of the 
 " Church of England." " It was decreed in the
 
 48 
 
 " Convocation of 1571, assembled under Arch- 
 " bishop Parker, and ratified by him." (p. 10.) 
 " The decree is entitled, De Concionatoribus, and 
 '* contains rules for the guidance of all preachers 
 " in the Church of Eng'and. The words which 
 " concern the point in dispute are as follows: ' In 
 " the first place, thej' (the preachers) shall see that 
 " they never teach any thing, for a discourse, which 
 " they wish to be religiously held and believed by the 
 " people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the 
 " Old and New Testament, and what the Catho- 
 " Lie Fathers and ancient Bishops have col- 
 " lected out of that same doctrine.' " 
 
 " If more proof is wanted, I can adduce it in 
 " abundance, by citing the Book of Homilies, 
 " prepared by the Reformers in the reigns of 
 " Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, for the in- 
 " struction of all classes of the people; recom- 
 " mended by our Articles to this day as fit for 
 "that purpose; and to a general approval of 
 *' which, every member of the University of Ox- 
 " ford, every graduate of Cambridge, and every 
 " bishop, priest, and deacon in the Church of 
 " England, is pledged by the subscription of his 
 '* own hand. If there be one feature throughout 
 " the whole of the Homilies more remarkable than 
 " another, it is the exhibition of that very principle 
 " of deference to the ancient Church, for the 
 " maintenance of which so much reproach has 
 " been heaped upon our heads. In this mode-
 
 49 
 
 " rately-sized volume of sermons we lind Ambrose, 
 " and Anselm, and Athanasius, and Arnobius, and 
 '• Augustine, and Basil, and Bede, and Bernard, 
 " and Boniface, and Chrysostom, and Clemens, 
 " and Cyprian, and Cyril, and Damascene, and 
 " Dionysius, and Epiphanius, and Eusebius, and 
 " Eusebius of Emissa, and Eutropius, and Ful- 
 " gentius, and Gregory, and Hilary, and Ignatius, 
 " and Irenaeus, and Jerome, and Isidore, and 
 •* Justin, and Lactantius, and Origen, and CEcu- 
 " menius, and Optatus, and Prosper, and Paulus 
 " Diaconus, and Photius, and Serenus, and Theo- 
 " phylact, and Tertullian, and Zephyrus, and Ze- 
 " phyrinus, and others, quoted with a frequency 
 " of which we have no parallel in these times. 
 " I have noted forty citations from Augustine 
 " only. The terms in which they are spoken 
 " of are no less remarkable than the frequency 
 " of the citations. ' The great clerk and godly 
 *' preacher;' ' the learned and godly doctor;' *a 
 " godly father;' * the holy fathers and doctors;' 
 " and expressions of the same kind, meet us at 
 " every turn. Nor is this all : they are cited as 
 " persons, to whose testimony, judgment, and 
 " decision, the very greatest deference is due: — 
 " ' St. Augustine, a doctor of great authority and 
 " also antiquity, hath this opinion :' * You see that 
 *' the authority both of the Scripture and also of 
 *' Augustine ;' ' It is already proved, both by the 
 " Scriptures and by the authority of Augustine ;' 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 " ' To know which they be, St. Augustine teacheth 
 " us ;' ' Ye have heard how earnestly both the 
 " apostles, prophets, holy fathers, and doctors, 
 " do exhort us ;' 'If the wholesome counsel of 
 " godly fathers or the love of Christ may move 
 " US;' ' Being warned by his holy Word, and by 
 " the writings of old godly doctors and ecclesias- 
 " tical histories;' and so throughout. The appeal 
 " for the truth of Christian doctrine is uniformly 
 " made, not to the Scriptures only, but to the 
 " Scriptures corroborated by the Fathers ; of which 
 " I will add only one more instance, — that, namely, 
 " in which we are instructed how to ascertain the 
 " truth concerning the celebration of the Lord's 
 " supper. ' But before all other things, this we must 
 " be sure of especially , that this supper be in such 
 " wise done and ministered, as our Lord and 
 '* Saviour did and commanded to be done, as his 
 " holy Apostles used it, and the good fathers of the 
 "•' primitive Church frequented it.'' 
 
 Now after this, can any man in his senses 
 suppose, that the same Convocation, the same 
 Reformers, the Articles generally sanctioning the 
 same Homihes, intended to rule, that no doctrine 
 claimed reception which did not commend itself 
 to the private judgment (whether of the local 
 Church or of the individual) as agreeable to Scrip- 
 ture, though it were one which the early Church 
 did see in the Sacred Volume ? Yet if they 
 did not mean this, it is necessary to do some
 
 51 
 
 violence to the spirit of this Article, and accurately 
 to analyse its words, to discover what they did 
 mean. 
 
 In my last publication I mentioned internal 
 evidence, which seemed satisfactory, as shewing 
 that the Article (if I may so express myself) really 
 has no spirit as it now stands : that there are plain 
 marks of a few words having been afterwards 
 inserted, which may be said to make its di'ift 
 self-contradictory. For what force or meaning 
 is there in this, " forasmuch as they be an assembly 
 of men, &Ci they may err .... even in things per- 
 taining to God. Wherefore [although we do not 
 deny that in points of doctrine 7iot necessary to 
 salvation they have infallible authority, e. g. * whe- 
 ' ther Purgatorial pain be by fire,' or ' whether Invo- 
 ' cation of Saints be right,' yet] things ordained 
 by them as necessary to salvation have neither 
 strength nor authority," &c. And this very quali- 
 fication as to doctrines ' necessary to salvation,' 
 which has plainly been thus rudely thrust in, to 
 the disarrangement and overthrow of the argument 
 and run of the Article, is, as I said, the very same 
 mentioned not only in the 6th and 20th Articles, 
 but also in the Ordination Service. In all these 
 cases the same restriction as to ivhat doctrine must 
 be proved by Scripture, and in all, it is important 
 to add, the same silence on the question, who is to 
 judge of the scripturalness of any alleged doctrine''. 
 
 ■^ As regards the absence of determination in favour of private 
 D 2
 
 52 
 
 I feel convinced, that if any one will bring himself 
 fairly to look at our Articles with his eyes open, 
 and dismissing that strength of preconceived opi- 
 nion which seems on this point quite to confuse the 
 calm judgment of some who have written on it, he 
 will see that the ground which our formularies 
 have taken up against what their framers con- 
 sidered Roman innovations, is, as far as Scripture 
 is concerned, ' nothing is necessary to salvation 
 ' which cannot be shewn us' (ostendi, is the word 
 in this Article) in Scripture : on necessary points, 
 no writing, no religious body is of authority, except 
 as interpreting Scripture. To those who came 
 upon them with an alleged truth, and pro- 
 fessed for it the sanction of a General Council, 
 they would answer, ' General Councils may err 
 ' and have erred ; do they profess to see it in 
 ' Scripture? if not, it is no necessary truth.' That 
 on such points Scripture is to be interpreted not on 
 
 judgment, the pamphlet says, " The Article (the 20th) mentions 
 " several things which the Church ought not to do. Whom then 
 " did it contemplate as the judge whether the Church had done 
 " these things or not? The Church? Then the matter will stand 
 " thus; the Church must not do certain things; if she does, the 
 " appeal lies from the Church doing to the Church judging, and 
 '• the whole becomes a complicated absurdity." (p. 19.) How 
 strange that the writer should not have perceived, that if the 
 governors of the Church subscribe a declaration that the Church 
 ought not to do certain things, there is a much stronger proba- 
 bility than otherwise that the Church will not do them. 
 
 1
 
 53 
 
 private judgment but on authority^ every one, after 
 what has been said, must allow to have been at the 
 very least a doctrine tolerated by them ; and the 
 question whether such authority reside merely in 
 the general judgment of the Primitive Church, or also 
 and more determinately in certain Councils, was 
 altogether beside the mark, and its decision either 
 way would give no additional strength to the 
 ground they took up against Rome. The sixth 
 Article says, ' at all events all necessary points are 
 ' contained in Scripture,' the twentieth Article that 
 ' the local Church has no authority on such points 
 ' except as interpreting Scripture,' the twenty-first 
 (as I would maintain) ' that neither has the Uni- 
 ' versal Church'.' I am not determining how far 
 
 ' I mentioned also in my last pamphlet the practical result 
 of the difference between this statement and the Roman to be 
 that far greater encouragement would be given to the reverent 
 study of the Sacred Volume on the part of the laity, if the 
 Clergy were bound not to teach necessary truth to the people 
 simply on the Church's authority, but according to primitive 
 usage, to point out carefully to them the passages of Scripture 
 in which it is enclosed. I conceive that on such points at least no 
 more is left to the private judgment in the primitive view than in 
 the Roman. An ingenious writer, who however does not draw 
 out the distinction as agreeing in either position, distinguishes 
 them thus (I quote from memory) : ' the Roman Catholic teaches 
 
 * the people on the Church's authority that certain doctrines are 
 
 • true and necessary: the English Catholic teaches the people 
 ' on the Church's authority, 1 . that certain doctrines are true 
 ' and necessary ; 2. that they are expressed in certain passages 
 ' of Scripture.'
 
 54 
 
 their position woul I really have been of much 
 service to them in discussion with an acute Roman 
 controversialist ; (it has certainly never been denied 
 by the Roman Church that all necessary truth is in 
 Scripture ;) I am not determining whether some 
 Members of the Convocation so often referred to 
 may not have very well known that the Articles 
 ruled nothing on these points which other Churches 
 would condemn ; but it seems to me as plain as any 
 fact connected with the Articles, that it luas the 
 position they took up. 
 
 But the pamphlet says, " It is possible (right?) 
 *' for him who believes that some General Councils 
 " are infallible to sign an Article which says that 
 " General {clearly meaning all General) Councils 
 '* may err ; that is, it is possible (right?) for him 
 " to subscribe one proposition and believe its 
 " logical contradictory ." (p. 13.) Again, " The 
 ^' Article makes these three propositions. No 
 " General Council may be called together, &c. All 
 *' General Councils may err. Some have erred." 
 (p. 20.) The Reviewer expresses himself still more 
 strongly. Not to quote more than is necessary 
 to shew what the force of his objection is. " Here is 
 " a man, who . . . swore^ . . . that he believed that 
 " General Councils, without the least hint of any 
 ** exception, may err in things pertaining to God, 
 
 '" By the way, on what occasion do clergy sivear to belief in 
 the Articles? but the Reviewer says," swear in the most public, 
 ?' the most [ositivu, the most sacred manner."
 
 55 
 
 •' and deliberately declaring that some General 
 " Councils are infallible." (p. 285.) " Let us 
 *' suppose some Roman Catholic to have taken 
 " the oath of allegiance to the Queen, and to have 
 " been afterwards detected in a conspiracy against 
 ** her throne and life .... why should he not 
 " answer .... that the duty of dethroning here- 
 " tics, when practicable, was a real, though un- 
 " expressed, exception to his oath?" I have been a 
 little surprised at the force which many people 
 have seen in such statements ; for it does not seem 
 an unusual form of speech : e. g. some one says to 
 a Roman Catholic, ■•' you should believe this, for 
 " no less authority than the Kirk of Scotland has 
 " declared it:" he answers, " Religious commu- 
 " nities, consisting as they do of fallible men, 
 " may err and have erred in points of doctrine." 
 Is that an unnatural answer? would any one 
 call it inconsistent with his belief that some religi- 
 ous communities are infallible, viz. those in com- 
 munion with Rome ? Yet if he were obliged to 
 put out in a hard and dry way the mode in which 
 he reconciled the two statements, it must be in 
 something like the following words, " Religious 
 " communities may err as such; may err unless 
 *' in any case it is promised that they shall not 
 " err: the natural tendency of the fact that they 
 *' consist of falhble men is that they may err; and 
 ** the tendency will be carried into effect except in 
 " cases where a special Providence prevents it. Or-
 
 56 
 
 " dinarily, therefore, and as such, they are fallible, 
 " though 1 believe there are cases where they are 
 " not." And as to the exception in the present 
 instance not being mentioned.) to mention it would 
 be to rule that some General Councils are infallible; 
 we only maintain that the contrary is not ruled. 
 Or to take a case still more in point, might not any 
 one of us, if compelled to express difference, say from 
 some one of the Tracts for the Times, and pressed 
 with the consideration of their authority, from the 
 character of the contributors, answer, " their 
 " writers are learned and able men certainly : but 
 " the writings of the best men, since the best men 
 " are fallible, may err and sometimes have erred 
 " even in things pertaining to God/' And should 
 it afterwards appear that the speaker considered 
 that the books of Holy Scripture, though " writ- 
 " ings of fallible men," still may not and have not 
 erred on points of religion, what would be said 
 should his adversary turn round and accuse him of 
 " mental reservation," or " of destroying all confi- 
 " dence in the honour and good faith of mankind?'' 
 Still the impression may remain on the mind 
 of many that this distinction between General and 
 Catholic Councils is taken up to serve a present 
 emergency ; that at the time the Articles were 
 written, and always before, " General Councils'* 
 meant simply " such as were held to be infallible:" 
 that the notion of " General" being the genus, and 
 " Catholic or Infallible" the species, is intro- 
 
 1
 
 57 
 
 duced ingeniously for a purpose. Now although 
 the case were, as the objection supposes, that 
 General had always before meant Infallible Coun- 
 cils, it would not follow that the Article in- 
 tended to rule more than this, that no Council could 
 be infallible as to essentials, except as interpret- 
 ing Scripture; leaving open the question, whether 
 or not it could be so in that case ; but the fact is 
 altogether otherwise. On the one hand Bellarmine 
 not only gives an instance of a national Council 
 being called general", but draws a distinction, 
 giving a large number of instances of each, between 
 ' Concilia Generalia approbata,' ' Concilia Generalia 
 reprobata,' and ' Concilia Generalia partim con- 
 firmata partim reprobata" ;' and though beseems 
 occasionally to use ' general' in its stricter sense, 
 as synonymous with what he calls, ' verum Ec- 
 clesise Concilium p,' yet his ordinary use of the word 
 
 * General Council,' in his first eight chapters, which 
 are all I have read, is certainly as a genus, a par- 
 t'cular class of which only is infallible. On the 
 other hand, with regard to the other party in 
 the Roman Church, Mr. Palmer quotes among 
 others the following : ' Quidam theologi opinantur 
 
 * banc ecclesiee approbationem omnem auctoritatem 
 
 " De Conciliis et EcclesiA, lib. 1. cap. 4. 
 
 " Cap. 5. 6. et 7. ' The latter he heads only, Concilia partim 
 confirmata partim reprobata,' but the first words of the chapter 
 are, ' Primum ycnerale partim confirmatum, partim reprobatum.' 
 
 •' Cap. 8.
 
 58 
 
 * Concilio General! tribuere.' Bouvier *i. * Temera- 
 
 * rium est dicere quia Concilium Generale circa jidem 
 ' errare non potest.' Ockhara '. Are either of these 
 phrases less strong than those in our Article? And 
 yet we know that their writers considered some 
 General Councils infallible. To the same effect 
 he quotes De Barral, Trevern, and Bossuet*. 
 Thus then it seenas that while members of one 
 party in the Roman Church say that General 
 Councils may err as such and unless confirmed 
 by the Pope ; of the other party, ' unless confirmed 
 by the Universal Church ;' the English Churchman 
 is allowed to say, ' General Councils may err 
 ' as such, and on necessary points may err, unless 
 ' they prove their decrees from Scripture.' We 
 take the Article then thus, ' General Councils may 
 ' not be gathered, &c. and when they be gathered 
 
 * together, forasmuch as, &c. they may err and 
 ' sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining 
 ' unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them 
 ' have neither strength nor authority unless [there 
 ' be some special mark upon them distinguishing 
 ' them from common General Councils ; and this 
 
 * there will not be unless] things ordained by them 
 
 * as necessary to salvation be shewn to be taken out 
 
 * of Holy Scripture,' i. e, unless Scripture texts 
 
 "J ' On the Church,* vol. ii. p. 154. 
 ' p. 1.57. 
 ' p. 154, 5.
 
 59 
 
 he pointed out by them as containing in their judg- 
 ment the doctrines they decree. And ' for the 
 ' importance of this test of the Catholicity of a 
 ' General Council, see Newman's Prophetical Office 
 
 * of the Church, lect. viii. where he brings out the 
 ' fact, that the first General Council which pro- 
 ' fessed to ground its decrees not on Scripture 
 
 * sanction, but mainly on tradition, was the first 
 
 * which framed as an Article of faith w^hat was 
 ' beside and beyond the Apostles' Creed, was the 
 
 * Council which decreed the worship of images, and 
 ' was the first which took place certainly after the 
 
 * schism had taken place between the East and 
 ' West.' 
 
 One misapprehension in the Reviewer on this 
 subject remains to be noticed. He quotes from 
 the Tract, ' such a case is beside the Articles' 
 ' determination;' and continues, ' Be it so, but who 
 ' compels you to sign the Article if you think it 
 
 * wrong or presumptuous ?' (p. 286.) and to shew 
 more clearly his strange mistake of the Author's 
 meaning, he actually quotes the words in p. 294, as 
 follows, ' a case which lies beyond the scope of the 
 ' Article, or at any rate beside its jurisdiction,^ 
 plainly thinking Mr. Newman to mean by ' deter- 
 mination,' ' legitimate province or jurisdiction.' 
 Yet the sentence in the Tract does not seem 
 obscure : ' a case which lies beyond the scope of 
 ' this Article,' i. e. which does not come within 
 the range of subjects aimed at, in the Article, ' ox
 
 60 
 
 ' at any rate beside its determination,' i. e. or at 
 any rate which it has not happened to determine. 
 
 To bring the subject of this Article to a close, I 
 cannot feel the difficulty with regard to the first 
 clause so strongly as Mr. Perceval has done. He 
 says^ that ' if the Bishops of the Church were 
 ' reduced to so few, that even a score or a dozen 
 ' of the inhabitants of the same country might 
 
 * constitute a General Council in the fullest sense 
 ' of the words : yet, even these, if the Article is 
 
 * to be taken as affirming a principle, must not 
 
 * meet together to consult for the preservation of 
 ' the Church without the command of the prince, 
 ' who might be a heathen.' It seems very possible 
 surely to take the Article as asserting a principle, 
 and yet not thinking of extreme cases. In the 
 state of things which then existed, which had 
 existed more than 1000 years, which essentially 
 still exists, it is wrong in principle for General 
 Councils to meet ' without the commandment and 
 ' will of princes.' Dr. Arnold himself (see p. 25.) 
 would not say that in all cases, e. g. if the king 
 were a heathen, it would be wrong for them so to 
 meet. But in the actual state of things, ' it is plain 
 ' from the principles of civil obedience and from 
 ' primitive practice' (founded on those principles) 
 ' that great bodies of men, of different countries, 
 
 * may not meet together without the sanction of 
 ' their (civil) rulers.' Tract, p. 21. 
 
 ' Vindication, &c. p. 24.
 
 61 
 
 What has been said on this head sufficiently illus- 
 trates the kindred Articles, the sixth and twentieth; 
 it is only necessary therefore to advert to what 
 has been said against the Tract on the subject of 
 their interpretation. The Reviewer says with great 
 simplicity, that ' the Oxford divines do hold 
 ' that doctrines not found in the Bible are yet 
 ' essential to salvation :' one can only answer, they 
 do not^ and challenge proof of the statement. He 
 alleges the doctrine of the necessity of Apostolical 
 succession in order to the existence of a real 
 Church, and in order (according to God's appointed 
 method) to the participation in the Body and Blood 
 of Christ ; also the doctrine of the necessity of the 
 latter (still according to God's appointed method, 
 for no one denies there may be exceptions) ' to the 
 ' maintenance of Christian life and hope in the 
 ' individual.' p. 277. Of course he will not ex- 
 pect a theological discussion on these subjects ; 
 it is sufficient to say that they do believe that 
 these doctrines are all to be ' found in the Bible ;' 
 though they are not bound to believe that they are 
 to be found there by the private Christian, except 
 in proportion to his progress in holiness, and his 
 patient study of Holy Scripture under the Church's 
 teaching. It is much to be regretted that this 
 writer is not better acquainted with the works of 
 those whom he has thought right to censure so 
 severely, or he must have known that this is their 
 belief. On the present general subject let me refer
 
 62 
 
 him to Lectures 3, 4, and 5, of Tract 85, especially 
 p. 51 ; and to Mr. Froude's Essay on Rationalism, 
 from the sixth chapter to the end. Indeed all who 
 are really anxious to follow Scripture, should give 
 the whole of that treatise, appealing as it does almost 
 exclusively to Scripture proof, their most atten- 
 tive consideration. The Reviewer says, that ' the 
 ' Oxford theologians may believe if they please that 
 ' tradition and the Church are the divine interpreters 
 ' of Scripture ; still however inspired they are only 
 ' interpreters, and cannot be alleged as the in- 
 ' dependent authority for a single new doctrine, 
 ' without violating the express declaration of the 
 ' Articles.' (p. 278.) One can hardly wish a fairer 
 statement of the case than this ; insert only after the 
 word doctrine, the qualification invariably made in 
 our Church's formularies, ' as necessary to salva- 
 tion ;' and I have sincere pleasure in assuring him, 
 that he will not find a single member of our 
 Church differing from him ; and I believe few, 
 if any, in the foreign Churches. 
 
 On the subject of the Mass, the quotations 
 brought forward from Cranmer and Ridley in the 
 Edinburgh Review make it to my mind a good 
 deal more probable, that they really mistook the 
 doctrines held by the Church on the subject. 
 The Catholic doctrine of the Mass or Eucharistic
 
 63 
 
 Sacrifice (to speak only of points on which all 
 Catholics agree) is, that the fruits of the One 
 Sacrifice once made on the Cross are in a special 
 and peculiar sense impetrated by the Church for 
 the living and dead, through the Mystical Offering 
 of the Eucharist. Now, to call this formally incon- 
 sistent with, or derogatory from, the doctrine of 
 the Atonement, is simply unmeaning ; as much 
 as to speak in that way of the necessity of faith, 
 or works, or Baptism, to salvation. When 
 persons consider these latter as appointed in- 
 struments or means for applying to individuals 
 the blessings purchased by our Lord's death, 
 reasonable men, however they may differ in 
 opinion, never speak of them as denying or 
 tending to deny the Atonement. Of course to 
 say that the thought of the Atonement is obscured 
 in the minds of most men and practically put out 
 of sight by a certain line of teaching, is quite 
 another thing ; but in such passages as the fol- 
 lowing, Cranmer and Ridley seem speaking of 
 doctrine : Cranmer. ' The papistical priests have 
 ' taken on them to be Christ's successors, and to 
 
 * make such an oblation and sacrifice as never 
 ' creature made but Christ alone.' ' If only the 
 ' death of Christ be the oblative sacrifice and price 
 ' wherefore our sins are pardoned, then the act or 
 ' ministration of the priest cannot have the same 
 
 * office.' (p. 280.) Ridley. ' To speak of this oblation, 
 ' how much it is injurious unto Christ's passion,
 
 64 
 
 ' how it cannot, but with high blasphemy and 
 ' intolerable pride be claimed of any man,' &c. 
 It is common charity to these prelates to suppose 
 that they did not rightly understand what the 
 doctrine was against which they felt themselves at 
 liberty to use such unbridled language. Nor is this 
 misconception so unnatural as at first sight may 
 appear. Not only would the popular belief of such 
 miracles as those mentioned in the Tract, pp. 48, 9. 
 make the multitude of men naturally prone to con- 
 sider it a repetition of the One Sacrifice, but the not 
 uncommon language of theologians, speaking of it 
 as one and the same with the Sacrifice on Calvary, 
 might tend to encourage a similar idea among 
 the ruder sort, or at all events might give Protest- 
 ants wrong notions of what the real doctrine was. 
 The decree of Trent itself, ' Una eademque est 
 ' hostia, idem nunc ofFerens sacerdotum rainisterio 
 ' qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sold offerendi 
 ' ratione diversd,' might be easily misunderstood 
 but for the words immediately following, ' Cujus 
 ' quidem oblationis cruenice inquam, frucfus per hanc 
 ' incrnentam uberrime percipiuntur.' The Reviewer 
 adds that Cranmer, ' as if foreseeing Mr. Newman's 
 ' quibble, says, ' the Papists to excuse themselves, 
 ' &c.' May I be allowed to make rather a longer 
 extract, which begins with the passage quoted in 
 the Review. ' The Papists to excuse themselves 
 * do say, that they make no new sacrifice nor none 
 ' other sacrifice than Christ made And here
 
 65 
 
 * they run into the foulest and most heinous error 
 ' that ever was imagined. For if thej^ make every 
 ' day the same oblation and sacrifice for sin that 
 ' Christ made, .... then foUoweth it of necessity, 
 
 * that they every day slay Christ and shed His blood, 
 ' and so be they luorse than the 2vicked Jews and 
 ' Pharisees, which slew Him and shed His blood 
 
 ' but once. Almighty God banish all such 
 
 ' darkness and error out of His Church, &c."^ So 
 writes the 'Father of the English Reformation:' 
 whatever other feelings may rise in the mind of the 
 religious reader on perusing the passage, this is 
 plain that he altogether misunderstood the sacred 
 doctrine he opposed, and was even in his own 
 despite, in this instance at least, preserved from any 
 direct ' fighting against God .' 
 
 As to the Article itself, having for its title, * Of 
 ' the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross,' 
 and for its direct matter a full and most orthodox 
 statement of that fundamental doctrine, I cannot 
 conceive an unprejudiced person to imagine the 
 latter clause, appended by a ' wherefore,' to be 
 aimed at any practice or opinion not militating in 
 any way against that doctrine. After what has 
 been said, most persons will perhaps be satisfied 
 that the mistake as to matter of fact (what ivas the 
 Ancient doctrine of the Mass) is the true solution ; 
 but if otherwise, let them remember the amount of 
 practical corruption then existing ; how that vast 
 
 " Jenkyns's Crannier, vol. ii. p. 453. 
 E
 
 66 
 
 and majestic symbolical system which still survived 
 had come in so great measure to take men's 
 thoughts from God instead of leading to Him ; 
 and that as in other parts so also in this, the Mass 
 seems of itself to have engrossed the people's 
 thoughts and affections, instead of fixing them more 
 firmly on that One Atonement, of which this un- 
 bloody sacrifice was at once the commemoration 
 and appUcation. The condemnation then of this 
 practical corruption would be not an unnatural 
 conclusion of the first part of the Article. But 
 whichever view be adopted, this or the former, 
 one thing at least cannot be imagined with any 
 shew of reason, that the doctrine of the Mast, as I 
 just now drew it out, was even hinted at in it. 
 
 The Reviewer is severe upon the explanation of 
 the twenty-fifth Article. He says, with perfect 
 truth, that " by sacrament, Mr. Newman means 
 " a rite whereby a great and peculiar spiritual 
 " blessing is attached to one fixed outward form, 
 " and that Mr. N. asserts for the Church the 
 " power to select this form and endow it with 
 " this grace." " He reduces," the Reviewer says, 
 " the difference between them (the * five com- 
 " monly called sacraments,' and the ' Sacraments 
 " of the Gospel,') to the mere absence of a direct 
 
 " divine appointment Had our Reformers 
 
 •' been of this opinion, they could not have framed 
 " the Article in its present form. They could not
 
 67 
 
 " have said that they had not ' hke nature of 
 " Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
 "per.'" (p. 283.) How strange that he should 
 forget that the very words which immediately 
 follow, the very reason which the Article gives 
 why they have not " like nature," is, '' for that they 
 " have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of 
 " God." Many persons, perhaps, will see in this 
 Article a remarkable instance of the desire of ap- 
 pearing as far from Rome as possible ; the definition 
 of " sacrament" seems almost changed on purpose 
 to exclude the other five. 
 
 The 13th Article is perhaps the most difficult of 
 all to reconcile with Gospel Truth. I do not feel 
 myself called upon at present to enter into the sub- 
 ject ; comparatively little, so far as I am aware, 
 having been written against the view of it maintained 
 in the Tract. To discuss it fully would require con- 
 siderable knowledge of the Reformation theology, 
 especially Melancthon's, from whom our Articles 
 are so much taken, and a careful comparison with 
 the wording of the 10th, 11th, and 12th Articles, 
 especially the first-named ; not to mention on the 
 other hand the Service for Baptism, and other 
 parts of the Prayer-book. At present I shall 
 merely notice the objections raised in the two 
 publications which all along I have been con- 
 sidering. The pamphlet says, (p. 19.) ' if (works) 
 
 K 2
 
 68 
 
 ' are before justification, they are before faith, Article 
 ' xi.' i. e. that the llth Article decides that justifi- 
 cation follows on faith immediately. Surely that 
 Article must be much strained to discover such 
 a decision in its wording. The Office for " Baptism 
 " of such as are of riper years," (which, however, 
 was added at a later period, but the writer of 
 the pamphlet disclaims any consideration of the 
 " imponens,") is altogether inconsistent with 
 such a notion. Those adults who come for 
 Baptism come, if they are to benefit by it, in 
 faith, as all must allow : yet for such persons 
 the people pray, " we call upon thee for these 
 " persons, that they coming to thy holy baptism 
 " may receive remission of their sins by spiritual 
 " regeneration :" now " remission of sins^' is, we 
 know, " justification," and the prayer is therefore, 
 that those who have faith may be justified by 
 Baptism. On the other hand, the Reviewer, 
 (p. 282.) also pressing the eleventh Article vio- 
 lently into his service, says, in arguing against 
 Baptismal justification, " it is hard to see .... how 
 " the faith required by the Article can exist 
 " in an infant ;" thus wishing to shew that our 
 Church denies justification to be given before ex- 
 plicit faith exists. Yet the Service for Baptism of 
 infants (and this existed before the Convocation, 
 and remained untouched by it) is altogether in- 
 consistent with such a view. Is justification for- 
 giveness and reception into God's favour? the
 
 69 
 
 people pray for the ini'ant, " that he, coming to thy 
 " holy baptism, may receive remission of sins by 
 " spiritual regeneration." The congregation are 
 told, " Doubt ye not, but earnestly believe that 
 " He will .... favourably receive this present 
 "infant:" after Baptism, God is thanked "that 
 " it hath pleased Him to receive this infant for 
 " His own child by adoption." Is Christian 
 justification an infused quality of righteousness? 
 the people pray God before Baptism, " that He will 
 " tvash and sanctify this child ivith the Holy Ghost, ^' 
 and after Baptism thank Him " that it hath pleased 
 '* Him to regenerate this infant with His Holy 
 " Spirit.'" Indeed the more attentively we con- 
 sider the whole Baptismal Service, the more secure 
 a protection we shall find it against any attempt 
 at proving our Church committed to the notion, 
 which it cannot be denied the prima facie view 
 of some of the Articles seems to encourage, that 
 explicit knoivledge of Christian truths, or explicit 
 faith in our Blessed Lord, is the essential difference 
 between those who are and those who are not 
 Christians : a view which, as it of course dispenses 
 with the peculiar ofiice of the Church, so also tends 
 singularly to obscure the recognition of the influ- 
 ences of the Holy Spirit, and leads to a carnal 
 and rationalistic tone on all religious subjects. 
 And the Articles, being the later document of the 
 two, can never have been intended by those who 
 enacted them, to contradict any doctrine clearly put
 
 70 
 
 forth in that prayer book, which they themselves 
 retained and used. 
 
 IV. 
 
 But after all that has been said, the difficulty is 
 still far from unlikely to suggest itself to a scru- 
 pulous mind, ' if there is at all events necessity 
 ' for such laboured and difficult explanations, if 
 ' there is at first sight so much plausibility in 
 ' the representations of those who consider this 
 ' whole scheme of interpretation as dishonest and 
 ' unfair, is it not at least the safest side to abstain 
 ' from subscription ? ought any regard to comfort, 
 ' ought even the feeling that the ministry of the 
 ' Church is the situation in which I can best serve 
 ' God, ought this to induce me to an action whose 
 ' morality is even doubtful?' Now it is important 
 for such persons, and also for others, carefully to 
 observe, that the present is not a question between 
 duty and interest, but between duty and duty. To 
 acknowledge that even any particular Church 
 has authoritatively come to an erroneous decision, 
 would be distressing to the feelings of any of her 
 attached members ; and it would be one of his 
 plainest duties not to admit such a position until 
 there W9S plainly no fair escape from it ; and the 
 Articles, though not terms of communion, are cer- 
 tainly our Church's authoritative teaching**. But 
 
 " I mean, they are our Church's author itative*/«<cmcw<s of 
 doctrine, not merely ' aiithoriiulive teaching' in a sense which
 
 71 
 
 this is far indeed from being the whole account 
 of the case ; the Articles, which are principally 
 in question, concern not this or that less material 
 particular, but a whole range of the most im- 
 portant truths. For instance, supposing we were 
 once to admit that the Protestant doctrine of 
 justification had received the formal sanction of 
 our Church, who can estimate the serious con- 
 sequences which must follow in the judgment of 
 all those (and they are not few) who consider that 
 doctrine heretical and anti-Christian ? or to take 
 the Articles w^iich have been more triumphantly 
 claimed against us than any other ; let us allow 
 ourselves to imagine for one moment it were 
 granted, that our Church had condemned the doc- 
 
 Mr. Newman gives it in his Letter to Dr. Jelf. /m that sense 
 we must humbly make the avowal, as he does in that Letter, 
 that our Church's authoritative teaching has been unhappily 
 corrupt, as well as the Roman Church's: but in the text 
 I mean, not the ' teaching of those in authority,' but ' the 
 teaching which our Church has authorized and enjoined:' and 
 to acknowledge certain error iu that would be a sad conclusion 
 indeed to arrive at. At the same time, on some subjects, it 
 would be far less grievous than on others. Were we persuaded, 
 e. g. that the Articles rule Invocation of Saints to be in itself 
 a fond thing, &c. or again, certain points of discipline in other 
 Churches to be unjustifiable or inexpedient, (Articles 22,24, 30,) 
 and were any one further to come to a conviction that on these 
 points he was unable to acquiesce, he might give up his position 
 in the Ministry or in the University, and retire into lay-com- 
 munion : yet comparatively no very serious evil need result.
 
 72 
 
 trine of the Mass, as drawn out in p. 63, and of the 
 infalhbility of some General Councils, what must 
 follow ? To suffer our minds to dw^ell coolly and in 
 detail on so miserable and shocking an hypothesis, 
 would be hardly pious to that Mother who has, as 
 we thankfully believe, been saved from such a step. 
 But considering the difficulties which even now 
 no small number of her children find in re- 
 cognizing our Lord's mark upon her as really 
 a living branch of His Church, what must 
 be the result, if they w^ere left to consider 
 it as an acknowledged fact, that by abandoning 
 Catholic Truth on those points, she had passed a 
 formal condemnation on the Sacerdotal and Pro- 
 phetical Offices of the Church, as (so far at least as 
 her own principles can be compromised by the con- 
 duct of her governors in times past) she has in her 
 own case at least betrayed the Regal ? is not then 
 every tie of pious affection which binds us to her 
 communion, every feeling of sympathy and rever- 
 ence which links us with Andrews, or Hammond, 
 or Ken, every difficulty any one of us may feel in the 
 supposition that the Roman Churches make up the 
 Universal Church, every emotion of gratitude to 
 God for the remarkable traces of His Providence 
 in our present condition, for the singular deliveiances 
 He has worked out for the English Church amidst 
 the sins of her members, and the perils which 
 have encompassed her, are not all these united in 
 calling upon us with a voice not to be mistaken,
 
 73 
 
 to look well that we * curse not her whom God 
 hath not cursed ;' that we exhaust every means of 
 defence honestly practicable before we give up that 
 Church in which our lot has been cast as guilty of 
 such miserable apostacy ? And let such persons 
 further consider, whether the way in which more 
 perhaps than in any other God visits for past sins, 
 whether of our own or of those whose represent- 
 atives we are, be not painful perplexities of con- 
 science, and the necessity of adopting either way 
 some line of conduct, which in particular frames of 
 mind will subject us to misgivings and uneasiness. 
 When we are visited with such vexatious thoughts, 
 let us, while in rectitude and simplicity of heart we 
 look up to God, make use of them as calls to 
 humiliation for the sins which have occasioned 
 them : ' we are mysteriously bound up with our 
 ' forefathers, and bear their sin.' Far from us be 
 that state of mind which would look upon the 
 excesses of the 16th century as themes for angry 
 declamation, or contemptuous comparisons : in a 
 certain and very true sense they are our own sins, 
 and call on us for bitter sorrow and repentance ; 
 it was in those sins that our present condition as 
 a Church on the whole had its rise. Let us 
 avail ourselves of that most thoughtful and con- 
 siderate hint in the Tract, which would lead all 
 those, who are united in the feeling of humility and 
 contrition for the mode in which the English 
 Reformation was carried out, to take the 30th of
 
 74 
 
 January in each yearP as a time for giving vent in 
 union to that feeling in acts of sorrow and depreca- 
 tion ; and prayers that both we and other Churches 
 may have the grace of repentance in order to the 
 privilege of reunion. Such use of that day, in 
 addition to the thoughts more immediately con- 
 nected with the event which it commemorates, 
 had this especial propriety, that King Charles's 
 death may not unnaturally be considered as the 
 retribution on the royal office of the sins the royal 
 office had committed. 
 
 It remains to allude without methodical arrange- 
 ment to one or two different objections which 
 whether in print or in other ways have come to my 
 notice. 
 
 1. The pamphlet (p. 16.) makes objection to the 
 argument of the Tract drawn from the declaration 
 prefixed to the Articles in the time of Charles the 
 First. Of course this argument is not in point 
 as to either of the considerations which have 
 been urged in this pamphlet ; as not bearing either 
 on the original intention of those who sanctioned 
 the Articles, or on their wordimj as being the de- 
 velopement of that Spirit who resides in the 
 Church ; but as the object of the Tract would 
 
 p Of course I am not deciding tlie question whether what are 
 called * the state holidays' have the sanction of our Church.
 
 lb 
 
 be to mention the grounds which might induce 
 men of whatever opinions on minor points to 
 acquiesce in its view of our Articles, it was much 
 better not to omit it. It has been commented 
 on in a recent * Letter' 1 have once before alluded 
 to as follows : * Tf there be no reason to the con- 
 ' trary, the natural meaning of the words, as at 
 
 * first drawn up, may be taken without hesitation 
 
 * as the meaning . . . still our obligation so to 
 ' take them arises from our relation to the im- 
 ' posers, not the compilers. . . . Thus whatever 
 ' might be the meaning of the divines of King 
 ' Edward who compiled or of those of Queen 
 ' Elizabeth who revised our Articles, as to Predes- 
 
 * tination and Election and other kindred tenets, 
 
 * it was in the prerogative of the Church governors 
 
 * in King Charles the First's time to declare, that 
 ' those Articles should not be interpreted by the 
 ' rules of any modern school, but by the literal and 
 ' grammatical signification of the words.' This de- 
 claration has the force of a precedent in favour of 
 neglecting the opinions of the framers, and even of 
 the original Convocation ; so that those who may 
 not think with Mr. Newman that the Articles were 
 never intended to exclude certain opinions, will still 
 have this point to consider, before they decide that 
 they do exclude them. However the words ' no 
 ' new sense,' considering they were put out by 
 Laud, shew very clearly that at that time, on many 
 at least and those important matters, the Catholic
 
 76 
 
 interpretation was not ' new' but recognised and 
 established. 
 
 2. ' The Articles are principally drawn from 
 
 * the writings of Melancthon,' ' the Catholic Re- 
 ' former.' * What inference,' asks the writer of 
 the pamphlet, ' am I to draw from this ? .... all 
 
 * that we can infer is that the Articles are Protest- 
 ' ant extracts from an author, from whose works 
 ' Catholic extracts might have been made and were 
 ' not made.' (p, 17.) I think we can infer some- 
 thing very different ; vdz. that so far as the Articles 
 were taken from his writings, they were known to 
 be patient (to say the least) of a Catholic sense, 
 since that would be the sense in which he him^self wrote 
 the words. On the question of justification the 
 point is of extreme importance ; it is one of the 
 most striking instances in which he embraced 
 Protestant phraseology, yet in a sense consistent 
 with the Ancient Faith. Take the much contro- 
 verted eleventh Article, ' When Melancthon and his 
 ' school speak of faith only justifying they 
 
 * say that it is an emblem or image of the 
 
 ^ free grace of our Redemption. To say we are 
 ' justified by faith only was in that reformer's 
 ' mouth a lively mode of speech (he calls it figu- 
 ' rative) for saying that we are justified neither by 
 ' faith nor by works only, but by God'\^ Of course 
 I am not proving that these are Melancthon's sen- 
 timents, it has not been denied that I know of; 
 
 " Newman on Justification, (2cl cd.) p. 277.
 
 11 
 
 but shewing that if they are, if it was his habit to 
 adopt Protestant phrases and give them an innocent 
 sense, and \f the Articles are taken from his 
 writings rather than those of the other reformers, 
 a strong additional ground exists for supposing that 
 they were not intended to exclude this innocent 
 sense. 
 
 3. To revert to the ' animus imponentis,^ the 
 question has been raised who is the ' imponens' 
 when members of the University as such subscribe 
 the Articles. I conceive the legislative body of the 
 University to be rightly so regarded ; at the same 
 time of course that assembly would be understood 
 to wish the Articles signed in the Church's sense, 
 whatever that sense might he, unless otherwise speci- 
 fied ; which it never has been. But on the sup- 
 position of Convocation pronouncing an authori- 
 tative declaration of the sense in which it requires 
 subscription, it certainly appears that in that case, 
 those members who could not sign the Articles in 
 such sense, would be bound either to quit the 
 University, or at least to issue such a public decla- 
 ration of the interpretation on which they do sub- 
 scribe, as to give Convocation the power of pro- 
 ceeding against them if it thought right. 
 
 4. Mr. Newman, in the Postscript to his Letter 
 to Dr. Jelf, gave as one reason for the excitement 
 caused by the Tract, that ' it had been written for 
 ' one class of persons and commented on by 
 ' another:' and I understand that not a few have
 
 78 
 
 looked on this as a plain confession of dishonesty : 
 ' habes confitentem reura.' Certainly they must 
 consider it a remarkably honest confession of dis- 
 honesty. Yet surely many reasons are not far to 
 seek, why observations, addressed in the most upright 
 spirit to one class of persons, would be misunder- 
 stood and excite a clamour if read by another. 
 Are persons usually suspected of dishonesty who 
 are unwilling that their private letters shall be read 
 by other than those to whom they are addressed ? 
 when they are altogether on public topics, would 
 they be generally quite pleased if they were to 
 appear in print ? or would unwillingness that they 
 should so appear, be construed by any sane person 
 as a proof that they were written disingenuously? 
 Of course the present case is not so strong, yet 
 it is altogether analogous. However, out of the 
 large number of reasons which will readily suggest 
 themselves to many persons, it may be as well 
 to mention one or two, why the Tract may have 
 been on the one hand perfectly honest, and yet on 
 the other not so fit for general and indiscriminate 
 perusal, as for the perusal of those for whom it was 
 intended. 
 
 I. There is a quiet assumption all through of 
 certain views being ' Catholic' and true, &c. and 
 a certain tone adopted, difficult exactly to describe, 
 but which not unnaturally appears to those of an 
 opposite way of thinking contemptuous or sar- 
 castic. Again, phrases are used, as above men-
 
 79 
 
 tioned, implying that certain doctrines are tha 
 doctrines of the Church of England, which seem 
 to have given great offence to some persons ; and 
 yet are perfectly ' in order' in a publication ad- 
 dressed to those who agree with the author in 
 principle. 
 
 II. Again, all through the Tract considerable 
 knowledge is implied in the reader of the previous 
 Tracts and of other publications of their authors. 
 The consequence is, that a large number of persons 
 take it up quite unprepared ; they find the con- 
 clusions stated in a naked way, while they have 
 themselves no acquaintance with the premises, nor 
 yet (which is sometimes of much more importance) 
 with the practical line of thought and feeling con- 
 nected in the minds of many with these doctrines. 
 So that they are tempted to consider the Tract a 
 wanton exercise of ingenuity, instead of, as it is, 
 a most important step towards claiming for all 
 members of the Church of England a full right 
 to that substratum of Catholic doctrine on which 
 Catholic feeling and practice may be reared up. 
 
 III. Many persons are very painfully affected 
 when things are said in favour of the Roman 
 Churches, without protests being also expressed 
 against their corruptions. Now, on the other hand, 
 several persons who fully believe in the existence 
 of those corruptions, dislike this habit of always 
 mentioning them ; and this for three reasons : first, 
 it seems ungracious in a Church so faulty as our
 
 80 
 
 own to be continually ' throwing stones' at our 
 neighbours, and seems almost to imply (though 
 Mr. Newman no where does imply it) that we 
 consider our own Church purer. 2. It tends to 
 make persons forget the true character and claims 
 of the Roman Church, as being a true Church 
 '' built upon the foundations of the Apostles and 
 " Prophets," as having held up for imitation cer- 
 tainly more than any other Church of modern 
 times patterns of evangelical sanctity, and having 
 been even in her worst times, on most points, a 
 firm and consistent witness in act and word for 
 orthodox doctrine, whom in that respect it rather 
 becomes us to imitate than to criticise. 3. It 
 tends to make persons forget, what it is so im- 
 portant that they should remember, our own prac- 
 tical corruptions. Surely the faults of others 
 concern us not so nearly as our own ; and national 
 Churches, not less than individuals, bear the surest 
 mark of their own condemnation when they are 
 loud in self-praise. Might not Rev. iii. 17, 18. 
 afford at times a useful lesson to many of us 
 English Churchmen ? These then are reasons 
 which naturally indispose persons who feel their 
 force, to yield very readily to the popular wish of 
 never saying a word in praise of foreign Churches, 
 without being profuse in explanations and qualifica- 
 tions. And Mr. Newman, writing as he supposed 
 for persons of the same princij)les with himself, 
 knew on the one hand that they were well aware
 
 81 
 
 of his feelings on the corruptions in the Roman 
 system, and on the other, that they shared with 
 him a strong dislike to be always " harping" upon 
 them. But when, by the sensation which the 
 Tract caused, the author was reluctantly compelled 
 (in his Letter to Dr. Jelf) to draw out again what 
 he did feel about these abuses, curiously enough, 
 many persons it appears considered that Letter 
 a retractation. It is come to this, that to speak 
 of a sister Church, without adverting to her faults, 
 is to believe her faultless. Is this to be our rule in 
 speaking of our " brethren after i\\Q flesh^V 
 
 f" It is a curious proof how much of Protestant feeling still 
 unconsciously remains in those who have formally renounced it, 
 that the first impression, perhaps, of most of us would be to 
 think it inconsistent with the position of a member of our Church, 
 to think other Churches more pure and apostolical. Yet so lono- 
 as our own is believed really to be a Church, it is plain that any 
 amount of superiority we may believe other Churches to possess 
 over the English, is as irrelevant to our positions the English, as 
 every one would see it to be in the parallel case of a person being 
 called to task as follows, " how can you profess to be the son of 
 " your own mother, because you have come to think another lady 
 " more religious?" Indeed, to pursue the parallel, what sane 
 person would accuse another of want of affection for his mother, 
 though he gave her all his care and attention, because he should 
 not be in the habit of a boastful comparison of her with all other 
 mothers? Or again, which would be thought the more patriotic, 
 he who should content himself with triumphantly enlarging on 
 his country's excellence as it is, or who should be anxiously and 
 aftectionately endeavouring to observe what points of superiority 
 other countries might possess, in order, if it might be, to elevate 
 
 F
 
 82 
 
 IV. Another cause, and the last I shall mention, 
 Mr. Newman stated himself in his Letter to the 
 Bishop of Oxford. He drew up in some cases the 
 premises without stating his conclusion ; and the 
 result has been, that others have been pained and 
 perplexed by the apparent ambiguity of the (first 
 edition of the) Tract : it appeared as though he 
 were trying in some indirect way to entrap his 
 
 his own to their standard? Love to our Church surely shews itself 
 in making her the immediate sphere and direct object of our 
 tender care ; it may be only love for ourselves which would make 
 us acquiesce in her present position, as honourable or even 
 seemly. Is it fair indeed to our Church, is it to tend her with 
 the loving reverence to which we are bound, if we do not keep 
 our eye watchfully fixed on her weak points, in order to incite 
 those who may have the power to the task of strengthening and 
 building her up ? But those who think the spirit which has so 
 actively prevailed within her for the last 300 years, to be full of 
 evil, may, to say the least, have as real attachment to her as 
 those who think it full of good. 
 
 Having alluded to Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, it may 
 be as well to point out (what is indeed obvious), that to vindicate 
 his interpretation of the twenty-second Article, there is no neces- 
 sity whatever of believing the existing Roman Church practically 
 corrupt at all. Mr, N, does believe it to be sadly corrupt in 
 practice; but it is not even necessary, when we come to think of 
 it, to believe the then Roman Church to have been so ; it is 
 quite sufficient to see that the Homilies spoke very strongly of 
 certain corruptions existing, and that those were plainly the 
 " doctrina Romanensium" condemned, A person might believe 
 the fact misrepresented to any extent, and subscribe the 
 Article: what the Article means to condemn, the supposed 
 subscriber does condemn, as " a fond thing, &c."
 
 83 
 
 readers. His real reason for this he thus ex- 
 presses ; • I was unwilling to commit the view of 
 
 * the Articles which I was taking, to any precise 
 
 * statement of the ultimate approaches towards the 
 
 * Roman system allowed by our own. To say how 
 ^ far a person may go, is almost tempting him to go 
 
 * up to the boundary line.' (p. 18.) The pro- 
 ceeding then on his part was another instance 
 of what all, who have been helped by his writings in 
 advancing towards the Truth, must have so fre- 
 quently observed, his watchful and (if we may use 
 the word) tender considerateness in all his state- 
 ments for persons of whatever state of progress and 
 whatever shade in opinion : his anxiety that the 
 most forward may have food for their spiritual 
 cravings, the most backward be neither on the one 
 hand painfully perplexed and scandalized, nor on 
 the other tempted to unreal and premature de- 
 velopement. Speaking only of what we see and 
 understand, it is very plain how much the cause 
 we all love must suffer, if among us who are 
 in the lower ranks, who are but receiving what 
 others teach, any make a party question of 
 religious truth, or allow ourselves in a hasty 
 assumption of certain opinions and practices, 
 which are most graceful and edifying in the 
 saint, but which in us would be but, in another 
 shape, profane and irreverent mockery of the most 
 sacred things. But how much more serious is 
 this consideration, when we reflect on the degree
 
 84 
 
 in which according to the invisible working of 
 God's providence the advance of truth depends 
 on the sober and consistent conduct of its advo- 
 cates ! 
 
 Thus, e. g. in proportion as we reaUze the 
 Cathohc doctrine of the sad stain marked on the 
 soul by post-baptismal sin, and the remedial as 
 well as cleansing efficacy of suffering, w^e shall be 
 led to the thought of a purification through pain 
 (whether at the moment of death, indefinitely 
 prolonged as regards our own consciousness, or in 
 the intermediate state, or at the Day of Judgment,) 
 as a possible solution of many difficulties and 
 perplexities, nay in the case of many persons as 
 a necessary result of that doctrine. Again, in 
 proportion as minds of a certain character realize 
 the Communion of Saints, and advance in the 
 spiritual life, they will be drawn to the practice 
 of Invocation. In either of these cases, according 
 to Mr. Newman's original design, when these 
 feelings came as natural and free developements in 
 their own minds of Catholic truth, then and not 
 till then such persons would consult the Tract to 
 find whether or no upon its shewing the practice 
 or doctrine in question be condemned by our 
 Church. Through the course which Mr. N. has 
 now been obliged to take, the ' ora pro nobis,' 
 e. g. may have been brought before persons who 
 would otherwise have never thought of it, and who 
 may take it up from the mere affectation of
 
 85 
 
 singularity, or what may be called a restless love 
 of newly seen and partially apprehended truth. Ot 
 so much importance was it for those he thought 
 himself addressing, that a cautious reserve of 
 language should be adopted, which other persons 
 not understanding have put down to the score of 
 some deep design. 
 
 V. I received a strong remonstrance from a 
 private quarter against my last publication, on the 
 ground of its running counter to the judgment of the 
 Bishop of the diocese ; and since what one person 
 has said many may have felt, and since it has 
 been stated in print that the Bishop has condemned 
 the doctrine of the Tract, it may be as well to say 
 a very few words on the subject. Nothing surely 
 can be more pointedly irrespective of the doctrine of 
 the Tract than the Bishop's sentence. It is ' ob- 
 * jectionable, and may tend to disturb the peace and 
 ' tranquillity of the Church.' It might do the 
 latter either from being ' objectionable' in the time 
 of its appearance, or in the manner in which it 
 advocated its point, as being indirect, or satirical, or 
 ambiguous and incomplete in its statements ; if the 
 former were the reason, at all events the time is no 
 longer in the choice of any one of us, and the 
 controversy must proceed ; if the latter, it is even 
 cooperating with his Lordship's judgment to throw 
 the same positions, so far as may be, into another 
 shape ; and I have anxiously endeavoured, with 
 regard both to this and my former publication, that
 
 86 
 
 they may be neither indirect, satirical, nor ambi- 
 guous. 
 
 In conclusion, I must express my sincere regret 
 that the authors of the publications, which I have 
 kept so constantly in view, should have felt it 
 their duty to express such strong imputations on 
 the honesty, whether of the writer of the Tract, or 
 its supporters. For the sake of those who may 
 not have seen them, two quotations shall follow 
 fully bearing out this statement. 
 
 ' If his (Mr. Newman's) object has been to 
 ' shew how an ingenious and subtle advocate 
 ' may put any meaning he pleases upon words ; 
 
 * if he has wished to display how cleverly he 
 
 * could play the part of a pleader, who cares 
 
 * not what quibbles he utters, what perversions 
 ' of language he offers to a jury, so that he 
 ' but gets his client off, he must be owned to 
 ' have been successful : but is this mode of 
 ' proceeding to be made the standard of truth in 
 ' the gravest matters of life ? is there an English 
 ' gentleman who would not think it a' grievous 
 ' calumny to have it said of him, that he kept 
 
 * his promises by this rule ? Are all the most 
 ' solemn obligations in life to be entered into with 
 ' the understanding that any observance of them, 
 ' which the subtlety and dexterity of a special
 
 87 
 
 ' pleader can adjust to the letter, shall be deemed 
 ' an honourable and satisfactory fulfilment ? Words 
 ' have no longer any fixed meaning, good faith and 
 ' truth are just as any man may fashion them, if 
 ' the ' priestly glossing' of this Tract does not meet 
 ' with indignant reprobation.' Review, p. 287. 
 
 * Adopt his (Mr. Newman's) interpretation, if 
 ' you can believe it to be the literal one, that will 
 ' only degrade your understanding and confuse 
 ' your ideas ; but shun his principles like a pesti- 
 ' lence, when he would induce you to dethrone 
 
 * conscience from her tribunal, and set himself 
 ' strong in all the soul-destroying arts of verbal 
 
 * subtlety and mental reservation in her place.' 
 Pamphlet, p. 22, 23. 
 
 Whether on the whole in theological contro- 
 versy, such opinions, when entertained, ought to 
 be expressed, is perhaps not quite clear: much 
 certainly may be said on both sides. But in the 
 present instance, the complaint I make is, that 
 in the case of a writer, who, as all must admit, 
 has an a priori claim to be believed sincere, 
 whom the Reviewer appears to consider distin- 
 guished by ' austerities, boundless charities, and 
 burning zeal,' (p. 291,) any person shall have felt 
 himself at liberty to come so very decidedly to an 
 opposite conclusion, except most unwillingly and 
 after a careful consideration of the whole point at 
 issue, as illustrated from Mr. Newman's former writ-
 
 88 
 
 ings no less than by the present^. Certainly it is very 
 dull to read long works with which we agree not 
 at all ; but then surely there is no necessity for 
 casting these imputations ; and I am only wishing 
 that before persons cast imputations, they should 
 read such works. Perhaps from what has been 
 said in the course of these pages, it will appear 
 that both these writers are in many points under 
 considerable misapprehension of the facts of the 
 case ; and in the case of the Reviewer, at least, the 
 list of such misapprehensions might be considerably 
 augmented, but that I have confined my observa- 
 tions to points immediately connected with the 
 Tract. One more however I will adduce both as 
 being another instance of (what I must call) the 
 hasty and random manner in which he throws 
 about imputations, and also as being a practical 
 
 ^ A Letter privately circulated, which I happened to see, and 
 which is as unfavourable to the Tract itself as either of these 
 writers, attributes the dishonest tendency which it ascribes to 
 the Tract, to Mr. Newman's over-subtlety of mind, in con- 
 sequence of which the distinction between legitimate analysis 
 and unfair splitting of words is not so readily perceived by him 
 as by others. What I am anxious to point out is, that in this 
 case the author feels he has no right to attribute dishonest 
 motives against such evidence of sincerity as exists in Mr. 
 Newman's case. And, though one dififers of course toto ccelo 
 in opinion from him on the subject of No. 90, one has no ground 
 of complaint whatever against the writer who puts forth such a 
 view : it is a fair legitimate ground for an opponent to assume.
 
 89 
 
 matter of considerable importance. He speaks 
 
 (p. 290.) of ' the Presbyterians, whom Mr. New- 
 
 ' man's school look upon as so vile.' In Tract 
 
 47, Mr. Newman speaks as follows ; ' Do not 
 
 think of me as of one who makes theories 
 
 for himself in his closet, who governs himself 
 
 by book-maxims, and who, as being secluded 
 
 from the world, has no temptation to let his 
 
 sympathies for individuals rise against his abstract 
 
 positions, and can afford to be hard-hearted and 
 
 condemn by loholesale the multitudes in various 
 
 sects and parties whom he never saw. I have 
 
 known those among Presbyterians, whose piety, 
 
 resignation, cheerfulness, and affection, under 
 
 trying circumstances, have been such as to make 
 
 me say to myself on the thoughts of my own 
 
 higher privileges, ' Woe unto thee Ghorazin, woe 
 
 unto thee Bethsaida ;' and so the Tract proceeds 
 
 with observations which I heartily wish the Reviewer 
 
 would read. In his ' Prophetical Office of the 
 
 ' Church,' he speaks of Dr. Chalmers as * a 
 
 ' Divine of the sister Establishment, who is never 
 
 ' to be mentioned without respect and sympathy.' 
 
 (p. 119.) In his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 
 
 he says, * If the Estabhshed Church of Scotland 
 
 ' has this note (sanctity), I will hope all good 
 
 ' things of it.' (p. 45.) Is it necessary to quote 
 
 more, or is it not obvious on how comparatively 
 
 small an acquaintance with Mr. Newman's writings
 
 90 
 
 the Author of this Review has founded censures so 
 severe ? 
 
 No! those who hold strong opinions on the 
 subject of our Church's present corruption and 
 degradation, w^hatever pain they may inflict on 
 others in making such avowal, whatever pain they 
 may receive themselves from the din of praise sur- 
 rounding her, in which the words ' pure and Apo- 
 ' stolical' sound forth most clearly and distinctly 
 on the ear, at least enjoy this great comfort more 
 than others are able to enjoy, their love and sym- 
 pathy for ' those who are without.' In proportion 
 as we lament the state of things within, in pro- 
 portion as we humbly confess that the mark of 
 being Christ's Kingdom, which can never be wholly 
 effaced from any portion of it, is obscured and but 
 faintly traced on the English Church, in that pro- 
 portion we are able to make the fuller allowance 
 for those who have failed to discern it. When 
 apparent sanctity exists without the Church, or 
 within it among those who have lost its spirit, two 
 solutions are possible for the Churchman ; that the 
 sanctity is but apparent, or that the Church is far 
 from what she ought to be. May we, in cases 
 when such holiness shews itself not in words but 
 in a steady and self-denying course of action, have 
 grace always to choose the latter alternative ; may 
 we consider the fruits of grace which exist so abun- 
 dantly among Protestants as a rebuke to ourselves
 
 91 
 
 for having as yet so inadequately brought out the 
 image of what is truly evangelical ; may we Ca- 
 tholics of the English Church throw ourselves in 
 a loving spirit upon the thought of unworldliness, 
 purity, self-denial, from whatever quarter they are 
 presented. In no other way shall we be able to 
 build up our own Church into a form truly Catholic, 
 (appealing, that is, to the whole nature of persons of 
 all variety of taste and disposition,) strictly watching 
 the truth, yet anxiously preserving charity ; and by 
 which, having absorbed into herself all that are 
 truly God's servants among ourselves, she may well 
 hope that her influence will re-act for good on 
 those sisters in other lands from whom she has 
 been so long and so fatally dissevered ; and thus, 
 when she has been, by a natural attraction and 
 as it were spontaneously, restored to active com- 
 munion with the rest of Christendom, once more, 
 if God permit, the united Catholic Church will 
 go forth in a spirit of steady aggression against 
 the world. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BAXTlill. PKIN I KR, OXFORD.
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 FEW MORE WORDS 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF No. 90 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 MR. LOWE'S PAMPHLET. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, M. A 
 
 FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1841.
 
 BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 Mr. Lowe has announced himself as the Author 
 of the pamphlet which I have criticised in the pre- 
 ceding pages, and has written another in reply to 
 mine. In saying a very few words by way of answer, 
 I have the less temptation to allude in detail to his 
 charges against myself personally, because 1 cannot 
 think they will ultimately do me any injury. 
 Whatever may be thought of the obscurity of my 
 style or the weakness of my reasonings, I am well 
 persuaded, that when the heat of controversy is over, 
 my pamphlet will not be considered by any one to 
 be in the common sense of the word dishonest : it 
 will I am sure be acknowledged, that I have stated 
 openly what I wished to prove, and the reasons 
 which appeared to me to prove it. As to the view I 
 have taken, Mr. Lowe certainly strikes me as 
 having misunderstood in many instances the posi- 
 
 a2
 
 tion I have maintained, and all that I propose is to 
 mention some of the cases in which he has mis- 
 understood it. At the same time 1 trust it will not 
 appear arrogant to express a conviction, that those 
 who will give themselves the trouble of fairly 
 throwing their minds on the arguments I have 
 brought together, will not find any thing in Mr. 
 Lowe's pamphlet that interferes with their co- 
 gency. 
 
 The point on which the present controversy * 
 turns will, perhaps, be acknowledged to be this : 
 " are we to look at the Articles as ' of the nature 
 " of a creeds intended to teach doctrine, or of the 
 " nature of a joint declaration intended to be vague, 
 '* and to include persons of discordant sentiments.' " 
 (Few More Words, p. 40.) If the former, I for one 
 plainly acknowledge they do not teach Catholicism ; 
 if the other, the argument in Mr. Lowe's first 
 pamphlet falls to the ground ; if the former, the 
 right way to ascertain their meaning, were it a pos- 
 sible task, would be the one so ably advocated in that 
 pamphlet, to interpret them by themselves, and 
 each individual Article by the spirit of the whole ; 
 if the latter, the right w^ay to ascertain their 
 meaning will be that adopted by the Tract, to take 
 
 ■ Dr. Pusey's Pamphlet, however, while it advocates the verij 
 same interpretation of the Articles in dispute, even considers the 
 Reformers themselves sound in doctrine; and persons who follow 
 his guidance will be still more at issue with Mr. Lowe: hence, 
 however, what follows is not necessary for them.
 
 them clause by clause, and accurately analyse how 
 much their wording really does determine. If they 
 are intended to teach doctrine, we discover their 
 meaning by discovering what they teach ; but if to 
 include great varieties of opinion, we discover 
 their meaning by discovering how much their wording 
 will include. 
 
 This question then, being the very pith of the 
 matter, must not be begged ; yet Mr. Lowe in his 
 new pamphlet seems to me again to beg it. How 
 are we to arrive at its solution ? There seem of 
 course two modes, the external or historical, and 
 internal : upon the former I said comparatively 
 little, leaving it to more competent persons ; and 
 I am glad to be able to say that the task of in- 
 vestigation is in progress : upon the other I laid 
 my own stress, " the internal evidence arising 
 " from the known public documents of the period," 
 especially of course the Articles themselves. So far 
 from intending to exclude-the latter, I have no hesi- 
 tation in saying that their phraseology is the argu- 
 ment which of all others carries the fullest satisfac- 
 tion to my own mind. That opinion of mine which 
 Mr. Lowe most of all objects to, and which certainly 
 seems to me the most important of all, I expressly 
 found on " Peculiarities in the phraseology of the 
 " Articles," (p. 43.) : nor should I have thought it 
 necessary to mention the other collateral grounds, 
 except for the many causes which prevent English 
 Churchmen from doing (what appears to me) jus-
 
 tice to the wording of the Articles themselves. As 
 it is, I have been blamed in several quarters for not 
 dwelhng more on external evidence ; and without 
 such, persons are naturally afraid to trust them- 
 selves to their own theorizing on the text. 
 
 It would be invidious and is not necessary to enter 
 upon the causes which (as I think) cloud the per- 
 ception of members of the EngHsh Church gene- 
 rally, and inclusively of several for whom we feel 
 deep veneration, as to the composition and (if I 
 may use the expression) ethical character of the 
 Articles considered as a human composition. In 
 proportion as such causes cease, I shall not fear to 
 rest the whole of my case on a comparison between 
 the manner in which the first five Articles are 
 drawn up, and the rest. The first five relate to 
 points of Catholic Faith, in which the then Church 
 occupied herself merely in handing down what she 
 had received ; the remainder (to speak generally) 
 to questions then in controversy : and the con- 
 sideration to which I wish the attention of my 
 brethren directed is this ; are not the whole spirit 
 and wording of the latter thirtj^-four, in every 
 respect that which would be found in a document, 
 the result of (I should say in parts disingenuous) 
 compromise, and not that which would be found in 
 a document intended to teach doctrines of whatever 
 kind? Or let our Articles be compared with the 
 decrees of Trent, which were intended to teach doc- 
 trine (true or not) to a great extent on the same
 
 subjects ; and the same conclusion will perhaps 
 even more forcibly impress itself on the mind. 
 Nor let it be forgotten, that almost the sole collateral 
 evidence I have dwelt upon has been the Prayer 
 Book, to which we are hound equally with the Articles, 
 and the Homilies, to a general agreement with whose 
 doctrine the Articles themselves hind us^ (pp. 36, 37, 
 38, 48, 49, 50.) and therefore which are quite 
 necessary elements in the consideration to which 
 Mr. Lowe in his first pamphlet in principle'' ap- 
 plied himself, the determination of our Church's 
 doctrine from her authoritative forms. And with 
 regard to the Prayer Book, I yet desiderate an 
 answer to my question, on what principle he inter- 
 prets the Articles hy themselves, that is by the spirit of 
 the Thirty-nine, rather than by the spirit of Articles 
 and Prayer Book together, neither of which from our 
 subscription has less claims than the other on our 
 belief and deference. 
 
 Thus then the question 1 have raised is, '* w^hat 
 " is the meaning of the Thirty-nine Articles" to 
 which we subscribe, and the principal, the almost 
 sole, instruments I have used for throwing light on 
 their meaning, have been our Church's authori- 
 tative formulce, including the Articles themselves. 
 I have moreover gone over in detail the Articles 
 in dispute, in order to shew in each case marks 
 
 '' T mean by this phrase, that the reasoning in Mr. Lowe's first 
 pamphlet led, so far as it had force, simply to this, and that he 
 assumed the Articles to be the sole authoritative forms.
 
 8 
 
 of the spirit which had presided at their wording. 
 Yet Mr. Lowe has accused me (p. 5.) of ** impliedly 
 " 7-epudiating" the position, " that every one who 
 ** signs the Articles binds himself to agree in their 
 " meaning," and (p. 8.) of drawing my syllogism 
 '* from considerations wholly irrespective of the 
 " Articles themselves.^' 
 
 I said, (p. 6.) * If it were not intended by those 
 ' who framed the Articles that certain opinions 
 ' should be excluded there is no prima facie 
 
 * case . . . what the Articles were not meant to ex- 
 
 * elude they do not exclude.' Mr. Lowe urges 
 (p. 10.) that ' the disciples of Owen and Irving' 
 could not be ' intended to be excluded by Articles 
 ' drawn up nearly three centuries ago,' and asks 
 ' how upon my principle they are excluded.' Cer- 
 tainlylhad not worded my proposition with sufficient 
 accuracy to bear this sort of criticism, and yet it 
 seems almost absurd to put in words a distinction 
 which surely is sufficiently obvious. Certain opinions 
 had existed universally in the Church for an in- 
 definite period ; great numbers held them at the 
 time, many holding them had seats in the very 
 Convocation which sanctioned the Articles. 1 did 
 and do think, that if it were acknowledged that these 
 opinions, so general, so well known, were not 
 intended to be excluded by the Articles we now 
 bubscribe, those Articles do not exclude them ''. 
 
 *^ in tlie case of purely itegaLivi: Articles, (uliich however are 
 but feu,) Articles 1 mean wliicli confine themselves to the con-
 
 Mr. Lowe urges, (p. 13.) that my hypothesis, if 
 true, condemns myself. * The man who avails hira- 
 ' self of, and knowingly derives advantage from, 
 
 * the fraud of another, adopts it and makes it his 
 
 * own.' This remark is irrelevant: what we derive 
 advantage from is the fact that the Reformers 
 intended to include Catholics, ' their fraud' (on the 
 hypothesis which I advocate) is, that they worded 
 them, notwithstanding such intention, in a manner 
 prima facie Protestant : from this latter we ' derive' 
 no * advantage,' the very contrary : we and the 
 whole Church of England have suffered from it ever 
 since. 
 
 Perhaps it will make more clear the manner 
 in which I conceive the Articles to have been 
 sanctioned, to conceive a case which must at all 
 events be something like what really took place. 
 Let us suppose the framers submitting to the 
 Convocation the Twenty-first Article, in what from 
 its drift must plainly (as I said in my first pamphlet) 
 have been its original shape. 
 
 ** General Councils may not be gathered together 
 " w^ithout the commandment and will of Princes. 
 " And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch 
 *' as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not 
 
 demnation of error, without positive statements of their own, 
 such e. g. as the XlVth, XXIId, and latter part of the XXXIst, 
 Mr. Lowe himself would I suppose acknowledge without reserva- 
 tion the principle, that ' what was not meant to be condemned is 
 not condemned ?
 
 10 
 
 " governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they 
 " may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things 
 *' pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained 
 " by them have neither strength nor authority, unless 
 " it may be declared that they be taken out of holy 
 '* Scripture." 
 
 Many persons would at once of course have 
 protested against an Article which seemed to sanc- 
 tion an appeal from the decision of any General 
 Council, and on any subject, to the private judgment 
 whether of the individual or local Church. Ac- 
 cordingly it is taken clause by clause, ' General 
 ' Councils may not be gathered together without 
 ' the commandment and will of princes :' this 
 could not be denied : the principles of civil obedi- 
 ence and primitive practice were directly in its 
 favour. ' When they be gathered together, for- 
 
 * asmuch as, &c. they may err and have erred, &c.' 
 This could not be denied ; I have pointed out in 
 my pamphlet, that members of both parties in the 
 Roman Church considered General Councils as such 
 fallible, and I have quoted from Gallican writers 
 language altogether similar to this of the Article. 
 ' Therefore things ordained by them have neither 
 
 * strength nor authority, unless it may be declared 
 ' that they be taken out of holy Scripture.' Here 
 the opposite party interfere, and make the same 
 protest they have already made in the Vlth and 
 XXth Articles, that it is only things necessary to 
 salvation which need be contained in Scripture.
 
 11 
 
 And here too as well as in those two Articles, if 
 any clause had been originally inserted maintaining 
 the right of the local Church ^, to judge by its oiun 
 authority what doctrine was proveable by Scripture, 
 the same party would enforce the omission of such 
 clause. 
 
 Mr. Lowe (p. 17.) in allusion to my charge 
 against him in p. 20, replies virtually, that I am 
 bound to respect that document in its human side 
 which I venerate on its divine"; and censures (p. 14.) 
 the shocking impiety of attributing to the Holy Spirit 
 the * gross and intentional deception which I ascribe to 
 ' the framers of the Articles.' It is not in place to 
 enter more fully into explanation of a theory which 
 it does not certainly seem to me very difficult to 
 understand ; had Mr. Lowe thought of the case of 
 Caiaphas, who, in the very words which, as he used 
 them,, were blasphemy against our Lord Himself, 
 was the organ of the Holy Spirit, and delivered a 
 prophecy, he would not have committed himself 
 to so singularly shallow an objection. 
 
 With regard to the rest of Mr. Lowe's argument 
 in p. 14, whoever will read from p. 71, to p. 73, 
 of my pamphlet, will be able to answer it for him- 
 
 '' The notion oi private judgment, according to the remarkable 
 and very candid testimony of Dr. Arnold, (Sermons on Christian 
 Life, &c. p. 476.) did not exist at that time. 
 
 e Mr. Lowe omits my qualifying words ' viewed by itself and 
 ' as to its humaii origin,' which 1 put in to guard by the way 
 against such a confusion as Mr. Lowe has made.
 
 12 
 
 self. I am not bound as a Catholic to believe the 
 Articles will have a Catholic sense ; I am not 
 bound as a point of faith to believe the English a 
 branch of the Catholic Church ; but I do believe it 
 to be so ; and I say that every argument (and they 
 are very many) which leads to that conclusion, lead 
 so far to the conclusion that she has not committed 
 herself to heretical teaching. 1 do not consider, as 
 Mr. Lowe (p. 18.) seems to think, that belief in 
 the Protestant doctrine of private judgment is in- 
 consistent with belief in the doctrine of the Athana- 
 sian Creed, but with a belief in that doctrine as 
 necessary to salvation, which the Creed affirms it to 
 be : and a reference to the passage in my pamphlet 
 (p. 22.) will shew that Mr. Lowe has not attempted 
 to answer what I there urged. 
 
 My negative interpretation of the Bishop's cen- 
 sure has been disapproved by other persons also, 
 who consider the rest of my pamphlet open 
 and honest. I much regret it, but cannot see 
 grounds for their objection. On the one hand I 
 do not represent, as Mr. Lowe thinks, (p. 24.) 
 that his Lordship's objection was rather to the time 
 and manner, than to the substance of the Tract ; 
 but that he pointedly abstained from expressing 
 more definitely what his objections might be. It 
 is I suppose considered by some that his Lordship 
 decided ex cathedra, that such a mode of inter- 
 ])rcting the 39 Articles was inadmissible : the 
 result of which of course would be, that those who
 
 13 
 
 held preferment in the diocese of Oxford in virtue 
 of subscription to them in such sense, would, to 
 say the least, be in a most painful position, unless 
 they threw up such preferment. And I can only ex- 
 press my surprise that it should be supposed in any 
 quarter, that a decision, pregnant with such ex- 
 tensive consequences as upon this hypothesis the 
 Bishop's judgment would be, should have been 
 couched in terms so vague, as that the Tract was 
 * objectionable,' and that it ' might tend to disturb 
 ' the peace and tranquillity of the Church.' 
 
 Without giving any opinion on Mr. Lowe's 
 pamphlet individually, I may in conclusion ex- 
 press my pleasure at every fresh sign of the attention 
 of Churchmen being drawn to the careful examina- 
 tion of our Articles, whether as ' construed by them- 
 selves' or as illustrated by contemporary history. 
 Whatever effects such increase of attention may 
 have on the judgment that will be formed of the 
 English Reformation and Reformers, of this I am 
 well convinced, that it will only tend to place Mr. 
 Newman's interpretation of the Articles on a more 
 immoveable basis, and to induce more and more 
 fair minded persons of whatever school of opinion 
 to acquiesce in its honesty and lawfulness. 
 
 WILLIAM GEORGE WARD. 
 
 Balliol College^ 
 June 21, 1841.
 
 THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF TRACT XC. 
 
 EXAMINEt), 
 
 IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, 
 
 STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN ENGLISH DIVINES. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 THE CASE OF BISHOP MOUNTAGUE, 
 
 IN THE REIGN OF KINO JAMES I. 
 
 REV. FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW UK BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 
 PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD. 
 
 AND MINISTER OF MARGARET CHAPEL, ST. M ARV-LE-BONE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, 
 
 ST. Paul's church yard, 
 
 AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 
 
 1841.
 
 LONDON : 
 GILBERT it RIVINCiTON, PRINTERS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The original design, in this publication, was to 
 make the Testimonies of the Divines its principal, 
 and the remaining observations merely its subor- 
 dinate feature. But the introductory remarks have 
 grown, in the progress of the attempt, to a length, 
 and some of the facts on which they are founded, 
 appear to the writer to assume an importance, on 
 which he did not originally reckon. He has accord- 
 ingly altered the wording of the title page, while the 
 sheets were passing through the press. This infor- 
 mation is given to account for the prominence as- 
 signed to the Testimonies in the opening of the In- 
 quiry ; an inconvenience which could not have been 
 obviated without the reconstruction of the whole.
 
 THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF TRACT XC. 
 
 Among other objections which have been made to 
 No. 90. of the Tracts for the Times, it is said to pro- 
 pound a view of the Thirty-nine Articles, which is 
 unprecedented in the Church of England. The pre- 
 sent collection of extracts is brought forward for 
 the purpose of showing that such is not the case. 
 One of two conclusions seems plain from them ; 
 either, that the divines from whose writings they 
 are taken, had been at pains to reconcile certain 
 opinions, which they both held and taught, with 
 the terms of the Articles ; or, at least, that they 
 did not consider subscription to those Articles to 
 present a bar to the promulgation of those opinions. 
 And, since no view of subscription, however lax, goes 
 the length of justifying persons in teaching, as well as 
 holding, doctrines, which the Articles preclude, we are 
 left to the inference, that, unless these divines re- 
 garded the Articles as a mere dead letter, they must 
 
 B
 
 have been of opinion, that such doctrines were not 
 precluded by them. 
 
 Nothing is as yet said of the case of Bishop 
 Mountague, (appended to the extracts,) which 
 amounts to far more than this ; amounts, in fact, to 
 something very like an authoritative decision^ on the 
 part of the then Church of England, in favour of the 
 consistency of certain very close approximations to 
 Roman doctrine, with the language of her formularies ; 
 such decision having been pronounced, after a careful 
 deliberation, by a committee of Bishops, appointed 
 by the king to represent the national Church. 
 
 For the present, however, I waive the case of 
 Bishop Mountague, and confine myself to the extracts. 
 And, in the first place, it is necessary to state, how 
 much, and how much only, these citations are intended 
 to prove. This necessity results from a prevailing 
 tendency to mistake the nature of the proof to which 
 what are called " Catense," and all testimonies of that 
 description, are directed. Persons have sometimes 
 appeared to think, that they could overthrow the 
 evidence of " Catena) " from the works of our divines, 
 by producing counter " Catense " from the same 
 sources ; which would indeed be the case, were such 
 evidence adduced to prove that the doctrines, which 
 it accredits, are true ; or, again, have been uniformly 
 taught in our Church. But all that " Catena) " 
 necessarily show, and all that, as a matter of fact, they 
 are generally intended to show, is, that certain doc- 
 trines are not new. This is said in anticipation of an
 
 objection which may possibly be made to the proof 
 now attempted. It may be called a " one-sided" view 
 of the question. Persons may speak of the possibility 
 of overwhelming such quotations as those now ex- 
 hibited, with quotations, also from the works of English 
 divines, of a directly opposite tenour. 
 
 Now such possibility is not merely admitted, but 
 asserted. To what, however, does it amount ? Plainly 
 to no more than this ; that the later Church of England 
 (whether happily or not,) has ruled, or at least acqui- 
 esced in the presumption, that her Articles permit a 
 very great latitude on both sides. It has never been 
 maintained, that I know of, on the side of the Tract, 
 assuredly not by its author himself, that all the doc- 
 trines, in behalf of which he pleads at least the nega- 
 tive testimony of the Thirty-nine Articles, are impera- 
 tive upon the Clergy of the Established Church, as 
 such ; but simply that they are compatible with honest 
 subscription. Now, this is distinctly denied on the 
 other side. The doctrines in question, (at least in 
 the extent intimated in the Tract,) are not merely, 
 in the judgment of the objectors, excluded by the 
 terms of the Articles, but have, it is farther urged, 
 always been considered, in the later English Church, 
 to be so excluded by them. This, then, and this only, 
 is the point in question. 
 
 Again, it is not to the purpose to urge, as is some- 
 times done in objection to evidence like that now 
 produced, that English divines are often inconsistent, 
 not only with one another, but with themselves ; 
 
 b2
 
 and thus that little, after all, is to be gathered from 
 their statements on any one side. For the object, in 
 these cases, is not to justify the divines, any more than 
 to ground particular doctrines upon their mdJiority, 
 but merely to show what they have felt themselves 
 at liberty to say, and been actually able to say 
 ■without protest. And this fact has its own weight, 
 whatever these divines may chance to have said else- 
 where. Of course I do not here speak of reserves 
 and qualifications made in the neighbourhood of the 
 several passages. 
 
 Now it is by no means admitted of the present 
 quotations, that they serve merely as precedents. 
 Considering that they involve the judgment, upon 
 certain subjects, of men like Andrewes and Thorndike, 
 (not to speak of others) men not merely of profound 
 learning, but of eminent piety, and known moderation, 
 they must, with many persons, carry weight far beyond 
 the very subordinate use now made of them. But 
 there is no occasion to press them inj;o our service 
 beyond the point for which they are here claimed. 
 It is enough that the authors of those passages are 
 divines and bishops of our Church. And this being 
 so, the question then is, not so much, who these 
 divines and bishops were, as, what they maintained. 
 
 But there is yet another conceivable objection 
 to the j)resent line of defence, against which it is 
 well to j)rovide. It may be said, that, besides being 
 unfair to our Church to represent her as a witness 
 to doctrines so very mucli above the average pitch of
 
 her theology, and so entirely at variance with her oc- 
 casinnal teaching, it is also highly inexpedient, and 
 especially at a time when many of her members are 
 known to be tending in the direction of Rome, to 
 select exclusively, and exhibit synoptically, the avow- 
 edly strongest statements which her annals any where 
 supply, in favour of doctrines commonly thought to 
 be characteristic of the Churches in the Roman 
 obedience. 
 
 But this objection must be at once met by saying, 
 that persons are driven upon this course in spite of 
 themselves. It has been one result of the turn 
 which the present controversy has taken, as observed 
 by Mr. Ward, in a passage of his pamphlet quoted by 
 Dr. Pusey ', (a result, no doubt ordered for the best, 
 however, with many, a subject of regret,) to provoke 
 developments, or put upon modes of defence, which 
 would otherwise have been premature, at least, if not 
 positively objectionable. Mr. Newman speaks of 
 having been deterred from certain explanations, in 
 the first instance, by the fear of tempting persons "to 
 go as far" as they legitimately might. And such, no 
 doubt, is the tendency of the present argument, though 
 framed with a view to quite a different object. 
 All that can be said is, that, as things are, persons 
 are exposed to a choice of difficulties. And, as we 
 
 ^ "Through the course which Mr. Newman has been obliged to 
 take, the Ora pro nobis has been brought before persons who 
 would otherwise have never thought of it." — A Few More Words, 
 &c. page 84.
 
 6 
 
 all know, the apprehension of possible results, though, 
 (in the estimate of many) disastrous, must not deter 
 us from a course manifestly right in itself. And 
 such seems to be this course of obviating, if so be, 
 great misapprehensions which are moving well-inten- 
 tioned persons to adopt measures, and to use words, 
 from which perhaps they would shrink, if they knew 
 all, or bethought themselves, at the moment, of all 
 they know. And in the responsibility of such (hy- 
 pothetically) rash measures, and random words, any 
 one would certainly in a degree be involved, who 
 should, on whatever grounds of mere expediency, 
 omit, where he feels himself able, to throw light 
 on the subject. This, then, is one very plain Chris- 
 tian reason for the present publication ; more shall 
 presently be added. And, on the other hand, in 
 stating, as has here been done, to how very little, 
 after all, the present argument pretends, (the ques- 
 tion being simply, whether that little be enough for 
 the immediate purpose) it is hoped that all is done, 
 which is possible under the circumstances, towards 
 hindering persons from taking any undue advantage 
 of it. 
 
 One inducement, then, to the present undertaking, 
 is the earnest desire of promoting peace and unity, 
 by throwing out for tiie consideration of persons, of 
 whom the writer of these remarks is bound to speak 
 with respect, and into whose difficulties he trusts he 
 is not unable to enter, a view which may not have 
 occurred to them, but which seems to make it at least
 
 doubtful whether, by the course they feel it their 
 duty to take, they be not fomenting needless divi- 
 sions, and encouraging a spirit which, in its fullest 
 developments (out of any man's power to arrest) they 
 would be among the first to deprecate. Is it not 
 that they are seeking to oppose, as at variance with 
 the doctrine of the Church of which they are mem- 
 bers, views, concerning which it is, at all events, a 
 doubtful question, whether tJtey have not in past ages 
 been assumed, or even pronounced, compatible with that 
 doctrine ; and those, too, the very ages to which 
 many of these persons are accustomed to appeal 
 against the tone of teaching prevalent in our Church 
 both at an earlier, and a later, period ? and would 
 it not seem that, in thwarting the present move- 
 ment in favour of " more catholic views than satis- 
 fied the last century," they are rather siding with the 
 Puritans of former times, than with the moderate 
 party in the Church of England which they wish to 
 represent ? The case of Bishop Mountague is perti- 
 nent to this point. If the value of the evidence 
 about to be produced be not greatly overrated, it 
 would certainly tend to the conclusion, that, not 
 they are introducing " a new era" in the Church of 
 England, who endeavour to reconcile certain doc- 
 trines, however now, as of old, unpopular, with the 
 language of the Articles, but rather they, who speak 
 of subjecting to penalties, or j)lacing under incapaci- 
 ties, the persons who are but claiming liberty to hold 
 what English divines of former times claimed, and
 
 were allowed, liberty to teach. This, rather than the 
 other, would seem, if it may be said with all respect, 
 to be the line of " innovation." No one questions 
 the absolute right of the Church of this, as of any 
 other day (properly represented), to impose new 
 Articles, or a new sense upon her present ; nor, 
 again, the right and, what is more, the obligation, 
 of individuals, whether in the University or else- 
 where, to act for themselves, either in the matter of 
 Testimonials, or in whatever other way, according to 
 their conscientious notion of the words " doctrine 
 and discipline of the Church of England." Only, 
 inasmuch as the imposition of restrictions ujion 
 liberty of conscience, if it be not a duty, is certainly 
 a sin, in that, (to omit other considerations) it is an 
 injustice to individuals to set a mark upon them 
 without reason, and an injustice to the Church, of 
 which we are members, to deprive her of the ser- 
 vices of Ministers who, not being (upon the hypo- 
 thesis) disqualified for their functions, may, on other 
 grounds, become instruments for the promotion of 
 God's glory, and the edification of their brethren ; 
 it should certainly be a grave question with any one, 
 who may feel inclined to debar, as far as he is able, 
 certain persons from ecclesiastical or quasi-eccle- 
 siastical privileges, whether he may not be laying up 
 for himself materials of future repentance, while be- 
 lieving himself, in liis heart, to be "doing God serviced'' 
 
 * To avoid all possibility of inisapprchensioii, I will say that 
 I aui not here cilsputiiig tlic i)rer()gative of" Heads of Colleges to
 
 9 
 
 But it is not merely that we are bound in duty to 
 the Church of Christ to do what we can towards heal- 
 ing her "unhappy divisions," and to individuals, (not to 
 deprecate, on our own account, the exercise of a power 
 which may affect ourselves, for this is a mere trifle, 
 or rather such temporary hardship as may be the 
 result of it, is likely to be a benefit to ourselves, but) 
 out of very tenderness towards our brethren, to press 
 on them the duty, as well as the immense im- 
 portance at this critical juncture, of calm religious 
 reflection. We are likewise under especial obliga- 
 tion to our Bishops, to aid them (as, in a measure, 
 the humblest has the power) in the course of mode- 
 ration and forbearance which they have hitherto 
 maintained, amid many temptations to deviate from 
 it, under the excitement of this anxious controversy. 
 It becomes us, where we think we have the means, 
 to strengthen, if it may be said, their hands, by 
 putting before a party which is endeavouring, by 
 clamour, to provoke them to some authoritative 
 interference, the adequate vindication (may it not 
 rather be said the true grounds ?) of their past and 
 continued forbearance. For, who can doubt, that 
 
 order all matters connected with education in their respective 
 Societies, according to their own view of the interests of those 
 entrusted to their care. I refer only to cases in which the 
 " doctrine of the Church of England" is directly in question. 
 And both the general tone of conversation in Oxford, and the tenor 
 of recent publications, are^ enough to protect me, in what has 
 now been said, from the charge of harbouring merely ideal appre- 
 hensions.
 
 10 
 
 the pointed avoidance of all allusion to doctrine, in 
 thie only instance in which any of our Prelates has 
 hitherto felt it necessary to interpose publicly, in con- 
 sequence of the Tract, as well as the great reluctance 
 manifested by the Bishops generally to interpose at 
 all, have arisen from a disinclination, on their parts, 
 even to appear to rule, (at least without very great 
 caution,) that a certain construction of a Formulary, 
 so avowedly comprehensive as the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 is absolutely inconsistent with the obligations imposed 
 by subscription ; and thus to run risk of a schism in 
 our Church, the effects of which it is impossible to 
 calculate ? 
 
 Again, it is a plain duty of justice and charity 
 towards individuals, lying under grievous imputa- 
 tions on the score of unscrupulousness, if not posi- 
 tive dishonesty, to show what can be shown in their 
 defence ; and this, quite irrespectively of any claims 
 which they may have upon this or that person on 
 more private grounds ; though, of course, the tie of 
 affection, or the sense of obligation for services felt 
 to be inestimable, will increase, in particular cases, 
 the desire of coming forward, at all hazards, and with 
 how little soever hope of success, in their behalf. 
 In a public document, the production of grave and 
 exi)erienced persons, holding high and responsible 
 situations in the country, and almost proverbial for 
 caution, the view of the Tract has been pronounced, 
 not merely dangerous (which is a mere exi)ression of 
 o])inion upon it), but " evasive," which involves also a
 
 11 
 
 very serious reflection upon its author. Under these 
 circumstances, it seems but common justice to the 
 writer of the Tract, to show, if it can be shown, that he 
 has done no more than others have done, without re- 
 proach, before him ; or rather that, with great can- 
 dour, and at the risk of much odium, he has gone 
 out of his way to adjust with the terms of the Articles, 
 statements which our older divines seem rather to 
 have advanced without scruple ; thus challenging in- 
 vestigations which they felt themselves strong enough 
 to defy, and providing against objections, which 
 they would not even imagine. Many, probably, 
 who cannot bring themselves to think the author of 
 the Tract rights would be equally, or even more, un- 
 willing, to think some of our older divines wrong, 
 which, in such measure as his statements are borne 
 out by their authority, is the virtual effect of con- 
 demning him. And, after all, even if this farther 
 consequence be not feared, or lamented, still, (as has 
 been already said,) the plea of precedent would be 
 thus made good on the side of the Tract. 
 
 In the way of introduction to the following 
 extracts, I will observe, that the result of recent 
 enquiries into our ecclesiastical annals of the three 
 last centuries, has been to convince me, that the 
 later Church of England has been, from first to 
 last, remarkably unwilling to protest, as a Church, 
 against the doctrines of Rome. Her authoritative 
 protests, when she has thought it riglit to make
 
 12 
 
 them, have been directed, almost, if not quite, 
 without excei)tion, against a far different school 
 of theology. This remark appears to me to apply 
 even to the period of the Reformation itself; when, 
 if at any time, the Church of England might 
 have been expected to declare herself strongly and 
 unambiguously on the Protestant side. And, of 
 course, there are very many who consider that she 
 has so declared herself in the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 But if this fact be not certain from the language of 
 the Articles themselves, (and that it is not certain 
 seems to be admitted at least by those who resort to 
 the private opinions of the Reformers to determine 
 the question,) certain it is, that history gives no 
 countenance whatever to the opinion that, the Articles 
 were drawn up iciili the view of cvcludim) Catholics. 
 
 With respect to the original Articles of 1552, it 
 seems doubtful, whether they were ever enforced ; 
 if at all, it was but in few instances ^ After the 
 revision of 1562, they were enforced; but, as it 
 appears, against Non-Confo7iuists, and not Roman 
 Catholics. The question with Rome was then, as in 
 after times, regarded in a merely political point of 
 view. 
 
 " Against Papists (says Fuller, who certainly cannot 
 be suspected of any 'Romanistic' bias,) it was exacted 
 that, to write, print, he. that the Queen was a 
 
 ' " He (Cranmer) laboured to have the clergy subscribe them ; 
 but against their will he compelled none." Strype's Cranmer, 
 p. 272. Cf. iip. Siiort'b Hist, ol the Church of England, § ASA-.
 
 13 
 
 heretic. Sec, should be adjudged treason. Af/ai?ist 
 Non-Confor?n?sfs, it was provided that every Priest 
 or Minister should, before the Nativity of Christ 
 next following, declare his assent, and subscribe, to 
 all the Articles of Rclidon ao^reed on in the Convo- 
 cation of 1 562, under pain of deprivation ^." 
 
 And accordingly it appears, that Roman Catholics 
 continued in the communion, and even in the 
 Ministry, of the Church of England, for several years 
 after the first promulgation of the Articles. 
 
 " Hitherto" {i. e. till a.d. 1570), " Papists generally 
 without regret repaired to the places of divine 
 service, and were present at our prayers, sermons, 
 
 and Sacrame?its In which sense, one 
 
 may say, that the whole land was of one langiiafje 
 
 and one speech Hitherto the English 
 
 Papists slept in a whole skin, and so might have con- 
 tinued, had they not wilfully torn it themselves^." 
 
 It farther appears, that many members of the 
 Lower House of Convocation, who were Roman 
 Catholics, subscribed the Articles upon the revision 
 in 1562 ^ 
 
 * Fuller, p. 98. Eliz. 
 
 * Fuller, p. 98. Eliz. See also Strype's Grindal, p. 98. " Of the 
 
 subscribers (to Queen Eliz. injunctions for conformity), there 
 
 were many, who had said Mass in Queen Mary's time, and such 
 as would not change their custom of old Pater Noster." Vide 
 Short's Hist, of the Church of England, § 437. 
 
 * Strype, (Ann. of Ref. c. xxviii.) gives their names ; and, among 
 them, we find that of the celebrated John Bridgwater, (called in 
 Latin, Aquapontanus) who, in 1582, published the Treatise called
 
 14 
 
 The term " Recusant," by which the Roman Ca- 
 tholics of this country were formerly designated, at 
 once denotes the ground, and fixes the date, of their 
 separation from the national Church. It was not 
 upo7i the 'promulgation of the Articles^ nor upon any 
 other measure of the Church of England, but upon 
 the 'political regulations which arose out of the formal 
 excommunication of Elizabeth, in 1569, that Roman 
 Catholics withdrew from the communion of our 
 Church. Before that time, not even the Oath of 
 Supremacy was a bar, as a general rule, to their 
 admission even to civile far less to ecclesiastical, pri- 
 vileges; the majority of them understanding this 
 oath as a mere test of loyalty ^ 
 
 But as to the Articles, never, that I can find, were 
 they urged, or felt, as a ground of disunion between 
 the Churches ; and this fact, as I must consider it, is 
 
 " Concertatio Ecclesioe Catholicse in Anglia adversus Calvino- 
 Papistas et Puritanos," being an account of the sufferings of 
 English Roman Catholics in the time of Elizabeth. 
 
 ^ See a Tract called the " Execution of Justice in England," 
 (1583.) "These seditious acts . . . have made them traitors 
 . . . not their books, nor their words, no, nor their cakes of wax 
 which they call Agnus Dei," &c. (p. 45.) 
 
 Again, the Jesuits, addressing Queen Elizabeth, said, " In the 
 beginning of thy kingdom thou didst deal something more gently 
 with Catholics: none were then urged by. thee, or pressed either 
 to thy sect, or to the denial of their faith." Again, " none were 
 ever vexed that rvay, simply for that he was either Priest or 
 Catholic, but because they were suspected (of disloyalty)." — Im- 
 portant Considerations written by the Secular Priests against the 
 Jesuits, IGOl.
 
 15 
 
 farther attested by the statement so commonly made, 
 that Rome withdrew herself, and not was driven, from 
 our communion ; and again by the plea, upon which 
 the penal enactments, carried out from time to time 
 in this country against Roman Catholics, have always 
 been defended ; viz. that they were enforced upon 
 merely civil, and in no wise upon religious, grounds. 
 And if the " unscrupulousness of Roman Catholics" 
 in respect of oaths, and other similar obligations, be 
 urged as the ground of the insufficiency of our formu- 
 laries as means of excluding them, then it must be 
 shown, why they were eventually excluded. For that 
 they did refuse some tests, is undeniable. 
 
 But to return to the Articles. There would seem 
 to have- been reasons, both of necessity and of policy, 
 which would be likely to influence the English 
 Reformers in favour of a very great latitude of 
 expression upon subjects which other Protestants, 
 or they, under other circumstances, might have been 
 apt to determine with far greater precision. 
 
 It is much to be considered, in the first place, that, 
 with the English Reformers, Protestantism was, as I 
 may say, an qfler-thought. The English Reformation, 
 upon whatever theological grounds it may eventually 
 have been based, was, undoubtedly, in the first in- 
 stance, a mere political movement ; being (so far) 
 unfavourably distinguished from the continental 
 struggle, which, though it ultimately issued in 
 excesses from which we have been providentially 
 kept, was, in its origin, far more than the English
 
 16 
 
 Reformation, of tlie nature of an indignant protest 
 against Ccvisting corruptions ^. I do not at all deny 
 that corruptions of a like crying enormity, though 
 perhaps of a different kind, existed in this country 
 also. All I say is, that, not the scandal of these 
 corruptions, but the influence of the Pope, and 
 especially as it pressed inconveniently upon Henry, 
 was the gravamen, to which, in this country, the 
 quarrel with Rome owes its origin. This, of 
 course, is not stated as a discovery, but merely ad- 
 duced as an evidence to the point in hand. But 
 the question with the See of Rome being thus opened, 
 (no otherwise upon ecclesiastical, than as they were 
 subservient to political, grounds,) it rapidly assumed 
 a theological shape ; and the English divines of the 
 time were forced upon the necessity of treating, and, 
 what is far harder, of legislating, on various and ab- 
 struse points of doctrine, under all the disadvantages 
 of persons who had been educated in the system they 
 were now obliged to oppose, and been rather led by 
 circumstances, than moved by any spontaneous im- 
 j)ulse, to adopt that, into which they were suddenly 
 required to throw themselves. 
 
 Now this consideration, I cannot but think, will 
 account, in a great measure, for the inconsistencies 
 which are to be found in the writings of the English 
 
 ' This unfavourable feature of our Reformation was observed 
 by the foreigners ; ^ViXQt Se irpoc >//ioc ^tVoc tiq, TrtidfOzic ek rfjc 
 Bperaviar, /iflj'ov cinXeyofiei'oc tt epl rov Cevrtpov yufiov tov 
 jiaor t\ f loc' Tuii' ce rfjc ti^KXtjuiciQ irpuy^UTMr, ov ^iXfi, wq
 
 17 
 
 Reformers, as well as for the (presumed) indecisive 
 character of the Formulary which we owe to them. 
 How was it possible, that men, of whatever ability, 
 who had no thoughts, but for external and accidental 
 occurrences, of originating formal declarations on the 
 subject of Catholic doctrine, should come to the task 
 with that maturity of reflection, and extent of fore- 
 sight, which are absolutely necessary, (except where 
 the want of long previous preparation is supplied in 
 some degree by strong single-hearted earnestness,) to 
 the statement of precise and definite views of theology? 
 The divines of our own country took up Protestantism 
 in details and by degrees, not like Luther and Calvin, 
 as a comprehensive system \ We find, accordingly, 
 that, when pressed to declare themselves formally 
 upon the great doctrinal questions which agitated 
 Europe at the time, they " beat about," if I may use 
 the expression, for assistance in more experienced 
 quarters ^ Now, the idea thus thrown out, if it do 
 
 (prjai, 7w /3a(7iXet. — Melanchthon, quoted in Cardwell's Preface 
 to the Two Books of Edward VI. 
 
 The Greek Church, of the present day, is said to sympathize 
 more with the Foreign Protestant communities, than with the 
 Church of England, from esteeming the Foreign a more con- 
 scientious act than the English Reformation. 
 
 ' Hence the doctrinal incongruities discoverable in the works, 
 for instance, of Cranmer, who was chiefly concerned in drawing 
 up the Articles. 
 
 ' " The communication with those eminent men" (the foreign 
 Reformers) " which had been opened, in the first instance, at the 
 desire, and for the private purposes, of Henry, and had been dis- 
 
 C
 
 18 
 
 not seem improbable, would precisely explain their 
 adoption in the Formulary which they actually put 
 out, of terms rather than definitions^ and vague defini- 
 tions rather than those mwe precise ; and, again, for 
 their practice (observed by Mr. Newman) of com- 
 bating popidar views, rather than authoritative state- 
 ments, of doctrine, and protesting against apparent 
 practices, rather than embarrassing themselves with 
 minute theological distinctions. This is just the course 
 of persons who do not feel themselves "at home" 
 in a subject, as I suppose it is no injustice to the 
 English Reformers to say that they could not have 
 
 continued, from a mutual feeling of distrust, during the latter 
 portion of his reign, was resumed, at the death of that prince, 
 and carried to the greatest possible extent. Hooper, Home, Cox, 
 Traheron, and others, who became conspicuous in the history 
 of the English Church, were frequent correspondents, and some 
 of them intimate friends, of BuUinger and the Reformers of 
 Zurich. Bucer wrote a gratulatory letter to the Church of Eng- 
 land in praise of its homilies, and with the view of recommending 
 farther alterations ; Calvin dedicated a part of his Commentary 
 to the Protector Somerset, and urged him to carry on the great 
 work in which he was engaged; Cranmer repeated his earnest 
 invitations to Melanchthon, Hardenburg, and other distinguished 
 Reformers, and John a Lasco, &c. &c. were received in England 
 in the most favourable manner, and many of thera placed in 
 situations of trust and influence." Dr. Cardwcll's Preface to 
 Two Prayer Books of Edward VI. p. ix. 
 
 Dr. Short shows (Hist, of Ch. of Eng. § 483) how much as- 
 sistance the English reformers derived in the Articles from foreign 
 sources ; and he vindicates them (§ .'M3) on the ground of the 
 difficulty of their task.
 
 19 
 
 been, in the great controversies of their time. They 
 neither came to their work, like tlie divines of Trent, 
 as persons who had been long familiar with the system 
 they were required to develope and secure ; nor, again, 
 like the framers of the German or Swiss Confessions, 
 with that almost intuitive perception of their subject, 
 which is well known to be the result of deep interest 
 in any matter, and which is no inadequate substitute 
 for long study and laborious research. The contrast, 
 in point of precision, between the earlier and later 
 among the Thirty-nine Articles, wliich Mr. Ward 
 has observed in the "Appendix" to his Pamphlet, is 
 a confirmation of the view now suggested. 
 
 But another consideration, quite sufficient to ex- 
 plain the very remarkable difference, in respect of 
 stringency, between the Thirty-nine Articles and 
 Continental Formularies, on whichever side, is that of 
 the peculiar circumstances, under which the Articles 
 were constructed. The divines of Trent, or, again, 
 of Switzerland, drew up their several Confessions 
 of Faith with the freedom and fearlessness of 
 persons who knew that the Churches and countries 
 which they represented, were "with them'." The 
 
 * Compare, for instance, sweeping statements, like the follow- 
 ing in the Helvetic Confession, with the declarations of the 
 Thirty-nine Articles : — " Caeteras (praeter Eucharistiam) caere- 
 moniarum ambages inutiles ac innumerabiles, vasa, vestes, vela, 
 faces, aras, aurum, argentum, quatenus pervertendee religioni 
 serviunt, idola praesertim .... ac id genus omnia profana, a 
 sacro nostro coetu procul arccmus." Again : 
 
 c2
 
 20 
 
 English Reformers, on the contrary, were hampered 
 in their work by the most conflicting and embar- 
 rassing influences. They were kept, willing or unwil- 
 ling, in the orbit of neutrality by the effect of opposite 
 forces. On the one hand, there were the foreign Pro- 
 testants, clamouring for a sanction, on the part of the 
 " first of Reformed Churches," of their extreme pro- 
 ceedings *. On the other, there were the known senti- 
 ments of the English nation, any thing but ripe for 
 a radical change of religion, if not the prospect of 
 diflSculties in Convocation, many members of which 
 were in favour of the old system ; and the consequent 
 necessity of not making the Articles unacceptable to 
 those to whom they were to be submitted ^ 
 
 Again : " Proinde ocelibatum, ritum monasticum, et totum hoc 
 ignavum vitse genus, superstitiosorum hominum abominabile com- 
 mentum, procul rejicimus, aeque et Ecclesiae, et reipublicae, re- 
 pugnans." 
 
 * The English Reformers applied for help to Melanchthon, as 
 the most moderate of the continental Protestants, and so the 
 fittest to aid them in their difficult work. But, for this very- 
 reason, the ultra party abroad kept him back ; " quod mollitiem 
 animi ejus suspectam haberent." See Dr. Cardwell's Preface to 
 the Two Books of Edward VI. p. v. 
 
 * Strange indeed is it, that history should make it doubtful 
 whether the Forty-two Articles were ever submitted to Convoca- 
 tion at all, considering the title which they originally bore. If 
 they were not, their profession misrepresents them in a way which 
 involves something more than disingenuousness in the parties con- 
 cerned in promulgating them. Yet the respected author of the 
 History of the Church of England thus writes, and substantiates 
 his observation by reference to documents of the time. " From the 
 
 6
 
 21 
 
 Mr. Ward '^ appears to have stated this point 
 somewhat drily and technically, when he imputes 
 (as I understand him,) to the English Reformers, a 
 deliberate and disingenuous purpose, throughout their 
 task, (for in places they can hardly be screened from 
 the imputation,) of adjusting the claims of these rival 
 
 title under which the Articles were originally published *, it might 
 be supposed that they derived their authority from the sanction of 
 Convocation ; but if they were ever submitted to the Upper 
 House, which is very questionable, it is indii hit able that they were 
 never brought before the Lower ; while all the original mandates 
 which remain, prove that they were promulgated by Royal autho- 
 rity alone." Short's History of the Church of England, § 48. 
 
 Heylin (Hist, of the Reformation, p. 126, a. d. 1552,) con- 
 siders this supposition too monstrous to be entertained, and 
 accordingly supposes that Convocation delegated its power to a 
 Committee, (nominated, according to Dr. Short, by the king.) 
 He argues, rather strangely, that the profession of the title is 
 justified by his view, as though a Committee of one House of 
 Convocation were equivalent to the whole body of the two. 
 The whole story, like all else connected with the annals of the 
 English Reformation, is, to say the least, very uncomfortable. 
 
 But whether or not Cranmer drew up the Articles for the Con- 
 vocation, (if so, the proof to the present point is so much the 
 stronger ; and even the fact, if true, that he did not ultimately 
 submit them, does not show that he had no intention of submitting 
 them to one or both Houses,) still it is certain that he both 
 designed, and attempted, to obtain the subscription of the Clergy 
 (Strype's Cranmer, p. 27) which would alone oblige the course of 
 moderation. 
 
 • A Few More Words, &c. p. 43. 
 
 * Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, &c.
 
 22 
 
 parties, the foreign Protestants on the one side, and 
 the old English Catholics on the other. Mr. Ward 
 seems to think, that they set out, and acted all along, 
 with the intention of reconciling, as a kind of ma- 
 thematical problem, the maximum of Protestantism 
 with the minimum of offence. It is not, perhaps, 
 necessary to go this length ; and if it be not neces- 
 sary, one is bound, in charity, to stop short of it. 
 That the English Reformers were anxious to give 
 many of the Articles as Protestant an air, as they 
 thought it prudent to risk, this I cannot but appre- 
 hend. And yet it may be questioned whether, on 
 the whole, they acted with any direct and systematic 
 disingenuousness ; and not rather in some such way 
 as the framer of a petition to Parliament (for in- 
 stance) who wishes to make a striking manifesto of 
 opinion, without losing more signatures than he can 
 help ; or, again, as a somewhat too compromising 
 preacher, who, under the influence of anticipated 
 objections, puts saving, (which are, in fact, neutra- 
 lizing,) clauses into his sermon. Of course such pro- 
 ceedings are quite inconsistent with strong, earnest, 
 and distinctly realized, views ; but these it is, I will 
 say, quite certain, that Archbishop Cranmer, for one, 
 did not possess either way ; at least when he drew 
 up the Articles. That he did not possess them, is 
 sufiiciciitly shown by the fact of his writings being 
 cited on comj)lctcly different sides of a theological 
 controversy. 
 
 It may seem unfair to the Reformers to represent
 
 23 
 
 their course in respect of the Articles under any 
 other character than that of a wise and commendaljle 
 moderation. But it is to be considered, whether 
 many of the points which they have left indetermi- 
 nate, be not points, if not of necessary faith, at least 
 of necessary deduction from the ground-work of all 
 faith, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, upon vvhich 
 we thankfully acknowledge that the Articles are 
 unambiguous. I may mention the subject of the 
 " Holy Catholic Church," as one among many others, 
 upon which a precise Formulary would not merely 
 allow of the orthodox, but preclude the erroneous, 
 view. There are points of Catholic belief, only not 
 condemned in the Articles (such e. g. as the Eucha- 
 ristic Sacrifice,) the denial of which, if it appear strong 
 to call it actual heresy, is, at least, of a directly hereti- 
 cal tendency ; and want of explicitness on these, if 
 intentional, implies unworthy compromise ; if unin- 
 tentional, culpable short-sightedness. It must not be 
 complimented with the name of moderation. It is 
 moderation only when its subject matter is unessen- 
 tial ; but the differences between Catholicism and 
 Protestantism are so fundamental and irreconcileable, 
 that, if the Articles (as I have all along supposed,) 
 give free scope for near approximations to the ex- 
 tremes on both sides, they must involve the com- 
 patibility with honest subscription, of what, in the 
 judgment of one, or the other party, is serious error. 
 This consequence of the present argument may as 
 well be frankly acknowledged at once, since it cannot
 
 24 
 
 be avoided. But then it must be borne in mind, that 
 our Clergy (as Mr. Ward reminds us) not merely 
 subscribe the Articles, but declare their assent to the 
 Prayer-book, which must, accordingly, be regarded as 
 our Church's standard commentary upon several of 
 those points which the Articles have left in doubt ^ 
 But, on what may be called the Protestant side of 
 the question, there is no corresponding interpreter 
 of the Articles. The Homilies tell as much one 
 way as the other; which cannot certainly be said 
 of the Prayer-book. 
 
 To pass now from the composition of the Articles 
 in 1552, to their revision and republication in 1562. 
 If it be highly probable, both on a priori, and on his- 
 torical, grounds, that their original framers drew them 
 up with a studied reference to the views of those who 
 retained their prepossessions in favour of the old 
 Religion, this fact appears to be historically certain, in 
 the case of Archbishop Parker, and the divines who 
 remodelled them. Of these Dr. Heylin says, 
 
 " Their moderation is no less visible in declining 
 all unnecessary determinations, which rather tended 
 to the multiplying of controversies, and engendering 
 of strifes. ... So that they seem to have proceeded 
 by those very rules which Kinc/ James so much ap- 
 proved of in the Conference at IIamj)ton Court. 
 First, in not separating farther from the Church of 
 
 ' See " A Few More Wotds," &c. by the Rev. W. G. Ward, 
 p. 21.
 
 25 
 
 Rome, than that Church had separated from what 
 she was in her purest times ; 2dly, in not stuffing the 
 Articles with conclusions theological, in which a latitude 
 of judgment was to be allowed, as far as was consistent 
 with peace and charity. As they omitted many whole 
 Articles in King Edward's book, and qualified the 
 expressions in some others, so were they generally 
 very sparing of anything which was merely matter of 
 modality, or de modo only. . . . which rules being care- 
 fully observed by all the bishops, it was no wonder that 
 they passed their votes without contradiction. 
 
 "But in taking the subscription of the Lower 
 House, there appeared more difficulty. For, though 
 they all testified their consent unto them, yet, when 
 subscription was required, many of the Cahinian or 
 Zuinglian Gospellers, possibly ' some also which were 
 inclined rather to the old Religion, and who found 
 themselves unsatisfied in some particulars, had de- 
 murred to it ^" He adds, that at length all subscribed. 
 This appears doubtful '"; however, very many, at all 
 events, subscribed, including Roman Catholics. 
 
 From all this it would appear, that the object, 
 both of the original framers, and subsequent revisers, 
 
 * This is remarkable. He speaks as if the objections had come 
 rather from the other quarter. The passage is likewise important, 
 as intimating that the Catholics (for it is a fact (vid. sup. p. 13) that 
 many were in the Convocation,) demurred to the terms of the 
 Articles ; did not, I mean, regard them as a mere unmeaning 
 declaration of conformity ; yet they eventually yielded. 
 
 » Hist, of Ref. Eliz. p. 159. 
 
 " Strype, A. of R. c. xxviii.
 
 26 
 
 of the Articles, was to form a National Church upon 
 the most comprehensive basis ; consisting of all who 
 could by any means be brought to subscribe its cha- 
 racteristic Formulary. Had they wished to exclude 
 Roman Catholics, as persons holding views dangerous 
 to the National Church, it is quite inconceivable why 
 they should present (as they did,) the Articles, again 
 and again, to the members of Convocation, (many of 
 whom had offices in the Church in the preceding 
 reign,) until all, or nearly all, had subscribed them. 
 Had their purpose in the Articles been what the 
 modern view supposes ; as soon as any Roman Catholic 
 refused to sign, it would have been answered. They 
 had framed their test, and it was successful. What 
 then remained, but that the objectors should quit the 
 Ministry ? Instead of which, they took the best 
 means in their power to overcome the scruple \ 
 This certainly looks as if our divines did not try, 
 like Luther and Calvin, to create a new Protestant 
 community ; but sought rather to remodel the existing 
 and long-established, English Church. And, though 
 it be true, that they made a grievous mistake in ad- 
 mitting into it the elements (as proved by subsequent 
 events,) of certain disunion, still, on the other hand, 
 they seem to have acted in a Catholic spirit towards 
 the representatives of the ancient Faith ; not seeking 
 to dispossess them of their place in the Church, pro- 
 vided only they were content to remain in it as En(j- 
 lish, not as Roman, Catholics ; to give up their adhe- 
 
 ' Sco lleylin, p. 159.
 
 27 
 
 sion to the Pope, so Jar as it was inconsistent with 
 the claims of the National Hcad^ retaining, the while, 
 their belief in other points of the common Catholic 
 Faith ^. And so matters remained for several years ; 
 and so they might have continued, but for later 
 events, which brought on a crisis: and though, in 
 themselves, (like the original differences with Rome 
 under Henry VIII.,) of a political, rather than a 
 religious, nature, produced an immediate, and most 
 material, change in the visible relations of the 
 Churches. 
 
 It does not fall within the scope of these observa- 
 tions, to pursue, what may be called the history of 
 the Catholic doctrine in the later Church of England, 
 beyond the period of the Reformation, as finally set- 
 tled under Elizabeth. It is hereafter to be shown, that 
 this view of the Articles, which it has been attempted 
 to establish on historical grounds, and by which 
 they are presumed to be (except where they refer to 
 the direct subject of the Creeds,) a mere declaration 
 against certain existing abuses, couched, occasionally, 
 in highly Protestant language, but, in truth, clear of 
 the doctrines which they appear to infringe, is, if not 
 the very view, at least not materially unlike the view, 
 upon Avhich certain of our divines must be thought to 
 have proceeded. For otherwise, we must accuse these 
 divines of running wilfully counter to the doctrine of 
 
 ^ The Roman Catholics, of former times, who took the Oath of 
 Supremacy, appear to have understood it, according to the inter- 
 pretation proposed in Dr. Pusey's pamphlet on Tract 90, as a 
 mere disclaimer of the Pope's temporal authority in this kingdom.
 
 28 
 
 their Church, or that Church of most deplorable remiss- 
 ness, in not vindicating her own doctrine ; of remiss- 
 ness, indeed, to which she could not have yielded, 
 without knowing for certain, that she was thereby pre- 
 cluding future generations from all hope of recovering, 
 (at least without a second Reformation,) that (sup- 
 posed) anti-catholic sense of the Articles, which she 
 was thus suffering to escape. 
 
 But, before coming to this latter point, I may add, 
 that the study of our later ecclesiastical annals will 
 also furnish many indications of a like providential 
 care exercised in the preservation of our Church from 
 a committal, by any formal act, to uncatholic error. 
 
 The one exception to the truth of this remark, 
 which, after some attention, I have been able to dis- 
 cover (if indeed it be, as for my own part I am cer- 
 tainly disposed to think that it is, an exception) is in 
 what are called the Canons of Archbishop Laud, 
 because ratified by a synod of the Church of England 
 in his primacy. This, to the best of my knowledge 
 and belief, is the only document of the nature of an 
 ecclesiastical decision, (and the observation may be 
 extended to political enactments, between the periods 
 of the Reformation and Revolution of 1688 ^) which 
 condemns any doctrine of Rome, as distinct from the 
 Papal claim of jurisdiction in this realm ^ In the 
 Canons of 1603, there is no hint of apprehension from 
 
 ^ See Appendix. 
 
 ' Such acts as that of the Seven Bishops, in 1G88, not being 
 acts of the Church of England, but of individuals, do not interfere 
 witli the above statement.
 
 29 
 
 the influence of foreign Churches, except in the single 
 injunction for the presentment o^ ^'- Recusants'" to the 
 ordinary, to be by him reported to the Bishop, and 
 so on to the king. Again, the synodical acts of our 
 Church in 1604 and 1661, were both of them in a 
 more Catholic direction than the proceedings at the 
 time of the Reformation *. The case of Bishop Moun- 
 tague involves a strong declaration on the Catholic 
 side. On the other hand, the State of England, till 
 the Revolution, did not attempt to meddle with the 
 doctrinal profession of Roman Catholics, provided 
 only it could obtain a guarantee for their loyalty \ 
 
 ■* The re-introduction of the explanation at the end of the 
 Communion Service, made on the latter of these occasions, may, 
 at first sight, appear to be at variance with this remark ; as it is, 
 indeed, the only other instance I have observed of Roman doc- 
 trine being even glanced at by our Church during the above- 
 mentioned interval. On consideration, however, it will be found 
 even to support the view now taken ; as the substitution of the 
 term " corporal presence" for " real presence" was plainly an act 
 " in a more catholic direction," and seems to fall in with the 
 general habit of our Church, by condemning, not formal state- 
 ments of doctrine, but popular corruptions*. Our assent to the 
 Prayer-book of course involves no judgment as to the advisable- 
 ness of this commentary upon our Service. Mr. Newman, how- 
 ever, has contended, in his Tract, that it may be understood in a 
 sense altogether innocent. 
 
 * The following are important testimonies, on both sides, 
 to this fact. The first is from the work of a Protestant, 
 (supposed to be Bishop Barlow,) published shortly before the 
 Revolution. " It 
 
 * Cf. Dr. Cardwell's Hist, of Conferences, &c., p. 35. Note. 
 (See Appendix.)
 
 30 
 
 And it is remarkable that the time which the 
 State chose for au innovation upon her ancient 
 policy in this respect, should have been the begin- 
 ning of an epoch, during which, more than at any 
 other period since the Reformation, the Church of 
 England was disposed to act independently of the 
 State. And a memorable fact it is, that the ex- 
 piring energies of Convocation were directed, not 
 against any high Mystery of the common Faith, 
 under the name of superstition, but, contrariwise, 
 
 " It is certain that these oaths" (of Supremacy and Allegiance) 
 " were primarily designed to be a sufficient test to distinguish 
 Papists from others. And yet in either of them there is no 
 mention o£ doctrine, but only those which concern government, 
 that is, the external government both of Church and State. . . . 
 I may add the constant profession and ansvi'er of all Protestant 
 writers. Whensoever any complaint has been made of the 
 severity used to Roman Catholics, it has been always said 
 that they suffered not for religion, but for treason, &c." — •' Con- 
 siderations on the true way of suppressing Popery," p. 35. See 
 also pp. 47. 53. 73. 115. 
 
 On the other hand, the Secular Priests urged against the Jesuits 
 in 1601 :— 
 
 " If we at home, all of us, both Priests and people had pos- 
 sessed our souls in meekness and humility, honoured her Ma- 
 jesty, borne with the infirmities of the State, suffered all things, 
 and dealt as true Catholic Priests . . . assuredly the State would 
 have loved us, or, at least, borne with us : where there is one 
 Catholic, there would have been ten . . .for none were ever vexed 
 that way simply, for that he was either Priest, or Catholic, but 
 because they were suspected ... of traitorous designments." — 
 *• Important Considerations," in a Collection of Tracts on the 
 Penal Laws. London, 1675.
 
 31 
 
 against the heresy, which passes througli a degrada- 
 tion of the Sacraments into a dishonouring of Him 
 who is their Life ^. 
 
 But the Canons of 1640 present, as I may be 
 allowed to say of an act of the then Church, in no 
 way binding upon us, a somewhat perplexing combi- 
 nation of Catholic regulations, of an external kind, 
 with strong disclaimers of the doctrine, which alone 
 gives to such usages, as are therein enjoined, any 
 value, or even any meaning. It would be a curious 
 question, which this is not the place to pursue, 
 whether much of the odium which our Church has, 
 at different times incurred, on the ground of formal- 
 ism, may not have been, in great measure, due to the 
 want of a clearer recognition, on the part of her 
 divines, of the intimate connexion subsisting between 
 the forms and the spirit of true Religion; or, in other 
 words, a fuller development of the Sacramental theory 
 of the Church. Certainly, I would not be thought to 
 defend the conduct of the Puritans ; and yet, without 
 referring more to one age than another, it seems both 
 due to others, and salutary for ourselves, to consider, 
 whether the opposition which our Church has, at dif- 
 ferent times, encountered from serious, although mis- 
 taken, persons, may not have arisen, in some degree, 
 from a tendency, on the part of her members, to sub- 
 stitute mere outward conformity for vital unity, and 
 to lay stress upon externals, without a clear enuncia- 
 
 ° Bishop Hoadly has been declared, on high authority, a 
 Socinian.
 
 32 
 
 tion of the principles upon which they depend ^ But, 
 to return to the Laudian Canons. I will not avail 
 myself of the argument ad hominem, by which this 
 document might be disposed of, on the ground of its 
 alleged want of authority. These Canons, though 
 not, I believe, an act of Convocation, were certainly 
 the act of a synod. I admit also, that, as far as they 
 go, they appear to me to be at variance with the 
 moderation of tone characteristic of the later Church 
 of England. I am glad, for the sake of our Church, 
 that she has renounced them. I am glad, for the sake 
 of Christian unity, that, in subscribing the Articles, 
 we are not required to declare assent to these, or any 
 other, Canons. It is well known, that a Bishop of our 
 Church suffered himself to be put under arrest rather 
 than subscribe them. But Bishop Goodman, it is 
 urged by many, was a Roman Catholic ; and so, they 
 would say, his objection to the Laudian Canons, is not 
 to the point. Now if, when it is said that Bishop 
 Goodman was a Roman Catholic, it be meant, that 
 he formally joined the communion of Rome, this cer- 
 tainly was not the case. If he were a Roman Catholic 
 in any other sense, then may such a Roman Catholic 
 
 ' And, surely, considering the very imperfect and ambiguous 
 development of Catholic principles generally, even in the very 
 best days of the Church of England since the Reformation, (not 
 to speak of the painfully unecclesiastical character of proceedings 
 in that aira itself,) we seem bound, in justice as well as charity, 
 to make the largest allowance for those, who, in these latter 
 days, have failed to recognize, in our Church, their appointed 
 Mother in the Faith.
 
 33 
 
 be in the communion, and even in the highest office, 
 of the Church of England ; which is very much to the 
 present point. The higher we set Bishop Goodman's 
 Catholicism, the more striking is the fact, that one 
 who was conscientious enough to suffer penalties 
 rather than subscribe the Laudian Canons, should not 
 have stumbled at the Articles. How strange a pheno- 
 menon in the history of any Church, or, rather, (may 
 w^e not say ?) how wonderful a token of the Provi- 
 dence which has watched over ours, tliat catholic 
 minds, perplexed by the inconsistencies of a catholic 
 age, should be able to fall back upon the Articles, 
 " the offspring of an uncatholic " one ; and, again, 
 that Protestants of a later time should have been 
 the parties to extricate Catholics from obligations of 
 which they are glad to be relieved, and even to 
 contend for the Formulary, by which they are willing 
 to be tried ! 
 
 Whether it have arisen from the unwarrantable 
 conduct of the Roman party in England, or from 
 the recollection of ancient grievances, or from the 
 desire of obviating, at any rate, the suspicion of 
 Popery, or from an inadequate estimate of the im- 
 portance of Catholic unity, or from Avhatever other 
 cause ; certain it is, that some even of our greater 
 divines are accustomed to speak of the Roman Church 
 in terms which it is hard to reconcile with their very 
 close approximation, in parts of their writings, to 
 Roman doctrine. And one reason, perhaps, why 
 persons are startled by attempts, such as that inci- 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 dentally made in Tract 90, to harmonize parts of 
 the Articles with the Decrees of Trent, is, that they 
 derive their idea of our Church's position in respect 
 of other branches of the Church Catholic, from the 
 harsh and exclusive tone upon which many of her 
 divines have been forced by circumstances, rather 
 than from the actual amount of their testimony to 
 Catholic Truth. It has not been unusual with us to 
 speak almost as if independence were, per se, a greater 
 boon to a Church, than oneness with the Catholic 
 body; a sentiment, which appears to savour rather 
 of Judaism, than of the gracious and comprehensive 
 dispensation under which we live. With the inti- 
 mations of our own Church, at least, (not to mention 
 the explicit declarations of Scripture,) it would seem 
 most agreeable, to consider that the especial work 
 of the Holy Spirit in the Body Catholic is to make 
 the " whole earth," which the author of confusion 
 has split into parts, "of one language, and of one 
 speech ^" 
 
 But the stronger has been the temptation, whether 
 arising out of our national peculiarities, or the pressure 
 of external circumstances, to glory in our isolation, 
 as a Church, instead of mourning for the sins of 
 which it is the penalty; the deeper should be our 
 gratitude to those of our divines, who, with Andrewes 
 in England, and Forbes in Scotland, have made the 
 
 ' First Lesson for the morning of the Monday in Whitsun 
 week.
 
 35 
 
 restoration and re-union of Christendom, the object 
 of their efforts, and of their prayers. 
 
 It may not be uninteresting, nor altogether irrele- 
 vant to the object of the present publication, to give 
 some account of two remarkable attempts, (among 
 others,) which have been made in different ages, and 
 (as there is reason to suppose,) on different sides, of 
 the Church, in this country, of a character somewhat 
 similar to the Essay which has lately attracted so 
 much notice and censure. The more recent of these 
 very curious and striking dissertations it falls imme- 
 diately within my present object to notice. The 
 other is well worthy of the attentive consideration 
 of English Churchmen, as the testimony of an im- 
 partial witness to the orthodoxy and catholicity of 
 our own communion. I begin with the latter. 
 
 " Francis a Sancta Clara, a Dominican friar, of 
 great learning and moderation, whose real name is 
 Christopher Davenport, was chaplain to Queen Hen- 
 rietta" (to whose influence we are indebted for one 
 of the most catholic books in our Church, the 
 " Hours of Devotion," of Bishop Cosin,) " and after- 
 wards to Catharine, Queen of Charles II. He was 
 much noticed by the learned men of his day *. This 
 ecclesiastic entertained the idea of the possibility of 
 reconcihng the Churches of England and Rome ; 
 
 * He appears to have lived on terms of familiarity with Laud 
 and Goodman. 
 
 D 2
 
 36 
 
 and, with this view, had composed a short Treatise, 
 in which he endeavoured to show that the Articles 
 of the Church of England were in accordance with 
 the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, support- 
 ing his position from the writings of Bishop Andre wes, 
 Bishop Mountague, Dr. White, and other learned 
 Protestants ^" 
 
 The Treatise to which the above extract refers, is 
 called " Expositio Paraphrastica Coiifessionis Anglise," 
 and is appended to a work on the subject of the 
 Calvinistic controversy ^. Although written with a 
 somewhat different object from Tract 90, it will 
 be found to suggest an interpretation of the Thirty- 
 nine Articles, in many respects strikingly similar to 
 that put forward by Mr. Newman. As this fact has 
 been publicly urged in objection to the Tract, I will 
 at once admit the accuracy of the statement. This 
 expositor speaks in the strongest language of the 
 general catholicity of the English Articles. The great 
 majority, including those on " Predestination," " on 
 Ministering in the Congregation," and " on Baptism," 
 he characterizes in terms such as the following. — 
 "Omnino catholicus," "optimam continet doctrinam," 
 " conformis SS. Scripturis, doctrinoc sanctorum Pa- 
 
 * Brewer's Preface to " the Court of King James I., by Dr. 
 Godfrey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester." 
 
 ' The title of the work is *' Deus, Natura, Gratia, sive Trac- 
 tatus de Praedestinatione, &c. Auctore Francisco a Sancta Clara," 
 &c., published in 1034.
 
 37 
 
 truni, et praxi Universalis Ecclesise." In some very 
 few cases (especially Art. xxxi. and xxxvii.) be 
 admits a great apparent difficulty; but maintains 
 tliat it is apparent only. In the case of others, {e. g. 
 the Articles on the " Sacraments," the " Marriage of 
 Priests," and the " Communion in both kinds") he 
 contends that there is hardly a colour for the objec- 
 tions which some Catholics had made to them. But 
 it may not be amiss to give the view which this 
 remarkable writer takes of some of those Articles, 
 which have been recently so much canvassed. I 
 will begin with that " on General Councils," in which 
 Sancta Clara sees none of that ^'^ prima facie Pro- 
 testantism " which so perplexes INIr. Ward ; but 
 rather considers, with Dr. Pusey, that the very word- 
 ing of the Article is strictly catholic. He thus com- 
 ments. — 
 
 Art. XXI. " General Councils may not (non possunt) be 
 gathered together without the commandment and will of 
 princes." 
 
 " These words V' he observes, " seem to be confirmed 
 by the authority of Jerome, who asks (Apol. 2. cont. 
 Ruffin.) in objection to a certain Council, what emperor 
 commanded (jussit) ' the assembling of this Synod V as if 
 meaning, that the ' connnandment"' of the Emperor was 
 necessary. And thus in the case of all the ancient Councils 
 (to make a general statement) this rule was observed 
 
 ' My readers are probably aware that Sancta Clara's work is 
 in Latin. The translation here given is rather free, but will, I 
 believe, be found accurate.
 
 38 
 
 Speaking abstractedly, (that is to say, viewing the matter 
 as a question of divine right,) Councils ma^ be gathered 
 together ivithout the interference of Princes, as Jerome 
 would not have denied. But per accidenSy (that is to say, 
 taking into account the circumstances of time, place, &c.) 
 the consent, and even the command, of Princes is a pre- 
 liminary requisite. 
 
 "Again" (he continues) "the words which follow, present 
 no greater difficulty. ' Things pertaining to God,"" is an 
 expression of great latitude. That General Councils may 
 err in things not necessary to salvation (quse fidem aut 
 mores ad salutem necessarios non concernunt) is the common 
 
 judgment of our doctors Let none, then, quarrel 
 
 with this clause " even in things," &c. That General 
 Councils can err in things necessary to salvation, the Article 
 does not assert. That they may err in minor matters, 
 Catholics do not deny. 
 
 " The last words of the Article express the judgment of 
 the Church in modern, as well as ancient, times. For 
 Councils cannot make a proposition heretical, which before 
 was otherwise ; neither can they coin (cudere) an Article 
 of Faith. Their province is, to give an explicit force to 
 the implicit sense of Scripture and the Apostolic words, 
 (ex abditioribus SS. locis et Apostolorum dictis, veritatem 
 eruere) that so (as Lirinensis has it) a later generation 
 may more clearly understand what a former more indis- 
 tinctly believed This is all the Church proposes, 
 
 when she is said to determine (definire) certain truths. 
 For she rests (innititur) not on any fresh revelations, but 
 on those of the ancient time, which are involved (latitan- 
 tibus) in the Scriptures, and words of the Apostles," &c. 
 
 Tlio view which this acute and learned divine takes 
 of Art. XXII. is as follows :
 
 39 
 
 Art. " The lioniish doctrine concerning the 
 
 Invocation of Saints is a fond thing," &c. 
 
 " Words," (proceeds the expositor) " doubtless of a very 
 severe aspect. But observe ; what the terms of this Article 
 condemn, is not Invocation of Saints simply in itself , (as is 
 evident,) but the Romish doctrine of Invocation 
 
 " What then is this Romish doctrine? or rather, what is 
 
 the Protestant account of the Roman doctrine ? For 
 
 the question is, not what the so-called ' Romanists,' have said, 
 but what Protestants have supposed them to say. Calvin 
 (Inst. 1. iii. c. 20) affirms, that we invoke the Saints as gods. 
 Andrewes, in his answer to Cardinal Perron, supposes that 
 our prayers are directed to the Saints as ultimate objects of 
 worship, and without any qualification (ultimatas et abso- 
 lutas) and, as it were, to so many divinities. And this he 
 tries to show from the harmon?/, not of our doctors, but of 
 our hymns (concentu, non consensu). 
 
 " On the whole, then, the Anglican Confession determines 
 nothing against the Catholic Faith, but rather condemns a 
 profane and heathen doctrine, with which the Church is not 
 fairly chargeable." 
 
 Here this commentator has certainly overlooked 
 important considerations connected with the subject, 
 to which Mr. Newman has drawn attention ; espe- 
 cially the value of our Article as a protest against actual 
 abuses, and as a warning against "peril of idolatry." 
 So far, however, as this interpretation considers that 
 " not every doctrine, but only the Romish doctrine," 
 of Invocation, is condemned by the Article, it agrees 
 with that of the Tract. The question, upon which 
 Mr. Newman and Sancta Clara appear to differ, is
 
 40 
 
 that of the extent to which the Church, in whose 
 communion certain abuses exist, is committed, by 
 non-interference, to the virtual sanction of what she 
 formally disavows. 
 
 This Roman Catholic interpreter takes the same 
 view with Mr. Newman, of expressions in our 
 Articles, which, denying of certain practices or in- 
 stitutions, that they are Scriptural, in the sense of 
 being ordained in Scripture, do not deny, that they 
 may be, and are, obligatory, as matters of ecclesiasti- 
 cal regulation. Speaking of Art. xxviii., towards 
 the close of which are the words " by Chrisfs ordi- 
 nance^' he observes, 
 
 " What is not by Chuist formally commanded, may yet 
 by the Church be rightly instituted." 
 
 Again, with reference to Art. xxxii. 
 
 " Bishops, priests, and deacons, are not commanded to 
 vow celibacy ; they are not required, jure divino, to abstain 
 from marriage ; therefore, as far as 'divine right' is con- 
 cerned, they may marry, both lawfully and validly. This is 
 the more common opinion in the schools, and the Article 
 makes no farther assertion." 
 
 The important connexion between the two parts 
 of Art. XXXI. "on the One Oblation," is clearly 
 pointed out in this commentary. 
 
 Art. " The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect 
 redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the 
 whole world . . . wherefore the sacrifices of masses,"" &c.
 
 41 
 
 Obs. " The former i)art, so far as it relates to the affirma- 
 tive proposition, is no subject of controversy. And, where 
 the Article proceeds to a denial of all satisfaction for the 
 guilt of sin, the Oblation of the Cross excepted ; we must 
 understand that the whole of that which is affirmed of 
 Christ, is denied to any other ; in other words, that none, 
 except Christ, can, by any action or suffering, wash away 
 sin, that is, to the exclusion of Christ,"" (prajscindendo 
 Christum). 
 
 Hence he concludes, that the Article does not con- 
 travene the doctrine of those English divines, who 
 consider that the Eiicharistic Ordinance involves a 
 true, although a commemorative Sacrifice. 
 
 The other work, to which I have referred, as bear- 
 ing upon the subject of Mr. Newman's Tract, is called 
 "An Essay towards Catholic Communion, by a 
 Minister of the Church of England." It was pub- 
 lished in 1715; and, being avowedly an attempt 
 towards reconciliation with Rome, attracted, as was 
 natural at that particular time, the notice of the 
 government. A warrant appears to have been issued 
 from the Secretary of State's office for the seizure of 
 the author's papers, and the arrest of his person ; 
 under a suspicion, apparently, that he was in league 
 with the Pretender. It was more than insinuated by 
 adverse parties, that he was actually in commu- 
 nion with Rome at the time ; but the internal 
 evidence of his book, is, in the opinion of competent 
 and most impartial judges whom I have consulted, so
 
 42 
 
 strongly the other way, that I am bound, in honesty, 
 as well as charity, to give him credit for his pro- 
 fessions. 
 
 The object of this writer is to show, by quotations 
 from the works of approved divines of the Church of 
 England, especially Bishops Andrewes, Forbes, and 
 Mountague, the coincidence between the statements 
 of our own theologians, and the authoritative decla- 
 rations of the Council of Trent, upon various points 
 of doctrine and practice ; as, for instance, the Real 
 Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Intermediate 
 State, Intercession for the Dead, and the Reverence 
 due to Images and Relics. Accordingly, this Essay is 
 alone enough to take from the present undertaking 
 all pretension to originality. However, my object, so 
 far, falls short of that of this writer, that, while he 
 seems to consider that the Church of England teaches 
 certain doctrines, all at which I aim, is to show, that 
 she cannot be proved to repudiate them. And of this 
 Essay, ingenious and (on the whole,) conclusive as it 
 is, I am ready to admit, that it seems to me, for the 
 reason I have just given, partial, if not disingenuous. 
 Also, I M ill add, that, in the extracts which the writer 
 has made from the works of English theologians, (the 
 most important of which, I have verified, and find 
 correct,) he has not always been sufRciently observant 
 of collateral qualifications in the context of what he 
 cites. Altogether then, I will say of this very curious 
 book, that, while no person ought to take any decisive 
 step in the present controversy, till he has carefully 
 
 12
 
 43 
 
 read, and fairly weighed it ; I am, for my own part, 
 inclined to dispense with the evidence which it fur- 
 nishes to the point of these observations, from feeling, 
 not so much, I may sincerely say, that it is question- 
 able, as that it is superfluous. 
 
 The extract, which, among others, I am about to 
 make in support of the statement to the proof of 
 which these observations are directed, shall come from 
 a quarter which there can be no difficulty in admit- 
 ting. It shall come, not from this Catholic Essay, 
 but from the Anglican Reply to it. Of this, then, I 
 will now say a few words. The Essay, in question, is 
 accompanied by Observations intended (according to 
 the profession of the title-page,) to " detect the mys- 
 tery, and to expose and defeat the design, of the 
 original work." The writer of these Observations 
 evidently supposed, that the author of the Essay 
 was a Roman Catholic in disguise, and, accordingly, 
 does not spare him. He, then, at least, must be con- 
 sidered an impartial witness. Yet we shall presently 
 see, how far even he goes on the side of the Tract. 
 
 The "Observations" in question I have been enabled 
 to trace to Nathaniel Spinckes, A. M., Rector of 
 Peakirk cum Glynton, in the county of Northampton, 
 and diocese of Peterborough and of St. Martin, 
 Sarum, and also Prebendary of that Cathedral ; of 
 which dignity he was deprived, in the episcopate of 
 Bishop Burnet, a.d. 1690, on the ground of his 
 refusal to take the oaths to King William III. 
 
 Of the remaining divines, by whose writings I
 
 44 
 
 have profited in the present attempt, there is but 
 one of whom I feel it necessary to say any thing in 
 this place. 
 
 WiUiam Forbes, D.D., flourished in the times of 
 James I. and Charles I., and was appointed first 
 Bishop of Edinburgh in the reign of the latter. 
 He was a native of Aberdeen, and entered the 
 Marischal College in that city at the age of 
 twelve. After completing his academical career, he 
 visited the continent of Europe, and studied, for 
 some time, in the German universities. He was 
 deeply versed in the theology of the early Church, 
 and accurately acquainted with the original languages 
 of Holy Scripture, especially Hebrew. It is needless 
 to add, that he was master of Latin. Upon his re- 
 turn to Scotland, he entered the sacred Ministry, 
 and laboured in his calling with extraordinary zeal. 
 King James I. being at Aberdeen, Forbes was chosen, 
 with others, to confer with that monarch on matters 
 of academical privilege ; and received the degree of 
 D.D., by royal mandate. He was afterwards, suc- 
 cessively. Principal of the College, and Rector of the 
 University. On the visit of King Charles I. to 
 Scotland in 1633, Forbes was nominated to fill the 
 See of Edinburgh, endowed by that monarcli. Im- 
 mediately after his consecration, he was attacked by 
 serious illness, which ended mortally in the third 
 month of his episcopate, and forty-ninth year of his 
 age. 
 
 His principal work, to wliicli T ;un now indebted,
 
 45 
 
 is entitled " Considerationes modestre et pacificae 
 Controversiarum," and is avowedly an attempt to 
 effect a reconciliation with Rome, on the basis of 
 the common Catholic Faith. It was found among his 
 papers, and published after his decease. The follow^- 
 ing is the testimony of an intimate acquaintance to 
 the usefulness and excellence of his IVIinisterial life. 
 
 " Inter alios eminebat Gulielinus Forbesius ex opere 
 quodam posthuino, Considerationes inodestce et paclficce Con- 
 troversiarum^ 8^c. inscripto, erudito orbi cognitus, inter 
 primos sui sevi eruditos. — Vir, vitai sanctimoniri, huniilitate 
 cordis, gravitate, niodestiu, temperantia, orationis et jejunii 
 frequentia, bonorum operiim praxi, industria pauperura cura, 
 clinieorum erebra visitatione et consolatione, et omnifaria, 
 virtute Christiana, inter optimos primitivae Ecclesia Patres 
 annumerandus. In concionando ad populum fervens adeo 
 ut auditorum mentes et aff'ectus raperet ; doctrina et eru- 
 ditione insignis, sublimato pollens judicio, memoria etiam 
 tenacissima (de quo vulgo dictum, quod ignoraret quid sit 
 oblivisci), Veritatis et pacis amantissimus, ac proinde, rerum 
 controversarum momentis acutissime expensis et pensitatis, 
 nulli parti addictus, partium lites componere, saltern miti- 
 gare, satagebat." Geo. Garden in vita R. V. Job. Forbesii, 
 p. 19. inter Forbesii opera, vol. 1. 
 
 Having now, as I hope, sufficiently cleared the 
 way for the following extracts, I will add a few con- 
 cluding words in explanation. 
 
 If, in the preceding remarks, there be any ex- 
 pression which seems even so much as to imply
 
 46 
 
 tbe desire of reflecting upon past transactions, or 
 needlessly reviving exhausted discussions ; if any, 
 which can be thought to betoken a defective appre- 
 ciation of the difficulties of others, or an intention of 
 throwing obstacles in the way of their conscientious 
 discharge of duty, I heartily lament such expression, 
 and wish it recalled. 
 
 Much, surely, there is, both in the actual appear- 
 ances of the Church at this time, and in the position 
 and circumstances of those who, in their endeavours 
 to defend her, have drawn upon themselves the op- 
 position of zealous men, to create mutual sympathy, 
 even where, unhappily, there can be but little agree- 
 ment. It is impossible any longer to shut our eyes, 
 even where we may wish it, to the fact, that certain 
 views of theology have gained an influence in this 
 country, which may well alarm those who think them 
 essentially wrong, and must needs make all anxious, 
 but those who think them essentially right. So far 
 as any person sees in these views, not a mere for- 
 tuitous collection of opinions, some true, others false, 
 others indifferent ; but a compact, harmonious, and 
 living system, which, if it be not divine (as its 
 upholders maintain) must be the antagonist of what 
 is divine, I cannot but admire that person's sagacity, 
 however I may deplore his conclusion. There is 
 neither wisdom, nor fairness, in denying that a cer- 
 tain course of teaching does tend to what the parties 
 who make the assertion mean by " Popery," that is, 
 to the full and consistent carrying out of the Sacra-
 
 47 
 
 mental tlieolog-y ; the doctrine, namely, that tlie 
 Church Catholic, as the Instrument of the Holy Spirit, 
 and the Representative of our Lord in His Kimjly, 
 Priestly, and Prophetical Offices, is the one (ordained) 
 channel of blessing from God to man, and means of 
 access from man to God. And, no doubt also, so far 
 as the impressive and consolatory idea of a Visible 
 Church is more fully realized in Rome, than among 
 ourselves, the craving-, which this course of instruc- 
 tion has been chiefly instrumental in awakening, 
 tends even to Rome ; which, however, is very dif- 
 ferent from saying, or necessarily implying, either 
 that it ought to terminate there, or that it iLrill. But 
 if by " Popery" be meant, some form of supersti- 
 tion and idolatry, then not they only, who seek to 
 advance, but they also, who do not actively resist, the 
 present movement, (being supposed conscientious 
 men,) must be understood to intimate, by the very 
 fact of such advocacy, or acquiescence, their belief 
 that it tends to no such result, except in the way of 
 perversion or abuse. 
 
 Again, on the other hand, although the defenders 
 of the Tract imply, by the very circumstance of de- 
 fending it, that they consider the difficulties greater 
 on the side of those who oj)pose its interpretation of 
 the Articles, than on their own, yet few of them, I 
 imagine, go so far as to say, that their own side is 
 altogether without difficulty. Mr. Newman, for one, 
 has never intimated that he regards the construction 
 for which he pleads, as the obvious one ; (juite the
 
 48 
 
 reverse. Now the confession of prima facie diflficulty 
 on the one side, is a virtual admission of the claim 
 to sympathy and forbearance on the other. At all 
 events, I will express my own firm persuasion, that 
 in points such as those upon which the present con- 
 troversy has chiefly turned, there is no side in the 
 Church of England, at this moment, the representa- 
 tives of which are, under existing circumstances, in 
 any situation to dogmatize or condemn. It is one 
 thing to feel, that there is no safety but in the con- 
 sistent following out of one line of doctrine, to the 
 exclusion of all others ; and, again, that our Church, 
 fairly considered, presents no insurmountable barrier 
 to the pursuit of Truth, even in its remoter bearings, 
 in that direction ; and quite another, to deal hardly 
 with those, be they without, or within, the pale of the 
 Church established, who, wdiether from the prejudices 
 of education, or the prevalence of traditionary impres- 
 sions, coinciding with the absence of any unambigu- 
 ous witness on the other side, on the part of our 
 Church herself, are bent on carrying out, with greater 
 or less consistency, the princif)les which it has all 
 along been assumed that the English Reformers 
 themselves were not unwilling to encourage. 
 
 So little, happily, does sympathy, in the present 
 instance, depend on perfect agreement in opinion, 
 that, rather, where there is the less agreement, there 
 is, for some reasons, the greater sympathy. It is 
 easier, I mean, to understands and, so far, to feel with, 
 those who, looking at the present movement in its
 
 49 
 
 true character, as part of a consistent whole, regard 
 it as simi)ly evil, than with those who view it with 
 mixed feelings, or with no feelings at all. Wherein 
 such persons esteem it a deep philosophy, and not 
 a mere interesting literature ; an absorbing principle, 
 and not a mere transient excitement ; and wherein 
 they look below its superficial appearances, into its 
 solid grounds, and beyond its present manifestations, 
 to its undeveloped capabilities, they take, as I must 
 think, a truer and more earnest view of the subject, 
 than those who pronounce a hesitating and qualified 
 sentence upon certain parties and proceedings ; much 
 more than those who seek to talk the matter ofl^ as 
 a mere ephemeral topic, or hush it up, as a mere in- 
 convenient disturbance. On the other hand, and 
 in the way of compensation, it must be remem- 
 bered, that where there seems less of consistency 
 and reality to command our admiration, there is 
 also less of what we must consider serious error 
 to excite our sorrow. And again, when it is said 
 that we may not understand how this or that per- 
 son is able to reconcile certain opinions, or courses, 
 which seem to us contradictory, still this is very dif- 
 ferent from charging him with culpable inconsistency. 
 Which of us is any judge of another, or can attempt 
 to try his mind by any known rule ? It is most cer- 
 tain, indeed, that truth and falsehood, and, therefore, 
 consistency and inconsistency, have a nature of their 
 own, independent of the mind to which they are ac- 
 cidentally subjected ; but, important as it is to recol- 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 lect this, for the purposes of faith, it is, for the pur- 
 poses of charity, equally imjjortant to consider, that, 
 as respects the moral 'probation of individuals^ this 
 essential nature admits of incalculable modification 
 from unknown varieties of circumstance. At all 
 events, so it is, that, among the opponents of the 
 doctrine in question, the vast majority are, if I may 
 not say happily inconsistent, at least happily unpre- 
 pared, to oppose it without reluctance or reserve. 
 Few, comparatively, are ready to say of the Catholic 
 movement, that it is simply evil, and so to throw 
 themselves, heart and soul, into the antagonist sys- 
 tem. And those, who are not so disposed, but who, 
 I really believe, were they required to make their 
 choice, would at once close with mere Catholicism 
 rather than mere Protestantism, I ask, with every dis- 
 trust of myself, but none of my cause, to try and realize 
 their position, and their objects ; what they dread, 
 and what they believe ; and why so believing, they so 
 dread ; and what, above all, it is, that they mean to 
 build upon the ruins of what they seek to cast down ; 
 and what is the amount of their agreement with 
 those whom they join for a present purpose ; and 
 how, except there be indeed some vital bond of union 
 among them, they can hope to replace a doctrine 
 Avhicli is certainly real, certainly influential, certainly 
 productive of the fruits of holiness, charity, self- 
 denial, and all that seems like the religion of the 
 Gospel, by any thing equally real, equally influential 
 equally (may I say it without offence ?) evangelicals
 
 51 
 
 Let it be considered, that the great religious system 
 which, for a long time, bore, and, so far as it compre- 
 hended portions (as surely it did) of essential truth, 
 deserved^ that sacred name ; which, in what it con- 
 tained of high and holy, was, no doubt, God^s instru- 
 ment for awakening us to a sense of our respon- 
 sibilities, and of infusing life and warmth, where 
 before, it may be feared, was too often the mere cold 
 profession of orthodoxy; let it be considered that 
 this system, once to all appearance so compact, and 
 beyond question so popular and attractive, is now, as 
 a system, manifestly breaking to pieces. What of it 
 is earthly, is finding its level. What of it is earnest, 
 self-denying, and affectionate, is uniting itself with the 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church, which alone, in its 
 completeness, (such as I am far from saying has yet 
 been realized amongst ourselves, and which, when 
 realized, will draw to its side whatever of good 
 amongst us is now kept back by the w^ant of such 
 due developement,) provides an adequate scope, and 
 a reverential direction, for the feelings of devotedness 
 and brotherly love. 
 
 Considerations such as these do not, of course, 
 hold good upon the supposition that the Church of 
 Eno^land is unambiouous in her witness ao-ainst the 
 theology in question, and imposes upon her members 
 a clear obligation to withstand it. But to those, 
 who are doubtful upon this point, they may fitly be 
 suggested, in the way, not of an adequate motive, 
 but of a restraining scruple ; and not as reasons of 
 
 e2
 
 52 
 
 mere expediency, but rather as providential intima- 
 tions, which, though they cannot avail to overthrow 
 a settled, and fully realized, conclusion, may well 
 create a presumption against an ill-defined view, or 
 come in arrest of a headlong judgment, or remove 
 (which is rather their bearing upon the subject of 
 these remarks) a preliminary obstacle to the exami- 
 nation of the proper evidence. 
 
 I will only add, that the following extracts by 
 no means pretend to be more than specimens of the 
 teaching of English divines upon the points in ques- 
 tion. And, again, that, while taking to myself the 
 undivided responsibility of the present jjublication, 
 I desire to express my sincere thanks to the Rev. 
 J. S. Brewer, of King's College, for the assistance 
 I have received from him in collecting materials; 
 and to my much-esteemed coadjutor in the ministra- 
 tions of Margaret Chapel, the Rev. W. U. Richards, 
 for the advantages I have derived through his official 
 connexion with the British Museum. 
 
 London, 
 Julys, 1841.
 
 It being quite beyond the scope of the present 
 undertaking to bear out the interpretation of the 
 Tract upon any other subjects, than those in which 
 it has been most generally questioned, the following 
 extracts will be found to refer chiefly to the doctrines 
 brought forward in the Protest of the Four Tutors, 
 and most frequently dwelt upon in the progress of 
 the controversy, by opponents of the Tract. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE EUCHARIST A COMMEMORATIVE SACRIFICE FOR 
 QUICK AND DEAD. 
 
 Bishop Andrewes. Answer to XVIIIth chapter of Card. 
 
 P err 071. 
 
 "The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both 
 as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice. 2. A Sacrifice is proper 
 and appliable only to divine worship. 3. The Sacrifice 
 of Christ's death did succeed to the sacrifices of the Old 
 Testament. 4. The Sacrifice of Christ's death is available 
 for present, absent, living, dead, (yea, for them that are yet 
 unborn). 5. When we say the dead, we mean, it is avail- 
 able for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors, and all, (be- 
 cause we are all members of one Body) : these no man will 
 deny.
 
 54 
 
 " In a word, we hold with Saint Augustine in the very same 
 chapter which the Cardinal citeth, ' quod hujus Sacrificii 
 caro et sanguis, ante adventum Christi, per victinias siniili- 
 tudinum promittebatur ; in Passione Christi, per ipsam veri- 
 tatem reddebatur ; post adventum Christi, per Sacramentum 
 memorise celebratur \' " 
 
 Farther on : 
 
 " If we agree about the matter of Sacrifice, there will be 
 no difference about the Altar. The holy Eucharist being 
 considered as a Sacrifice, (in the representation of the break- 
 ing the Bread, and pouring forth the Cup,) the same is fitly 
 called an Altar : which again is as fitly called a Table, the 
 Eucliarist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing 
 else, but a distribution and an application of the Sacrifice to 
 the several receivers. The same Saint Augustine, that, in 
 the place alleged, doth term it an Altar, saitli in another 
 place, ' Christus quotidie pascit. Mensa ipsius est ilia in 
 medio constituta. Quid causae est, 6 audientes, ut riiensara 
 videatis, et ad epulas non accedatis^ V The same Nyssen, in 
 the place cited, with one breath calletli it Ovcnaariipiov, that 
 is, an Altar ; and hpa rpaTTE^a, that is, the Holy Table. 
 
 " Which is agreeable also to the Scriptures. For, the 
 altar in the Old Testament, is, by Malachi, called ' mensa 
 Domini'.' And of the Table in the New Testament, by the 
 Apostle it is said, ' habemus Altare \' AVhich, of what 
 matter it be, whether of stone, as Nyssen * ; or of wood, as 
 Optatus, it skills not. So that the matter of Altars makes 
 no difference in the face of our Church ^■'■' 
 
 ' Aug. de Civitate, lib. 17- c. 20. 
 ^ Horn. 46, de Verbis Domini secundum Joannem. 
 ^ Mai. i. 7. ' Heb. xiii. * Nyssen. de Bapt. 
 
 ' For additional testimonies of English divines on this subject, 
 see Tracts for the Times, No. 81.
 
 55 
 
 Again, ibid. ix. 
 
 " For offering and prayer for the dead, there is little 
 to be said against it. It cannot be denied, that it is 
 ancient." 
 
 ThorndiJce. Just Weights and Measures^ pp. 106, 107. 
 
 " But the practice of the Church in interceding for them 
 (the Dead) at the celebration of the Eucharist, is so gene- 
 ral, and so ancient, that it cannot be thought to have come 
 in upon imposture ; but that the same aspersion will seem 
 to take hold of the common Christianity." 
 
 Then, after saying (so far with Mr. Newman) that 
 such practice does not imply the " Romish doctrine 
 of Purgatory," he proceeds : — 
 
 "In the meantime, then, what hinders them to receive 
 comfort and refreshment^ rest and peace, and light, (by the 
 visitation of God, by the consolation of His Spirit, by His 
 good Angels), to sustain them in the expectation of their 
 trial, and the anxieties they are to pass through, during 
 the time of it ? And though there be hope for those that 
 are most solicitous to live and die good Christians, that they 
 are in no such suspense, but within the bounds of the 
 heavenly Jerusalem ; yet, because their condition is uncer- 
 tain, and where there is hope of the letter, there is fear of the 
 worse ; therefore the Church hath always assisted them with 
 the prayers of the living both for their speedy trial, (which 
 all blessed souls desire), and for their easy absolution and 
 discharge with glory before God, together with the accom- 
 plishment of their happiness in the receiving of their bodies. 
 Now all members of the Church Triumphant in heaven, 
 according tothe degree of their favour with God, abound 
 also with love to his Church Militant on earth. And though 
 they know not the necessities of particular persons, without
 
 56 
 
 particular revelation from God ; yet they know there are 
 such necessities, so long as the Church is militant on earth. 
 Therefore it is certain, both that they offer continual prayers 
 to God for their necessities, and that their prayers must 
 needs be of great force and effect with God, for the assist- 
 ance of the Church Militant in this warfare. Which if it be 
 true, the Communion of Saints will necessarily require that 
 all who remain solicitous of their trial, be assisted by the 
 prayers of the living, for present comfort and future rest." 
 
 Bishop Forbes. ( Considerationes Modestw^ S^c. p. 460. et 
 seq. ed. 12mo. 1658.) 
 " Missam non tantum esse Sacrificium Eucharisticum et 
 honorarium, sed etiam propitiatorium, sano sensu dici posse, 
 recte affirmant Romanenses moderatiores ; non quidem ut 
 efficiens propitiationem, et remissionem peccatorum (quod 
 Sacrificio Crucis proprium est) sed ut eam jam factara 
 impetrans quomodo oratio, cujus hoc Sacrificium species 
 est, propitiatoria dici potest." 
 
 Again, (p. 463.) 
 
 " Sacrificium autem hoc Coense non solum propitiatorium 
 esse, ac pro peccatorum quae a nobis quotidie committun- 
 tur, remissionc, offerri posse modo pnedicto Corpus Doniini- 
 cum, sod etiam esse impctratorium, omnis generis benefi- 
 ciorum, ac pro iis etiam rite offerri, licet Scripturce diserte 
 et expresse non dicant, Patres tamcn unanimi consensu 
 Scripturas sic intcUexerunt, quemodmodum ab aliis fuse 
 demonstratum est, et Liturgino omnes voteres, non scmel 
 inter offerendum, orandum prsccipiunt pro pace, pro copia 
 fructuum, et pro aliis id genus tcmporalibus beneficiis, ut 
 ii(!inini ignotum est."" 
 
 Also, (p. 4G5.) 
 
 " Quod toties hoc cap. Sacrificium quod in Cucna peragi-
 
 tur, non tantum Eucharisticura esse, scd etiam sano scnsu 
 propitiatorium, et plurimis non solum viventibus, sed etiam 
 defimctis^ prodesse, quoraodo scilicet oratio, cujus hoc Sacri- 
 ficiuni species est, propitiatoria, &c. dici potest, confirmat 
 Bellarra. ipse de Missa, 1. ii. c. 5. Sacrificium, inquit, simile 
 est orationi, quod attinet ad efficientiara ; oratio enim non 
 solum prodest oranti, sed etiam iis, pro quibus oratur. Unde 
 manducatio Eucharistiaj qu?e fit a Sacordote, ut est Sacra- 
 menti susceptio, soli sumenti prodest, ut autera est Sacrificii 
 consummatio, prodest illis omnibus, pro quibus oblatum est 
 Sacrificium." 
 
 Again, {ib. p. 267.) 
 
 " Mos orandi et offerendi pro defunctis antiquissimus et in 
 universa Christi Ecclesia ab ipsis ferme Apostolorum tempo- 
 ribus reccptissimus, ne amplius a Protestantibus ut illicitus, 
 vel saltem ut inutilis, rejiciatur," &c. 
 
 And (on the especial subject of Prayers for the 
 Dead.) ; 
 
 Spinckes. Observations on Essat/ towards Catholic Commu- 
 nion^ p. 103. 
 
 " Having already written and published a ' Discourse of 
 Prayers for the Dead^ . . . and I think sufficiently proved 
 the practice and tradition thereof in the Church, truly 
 Catholic, I shall here only add to what I before and this 
 author here have written, that, besides the authors men- 
 tioned already, the learned and devout Bishop Andrewes 
 was of the same opinion, as appears by his ' Private Devo- 
 tions," printed at the Theatre at Oxford, in Greek and 
 Latin, licensed by Dr. Bathurst, Vice-chancellor, ] 673, and 
 commended in the Epistle to the reader as having in it no 
 heresy or dangerous opinion, but that he may safely read it 
 all, and repeat it as his own a thousand times before God. 
 Wherein besides what may bo observed elsewhere, he prays
 
 58 
 
 in this manner, ' Thou who art Lord, both of the living and 
 
 of the dead Give to the Uving mercy and 
 
 grace, and to the dead rest and light perpetual */ 
 
 *' To censure prayers for the dead, because not expressly 
 enjoined in the Scriptures, is inconsistent with the doc- 
 trine of the Scriptures themselves (2 Thess. ii. 15. 1 Cor. 
 vii. 17, &c.) and with reason, because the Christian religion 
 being planted in all places by word, order, and practice, and 
 no where hy writing^ and planted by so many several per- 
 sons, in so many several places, and all agreeing in the use 
 of it in the most solemn part of the Christian worship from 
 the beginning, and so unanimously, that I never yet could meet 
 with any competent evidence of any one Church which ever 
 received it after their first foundation, or from any other than 
 their founders. So that it stands upon equal evidence with the 
 Scriptures themselves.'''' 
 
 II. 
 
 INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 
 
 Bishop Mountague. Invocation of Saints, p. 58. 
 
 " It is true, and must not be denied, the Roman Church 
 in her doctrine (for, and concerning practice, it is other- 
 
 ^ These, it need hardly be observed, are the words of the 
 Breviary, " Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine, ct Lux perpe- 
 tua illuceat eis." 
 
 The following prayer for departed benefactors, in whose kind 
 offices we constantly participate, (from the " Benediction of the 
 Board" in the Roman Breviary, where its meaning is illustrated 
 by the context,) is still kept up in one of our Colleges :— 
 
 •' Retribuere dignare, Domine, omnibus, nobis bona facientibus, 
 piopter Nomcn Tuum vitam aeternam." 
 
 3
 
 59 
 
 wise) doth not impair, or impeach the sure, firm, and fastest 
 mediation, the pecuHar work of Christ Jesus, or appoint 
 propitiators in his place, who alone, as AUsufficient, paid 
 the price of our redemption, and made up without assist- 
 ants or concurrents, the alone, absolute Atonement, by His 
 
 real and perfect Satisfaction, betwixt God and man 
 
 It is false which is imputed, if yet it be imputed, and 
 laid unto their charges, that tJiey have many gods, or many 
 lords. That they call upon Saints, as upon God, to help 
 them. That they mention not Christ, but Saints, in their 
 devotions. They do not deny Call wpon me. In their 
 doctrine and opinion. Invocation is peculiar unto God alone, 
 as a part of the eternal moral duty which man ever doth 
 owe unto God, his Maker and Protector in all his ways. 
 Invocation, I mean, in a proper sense ; it is Advocation 
 and Intercession only which they give imto Saints ; which 
 act is sometimes called Invocation in a large extent, as it 
 passeth, and is directed, from man to them. Their help, 
 with David, only standeth in the Name of the Lord, who 
 hath made both heaven and earth. 
 
 " For better evidence in this point, the question contro- 
 versed inter partes, may be limited, or rather explained, 
 thus. — Invocation, as was touched, is a word of ambiguous 
 signification ; as most words are, because there are more 
 things than words, subsistances than names to call them 
 by. It is taken specially for to call upon Me, as Him upon 
 whom we absolutely rely : at least ultimate ' in that kind. 
 It is also used for to call ^lnto, as to helps, assistants, or 
 advocates in suit, when in time of trouble and necessity we 
 have cause to come and call on God, directing our prayers 
 e\ev prima intentione unto Him. AVlien, therefore, we talk 
 of Invocation of Saints, and dispute concerning Praying 
 
 ^ Cf. Sancta Clara, ut sup. p. 39.
 
 60 
 
 unto Saints, we must understand Invocation so, as directed 
 unto them only, as assistants, and mediators only of inter- 
 cession ; and therefore not to be invocated, or called upon, 
 in the same sense and terms as God Almighty is, the 
 Author and Donor of every good giving : nor to be im- 
 plored as Christ Jesus is, the only Mediator of redemption 
 and Meritorious Advocate of intercession. Therefore, 
 having occasion and cause to call Me in time of trouble^ they 
 employ not te ad me^ man unto God, immediately, but do it 
 secundaria, and by mediators. This is not unlawful in 
 itself. 
 
 Bishop Forbes, (ut supra, p. 299, 230^. 
 
 " Nudam angelorum et sanctorum compellationem qua 
 raoneantur et invitentur, ut nobiscum, et pro nobis, Deum 
 orent, (quomodo a piis hie viventibus petimus, ut pro nobis 
 apud Deum intercedant, suas preces nostris conjungant, iis- 
 demque nostram salutem sedulo commendent,) cum Protes- 
 tantibus iis, qui paulo cautius et distinctius aliis in hoc 
 argumento loqui amant, Advocationem potius quam Invoca- 
 tionem [a calling unto, rather than a calling upon ^,] appel- 
 lamus. . . . Advocationem appellare malunt R. Montacutus, 
 [vid. sup.] J. Usserius, Arch. Armach. cont. Jesuit., ut 
 alios omittam. Alioqui, in significatione vocis lata, nihil 
 vetat Invocationem appellari." 
 
 Again (quoting Bishop Montague), p. 3*27. 
 
 " R. Montacutus respondcns ad factum Justinic Virginis 
 a Nazianzcno (orat. in Cyprianum) memoratum, ' Si illi 
 
 (Rom. sc.) hoc facerent ipsimet, et proselytos 
 
 docerent facere quod fecit virgo hsec, ad Deum scilicet, et 
 Christum [)rimo confugere, et deinceps ex abundanti sive ad- 
 
 * His own words.
 
 61 
 
 juverit, sive non adjuverit, in auxilium vocare B. V. Mariam, 
 S. Petrum, &c. et ng ai(TOr}<ng, ut loquitur Naz. &c. non 
 contenderenius. In Eccl. Rom. praxi res longe aliter so 
 habet'.'" 
 
 III. 
 
 REVERENCE DUE TO IMAGES AND RELICS. 
 
 Bishop Mountague. 
 
 " PiNGiTE, scquemur. Sculpite, suspicimus ; Abrahami 
 sacrificaturientis imaginem, Christi in Cruce pendentis 
 Passionem, typum, ilium, hoc, complementum. Quis negat ? 
 
 * The following words in the Morning Prayer of Bishop An- 
 drewes border very closely upon Invocations to Angels and Saints 
 for aid, and spiritual strength. 
 
 Angelum pacis, fidum ducem, 
 Custodem animarum et corporum 
 Castrametantem in circuitu meo 
 Et mihi salutaria semper suggerentem. 
 Concede, Domine. 
 To this may be added Bishop Ken's prayer (quoted in the 2nd 
 edition of Tract 90), that the guardian angel may 
 
 " His love angelical instil." 
 
 But too much stress ought not to be laid upon the words of 
 metrical Hymns on either side. 
 
 To go to quite a different subject, what Roman Catholic would 
 express himself more strongly than the judicious and popular 
 George Herbert on the subject of the Real Presence ? 
 
 " At Communion times the Priest is in great confusion, as being 
 jwt only to receive God, hut to break and administer Him." — 
 Country Parson, C. xxii.
 
 62 
 
 nos imitamur in Ecdesiis nosfris ; intuemur llbenter, et 
 usurpamus oculis ; ex intuitu ad (rv/nrdOeiav commovemur, 
 et ad detestationi conjunctam avvw^iv de peccatis nostris, 
 in Judaeos vehementius inflammamur ; Christi passionum 
 tormentis compatimur, et simul in memoriam revocamus non 
 fuisse dolorem sicut dolorem Ejus ; Cujus ilia, ut Grreci in 
 suis liturgicis loquuntur, ayvwcrra 7ra9i]/iaTa, vocem illam 
 dolorificam expresserunt, ' Deus mens, Deus mens, ut quid 
 Me dereliquisti V atque hinc ab intuitu isto invitati ad 
 amandum amore nostro amorem Illius excitamur, Qui prop- 
 ter amorem nostri, ut Augustinus loquitur, semetipsum 
 
 tKevwcTEVj exinanivit Haec et hujuscemodi nemo 
 
 nostrum negat, saltem negare nemo potest^ ex intuitu efficacius 
 ad animuin et intimos cordium affeetus deseendere, eoque 
 magis commendantur, in usu posita quotidiano, quo, tar- 
 diores cum simus ad hsec magnalia Dei reeolenda, plurihis 
 indigemus et efficacissimis adjumentisy — Orig. Eccles. vol. 
 ii. p. 102. 
 
 " The Church of England condemneth not the historical 
 use of Images. The Homily that seems to condemn all 
 making of Images is to be understood with a restriction of 
 making them to an unlawful endT — Appello Ciesarem, 
 p. 258. 
 
 " Oivilcm usum [imaginum] ac moralem statuo ad intui- 
 tum ac invitationem, nullum religiosum ad adorationem ; an 
 vero ad intuitum et invitationem constituerentur in locis 
 sacris et sacratis conventibus destinatis, sunt qui negant, ex 
 Origene, Arnobio, Minutio Felice ; sed non persuadent. Suc- 
 cesscrunt tempera, cum frequentius in templis locarentur; sed 
 tantum ad intuitum et invitationem. Tempera ilia laudamm^ 
 et imitamur. Admiramur ingentes illas animas quaj, ceu 
 luminaria, orbem ccclcsiasticum ilhistrarunt, et cum Carolo 
 Magno ad lladrianum primum, 'pormittimus Sanctorum 
 Imagines, quicunquc eas formare voluerit, tam in Ecclesia
 
 63 
 
 quam extra, propter amorem Dei, et Sanctorum Ejus ; 
 adorare prohibenius ; frangcre vel destruero eas etiainsi 
 quis voluerit, non permittimus.'' Hsec ille Carolus Magnus. 
 Hffic ille, ita nos." — Origines Ecclesiasticaj ^ vol. ii. 
 p. 102. 
 
 ThorndiJce. 
 " Now, granting that Epiphanius and the Council of 
 Elvira did hold all Images in churches dangerous for ido- 
 latry, (of which there is appearance,) it is manifest that 
 they were afterwards admitted all over. And there might 
 be jealous^/ of offence in having Images in cJmrches before 
 idolatry ivas quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might 
 he no appearance '. But no manner of appearance that 
 images in history should occasion idolatry to those Images 
 in them that hold them the Images of God's creatures, such 
 as are those Images which represent histories of the Saints, 
 out of the Scriptures, or other relations of unquestionable 
 credit. The second Council of Nice seems to have brought 
 in, or authorized, addresses to solitary Images of Saints, 
 placed upon pillars for that purpose ; whereof there is much 
 mention in the records of it. But to the Images of Saints, 
 there can be no idolatry, so long as men take them for 
 Saints, that is God''s creatures, much less to the Images of 
 
 ^ This was his last work, published several years after his ac- 
 quittal by the Bishops. 
 
 ' This view, (intimated also by Bishop Mountague in the pre- 
 ceding passage) seems to meet the objection which has been 
 drawn against the use of Images in later times of the Church, 
 from the disuse of them in the earlier. Surely the Church has 
 power to order all such matters according to circumstances, and, 
 in such cases, her practice at any one particular time (though, 
 accidentally, more ancient) will be no guide whatever for other 
 times.
 
 64 
 
 our Lord. For it is the honour of our Lord, and not of 
 His image. 
 
 " For indeed and in truth, it is not the Image, hut the 
 Principal, that is honoured, hy the honour that is said to he 
 done to the Image, because it is done before the Image. The 
 fountain and utensils of the Church were honoured, in the 
 spotless times of the Church, as consecrated to God's ser- 
 vice ; though the honour of them, being incapable of 
 honour for themselves, was manifestly, and without any 
 scruple, the honour of Go(J. But Images, so long as they 
 were used to no farther intent than the ornament of 
 churches, the remembrance of holy histories, and the rais- 
 ing of devotion ; thereby, (as at the first they were used by 
 the Church,) came in the number of things consecrated 
 to God's service. And that Council was never of force in 
 the West till the usurped power of the Pope brought it in 
 by force. Nor did the Western Church, when it refused 
 the Council, discharge the having of Images in churches 
 upon those reasons, and to those purposes which I have 
 declared. So far they remain still justifiable. For he that 
 sees the ichole Church on the one side, and only Calvin on the 
 other side, hath he not cause to fear, that they who make 
 them idolaters without cause will themselves appear schisma- 
 tics in the sight of God for it ? For what are they else, 
 who please themselves in a strange kind of negative supersti- 
 tion, that they cannot serve God, if they serve Him with 
 visible signs of reverence ? Who hate the Images because 
 they hate the Saints themselves and their Christianity? 
 And, therefore, that it be not thought that we are tied to 
 those tenns of distance, which ignorant preachers drive 
 their factions with ; it is necessary to declare the grounds 
 of truth, though it displease." — " Just Weights and Mea- 
 sures," p. 127.
 
 65 
 
 Bishop Andrewes. 
 
 " For these Relics (were we sure they were true and un- 
 counterfeit) we would carry to them the regard that becometh 
 us. But the Cardinal himself will not say, that St. Hierome 
 ever meant to adot^e the ashes of St. John the Baptist. St. 
 Jerome opposed Vigilantius, that used reproachful terms 
 to the ashes and relics of Martyrs, calling them ' vilera 
 pulvisculum,'' (Sic, for which he was, and was to be, justly 
 censured. 
 
 " And (even) the carrying them about in linen cloths 
 
 and kissing them we would rather hear ivith, and 
 
 excuse, as proceeding from popular and private devotion, than 
 commend." — " Answer to XVIIIth Chapter of Cardinal 
 Perron." No. vii. 
 
 Bishop Mountagm. 
 
 " Reliquias ipsorum, lipsana, cimelia, deposita, si quae 
 sint, quae ad nostram notitiam pervenerint, si quae nancisci 
 poterimus genuina, non fucata, libenter suscipimus, et vene- 
 ratione su>a debita, congrua, honoramus ; constet autem hoc, et 
 facile conveniet inter nos de Sanctorum Rehquiis venerandis." 
 — Orig. Eccl. vol. i. p. 89. 
 
 " Magnam certe gratiam ab Ecclesia Christi et partibus 
 inter se contendentibus is vel illi inirent, qui docerent, quo- 
 usque progredi in hoc Sanctorum cultu et lipsanodoulia possi- 
 mus, sine justo scandalo, animae pericido, naufragio pietatis 
 et religionis." — Ibid. p. 40. 
 
 " Ossa Sanctorum, cineres, reliquias, vase aureo, velamine 
 pretioso, convolvebant. Ego certe cum Constantino illas 
 Reliquias fasciis involvam, auro includam, circumgestandas ; 
 admovebo labiis, ac coUo suspensas, manibus oculisque crebro 
 usurpatas intuebor." — "Antidiatriba," p. 17.
 
 66 
 IV. 
 
 INTERMEDIATE STATE OF PURIFICATION. 
 
 Bishop Forbes. 
 
 " Ad controversiam banc tollendam, vel saltern minuendam, 
 Romanenses opinionera suam de Purgatorio jmnitivo quum 
 nulHs certis fundamentis, nee in Scripturis, nee in primorum 
 seculorum Patribus, nee in priscis concibis, nitatur, ut supra 
 demonstratum est, pro fidei articulo nee babeant ipsimet, 
 neque abis obtrudant. Protestantes etiam, quibus opinio 
 ista improbatur, et quidem jure meritoque, bsereseos tamen, 
 aut impietatis, apert^ eandem ne damnent. Sententise autem 
 communi Graecorum, atque etiam quorundam virorum doc- 
 torum in Latina Eeclesia de Purgatorio expiatorio, (quod 
 solum Purgatorii nomen proprie loquendo meretur,) in quo, 
 sine pcenis gebennalibus, animee Sanctorum, quorum quasi 
 media quaedam conditio est, in coelis quidem, sed in coelorum 
 loco, soli Deo noto, magis magisque usque ad diem visionis 
 Dei clarse fruentes conspectu et consortio bumanitatis 
 Cbristi et sanctorum angelorum, perficiunt se in Dei chari- 
 tate per fer\ida et morosa suspiria, ut supra dictum est, 
 neutri pertinaciter obluctentur. Sua enim, atque eu quidem 
 baud exigua probabilitate minime destituitur." — Consid. 
 Mod. &c. p. 266. 
 
 V. 
 
 THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS. 
 
 Bishop Andrewes. 
 
 " VVe deny not but tbat tbe title of Sacrament bath some- 
 times been given ))y tbe Fatbers unto all tbe Five in a larger
 
 67 
 
 signification. But so also to many things more ; the whole 
 matter is a more Xoyo/naxia-^^ — Answer to Card. Perron. 
 
 Thorndike. 
 
 " But for the justifying of ceremonies, why should I allege 
 any thing but those Offices of the Church which the Fathers 
 have called Sacraments, as well as Baptism and the Eucha- 
 rist ? . . That which T am to say of them here, consists of two 
 points. That they are offices necessary to be ministered to 
 all Christians concerned in them ; and that they are to be 
 solemnized with those ceremonies, for which they are, with- 
 out any cause of offence, called Sacraments by the Fathers 
 of the Church."" — Just Weights and Measures, p. 118. 
 
 Then he proceeds : 
 
 " 1. (Confirmation.) The gift of the Holy Ghost 
 which Baptism promiseth, dependeth upon the Bishop's 
 blessing, 
 
 " 2. (Orders.) If the profession of Christianity infer 
 the grace of Baptism, shall not the profession of that Chris- 
 tianity which the state of the Clergy in general, or that 
 particular degree to which every man is ordained, importeth, 
 infer the grace which the discharge of it requireth ? 
 
 " 3. (Penance.) If a Christian, after Baptism, fall into 
 any grievous sin, voiding the effect of Baptism, can it fall 
 within the sense of a Christian to imagine, that he can be 
 restored by a Lord have mercy upon me ? No ; it must cost 
 him hot tears, &c., with fasting and alms, to take revenge 
 upon Jiimself, to appease God's wrath, and to mortify his 
 
 concupiscence if his sin be notorious he must 
 
 then satisfy the Church, that he doth what is requisite to 
 satisfy God ; that is, to appease His wrath, and to recover 
 
 F 2
 
 68 
 
 His grace, &c If it be the Power of the Keys that 
 
 makes the Church, it will he hard to show the face of a 
 Church, where the blessing of the Church, and the Com- 
 munion of the Eucharist is granted, and yet no Power of 
 the Keys at all exercised. Nay, it will appear a lamentable 
 case, to consider, how simple innocent Christians are led on 
 till death in an opinion, that they want nothing requisite for 
 the pardon and absolution of their sins, when it is manifest 
 that they want the Keys of the Church, as it is manifest, 
 that the Keys are not used for that purpose. 
 
 " 4. (Extreme Unction.) St. James ordaineth that 
 the Presbyters of every Church pray for the sick with a 
 
 promise of pardon for their sins He requireth 
 
 them also to anoint the sick unth oil, promising recovery upon 
 
 it Neither is there any cause why the same 
 
 benefit should not be expected, but the decay of Chris- 
 tianity in the Church So the unction of the sick 
 
 is to recover health, not prepare for death, (as the Church 
 of Rome now useth it,) but supposing the health of the soul 
 restored by the Keys of the Church. 
 
 5. " (Marriage.) As for Marriage, the solemnity of the 
 blessing, the ring, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which, 
 according to the custom of the whole Church, it ought to be 
 ministered with, will easily make it a Sacrament." 
 
 Bishop Mountague. 
 
 " Bellarmine saith that Calvin admittoth Ordination for a 
 Sacrament. And Bellarmine doth not belie Calvin, for he 
 
 doth so indeed Impositioncm manuum Sacra- 
 
 mentum esse concede. (1. iv. c. xix. s. 31.) How that is 
 
 he expresseth himself, (ib. c. iv. s. 20.) 
 
 non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum inter 
 
 ordinaria Sacramcnta, non numero. No Papist living, I 
 think, will say, or desire, more. It is not for all^ but for
 
 69 
 
 some. Which saying of his is semblably expressed in that 
 short, small, but perfect. Catechism in our Conmmnion 
 
 Book, where is said Two only, as 
 
 generally necessary, Sj-c. not excluding others from that name 
 and designation., though from the prerogative and degree.''^ — 
 Appello Ca^s. c. xxxiii. — (Points of Popery.) 
 
 GENERAI, COUNCILS. 
 
 Bishop Mountagiie. 
 
 " Thk Church of England may seem to have been of a 
 contrary mind in her determinations ; and to have taught, 
 and prescribed to be so taught, that such General Councils, 
 true and lawful, not only may err for possibility, but 
 also have erred in reality. For Article xxi. we read thus : 
 " General Councils may not be gathered together without 
 the commandment and will of princes. And when they be 
 gathered together, for as much as they be an assembly of 
 men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word 
 of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in 
 things appertaining unto God." Which decision of the 
 Article is not home to this purpose. First, The Article 
 avoucheth, that General Councils have erred : which can- 
 not be understood of my limitation, fundamentals ; be- 
 cause there is no such Extat of any General Council, true 
 and lawful. Secondly, things appertaining unto God are 
 not all fundamentals ; but points of piety, God's service, 
 and religion, which admit a very large interpretation. For 
 many things appertain unto God, that are not of necessity 
 unto salvation, both in practice and speculation. In these 
 haply General Councils have erred ; in those other, none can 
 err. The Council of Nice determined the controversy of 
 Easter : it was not fundamental. I put the case, that in 
 it they erred. It was a thing appertaining unto God, in 
 His service : this may come under the sense and censure
 
 70 
 
 of the Article ; but this toucheth not my opinion concern- 
 ing only Fundamentals. Thirdly, The Article speaketh at 
 large concerning General Councils, both for debating and 
 deciding. I only spake of the determination : wherein it 
 may be possibly they nor can, nor shall err, that may and 
 have erred in the discussing. In that very Council of Nice, 
 it was an error in debating, though not fundamental, 
 touching that yoke of single life, which they had meant 
 once to have imposed upon the Church : but in conclusion 
 they erred not. Paphnutius gave better advice, and they 
 followed it. The Article may very well have aimed at this 
 difference in Prosecution and Decision, in saying, All are 
 not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, which is 
 most true ; but some are : and those some, in all proba- 
 bility, ever may prevail, as ever hitherto in such Councils 
 in those cases they have prevailed, against the greater part 
 formerly resolved otherwise. Again, The Article speaketh 
 of General Councils indefinitely, without precisely deter- 
 mining which are General, which not ; what is a General 
 Council, what not : and so may, and doth include reputed 
 or pretended General Councils, univoch General, though 
 not exactly and truly indeed (such as was the Council 
 of Arirainum) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak ; 
 my speech being limited with true and lawful : of which 
 sort are not many to be found. Lastly, The Article speak- 
 eth of things that are controverscv fidei and contentiosi juris. 
 I speak of things plainly delivered in Holy Scripture : for 
 such are the fundamental points of our faith. And that it 
 is so, the ensuing words of the Article do insinuate ; things 
 necessary unto salvation, must be taken out of Scripture 
 alone. Councils have no such over-awing power and autho- 
 rity, as to tie men to believe, upon pain of damnation, 
 without express warrant of God's Word, as is rightly re- 
 solved in the Article. They are but interpreters of the law ;
 
 71 
 
 they are not absolute to make such a law. Interpretation 
 is required but in things of doubtful issue : our funda- 
 mentals are no such. Councils are supposed not to exceed 
 their commission, which warranteth them to debate and 
 determine questions and things litigiosi status. If they do 
 not hoc agere sincerely, if they shall presume to make laws 
 without warrant, and new articles of faith, (who have no 
 farther authority than to interpret them,) laws without 
 God's Word, that shall bind the conscience, and require 
 obedience upon life and death ; our Church will not justify 
 their proceedings, nor do I."" — Appello Cses. (Points of 
 Popery.)
 
 THE CASE OF BISHOP MOUNTAGUE IN THE KEIGN OF 
 KING JAMES I. 
 
 The following account of the proceedings against 
 Bishop JVIountague is taken from the " Biographia 
 Britannica," vol. v. p. 3188. 
 
 "In 1622, some Eomanists having attempted to pros- 
 elyte one of his parishioners at Stamford-Rivers, to that 
 Faith ; not being able to procm'e a conference, he sent them 
 three propositions in writing by way of challenge, in defence 
 of the doctrine of the Church of England. In return to 
 these, about eighteen months after, receiving a piece with 
 this title, '■A Gagg for the Gospel^'' he wrote an answer to 
 it, which being published in 1624, some tenets therein 
 advanced raised such a flame ajjainst him amonsr the Cal- 
 vinistical Puritans, that two of the most zealous preachers 
 in that way, at Ipswich, drew up several Articles, charging 
 him with Popery and Arminianism, in order to present 
 them to the Parliament. But our author having procured 
 a copy of that paper, with an information of their design, 
 immediately applied to the King for protection ; who gave 
 him leave to defend himself, and also to print his defence, if 
 Dr. White, Dean of Carlisle, should approve his doctrine, 
 as agreeable to that of the Church of England. Under 
 these cautions, his famous treatise, entitled, '' Appello 
 Cwsarem^'' or a ' Just Appeal from two unjust Informers^ 
 was published in 1625, soon after the accession of king 
 Charles the First to the throne. But the Calvinistical
 
 73 
 
 principles being still warmly espoused, his book was taken 
 under examination by the House of Conmions, and several 
 proceedings there were held against him in the two first 
 parliaments of that reign. The divines also published a 
 great number of answers thereto. However, he found 
 means to defeat the attempts of all his opponents ; and, 
 upon the death of one of them, Dr. George Carleton, 
 Bishop of Chichester, in 16*28, he was nominated by his 
 Majesty to that see. In which he was confirmed (though 
 not without an extraordinary opposition,) on Friday, August 
 22nd, that year, and consecrated the Sunday following at 
 Croydon. He was allowed to hold the rectory of Petworth, 
 of which he had been possessed some years in commendam ; 
 and having obtained a special pardon from his Majesty, he 
 applied himself closely to his favourite study of Church 
 antiquities, and first published his ' Originum Ecclesiasti- 
 carum Apparatus^'' at Oxford, 1635 ; which was followed in 
 1636 by his ' Originum Ecclesiasticarum tomiis primus? 
 In 1638, upon the promotion of Dr. Matthew ^\'"ren to 
 Ely, our author was translated to Norwich." 
 
 In the notes to the above passage is contained a 
 particular account of the several tenets objected to 
 Bishop Mountague, with the grounds of the objection. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 " Those [objectionable statements] touching popery were, 
 1. That the Church representative cannot err, p. 45. 2. 
 That the Fathers did not any way fail, nor did darkness 
 possess their clear understandings, chap. viii. p. 113. 3. 
 He calleth the doctrine of the invisibility of the Church a 
 private opinion, no doctrinal decision of the Protestants. 
 4. That the Bishop of Rome personally is not Antichrist, 
 nor yet the Bishops of Rome successively are that Anti-
 
 74 
 
 Christ, magnus ille Aniichrisfus. 5. Tliat a sinner is justified 
 when he is made just, that is, translated from a state of nature 
 to a state of grace, which act is motion, as they speak, between 
 two terms, consisting in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace 
 infused secondarily, in which doctrine of Justification he 
 accordeth fully with the Council of Trent, (Sess. vi. chap. 
 37.) and contradicteth the doctrine of the Church of England 
 in the book of Homihes, (Sermon of Salvation,) and all other 
 reformed Churches. 6. He so extends ineritum ex condigno, 
 that he would make men believe there is no material diflfer- 
 ence betwixt us and the Papists, in this point. 7. That 
 touching evangelical counsels, he saith, ' I know no doctrine 
 of our English Church against them.' 8. That howsoever 
 in words he denieth Ihnbus patrum ; yet thus he writeth, 
 ' The Patriarchs, Prophets, and Fathers, that lived and 
 died before Christ, the Scripture resolveth they were not 
 there, where now they are, in the highest heavens, there 
 where the glorified body of Christ is now residing, at the 
 right hand of God.' chap. xli. p. 27. 9. Touching Images 
 he writeth thus : ' Images have three uses assigned by 
 your schools ; stay there, go no farther, and we charge you 
 not with idolatry. Institufionem rudimn, commonefactionem 
 historiWy et exercitationem devotionis, you and we also give 
 unto them. (chap, xliii, p. 300, 301.) Images in Gregory's 
 times were very much improved, to be books for the simple 
 and ignorant people ; hold you there, and wc blame you not:' 
 and a little after, ' Images are not utterly unlawful unto 
 Christians in all manner of religious employment. The 
 pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and Saints, may be 
 made, and had in houses, and set up in churches. The 
 Protestants have them, they desj)ight them not; respect and 
 honour may be given unto them. Protestants do it, and 
 use them for helps of piety,' (which directly contradicteth the 
 doctrine of the Church of England in the book of Homilies.) 
 
 8
 
 75 
 
 10. Of signing our children only in Baptism with the sign 
 of the cross, he speaketh very superstitiously. ' We use 
 signing with the sign of the cross, both on the forehead, and 
 elsewhere. Caro signatur ut anima muniatur, said Tertul- 
 lian, and so we. Chap. 46, he citeth and approveth the 
 testimony of one of them,' (Athanas. de Incarn. Verbi, 
 p. 61.) 'By the sign of the cross of Christ all magic spells 
 are disappointed, witchcraft and sorcery cometh to nothing; 
 all idols are confounded and forsaken."' ' He professeth that 
 he knoweth no cause of such distraction and disaffection 
 betwixt us and the Papists, for the reverent use of signing 
 with the sign of the cross." Chap. viii. p. 60. He saith, 
 'Joshua prevailed against Amalek through the sign of 
 the cross, rather than by the sword.' 11. Of the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he writeth very popishly ; 
 for first he calleth the Supper of the Lord, in express terms, 
 the Sacrament of the Altar, and afterwards, more fully : ' But 
 that you were bred up,' says he, ' in a faction, otherwise you 
 would acknowledge there need be no difference betwixt the 
 Papists and us in the point of Real Presence,' p. 253. 
 And again, ' No man denieth a change, an alteration, a trans- 
 mutation, a transelementation, as they speak.' 12. Touching 
 confession, ' We require,' says he, ' men to make special 
 Confession, if they find their consciences troubled with any 
 matter, either when they be sick, or before receiving of the 
 Lord's Supper;' his words are, ' in the case of perplexity, for 
 the quieting of men disturbed in their consciences.' ] 3. He 
 taketh no exception to his adversary for calling it [Ordina- 
 tion] the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But denieth our 
 Church to hold any such opinion, as that no inferior grace is 
 given by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of Holy 
 Orders, chap, xxviii. p. 269. 14. Touching the power of 
 the Priest to forgive sins, ' this is the doctrine,' saith he, ' of 
 our Communion book, and the practice of our Church
 
 76 
 
 accordingly, that the Priests have power not only to pro- 
 nounce, but to give, remission of sins, chap. xi. p. 78, 79. 
 And it is confessed, that all Priests, and none but Priests 
 have power to forgive sin." " 
 
 Then follow the several heads of allegation. 
 
 " After a preamble containing the charge in general 
 from his three books, "■ An Ansioer to the late Gaggofthe 
 Protestants,'' ' A Treatise of tJie Invocation of Saints,'' and 
 *■ Appello Cwsarem,'' as contrary to the Articles of 1562, it 
 begins thus : ' Article 1 . Whereas in the thirty-fifth of the 
 Articles abovementioned, it is declared that the second book 
 of the Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome doc- 
 trine, in the tenth homily of which book it is determined, 
 that the Church of Rome, as it is at present, and hath been 
 for the space of nine hundred years and upwards, is so far 
 gone from the nature of a true Church, that nothing can be 
 more ; he, the said R. Mountague, in several places of his 
 said book, called ' An Answer to the Gagger,' chap. v. 
 p. 49. and in his other book, called ' Appello,' &c. doth 
 advisedly maintain and affirm, that the Church of Rome is, 
 and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church. Arti- 
 cle 2. Whereas in the said homily, it is likewise declared, 
 that the Church of Rome is not built upon the foundation 
 of the Prophets and Apostles ; and in the twenty-eighth of 
 said Articles, that Transubstantiation overthroweth the 
 nature of a Sacrament ; and in the twenty-fiftli of the said 
 Articles, that Five other reputed Sacraments of the Church 
 of Rome are not to be accounted Sacraments : yet contrary, 
 and repugnant hereunto, he, the said Richard Mountague, 
 doth maintain and affirm in his book aforesaid, called the 
 ' Answer to the Gagg,' p. 50, that the Church of Rome 
 hath ever remained firm upon the same Foundation of 
 Sacraments and Doctrine instituted Ijy God. Ai-ticle *^.
 
 77 
 
 Thirdly, in the nineteenth of the same Articles, it is further 
 determined, that the Church of Rome hath erred, not only 
 in their use and manner of ceremonies, but also in matter 
 of faith. He, the said Richard Mountague, speaking of 
 those points which belong to faith and manners, hope and 
 charity, doth in the same book, called the ' Gagger," p. 14, 
 affirm and maintain, that none of those are controverted inter 
 partes, meaning the Protestants and the Papists ; and that 
 notwithstanding, in the thirty-fourth Article it is resolved, 
 that the sacrifices of masses, in which, as is commonly said, 
 the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have 
 remission of pain and guilt too, are blasphemous follies and 
 dangerous deceits : this being one of the points contro- 
 verted between the Church of England and the Church of 
 Rome ; the said Richard Mountague, in his book called the 
 ' Gagger,"* p. 14, doth affirm and maintain, that the contro- 
 verted points are of a less and inferior allay : of them a 
 man may be ignorant, without any danger of his salvation ; 
 a man may resolve, or oppose this, or that, or any, without 
 peril of perishing for ever. Article 4, Whereas, in the 
 third homily, intitled, ' Against peril of Idolatry,"' it is de- 
 clared that Images read no good lesson neither of God nor 
 godliness, but all error and wickedness ; he, the said 
 Richard, in the book aforesaid, called the ' Answer to the 
 late Gagger,' p. 38, doth affirm and maintain, that Images 
 may be used for the instruction of the ignorant, and excita- 
 tion of devotion. Article 5. That in the same it is plainly 
 expressed, that the attributing the defence of some coun- 
 tries to Saints, is a spoiling God of his honour, and that 
 such Saints are but as Dii Tutelares of the Gentile idolaters, 
 the said Richard Mountague, hath, notwithstanding, in the 
 book aforementioned, affirmed and maintained, that Saints 
 have not only a memory, but a more peculiar charge of 
 their friends, and that it may be admitted, that some Saints
 
 78 
 
 have a peculiar patronage, custody, protection, and power, 
 as Angels also have over certain persons and countries, by 
 especial deputation, and that it is no impiety so to believe. 
 
 " Item. ' The scope and end of the said Richard Mountague 
 in the books aforementioned, is to give encouragement to 
 Popery, and to withdraw his Majesty's subjects from the 
 true religion established to the Roman superstition ; and, 
 consequently, to be reconciled to the see of Rome. All 
 which he laboureth by subtle and cunning ways ; whereby 
 God's true religion hath been much scandalized ; and those 
 mischiefs introduced, which the wisdom of many laws hath 
 endeavoured to prevent, to the great peril and hazard of 
 our sovereign lord the king, and of all his dominions and 
 loving subjects. Lastly, that the aforesaid Richard Moun- 
 tague hath, in the aforesaid book, called the ' Appeal,"" 
 divers passage dishonourable to the late king and his Ma- 
 jesty's father, of famous memory ; full of bitterness, railing, 
 and injurious to several other persons ; disgraceful and con- 
 temptuous to many worthy divines, both of this Church of 
 England, and other reformed Churches beyond the seas ; 
 impious and profane in scoffing at preaching, meditating, 
 conferring, pulpits, lectures, bibles, and all show of religion : 
 all which do aggravate his former offences, as having 
 proceeded from malicious and envenomed hate against the 
 peace of this Church, and sincerity of the reformed religion 
 publicly professed, and by law established in this kingdom. 
 
 " ' All which offences being to the high dishonour of 
 Almighty God, and of most mischievous effect and conse- 
 quence against the good of His Church and common weal 
 of England, and of all his Majesty's realms and dominions; 
 The Commons assembled in parliament do hereby pray, 
 that the said Richard Mountague may be punished accord- 
 ing to his demerits, in that exemplary manner as may deter
 
 79 
 
 others from attempting so presumptuously to disturb the 
 peace of Church and State, and that the books aforesaid 
 may be suppressed and burnt.' " 
 
 In reference to the foregoing history, it is im- 
 portant to observe : 1. That the persons who brought 
 these charges against Bishop Mountague were Puri- 
 tans ; and that the whole proceeding was one of the 
 earlier stages of a movement which issued in the Great 
 Rebellion. 2. That, accordingly, it was Arminianism, 
 as well as, and rather than, " Popery," which was 
 objected. 3. That the proceedings were instituted not 
 by the Church, but by the House of Commons. 4. 
 That the allegations were founded in part upon a 
 book (the Appello Csesarem,) written by Bishop 
 Mountague in his own vindication, and consequently 
 with peculiar caution, and with the utinost degree of 
 qualification which he could conscientiously make. 
 In this treatise, so far from retracting, or exj)laining 
 away, previous statements, he is found, (like the writer 
 of Tract 90., in his explanations to Dr. Jelf and 
 the Bishop of Oxford,) to repeat, and maintain, them. 
 5. That contrariety to the Articles and Homilies is the 
 ground of charge. 
 
 It remains only to narrate the result. The king, 
 at the instance of the House of Commons, laid the 
 whole matter before a Committee of the Bishops, 
 consisting of the following : 
 
 George Montaigne, Bishop of London. 
 Richard Neyle, Bishop of Durham.
 
 80 
 
 Launcelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester. 
 
 John Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, (Pre- 
 sident of St. John's College, Oxford.) 
 
 William Laud, Bishop of St. David's, (after- 
 wards Archbishop of Canterbury.)^ 
 
 The letter containing the judgment of this body 
 of representative Prelates, is preserved in the British 
 Museum, (Harl. MS. 7000. Art. 104.) The follow- 
 ing is an exact copy : — 
 
 " To the Right Honourable, our very good Lord, the 
 Duke of Buckingham, his Grace. 
 
 " May it please your Grace, 
 
 " Upon your late Letters, directed to the Bishop of 
 Winchester, signifying his Majesties pleasure, that taking 
 to Him the Bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford, 
 and St. David's, or some of them. He and They should 
 take into consideration the busines concerning IVIr. Moun- 
 tagu''s late Booke, and deliver their opinions touching the 
 same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace of the 
 Church of England, together with the safetie of Mr. JSloun- 
 tagu's person ; We have met and considered, and for our 
 particulars doe think that Mr, Mountagu, in his Booke, 
 hath not affirmed any thing to be the doctrine of the 
 Church of England, but that which in our oj)inions is the 
 doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable thereunto. 
 And for the preservation of the peace of the Church, wee 
 
 ' It is remarkable that the decision in the case of Bishop 
 Mountague was pronounced by a body, constituted precisely in 
 the same way with that which originally sanctioned the Thirty- 
 nine Articles; viz. a Committee of Bishops, nominated by the 
 king.
 
 81 
 
 in huinilitio doe conceive, That his Majestic shall doe most 
 gratiously to prohibite all parties members of the Church 
 of England any further controverting of those questions 
 by publick preaching, or writing, or any other way, to the 
 disturbance of the peace of this Church, for the time to 
 come. And for any thing that may further concerne Mr. 
 Mountagu"'s person in that busines, we humbly commend 
 him to his Majesties gratious favour and pardon. And 
 so we humbly recommend your Crace to the protection of 
 the Almightie, resting 
 
 " Your Grace's faithfull and humble Servants, 
 
 (Signed) 
 
 From Winchester House, 
 January 16, 1625." 
 
 " Geo. London. 
 
 R. DuNELM. 
 
 La. WiNTON. 
 
 Jo. ROFFENS. 
 
 GuiL. Meneve. 
 
 G 
 
 [addenda.
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Page 14. Note. 
 
 The words in this extract, which declare that Roman Catholics 
 were not pressed at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth to 
 "join" her "sect" or " deny their Faith," undoubtedly intimate 
 the writer s opinion, that the former of these acts would have 
 been tantamount to the latter, and so far make against the 
 present view. However, the fact was not as he states, for, as is 
 shown farther on, the Roman Catholics were pressed to subscribe 
 the Articles, and did subscribe them. 
 
 Page 20. 
 
 It has been customary with writers who have been offended 
 by the Catholic tone of the Prayer-book (e. g. the Athanasian 
 Creed, or parts of the Baptismal service) to contend that the 
 Reformers yielded, in such matters, to the " prejudices of their 
 time." This view has been put forth, especially, by the late 
 Mr. Scott, of Aston Sandford. Again, a Clergyman of the 
 Established Church, in our own days, whose zeal all must 
 respect, has proposed to bracket certain expressions in the office 
 for the Visitation of the Sick, &c., as at least " equivocal" 
 " unwise," Sec. (See Ikit. Mag., No. cxvi. July 1841.) All this 
 is to the present point. 
 
 Page 27. 
 
 It may be observed that Mr. Newman, in his view of the subject 
 of the Papal Supremacy, does not deny, that union with the rest 
 of Christendom under one visible government is the most perfect 
 state of the Cliurch, but only that it is essential to the very being
 
 83 
 
 of a Church. The distinction is clearly pointed out in a very 
 interesting and striking letter, which has lately appeared in 
 V Univers, with the signature, " Un jeune membre de L' Univer- 
 site d'Oxford." The genuineness of this letter has, I believe, been 
 questioned, but, I may add, without the slightest foundation. 
 
 " La Papaute ... est plutot la forme accidentelle, que la 
 forme essentielle, de I'Eglise ; c' est k dire, elle ressemble plutot 
 a la chaleur, qu' a la vie, de I'Eglise." 
 
 Page 28. 
 
 In saying that there is no instance of any political enactment, 
 bearing upon Catholic doctrine, *' between the Reformation and 
 Revolution," I have named too wide an interval. The first 
 attempt made, on the part of the State, to interfere with doctrine, 
 was, I believe, in 1673, when the Test Act, and Declarations 
 against Transubstantiation and Invocation of Saints, on the 
 ground of idolatry, were introduced as a qualification for offices of 
 trust. These securities, as Mr. Hallam observes in his " Consti- 
 tutional History of England," were added in consequence of the 
 Oath of Supremacy being found ineffectual ; not, then, from re- 
 ligious, but from purely political motives ; the State thus venturing 
 to tamper with the holiest of subjects for its own subordinate 
 ends. The new restrictions were forced upon the court by 
 what is called the •' country party," termed, as Mr. Hallam 
 tells us, (vol. ii. p. 525.) by the court, factious, fanatical, and 
 republican. In 1679 the same declaration was imposed upon 
 members of both Houses of Parliament, at the time of taking their 
 seats. Between these two periods, Mr. Hallam says, " the 
 clergy in their sermons, even the most respectable of their order, 
 Sancroft, Sharpe, Barlow, Burnet, Stillingfleet, called for the 
 severest laws against Catholics " (in consequence of Titus Oates's 
 plot). On the other hand, however, the essay noticed in this 
 pamphlet (" Considerations on the True Way of suppressing 
 Popery, &c.") was published during this interval, with the view 
 of opposing the attempt to put any restriction at all upon loyal 
 
 12
 
 84 
 
 Roman Catholics. This essay is commonly attributed to Bishop 
 Barlow, although the name of that prelate is in Mr. Hallam's 
 list. But, whatever may have been the sentiments of the clergy, 
 certain it is that the measures of 1679 emanated from no quarter 
 in which they exercised influence, but, as Mr. Hallam tells us, 
 (p. 580.) from the " popular party ^" Nothing more was done 
 till the year 1700, when an attempt was made to enforce the 
 above-mentioned Declaration upon the children of Roman 
 Catholics, at the age of 18, as a condition of the tenure of landed 
 property. 
 
 Page 29. Note. 
 
 " The fate of this rubric is worthy of notice. It was excluded 
 by Queen Elizabeth in 1559 ; and its removal clearly shows, that 
 the Church could not then he brought to express an opinion adverse 
 to the Real Presence, It was restored in 1661, on the revision of 
 King Charles II. ; and its reappearance may likewise he employed 
 to show, that the Church, at that time also, was unwilling to make 
 any declaration on that important tenet. To prevent misappre- 
 hension on this ])oint, the words * real and essential * . . . . were 
 altered into the very different expression, ' corporal.' " — Dr. Card- 
 well, " History of Conferences," p. 35, note. 
 
 ' It is curious that Mr. Hallam, in a note on this subject, draws the same 
 distinction, for which Mr. Newman has been so much blamed, between the 
 Roman doctrine and practice, and seems to justify assent to the Declaration 
 then imposed on the part of an individual, prepared to condemn the latter 
 alone. " Invocation of Saints," he says, " as held and explained by that 
 Church in the Council of Trent, is surely not idolatrous, with whatever 
 error it may be charged ; but the practice at least of uneducated Roman 
 Catholics seems /«% to justify the Declaration; understanding it to refer to 
 certain superstitions, countenanced, or not eradicated, by their Clergy." 
 
 THK KXO. 
 
 (iiLiiERT & lliviNOTON, Printers, St. John's Square, Londtut.
 
 THE DOCTRINE 
 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ENGLAND 
 
 HOLY EUCHARIST, 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY EXTRACTS FROM HER GREAT DIVINES. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX 
 
 ON VARIOUS OTHER POINTS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER: 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Tin; following pages arc intended to shew that certain doc- 
 trines and practices, particularly the Heal Presence of our Blessed 
 Lord in the Holy Eucharist, far from heing inconsistent w'ith 
 subscription to the formularies of the Anglican Church, have 
 been openly professed, defended, and authoritatively taught by 
 many of its most illustrious divines. Some of the authors quoted 
 actually took part in the compilation of our formularies, most of 
 them were persons invested with episcopal authority, and all were 
 of such a character as altogether to preclude the suspicion of their 
 having subscribed to articles which they disbelieved, or thought 
 in the slightest degree condemnatory of their principles. 
 
 The English Church at present is viewed in a dilTerent light 
 by the parties within it. the one regarding it as a mere ecclesias- 
 tical body ^founded three centuries ago by the 'Reformers,' and 
 being of the same nature as the Scotch Kirk, or the so-called 
 orthodox Protestant societies on the continent ; the other party, 
 if we must call it by this name, see in it a real living branch of 
 the Church Catholic, which has existed for upwards of a thou- 
 sand years, and during that period undergone various changes, 
 some of them improvements, some deteriorations, but preserving 
 throughout the vital spark of Catholic existence, and bearing 
 upon her face even when most distorted and disfigured, unques- 
 tionable tokens of her high Apostolical descent. 
 
 Now, to take the very lowest possible ground, viz. supposing 
 the English Church to be no more than a mere ecclesiastical 
 body, kept in unity by her formularies, it is clear from the fol- 
 lowing pages that Catholic views, although not exclusively held, 
 are at least not condemned by her, unless indeed Protestant con- 
 
 " Vid. Essays on the Church, 1S38, p. 329. " We want the works of those 
 who founded and built up our Church ; but they ofTer us tliose only who tried 
 their utmost and partly succeeded in pulling it down." 
 
 Vid. also Ed. 1840, p. 351. " The duty of a Christian going to reside in 
 Holland or in Germany, would be, to join himself to the visible Church of 
 the country, whether- Lutheran, ZUINGLIAN, Presbyterian or EpiscopaJ," &c. 
 
 A 2
 
 troversialists are prepared to fling the charge of dishonesty upon 
 all the great names, and they are neither few nor unimportant, 
 which are here adduced. 
 
 Again, if the English Church be a mere Protestant body, sub- 
 ject to change its creed according to the persons in authority, 
 disciples of the ancient Church have as much right to claim King 
 Charles, Laud, Bramhall and Montague as their Martyrs and 
 Confessors, as Protestants have to fasten upon Cranmer, Phil- 
 pot, Latimer and Jewel. 
 
 If some persons will insist on interpreting the Articles by the 
 ever-varying opinions of their compilers, why may we not un- 
 derstand the Nicene Creed according to the interpretations of the 
 Nicene Fathers ? Ever since the " Catholic Church," the " Com- 
 munion of Saints," and " One Baptism for the Remission of 
 Sins" formed part of the Creed, until the sixteenth century, these 
 expressions had one fixed and xmiform meaning. Or, again, 
 why may we not understand that part of the Church Catechism 
 which relates to the Sacraments, in the same sense that its ac- 
 knowledged author Bishop Overall did ? 
 
 And if ^ Bishop Latimer not only believed that the Saints 
 reigning with Christ do intercede for us, but thought it no ido- 
 latry to invoke them, and yet was a sound member of the 
 Church, why should those Articles which he perhaps partly com- 
 posed, and which his coadjutors certainly did, exclude those who 
 hold the very same views ? 
 
 Or if the ' literal and grammatical sense' of our formularies be 
 the riglit one, why may we not thus understand the words of 
 the Bishop at Ordination, and of the Priest when delivering the 
 Holy Mysteries to each communicant, the whole of the Baptis- 
 mal Service, the Absolution at the Visitation of the Sick, and 
 numerous other portions of our formularies, especially when any 
 other interpretation is forced, unnatural, and such as no im- 
 sophisticatod mind would ever dream of. 
 
 On this low ground, then, however unsatisfactory it may be, 
 
 •> " Take Saints for inhabitants of heaven, and worshipping of them for 
 praying to them, I never denied but tliey might be worshipped and be our 
 mediators, tliougli not 1)y way of redemption (for so Christ alone is a whole 
 mediator, both for fhom and for us) yet by way of intercession." — Bp. Latimer 
 ap. Foxe, Aets and Monuments.
 
 5 
 
 persons holding Catholic views have al least as much advantage 
 as those who reject them. 
 
 But if, as we firmly and thankfully believe, the English 
 Church be a real and living portion of the Church Catholic, the 
 whole question takes an entirely different complexion, every dif- 
 ficulty vanishes, and every apparent contradiction is easily ac- 
 counted for. 
 
 A Catholic mind can easily xmderstand that a particular Church 
 may by its sins lose many of its privileges, and become for a time 
 in bondage to the world, and lost, as it were, to the great Ca- 
 tholic family, and yet be in the abstract, as far as it is Catholic 
 and influenced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the pillar 
 and ground of the truth, the representative of Christ on earth, 
 and the ordinary means of salvation to its own children. And 
 a Catholic eye may without difficulty discern, among its many 
 fluctuations, what is human and what divine, on what occasions 
 Christ does or does not speak through His Church, and which 
 of her children are true, and which are false. If the Church be 
 Catholic, then every thing uncatholic must be rejected as alien 
 and hostile to her spirit. Her highest authorities cease to exist 
 when they put forth any thing uncatholic. 
 
 It is thus that we meet the objection which is "^ sometimes 
 brought forward, that however much all Catholics may appeal to 
 authority, they always reject it when it decides against them. 
 The Catholic doctrine of authority proceeds upon a plain and 
 intelligible principle. The Church Universal is unerring in 
 ITS decisions, and it has spoken, as well by the mouth 
 of its Doctors and Fathers, as by its (Ecumenical Councils. The 
 doctrine thus delivered to us is one, uniform, and not to be mis- 
 taken. Every thing opposed to this we know must be wrong, 
 whether it proceeds from a layman or a bishop. Bishops derive 
 whatever authority they possess from the Church; when therefore 
 they lift up their voices against it, they speak without authority. 
 The Catholic Church gave them authority to enforce her truths, 
 she never empowered them to teach heresy. 
 
 We need not then be startled to hear the names of the ' Re- 
 formers' and other English theologians quoted against Catho- 
 ' See "Essays on the Church." 1810, pp. 170, I, 2, 3.
 
 6 
 
 iicism, as if their high episcopal titles could avail in the slightest 
 degree ; the truth existed for more than fourteen centuries before 
 their birth, and their authority could no more change the truth 
 than it could effect a revolution in the planetary system. If 
 they taught the truth they did their duty, if they sanctioned 
 error or taught heresy, which we are far from wishing to assert, 
 they were faithless servants or apostates. The rule then which 
 Catholics observe in testing authority, far from being arbitrary 
 or contradictory in practice, is simple and plain. '^Whatever we 
 find Catholic in our English divines we claim as the lawful pro- 
 perty of the Church ; whatever in them is uncatholic we leave, 
 as peculiar to themselves. They were the first to direct our 
 attention to the study of Christian Antiquity, ^ not as to a mere 
 "argumentum ad hominem" in controversy, but on account of 
 its inherent worth, they professed to be guided by it, to agree 
 with it entirely, and even to sacrifice their private judgment to 
 its decision. And if either from a misconstruction of the Patris- 
 tic writings, or from other reasons they occasionally vary from 
 Antiquity, Catholic minds prefer to follow the martyred Saints 
 of old rather than the inconsistent teachers of yesterday. 
 
 In whatever light then we may regard the English Church, it 
 is clear that persons holding Catholic views are perfectly justified 
 in remaining in communion with her. On the very principles 
 of our ojiponents Catholic truths are, to say the least, not con- 
 
 ^ This rule is quite unnecessary in reading the Fathers. English theolo- 
 gians often contradict each other, the fatheus never uo. We must not 
 judge the Ancient Cluirch hy the faults of the Modern. It is idle, and evinces 
 much ignorance, to talk of the " many-tongued traditions of fallible men," as 
 if the Fathers held all sorts of disjointed opinions, or differed from each other 
 on any material point. If this can be proved we shall consent to give them 
 up altogether. It is a more honest, and certainly a more philosophical view, 
 to regard them as teaching one and the same doctrine throughout, althougli 
 erroneous. This would seem to be the view of the Author of " Ancient 
 Christianity," and others. 
 
 e "When all the Fathers agreed in the exposition of any place in Scrip- 
 ture, he acknowledged he looked on that as flowing from the Spirit of God." 
 Cranmer, (Speech on General Councils, Works, vol. iv. p. 14.) This is very 
 different from saying (as the modems do,) " The Fathers were unsafe guides 
 and dreadfully corrupt in doctrine, but they may be quoted with advantage 
 against those who defer to them." See also Cranmer's celebrated ' Appeal 
 from the Pope to a general Council,' and the Homilies passim.
 
 demned by her ; on our principles they must be considered as 
 her authoritative teaching (to the exclusion of all doctrines at 
 variance with them), and binding upon all her members. 
 
 The principal subject of these selections, namely, the Real and 
 Substantial Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Eucharist, has 
 been so ably explained both by ^Dr. Pusey and by e Mr. Palmer, 
 in the very loords of our formularies, that it wovdd be superfluous 
 and presumptuous to go over the same ground again, especially 
 as no attempt has yet been made to shew that the Catholic is not 
 the natural sense of the Communion Service, the Catechism, the 
 XXVIIIth Article, and the ^ Homily on the subject. 
 
 f Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, pp. 126, 7, 8, &c. 
 
 ® Treatise on the Churcii, vol. i. p. 526. Mr. Pahner quotes Dr. Horny- 
 liold, a Roman Catliolic titular Bishop, who says that the doctrine of the 
 Church of England in the Catechism "expresses the Real and Suhstautial 
 Presence" "as fully as any Catholic can do." This is no matter of astonish- 
 ment when we remember the opinions of Bishop Overall, the author of that 
 part of the Catechism. The words 'verily and indeed' are used by Dr. 
 Clialoner in the ' Garden of the Soul,' to express the Roman Catholic doctrine. 
 — Vid. p. 258. 
 
 Le Courayer says of the English Church, " lis ne laissent pas d'admettre 
 une presence qui quoique invisible est trds veritable. La seule qu'ils excluent 
 est une presence naturelle, sensible, physique et locale, et ils ne refusent point 
 d'cn admettre une invisible, spirituelle, sacramentelle, mais veritable pourtant." 
 — Relations Apolog. des Sentimens du Pere le Courayer. 
 
 •> Eusebius Emissenus is quoted in this Homily as expressing the doctrine 
 of the Church. The following passages from the writings of this Father will, 
 it is to be hoped, fully shew his belief touching the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 " Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam Corporis et San- 
 guinis Sui verbo Suo secreta potestate convertit dicens, Accipite et edite. Hoc 
 est Corpus Meum, Et sanctificatione repetita, Accipite et bibite. Hie est 
 Sanguis Meum." — Homil. Paschal. 5. 
 
 " Quando benedicendae verbis coelestibus creaturae, sacris altarihits im- 
 ponuntur, antequam invocatione sancti nominis consecrantur substantia illic 
 est panis ct vini, post verba autcm Christi Corpus est et Sanguis Christi." 
 —Ibid. 
 
 " Ecce Sacerdos in fctenuini secundum ordiiiem ^lelchisedck panem et 
 vinum virtute ineffabili in Sui Corporis et Sanguinis Substantiam convertit. 
 Sicut enim tunc vivebat et loqucbatur, et tameu a discipulis comedebatur et 
 videbatur : ita et modo integer ct incorruptus manet et a fidelibus suis in panis 
 et vini Sacramento quotidie bibitur et manducatur. Nisi enim 2)anis et vinum 
 in ejus carnem et sanguinem verterentur, nunquam Ipse corporrditer man- 
 ducaretur et biberetur. Mutantur enim ista in Ilia, comeduntur et bibuntur 
 Ilia in istis ; quod qualiter fiat Ipse solus novit qui omnia potest et onmia 
 novit. Dixit enim tunc per se, dicit et modo per Suos ministros, Hoc est
 
 8 
 
 It may not, however, be unnecessary to observe that the 
 ' XXIXth Article (asserting upon the authority of St. Augustine 
 that the Avicked are in no wise partakers of Christ) by no means 
 sanctions the popular notion, that want of faith in the recipient 
 destroys the effect of the consecration. The Church of Rome, 
 whose faith in the Real Presence is unequivocal, thinks it no 
 contradiction to assert the same truth as well in the '^ decrees and 
 ' catechism of the Council of Trent, as in the public ™ Services 
 of the Church. We may venture in this case to appeal to one 
 of the compilers of the Articles, in explanation of this apparent 
 contradiction. " Evil men," says Bishop Ridley, *' do eat the 
 very true and natural Body of Christ sacramentally and no fur- 
 ther, as St. Augustine saith, but good men do eat the very true 
 Body, sacramentally and spiritually by grace." This is the true 
 Catholic doctrine ; the Fathers constantly assert that the wicked 
 " 'are in no wise partakers of Christ' in the Eucharist, but they 
 
 Corpus Meum. Et tanta est ejus verbi virtus et efficacia ut statim fiat quod 
 dicitur." — Horail. 62 in ramis palmarum. 
 
 It may not be amiss to quote here one or two passages from Ratramn's 
 work on the Eucharist, with which Bishop Ridley constantly testified his 
 perfect agreement. 
 
 " Paulo antequam pateretur, panis stihstantiam et vini creaturam converlere 
 potuit in i^roprium corpus, quod passurum erat, et in suum sanguuiem qui 
 post fundendus extabat." — Sec. 28. 
 
 " ' Intelligetis — vere per mysterium paneni et vinum in Corjioris et san- 
 guinis Mei conversa substantiam a credentibus sumenda.' " — Sec. 30. 
 
 " Ille panis qui ^er sacerdotis ministerium Christi Corpus efficitur." Sec. 9. 
 
 " Post mysticam consecrationem nee panis dicitur nee vinum sed Christi 
 corpus et sanguis." Sec. 10. See also Sec. 14, 15, 16. Surely all this is 
 not Zuinglian. 
 
 ' Quoted in the 'Essays on the Church,' 1840, p. 297, to prove our Church 
 Zuinglian. By the same mode of reasoning the Church of Rome, wliich 
 admits tlie same truth, may be proved Zuinglian. 
 
 * Sess. xiii. de Eucharistia, c. viii. " Quoad usuni autem recte et sapienter 
 Patres nostri tres rationcs lioc sanctum sacramcntum accipicndi distinxerunt, 
 Quosdam enim docuerunt sacramentaliter duntaxat id sumcrc ut peccatores ; 
 alios tantum spiritualiter; illos nimirum qui voto propositum ilium ca'lestem 
 panem edentes, fide viva, quae per dilectionem operatur fructum ejus et utili- 
 tatem sentiunt; tcrtios porro sacramentaliter simul et spiritualiter." 
 
 1 Catechism, ad Parochos, pars ii. cap. iv. quaest. 53. 
 
 ■" Vide Breviarium Romanum in Fest. Corporis Christi Nocturn. 3 lect. 
 viii. 
 
 " Tlius S. Hilary. (Dc Trinitat. lib. viii.) " Panis qui de ca-lo desccndit 
 non nisi ab eo accipitur qui Dominum habet et Christi membrum est."
 
 equally affirm, and with as much truth, that Christ is really 
 present "whether they discern His Body or no. 
 
 It will upon examination be found that many Catholic doc- 
 trines are p apparently contradictory to each other, which in 
 
 Prosper (Sentent. 339.) " Qui discordat a Cliristi nee carnem ejus man- 
 ducat nee sanguinem bibit." 
 
 S. Jerome. (In Esai. Ixvi.) " Omnes voluptatis amatores magis quam 
 Dei .... nee comedunt earneni Jesu nee bibunt sangujnem ejus." 
 
 Origen. (In Matt, xv.) " Ipsum verbum caro factum nullus 
 
 malus edere potest." 
 
 S.Ambrose. (De benedict. Patriarch, c. 9.) " lUe accipit qui seipsum pro- 
 bat," &e. 
 
 " S. Jerome. " ' Polluimus panem' id est, Corpus Cliristi, quando in- 
 digni accedimus ad altare et sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus." (In 
 Malach. i.) 
 
 S. Leo. (Serm. iv. de Quadrages.) Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt," &c. 
 
 Theodoret. (In 1 Cor. xi.) " Ov /xSvov toIs euSeKa airo(TT6\ois, aWa /col 
 T^ TTpoSdrri tov rifxiov nereSaiKe cci/xmSs t€ koI alfiaros." 
 
 Pseudo-OuiGEN. (In divers. Homil. 5.) " Quando sanctum cibum, illud- 
 que incorruptum accipis epulum, quando vitae pane et poculo frueris, man- 
 dueas et bibis Corpus et Sanguinem Domini : tunc Dominus sub tectum 
 tuum ingreditur. Et tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc centurionem 
 et dicito ' Domiue non sum dignus' &c. Ubi enim indigne ingreditur, ibi ad 
 judicium ingreditur accipienti." 
 
 S. Augustine. (De verbis Domini, Serm. 11.) " Ulud etiam quod ait 
 ' Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et 
 ego inillo' quomodo intellecturi sumus ? numquid etiam illos liic poterimus 
 accipere, de quibus dicit Apostolus quod ' judicium sibi manducent et 
 bibant,' cum ipsam carnem manducent et ipsum sanguinem bibant? Num- 
 quid et Judas magistri venditor et traditor impius .... mansit in Christi, 
 aut Christus in eo? Multi denique qui vel corde ficto carnem illam 
 manducant et sanguinem bibunt, vel cum manducaverint et biberint apostatas 
 fiunt numquid manent in Christo aut Christus in eis ? Non ergo quocuu'.que 
 modo quisquis manducavcrit carnem Christi et biberit sanguinem Christi in 
 Christo manet et in illo Christus, sed ccrto quodanimodo, quem modus Ipse 
 videbat quando ista dicebat." 
 
 So also (De Baptism, contra Donatistas, lib. v. c. 8.) " Sicut Judas cui 
 buccellam tradidit Dominus, non malum accipiendo, sed male accipiendo, 
 locum in se diabolo pra-buit, sic indignS quisque sumens Dominicum Sacra- 
 mentum non effieit ut quia ipse malus est malum sit, aut quia ad salutem 
 non accipit, nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Domini et Sanguis Domini nihilo- 
 minus erat illis quibus dicebat Apostolus, ' Qui manducat indignfi judicium 
 sibi manducat et bibit.' " 
 
 p " II y a un grand nombre de verites, et de foi et de morale, qui sem- 
 blent repugnantes et contraires, et qui subsistent toutes dans un ordre ad- 
 mirable. Nous croyons que la substance du pain etant changee en celle du 
 corps de Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ, il est present reellement an Saint 
 Sacrement. Voila une des verites. Vno autre est, que ce Sacrcmcnt est
 
 10 
 
 reality are not so, but beautifully counteract any evil effects 
 which might spring from dwelling too much on one doctrine to 
 the neglect of another. Thus the belief in Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion might lead to Antinomianism were it not for the doctrine of 
 Sin after Baptism ; this, too, might lead to the heresy of Nova- 
 tus, were we not instructed in the power of the Keys. There 
 can be no contradiction in the Catholic Church; "it claims for 
 itself," to use the words of an illustrious member of the Roman 
 Communion, " a complete consistency from its first principle to 
 its last consequence, and to its least institution." 
 
 It is also desirable, whilst on the subject of the Blessed Eu- 
 charist, to call attention to a rubric in the First Liturgy of 
 Edward VI., which according to the very authority which sub- 
 stituted another book in its j^lace, "i contained nothing but what 
 was agreeable to the word of God and the Primitive Church." 
 The rubric is as follows : — 
 
 " For avoiding all matters and occasion of dissension, it is 
 meet that the bread prepared for the Communion be made 
 through all the realm, after one sort or fashion, that is to say 
 unleavened and round .... and every one shall be divided in 
 two pieces at the least, or more, by the discretion of the Minis- 
 ter, and so distributed, and ^ men must not think less to be received 
 
 aussi line figure de la Croix et de la gloire, et une commemoration des deux. 
 Voili la foi Catlioliqiie qui coinprend ces deux verites qui semblcnt opposees. 
 L'heresie d'aujourd'hui ne concevaut pas que ce Sacrement contient tout 
 ensemble, et la presence de Jesus Christ, et sa figure, et qu'il soit Sacrifice 
 et commemoration de Sacrifice croit qu'on ne peut admettre I'une de ces 
 verites, sans exclure I'autre. Par cette raison ils s'attachent tl ce point, que 
 ce Sacrement est figuratif, et en cela ils ne sont pas lieretiques. lis pensent 
 que nous excluons cette v6rite et de la vient qu'ils nous font tant d'ohjections 
 sur les passages dis Perds qui le disent. Enfin ils nient la Presence Rcelles 
 et en cela ils sont lieretiques." — Pascal. Pensees xxvili. 4. 
 
 " Corpus Christi et Veritas et figura est: Veritas dum Corpus Christi et 
 sanguis in virtute ipsius ex panis et vini substantia efficitur: figura ver6 
 est id quod exterius sc-ntitur." — Bishop Poynet. Diallactioon viri boni ct 
 literati. 
 
 '' Vid. Appendix viii. ' Desiderata in tlic ]''.nglisli Church.' 
 f Fracto demuni sacramento, Nulhi rei fit scissura 
 
 Ne vacilles, sed memento Signi tantum fit fractura 
 
 Tantum esse sub fVagmcnto Qua nee status nee statura 
 
 Quantum toto tegitur. Signati minuitur. 
 
 Missiili- IliiiiKiiiiiiii. — In solemnilatc Corjmris Cliristi.
 
 11 
 
 ill part than in the ivhole, hut in each of them the whole Body 
 of our Saviour Jesus Christ.''' 
 
 This has frequently, and with great justice, been quoted by 
 ® Roman Catholic controversialists, as expressing the conversion 
 of every particle of the Holy Elements, and it ever will remain 
 as one of the many proofs, that in condemning ' Transubstan- 
 tiation' our Church meant not ^ any change of substance, but 
 only " that shocking doctrine, that the Body of Christ is not 
 given, taken and eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, 
 but is carnally pressed with the "teeth." This doctrine was 
 that uniformly opposed by the ^'Reformers;' it is ^not, how- 
 ever, the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, by whose 
 members it is indignantly rejected as ^ " constructive heresy." 
 
 Would that all branches of the Church of God might be 
 brought ' to give up the study of contradiction and vinderstand 
 one another aright.' That we do not understand each other 
 aright is sad indeed, but it is still more sad that we so seldom 
 try to understand each other. The sole object of controver- 
 sialists would seem to consist in widening the gulf between 
 them, by distorting each other's meaning, and creating differences 
 where there really are none. The Church is now divided ; that 
 division can only have happened through our sins, and it need 
 not, and ought not to be, a question (except for repentance and 
 confession) where the sin first originated. We know that we 
 
 ^ Among others see Geraldine, 3rd Ed. p. 107. 
 
 * Bp. Poynet, one of the ' Reformers' and sufierers under Queen Mary, says 
 in his Diallacticon, " De Transubstantiationis vocabulo, quamvis barharo 
 minimeque necessario, non litigaremus, si modo talem substantiarum trans- 
 mutatiouem interpretentur, qualem veteres agnoscebant, sacramentalem vide- 
 licet," &c., in opposition to an organical and palpable change. 
 
 " Tracts for the Times, No. 90. On the 28th Article. 
 
 ^ " Solam ffapKo<payiai' id est carnis vorationem, quam nullo pacto probant, 
 sed ut stultam et impiam condemnunt, rejicimus, ut alienam k Scripturis, 
 alienam a Patrum interpretatione, denique cum vera fide ex diametro pug- 
 nantem." — Bp. Poynet. Diallacticon. 
 
 ^ " Corpus Christi seu Christus, est in symbolis, spirituali modo seu 
 spiritualiter, et non corporali seu carnali, nee corporaliter seu carnaliter." — 
 Veron. Regula Fidei. 
 
 " The doctrine thus imputed, far from being that of the Catholic Church, 
 would be, in the sense imputed at least, constructive heresy." — Dublin Review, 
 No. XX. p. 409. note.
 
 12 
 
 are now divided, and we also know that this division is unna- 
 tural to the Church, injurious to her best interests, and contrary 
 to the will of Him who prayed that we might be One, even as 
 He and the Father are One. And as the will of the Almighty 
 Founder of the Church is revealed to us in no ambiguous terms, 
 all our talents and energies should be devoted to the fulfilment 
 of that Holy Will, in restoring peace to divided Christendom. 
 We cannot, indeed, bring about the union of the Church at our 
 pleasure ; it is an inestimable privilege which we have lost by our 
 sins, which none of us deserve, and which may be withheld from 
 us as a punishment. But it surely is our duty to pray for it, 
 to remove all obstacles, and to advance it by all the means in 
 our power. And, if we may say it without irreverence and 
 presumption, the greatest difficulties in its path are fast vanish- 
 ing away, whilst every ^ change in the religious, political, philo- 
 sophical, scientific, and literary world bears additional witness 
 to its rapid progress. The times are changed and are still daily 
 changing, the eyes of all around us are opening upon the ma- 
 jestic glories of Christ's everlasting Church, and the many are 
 once more speaking " a language the earth had lost." " For a 
 small moment hath the Lord forsaken His Church, but with 
 everlasting kindness will He have mercy upon her." ' The Lord 
 shall comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places, and He 
 will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the 
 garden of the Lord ; joy and gladness shall be found therein, 
 thanksgiving and the voice of melody.' ' No Aveapon that is 
 formed against her shall prosper, and every tongue that shall 
 rise against her in judgment shall she condemn,' ' for her Maker 
 is her Husband, the Lord of Hosts is His Name, and her Re- 
 deemer the Holy One of Israel.' 
 
 Feast of All Saints. 
 
 ' " Nous touchons," says De Maistre, " k la plus grande des 6poques 
 r61igicuses, oil tout homme est tenu d'apporter, s'il en a la force, une pierre 
 pour I'edifice auguste dont les plans sont visibleincnt arretes. La niediocrite 
 des talens ne doit cfTrayer pcrsonne." 
 
 Is it not sad that this illustrious writer so little understood the English 
 Church as to say of it, " Elle a proclame solenncUcnicnt dans cet actc 39 
 Articles, ni plus, ni moiiis, absolument neccssaires an salut!" — Du Papc, 
 tome ii. p. 320.
 
 LIST OF AUTHORS CITED. 
 
 Bishop Andrewes 
 
 Sutton 
 
 Baily 
 
 Hooker 
 
 Bishop Overall 
 
 Herbert 
 
 Bishop Forbes 
 
 Bishop Morton 
 
 Bishop Montague 
 
 Bishop White 
 
 Bishop Bilson 
 
 Archbishop Laud 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall 
 
 Bishop Taylor 
 
 Bishop Cosin 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Thorndike 
 
 Bishop Sparrow 
 
 Bishop Fell 
 
 Bishop Hackett 
 
 Bishop Ken 
 
 Bishop Beveridge 
 
 Archbishop Sharp 
 
 Leslie 
 
 Johnson 
 
 Brett 
 
 Grabe 
 
 Bishop Wilson 
 
 Wheatly
 
 CONTENTS OF APPENDICES, 
 
 Appendix I. On the Catholic Spirit of the English Church, 
 during the reigns of James L and Charles I. 
 
 Appendix II. On the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. 
 
 Dean Field Archbishop Bramiiall 
 
 Bishop Goodman Bishop Cosin 
 
 Appendix III. Images. 
 
 Bishop Montague Archbishop Tennison 
 
 Appendix IV. Private Confession and Absolution. 
 
 Bishop Overall Bishop Taylor 
 
 Bishop Montague Bishop Cosin 
 
 Bishop White Wheatly 
 
 Appendix V. On the Validity of Non-episcopal Ordinations, 
 Bishop Taylor. Dawson Wheatly 
 
 Appendix VI. On the Blessed Virgin and the Saints. 
 
 1. On the Blessed Virgin. 
 
 Bishop Andrewes 
 Bishop Taylor 
 Bishop Pearson 
 Bishop Jolly 
 
 2. Intercession of the Saints. 
 
 Dean Field 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall 
 
 Original Service for January 29th 
 
 Bishop Pearson 
 
 Brett 
 
 3. On the Merits of tlic Saints. 
 Dean Field
 
 15 
 
 Appendix VII. Prayer for the Faithful departed. 
 
 Bisiior Andrewes 
 
 Dean Field 
 
 Bishop Overall 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall 
 
 Bishop Forbes 
 
 Bishop Taylor 
 
 Hammond 
 
 Bishop Cosin 
 
 Thorndike 
 
 Bishop Bull 
 
 Bishop Hickes 
 
 Bishop Collier 
 
 Leslie 
 
 Wheatly 
 
 Brett 
 
 Bishop Wilson 
 
 Bishop Jolly 
 
 Bishop Barrow 
 
 Appendix VIII. Desiderata in the English Church. 
 
 Grabe 
 
 Bishop Hickes 
 Brett 
 
 Appendix IX. Dean Sherlock on Sin after Baptism.
 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. 
 
 BISHOP ''ANDREWES. 
 
 Dixit Christus 'Hoc est Corpus meum' non 'hoc mode, hoc 
 est Corpus Meum.' Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit ; 
 de modo lis est omnis. De ' Hoc est' fide firma tenemus quod 
 sit; de 'hoc modo est' (nempe transubstantiato in Corpus pane) 
 de modo quo fiat ut sit ; per sive in, sive con, sive trans, nullum 
 inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nulkim, merito a fide ab- 
 legamus procul. Inter scita scholae fortasse, inter fidei articulos 
 non ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus neutiquam 
 displicet (Neandei-, Synop. Chron. p. 203) : " Verbum audi- 
 mus, motum sentimus, modum ncscimus, prajsentiam credimus." 
 Praesentiam (inquam) credimus, nee minus quam vos veram. 
 De modo praesentios nil temere definimus : addo nee anxie in- 
 quirimus, non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo 
 naturae divinse humana in candem hypostasin uniatur. Inter 
 mysteria ducimus et quidem mysterium est eucharistia ipsa cujus 
 quod reliquum est, debet igne absumi ; id est, ut eleganter, 
 imprimis patres, " fide adorari, non ratione discuti." — Respons. 
 ad Apolog. Card. Bellarmin. cap. i. p. 11. 
 
 SUTTON. 
 
 The foithful receive the Blessed Sacrament : Well, what do 
 they receive ? Certainly Christ Jesus, truly and really ; to 
 make further scruple is needless curiosity ; to give light cre- 
 dence hereunto is in part incredulity 
 
 We have many things in Christianity offered as objects of 
 our faith, wherein we must hold captive human reason. Et 
 Deus erat, et Homo erat, et Mater erat, et Virgo erat. There 
 was a God and yet a INIan, a Mother and yet a Virgin : that it 
 is so, we know it, how or after what manner this is brought to 
 pass, know we cannot. — Godly Meditations upon the most Holy 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, p. xvii. xix. 
 
 a Translated in Dr. Pusey's Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 49. 
 B
 
 18 
 
 Consider the divine Wisdom of the Son of God, who respect- 
 ing our weakness, hath conveyed unto us His Body and Blood 
 after a divine and spiritual manner, under the forms of bread 
 and wine. P. 26. et passim. 
 
 BAILY. 
 
 And to this end, Christ in the action of the Sacrament really 
 giveth His very Body and Blood to every faithful receiver. 
 Therefore the Sacrament is called the Communion of the Body 
 and Blood of the Lord. And communication is not of things 
 ahsent, but present, neither were it the Lord's Supper, if the 
 Lord's Body and Blood were not there. Christ is verily present 
 
 in the Sacrament by a double union If you look to 
 
 the things that are united, this union is essential, if to the truth 
 of this union, it is real, if to the manner hovv- it is wrought, it 
 is Spiritual 
 
 The Sacramental Bread and Wine, therefore, are not bare 
 signifying signs, but such as wherewith Christ doth indeed ex- 
 hibit and give to every worthy receiver, not only His divine 
 virtue and efficacy, but also His very Body and Blood. ^ Our 
 
 bodies shall surely be raised to eternal life at the last day 
 
 For how can those bodies which have been fed and nourished 
 with the Body and Blood of the Lord of life but be raised up 
 again at the last day ? And this is the cause that the bodies 
 of the Saints, being dead, are so reverently buried and laid to 
 sleep in the Lord 
 
 He therefore who duly eateth of this Holy Sacrament may 
 
 •> Tliis connection between the reception of the Holy Eucharist, antl our 
 rcsuiTcclion to Eternal Life, is borrowed from St. Irenaeus by several writers 
 of this period, as Sutton, Hooker, &c. The words of St. Irenaeus are as 
 follow: " Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem venire et 
 non percipere vitam, quae a corpore Domini et sanguine aluntur .... Nostra 
 autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, et Eucharistia rursus confirmat 
 sententiam nostram. . . . Quemadmodum enim qui est il terra panis, perci- 
 piens vocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex 
 duabus rebus constans, terrena et cselesti : Sic et corpora nostra percipientia 
 Eucharistiani, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia." 
 Adv. Haercs. lib. iv. e. .31'. Before him St. Ignatius (ad Ephesos) had called 
 the Eucharist " (pdpfiaKov aOairaalas, ufTiSoTos rov fiij a.iro6ave7i', dAXck ffji/ ^v 
 ©ey 5(a 'Itjirod." So also St. Optatus (Contra Parmen. lib. vi.) " Pungis 
 salutis aetcrnae, et tutela fidei, et spes resurrectionis." 
 
 t
 
 19 
 
 truly say not only " Credo Vitam seternam," I believe Life ever- 
 lasting, but also " Edo Vitam oetcrnam," I eat Life everlasting. — 
 •^ Practice of Piety. 
 
 HOOKER. 
 
 Dotli any man doubt but that even from the Flesh of Christ 
 our very bodies do receive that life which will make them glo- 
 rious at the latter day, and for which they are already accounted 
 parts of His Blessed Body. Our corruptible bodies could never 
 live the life they shall live, were it not that here they are joined 
 with His Body that is incorruptible, and that His is in ours as 
 a cause of immortality. — Ecclesiastical Polit//, book v. c. 56. 
 
 The very letter of the words of Christ giveth plain security, 
 that these mysteries do as nails fasten us to His very cross, that 
 by them we draw out as touching efficacy, force and virtue, even 
 the Blood of His gored Side ; in the wounds of our Redeemer 
 we there dip our tongues, we are dyed red both within and 
 without, our hunger is satisfied and our thirst for ever quenched ; 
 they are things wonderful which he feelcth, great which he seeth 
 and unheard of which he uttereth whose soul is possessed of the 
 Paschal Lamb, and made joyful in the strength of this new 
 Wine ; this Bread hath in it more than the substance which our 
 eyes behold, this cup hallowed with solemn benediction availeth 
 to the endless life and welfare of soul and body, in that it serv- 
 eth as well for a medicine to heal our infirmities and purge our 
 sins, as for a Sacrifice of thanksgiving ; with touching it sanc- 
 tifieth, it enlighteneth with belief, it truly conformeth us to the 
 image of Jesus Christ ; what these elements are in themselves it 
 skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, His promise in witness hereof 
 sufficeth. His word He knowcth which way to accomplish ; why 
 should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communi- 
 cant but this, O my God Thou art true, O my soul, thou art 
 ''happy! — Ibid. c. 67. 
 
 c This little work was so popular in its day, as to run through 42 editions 
 during the life- time of its author. There is a striking resemblance between it 
 and Sutton's work on the Eucharist. 
 
 d This beautiful passage is almost a literal translation from the " Coena 
 Domini" of Arnoldus de Bona Villa, (a contemporary of St. Bernard,) which 
 was formerly attributed to St. Cyjirian. 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 These Holy Mysteries received in due manner, do instru- 
 mentally both make us partakers of the grace of that Body and 
 Blood which were given for the life of the world, and besides 
 also, impart in true and real though mystical manner, the Very 
 Person of our Lord Himself, Whole, perfect and entire, as hath 
 been shewed. — Ibid. 
 
 BISHOP OVERALL. 
 
 (From the "Additional Notes to Nichol's ComniQutary on 
 the Common Prayer.") 
 
 [For that Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us who have duly 
 received these Holy Mysteries, with the spiritual food, &c.] Be- 
 fore Consecration Ave call them God's creatures of bread and 
 wine, now we do so no more after Consecration, wherein we 
 have the advantage of the Church of Rome, who calls them still 
 creatures in their very Mass after Consecration, and yet they 
 will be upbraiding us for denying the Real Presence, whereas we 
 believe it better than they. For after Consecration we think no 
 more of bread and wine, but have our thoughts taken up wholly 
 with the Body of Christ, and therefore we keep ourselves to 
 those Avords only, abstaining from the other (though the bread 
 remain there still to the eye), which they do not. And herein 
 Ave follow the Fathers, Avho after Consecration Avould not suffer 
 it to be called bread and Avine any longer, but the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. 
 
 [Rubric. And if any of the Bread and Wine. 
 Bread and TVine.'] It is confessed by all Divines that upon 
 the words of the Consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ is 
 really and substantially present, and so exhibited and given to 
 all that receive it, and all this not after a physical and sensual, 
 but after an heavenly and incomprehensible manner. But there 
 yet remains this controversy among some of them, whether the 
 Body of Christ be present only in the use of the Sacrament, and 
 in tlic act of eating, and not otherwise. They that hold the 
 affirmative, as the Lutherans (in Confess. Sax.), and all Cal- 
 vinists, do seem to me to depart from all Antiquity, Avhich place 
 the presence of Christ in the virtue and benediction used by the 
 Priest, and not in the use of eatinji the Sacrament. — And this
 
 21 
 
 (lid most Protestants grant and profess at first, though now the 
 
 Calvinists make Popish magic of it in their licentious blasphemy. 
 
 [Catechism. — What is the inward part or thing signified ? 
 
 &c.] I cannot see where any real difference is betwixt 
 
 us [the Churches of England and Rome] about this Real Pre- 
 sence, if we could give over the study of contradiction, and 
 understand one another ariglit. 
 
 HERBERT. 
 
 Come ye hither, all whose taste 
 
 Is your waste ; 
 Save your cost and mend your fare, 
 God is here prepared and drest, 
 
 And the feast 
 God in whom all dainties are. 
 
 Come ye hither, all whom wine 
 
 Doth define 
 Naming you not to your good, 
 Weep what ye have drunk amiss, 
 
 And drink This 
 Which before ye drink is Blood, &c. 
 
 The Invitation. 
 
 Blest order, which in power dost so excel. 
 That with the one hand thou liftest to the sky, 
 And with the other throwest down to hell 
 In thy just censures, fain would I draw nigh. 
 Fain put thee on, exchanging my lay sword 
 
 For that of the Holy Word. 
 
 But thou art fire, sacred and hallowed fire. 
 And I but earth and clay ; should I presume 
 To wear thy habit, the severe attire 
 My slender compositions might consume ; 
 I am both foul and brittle, much unfit 
 
 To deal in Holy Writ. 
 
 But the holy men of God such vessels are 
 As serve Him up. Who all the world commands 
 When God vouchsafeth to become our Food 
 Their hands convey Him, Who conveys their hands 
 O what pure things, most pure must those things be 
 Who bring my God to me. 
 
 The Priesthood.
 
 BISHOP FORBES. 
 
 The doctrine of those Protestants and others seems most safe 
 and true, who are of opmion, nay most firmly believe, that the 
 Body and Blood of Christ is truly, really and substantially pre- 
 sent in the Eucharist, and received but in a manner incompre- 
 hensible in respect of human reason and ineffable, known to 
 God alone, and not revealed to us in the Scriptures, not cor- 
 poral, yet neither in the mind alone, or through faith alone, but 
 in another way, known, as was said, to God alone, and to be 
 left to His Omnipotence. — ^ Consid. Modest, de Euchar. I. 
 i. 7. 
 
 BISHOP MORTON. 
 
 The question is not absolutely concerning a Real Presence, 
 which Protestants (as their own Jesuits witness) do also pro- 
 fess Which acknowledgment of our adversaries may 
 
 serve to stay the contrary clamours and calumnious accusations, 
 wherein they use to range Protestants with those heretics who 
 denied that the true Body of Christ was in the Eucharist, and 
 maintained only a figure and image of Christ's Body, seeing that 
 our difference is not about the truth or reality of presence, but 
 about the true manner of the being and receiving thereof. — Ca- 
 tholic Appeal, p. 93. Ed. 1010. 
 
 BISHOP MONTAGUE. 
 
 Our formal words are, " This is My Body :" " This is My 
 Blood." This is more than, This figureth or designeth. A bare 
 sign is but a phantasm. He gave substance, and really subsist- 
 ing essence, who said, " This is My Body : This is My Blood." 
 And yet our Catechism, in the Communion-book authorized, 
 saith expressly, " The Body and Blood of Christ taken and eaten 
 in the Lord's Supper, not the figure and sign of His Body and 
 Blood, which can neither be taken, nor yet eaten .... Sir, we 
 acknowledge right willingly and profess that in the blessed Sacra- 
 ment (as you call it, of the Altar) the Body and Blood of our 
 
 * Quoted ill Dr. Tuscy's Letter to Dr. Jdf, p. .W.
 
 23 
 
 Saviour Christ, is really participated and communicated : and by 
 means of that real participation, life from Ilim, and in II im, 
 conveyed into our souls. — Answer to a Jate Ga<j(/er of Protestants, 
 sec. 30. 
 
 Do all your parishioners, of what sort soever, according as the 
 Church expressly them commandeth, draw near and with all 
 Christian humility and reverence come to the Lord's table, when 
 they are to receive the Holy Communion ? And not (after the 
 most contemptuous and unholy usage of some, if men did rightly 
 consider) sit still in their seats and pews, to have the Blessed 
 Body and Blood of our Saviour go up and down to seek them all 
 the Church over. — Articles of Inquiry, tit. viii. sec. 2. 
 
 BISHOP WHITE.— (and BISHOP BILSON.) 
 
 The more learned Jesuits themselves acknowledge that Protest- 
 ants believe the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in 
 the Holy Eucharist; and our Divines deliver their faith concerning 
 the Sacrament in this manner; " God forbid we should deny that 
 the- Flesh and Blood of Christ are truly present and truly re- 
 ceived of the faithful at the Lord's table ; it is the doctrine we 
 teach others and comfort ourselves with." — Conference ivith 
 Fisher, p. 178. 
 
 His Sacred Majesty, a true defender of the ancient Catholic and 
 Apostolic Faith, to his immortal praise submitteth his judgment 
 in this and in all other articles to the express word of God, &c. 
 And concerning the Sacred Eucharist he firmly believe th that in 
 the holy use thereof, the very Body and Blood of Christ are 
 truly, really, and eflfectually presented and communicated to all 
 faithful and worthy believers. — Ihid. The sixth point. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP LAUD. 
 
 As for the Church of England, nothing is more plain than that 
 it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the 
 Eucharist. — Conference with Fisher, p. 294, sec. 35. 
 
 O Lord God, hear my prayers. I come to Thee in a steadfast 
 faith ; yet for the clearness of my faith. Lord, enlighten it, for 
 the strength of my faith Lord, increase it. Behold, Lord, I quarrel 
 not the words of Thy Son my Saviour's blessed institution. I
 
 24 
 
 know His words are no gross, unnatural conceit, but they are 
 Spirit and Life. AVhile the world disputes, I believe. He hath 
 promised me, if I come worthily, that I shall receive His most 
 precious Body and Blood with all the fruits of His Passion. — 
 Devotions. 
 
 O Lord God, how I receive the Body and Blood of my most 
 blessed Saviour Jesus Christ is the very wonder of my soul, 
 yet my most firm and constant belief upon the words of my 
 Saviour. At this time they are graciously offered to me and my 
 faith ; Lord, make me a worthy receiver, and be it unto me as 
 He hath said. — Ibid. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP fBRAMHALL. 
 
 So grossly is he mistaken on all sides, when he saith that 
 Protestants (he shoidd say the English Church, if he would speak 
 to the purpose) have a positive belief that the Sacrament is not 
 the Body of Christ, which were to contradict the words of Christ, 
 " This is My Body." He knows better that Protestants do not 
 deny the thing, but the bold determination of the manner by 
 Transubstantiation. — Works, p. 226. 
 
 Abate us Transubstantiation, and those things which are conse- 
 quent of their determination of the manner of presence, and 
 we have no difference with them in this particular. Those who 
 are ordained Priests ought to have power to consecrate the Sacra- 
 ment of the Body and Blood of Christ, that is, to make Them 
 present. — P. 485. 
 
 BISHOP TAYLOR. 
 
 8. This may suffice for tlie word real, which the English 
 Papists much use, but, as it appears, with much less reason than 
 the sons of the Church of England : and when the real presence 
 is denied, the word 'real' is taken for 'natural,' and does not 
 signify transcendenter, or in his just and most proper signification. 
 But the word suhstantialiter is also used by Protestants in this 
 question, which I suppose may be the same with that which 
 is in the Article of Trent, " Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator 
 substantia Sua adest." — Real Presence, sec. i. 8. 
 
 ' Quoted in the Rev. J. H. Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussef.
 
 25 
 
 9. That which seems of hardest explication is the word corpo- 
 raliter .... but the expression may become warrantable and 
 consonant to our doctrine 
 
 10 But because the words do perfectly declare our sense, 
 
 and are owned publicly in our doctrine, and manner of speaking; 
 it will be in vain to object against us those sayings of the Fathers 
 which use the same expressions, for if by virtue of those words 
 
 * really,' ' substantially,' ' corporally,' ' verily and indeed,' and 
 
 * Christ's Body and Blood,' the Fathers shall be supposed to 
 speak for Transubstantiation, they may as well suppose it to be 
 our doctrine too, for we use the same words 
 
 1 1 . One thing more I am to note in order to the same pur- 
 pose ; that in the amplification of this question, it is much 
 insisted ixpon that it be enquired whether when we say we believe 
 Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that Body, 
 that Flesh, that was born of the Virgin ]\Iary, that was crucified, 
 dead and buried; I answer, I know none else that he had or hath : 
 there is but One Body of Christ, natural and glorified .... And 
 therefore, when any of the Protestant divines or any of the 
 Fathers deny that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, 
 that was crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as 
 S. Hierom, as Clemens Alex, expressly affirm, the meaning is 
 easy ; they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense. — Ibid. 
 
 1. No man must dare to approach to the Holy Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper if he be in a state of any one sin, .... and 
 he that receiveth Christ into an impure soul or body, first turns 
 his most excellent nourishment into poison, and then feeds 
 upon it. 
 
 4 It is not the preparation of two or three days that can 
 
 render a person capable of this banquet ; For in this feast all 
 Christ, and Christ's Passion, and all His graces, the blessings 
 and effects of His sufferings, are conveyed. 
 
 8. When the Holy INIan stands at the Table of Blessing, and 
 ministers the rite of Consecration, then do as the Angels do, who 
 behold and love and wonder that the Son of God should become 
 Food to the souls of His servants ; that He who cannot suffer 
 any change or lessening should be broken into pieces and enter
 
 26 
 
 into the body to support and nourish the spirit, and yets remain 
 in heaven whilst He descends to thee upon earth, that He who 
 hath essential felicity should become miserable and die for thee, 
 and then give Himself to thee, for ever to redeem thee from sin 
 and misery 
 
 9. These Holy Mysteries are offered to our senses, but not to 
 be placed under our feet; they are sensible but not common, and 
 therefore as the weakness of the Elements adds wonder to the 
 excellency of the Sacrament, so let our reverence and venerable 
 usages of Them add Honour to the Elements, and acknowledge 
 the glory of the Mystery and the Divinity of the Mercy. 
 
 Let us receive the consecrated Elements with all devotion of 
 body and spirit, and do this honour to It, 'Uhat it be the first food 
 we eat, and the first beverage we drink that day .... and that 
 your body and soul be prepared to Its reception, with abstinence 
 from secular pleasures, that you may better have attended fast- 
 ings and preparatory prayers. 
 
 10. In the Act of receiving, exercise Acts of Faith with much 
 confidence and resignation, believing it not to be common bread 
 and vv'ine, but holy in their use, holy in their signification, holy 
 in their change, and holy in their effects ; and believe, if thou art 
 a worthy communicant, thou dost as verily receive Christ's Body 
 and Blood to all effects and purposes of the Spirit, as thou dost 
 receive the Blessed Elements into thy mouth ; that thou puttest 
 thy finger to His hand, and thy hand to His side, and thy lips to 
 His fontinel of Blood, sucking Life from His heart, and yet if 
 thou dost communicate iniworthily, thou eatcst and drinkest 
 
 8 " Nee Patris linqucns dexteraiu." — Hymn. Breviar. Romaui in Fest. 
 Corp. Christ! ad Laudes. 
 
 Compare also, Concil. Trident. Sess. xiii. cap. 1. " Neque enim haec inter 
 se pugnant, ut Ipse Salvator noster semper ad dcxteram Patris in ccelis 
 assideat ju.rta modum exhtendi naiurulcm, et ut multis nihilominus aliis in 
 locis sacranientaliter pra;sens sua substantia, nobis adsit, efi cxistendi rationc, 
 quam etsi verl)is exprimcre vix possumus, possiltilem tamcn esse Deo cogita- 
 tione per fidem ilhistrata assequi possunuis et constantissinifi credere debemus." 
 
 See also Catechism, ad Parochos, pars ii. cap. 4. quiEst. 26. 
 
 »> "This Sacrament should be received fasting &c." — Bi'. Spauhow. Ratio- 
 nale, p. 218. Ed. Oxford, 1840.
 
 27 
 
 Christ to thy danger and death and destruction. — Holy Living, 
 sec. 10. chap. iv. 
 
 Place thyself upon thy knees in the dcvoutest and the 
 humblest posture of worshippers, and think not much in the 
 lowest manner to worship the King of men and Angels, the Lord 
 of Heaven and earth, the great lover of souls, and the Saviour 
 of the body, Him whom all the Angels of God worship. Him 
 AVhom thou confessest worthy of all, and Whom all the world 
 shall adore, and before Whom they shall tremble at the day of 
 judgment. For if Christ be not there [in the Sacrament] after a 
 peculiar manner, whose Body do we receive ? But if He be 
 present not in mystery only, but in blessing also, why do we 
 not worship ? But all the Christians always did so from time 
 immemorial. " No man eats this Flesh unless he first adores," 
 said St. Austin, " For the wise men and barbarians did worship 
 this Body in the manger, with very much fear and reverence : let 
 us, therefore, who are citizens of heaven, at least not fall short 
 of the barbarians. But thou seest Him not on the manger, but 
 on the Altar ; and thou beholdest Him not in the Virgin's arms, 
 but represented by the Priest, and brought to thee in Sacrifice 
 by the Holy Spirit of God." So St. Chrysostom argues. — 
 Worthy Communicant, chap. vii. 10. 
 
 Have mercy upon us, O heavenly Father, according to Thy 
 glorious mercies and promises, send Thy Holy Ghost upon our 
 hearts, and let Him also descend upon these gifts, that by His 
 good, His holy, His glorious presence. He may sanctify and en- 
 lighten our hearts, and He may bless and sanctify these gifts, 
 That this bread may become the Holy Body of Christ. 
 
 Amen. 
 And this chalice may become the life-giving Blood of Christ. 
 
 Amen. 
 Office for the Holy Communion. Consecration Prayer. 
 
 I shall instance but one more, but it is in the most solemn, 
 sacred and divinest mystery in our religion, that in which the 
 clergy in their appointed ministry do biuKovovvrfs fieaireveLv, stand 
 betwen God and the people, and do fulfil a special and incompre- 
 hensible ministry, which the Angels themselves do look into 
 with admiration ; to which, if people come without fear, they
 
 28 
 
 cannot come without sin ; and this of so sacred and reserved 
 mysteriousness, that but few have dared to offer at it with uncon- 
 secrated hands, some few have. But the Eucharist is the fulness 
 of all the mysteriousness of our religion : and the clergy, when 
 they officiate here, are most truly, in the phrase of St. Paul, "dis- 
 pensatores mysteriorum Dei," dispensers of the great mysteries of 
 the kingdom. For to use the words of St. Cyprian, " Jesus 
 Christ is our High Priest, and Himself became our sacrifice, 
 which He finished upon the cross," &c 
 
 Now what Christ does always in a proper and most glorious 
 manner, the ministers of the gospel also do in theirs ; commemo- 
 rating the Sacrifice upon the Cross, " giving thanks," and cele- 
 brating a perpetual eucharist for it, and by declaring the death of 
 Christ, and praying to God in the virtue of it, for all the members 
 of the Church and all persons capable; it is "in genere orationis," 
 a Sacrifice and an instrument of propitiation, as all prayers are in 
 their several proportions 
 
 And certainly he could upon no pretence have challenged the 
 appellation of Christian, who had dared either himself to invade 
 the holy rites wdthin the cancels, or had denied the power of 
 celebrating this dreadful mystery to belong only to sacerdotal 
 ministration. For either it is said to be but common bread and 
 wine, and then, if that were true, indeed any body may minister 
 it, but then they that say so are blasphemous, they count the 
 Body of the Lord t6 alixa ttjs diadrjKrjs (as St. Paul calls it in 
 imitation of the words of Institution), the Blood of the Covenant 
 or New Testament, a profane or common thing ; they discern not 
 the Lord's Body, they know not that the Bread which is broken is 
 the communication of the Lord's Body. But if it be a holy, separate, 
 or divine and mysterious thing, who can make it (ministerially 
 I mean) and consecrate or sublime it from common or ordinary 
 brcad, but a consecrate, separate, and sublimed person ? 
 
 .... And therefore the Christian ministry having greater privi- 
 leges, and being honoured with attrectation of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, and olTices serving to a better covenant, may with greater 
 argument be accounted excellent, honourable, and royal 
 
 And certainly there is not a greater degree of power in the 
 world than to remit and retain sins, and to consecrate the sacra-
 
 29 
 
 mental symbols into the mysteriousness of Christ's Body and 
 Blood ; nor a greater honour than that God in heaven should 
 ratify what the Priest does on earth, and should admit him to 
 handle the Sacrifice of the world, and to present the same which 
 in heaven is presented by the eternal Jesus. — Clerus Domini. 
 The Divine Instihition and Necessity of the Office Ministerial, 
 tvritten hy the especial command of King Charles I. sec. 5. 
 
 BISHOP COSIN. 
 
 Where is the danger and what doth he fear as long as all they 
 that believe the Gospel own the true nature and the Real and 
 Substantial Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, 
 using that explication of St. Bernard concerning the manner, 
 which he himself, for the too great evidence of truth, durst not but 
 admit ? . . . . We confess with the Fathers, that this manner of 
 Presence is unaccountable and past finding out, not to be searched 
 and pryed into by reason, but believed by faith. And if it seems 
 impossible that the Flesh of Christ should descend and come to 
 be our food through so great a distance, we must remember how 
 much the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our 
 apprehensions, and how absurd it would be to undertake to 
 measure His immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity, 
 and so make our faith to conceive and believe what our reason 
 cannot comprehend. 
 
 Yet our faith does not cause or make that presence, but appre- 
 hends it as most truly and really effected by the word of Christ ; 
 and the faith whereby we are said to eat the Flesh of Christ, is 
 not that only whereby we believe that He died for our sins .... 
 but more properly that whereby we believe those words of Christ, 
 "This is My Body." .... For in this mystical eating, by the 
 wonderful power of the Holy Ghost, we do invisibly receive the 
 svibstance of Christ's Body and Blood, as much as if we should 
 eat and drink both visibly 
 
 All that remains is, that we should with faith and humility 
 admire this high and sacred mystery, which our tongue cannot 
 sufficiently explain, nor our heart conceive. — Hist, of Transtih- 
 stantiation, chap. iii. sec. 2, 3, 4, 5.
 
 30 
 
 JACKSON. 
 
 First then, all that are partakers of this Sacrament eat Christ's 
 Body and drink His blood sacramentally, that is, they eat that 
 Bread -which sacramentally is His Body, and drink that cup 
 which sacramentally is His Blood, whether they eat or drink 
 faithfully or unfaithfully. Must we say then that Christ is really 
 present in the Sacrament, as well to the unworthy, as to the 
 faithful receivers ? Yes, this we must grant : yet we must add 
 wdthal that He is really present with them in a quite contrary 
 manner : really present He is, because virtually present to both, 
 because the operation or efficacy of His Body and Blood is not 
 metaphorical, but real in both. — 0)i the Creed, book xi. chap. iv. 
 p. 3332. Ed. 1657. 
 
 THORNDIKE. 
 
 It is not here to be denied that all Ecclesiastical writers do 
 with one mouth bear witness to the presence of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Neither will any one of them be 
 found to ascribe it to any thing but the Consecration, or that to 
 any faith, but that, upon which the Church professeth to proceed 
 to the celebrating of it They all acknowledge the Ele- 
 ments to be changed, translated, and turned into the substance of 
 Christ's Body and Blood, though as in a Sacrament, that is, 
 'mystically: yet therefore by virtue of the Consecration, not of 
 his faith that receives. — Epilogue to the Tracked// of the Church 
 of Encjland, book iii. chap. iv. p. 30, 31. 
 
 BISHOP SPARROW. 
 
 .... The Priest says, "Lift up your hearts." For certainly 
 at that hour when we are to receive the most dreadful Sacrament, 
 
 ' So also in the next chapter, " The Elements arc really changed from 
 ordinaiy bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, mystically pre- 
 sent, as in a Sacrament ; and that in virtue of the Consecration, not by the 
 faith of him that receives," p. ■\\: And a few pages farther on he says, "Is 
 not the Sacrament of the Eucharist a propitiatory and impetratory Sacrifice by 
 virtue of the Consecration ? " lie also calls the Consecration "Ihc Production 
 of the Body and Blood of Christ."
 
 .SI 
 
 it is necessary to lift u]) our hearts to God, and not to have them 
 grovelling upon the earth &c. 
 
 Next is the Consecration. So you shall find in Chrysostom 
 and Cyril last cited. Which Consecration consists chiefly in re- 
 hearsing the words of our Saviour's Institution, This is My 
 Body and This is My Blood, when the bread and wine is present 
 upon the Communion Table. " The Holy Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper," says St. Chrysostom, "which the Priest now 
 makes, is the same that Christ gave to His Apostles &c." Again, 
 " Christ is present at the Sacrament now, that first instituted it. 
 He consecrates this also : it is not man that makes the Body and 
 Blood of Christ by consecrating the holy elements, but Christ 
 that was crucified for us. The words are pronounced by the 
 words of the Priest, but the elements are consecrated by the 
 power and grace of God." " This is," saith He, " My Body;" by 
 this word the bread and wine are consecrated. . .'. . 
 
 When the Priest hath said at the delivery of the Sacrament, 
 The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, 
 preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life, the communicant 
 is to answer Amen. By this Amen, professing his faith of the 
 presence of Christ's Body and Blood in that Sacrament. — Ratio- 
 nale 7<pon the Book of Common Prayer, p. 211. 21G. 220. Ed. 
 Oxford, 1840. 
 
 BISHOP FELL. 
 
 (Paraphrase and Annotations.) 
 1 Corinthians xi. 23. 
 [For this Holy Ceremony was not instituted by us for eating 
 and drinking, but by the Lord Himself, for a sacred solemn 
 commemoration of His death, and to be approached with all 
 reverence and great preparation, as being the Body and Blood of 
 the Lord.] 
 
 (Ver. 27.) 
 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread [of the Lord] or 
 drink this cup of the Lord unwortliily [without due reverence, 
 preparation, charity] shall be guilty of [violating] the Body and 
 Blood of the Lord.
 
 32 
 
 Id. (Heb. iv. 4.) 
 
 Enlightened. — This said, it maybe, with reference to Baptism. 
 ^u)t'iC(i,v with tlie ancients used for baptizare. 
 
 Tasted of the heavenly Gift — i. e. our Lord's Body and Blood 
 in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. 
 
 BISHOP HACKETT. 
 
 That which astonisheth the communicant and ravisheth his 
 heart is, that this feast afford no worse meat than the Body 
 and Blood of our Saviour. These He gave for the life of the 
 world, these are the repast of this supper, and these we truly 
 partake. . . . There is far more than a shadow, than a type, 
 than a figure. Christ did not propose a sign at that hour, but 
 also he gave us a Gift, and that Gift really and effectually is 
 Himself, which is all one as you would say, spiritually Himself, 
 for spiritual union is the most true and real union that can be. 
 That which is promised, and faith takes it, and hath it, is not 
 fiction, fancy, opinion, falsity, but substance and verity. . . . Yet 
 this is a real, substantial partaking of Christ crucified, broken, 
 His Flesh bleeding, His wounds gaping : so He is exhibited, 
 so we are sure to receive Him, which doth not only touch our 
 outward senses in the Elements, but pass through into the depth 
 of the soul. " A mystery neither to be set out in words, nor 
 to be comprehended sufficiently in the mind, but to be adored 
 by faith," says Calvin. — Christian Consolations, Bp. Taylor's 
 Works, Ed. Heber, vol. i. 
 
 BISHOP KEN. 
 
 I believe, O crucified Lord, that the Bread which we break 
 in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries is the communication 
 of Thy Body, and the Cup of blessing which we bless is the 
 communication of Thy Blood, and that Thou dost as effectually 
 and really convey Thy liody and Blood to our souls by tlie 
 Bread and ^Vine, as Thou didst Thy Holy Spirit by Thy breath 
 to Tliy disciples, for which all love, all glory be to Thee. 
 
 Lord, what need I labour in vain to search out the manner 
 of Thy mysterious Presence in the Sacrament, when my love 
 assures me Thou art there ? All the faithful -who approach
 
 33 
 
 Thee, with prepared hearts, they well know Thou art there, 
 they feel the virtue of divine love going out of Thee to heal 
 their infirmities and to inflame their affections ; for which all 
 love, all glory be to Thee. 
 
 O God Incarnate, how Thou canst give us Thy Flesh to eat, 
 and Thy Blood to drink ; how Thy Flesh is meat indeed ; 
 how Thou who art in heaven, art present on the Altar, I can 
 by no means explain : but I firmly believe it all, because Thou 
 hast said it, and I firmly rely on Thy love and on Thy Om- 
 nipotence to make good Thy word, though the manner of 
 doing it I cannot comprehend. — Exposition of the Church Cate- 
 chism. 
 
 BISHOP BEVERIDGE. 
 
 When we hear the words of Consecration repeated as they 
 came from our Lord's own mouth, " This is my Body which, 
 is given for you," and " This is My Blood which was shed 
 for you and for many for the remission of sins;" we are then 
 steadfastly to believe that although the substance of the bread 
 and wine still remain, yet now it is not common bread and wine, 
 as to its use ; but the Body and Blood of Christ in that Sacra- 
 mental sense wherein he spake the words. . . . When it comes 
 to our turn to receive it, then we are to lay aside all thoughts 
 of bread and wine, and the ]\Iinister and every thing else that 
 is or can be seen .... steadfastly believing it to be, as our 
 Saviour said, '* His Body and Blood," which our Church tcach- 
 eth us are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful 
 in the Lord's Supper. — Necessity and Advantage of Frequent 
 Commtinion, p. 103 — 105. 
 
 Could the Church be sure that all her members would receive 
 as they ought, with faith, she need not command them to re- 
 ceive it kneeling. For they covdd not do it any other way .... 
 How can I, by faith, behold my Saviour, coming to me and 
 offering me His own Body and Blood, and not fall down and 
 worship Him. ... Be sure our receiving the Blessed Body and 
 Blood of Christ as the Catholic Church always did, in an humble 
 and adoring posture, is both an argument and excitement of our 
 faith in Him. By it we demonstrate that we discern the Lord's
 
 34 
 
 Body and believe Him to be present with us in a peculiar Sacra- 
 mental sense. — Ihid. p. 107. 
 
 I shall only add the express words of institution, wherein 
 Christ said of the bread " This is ]\Iy Body," Matt. xxvi. 26, 
 and of the wine " This is My Blood of the New Testament shed 
 for many for the remission of sins," ver. 28. And if the Bread" 
 be His Body and the Wine His Blood, it must needs follow, 
 that whosoever eats the one and drinks the other as he ought 
 to do, is made partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ. The 
 Fathers are very frequent in asserting this truth. I shall in- 
 stance but a few. St, Cyril of Jerusalem .... Therefore saith 
 St. Hilary, " Of the truth of the Flesh and Blood there is no 
 place left to doubt, for now by the profession of the Lord 
 Himself, it is truly Flesh and truly Blood .... And St. Chrysos- 
 tom, " Wherefore it is necessary we should learn the Miracle of 
 the Mysteries &c.". . . . All which could not be unless we were 
 partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. — 
 On the XXVIIIth Article. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 
 
 But what then ? Do we not in the Sacrament truly partake 
 of the Body and Blood of Christ ? God forbid that any one 
 should deny it. There is none that understands any thing of 
 the Sacrament but must acknowledge that therein to all worthy 
 receivers the Body and Blood of Christ is both given, and like- 
 wise received by them. This is the sense of the Church of 
 England, when she doth so often declare that she owns the Real 
 Presence of Christ's Body and Blood to all that worthily receive 
 the Sacrament. 
 
 We do indeed own that Christ is really present in the 
 Sacrament to all worthy receivers, and in our communion ser- 
 vice we pray to God to grant that we may eat the Flesh of His 
 dear Son and drink His Blood &c. All this we own, and it is 
 very necessary we should. — Sermon on Transuhstantiation, vol. vii. 
 
 LESLIE. 
 
 Nor can the shewbrcad in the temple be called the Bread 
 of our God so properly, so strictly, so eminently, as the Bread
 
 35 
 
 in tlie Holy Sacrament, which is the Body of Christ .... And 
 docs not then holiness and honour belong as much, at least, to 
 the Evangelical Priesthood, who offer this Bread of our God, 
 as the Priests under the law who set the shewbread upon the 
 holy table in the temple ? And is not the one as properly the 
 oflice of a priest as the other ? — Resale and Pontificate. JVorka, 
 vol. i. p. G05. 
 
 JOHNSON. 
 
 Nor can I conceive how the words of St. Paul can otherwise 
 be understood, in their full scope and latitude, when he says, 
 " The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion" 
 &c. 1 Cor. X. 16. He supposes that the Body and Blood of 
 Christ are communicated to us by the Bread and Wine in the 
 Holy Eucharist .... And when St. Paul saith that ignorant 
 and profane communicants " do not discern the Lord's Body" 
 in the Holy Eucharist, (1 Cor. xi. 29,) and that " they are 
 guilty of" (an indignity toward) " the Body and Blood of our 
 Lord," ver. 27, he surely takes it for granted that the Body and 
 Blood are actually there, whether they discern it or not .... 
 
 I believe there is nothing that can more inflame and exalt 
 the devotion of a sincere Christian, than to think and believe, 
 that when he is praying at God's Altar and receiving the Holy 
 Eucharist, he has the price of his redemption in his hand, or 
 lying before his eyes. — Propitiatory Oblation, pp. 28. 101. 
 
 The full and true notion of the Eucharist is, that it is a reli- 
 gious feast upon bread and wine, that have been first offered 
 in Sacrifice to Almighty God, and are become the JNlysterious 
 Body and Blood of Christ. — Unbloody Sacrifice, vol. ii. p. 18. 
 
 BRETT. 
 
 We may ask again, if it be not convenient, nay necessary, 
 that all those who partake of this holy Sacrament should under- 
 stand and know what it is they do. Ought they not to be 
 instructed in the nature and design of it, lest they eat and drink 
 unworthily, not discerning the Lord's Body? And how shall 
 they discern the Lord's Body, if they are not taught that the 
 Lord's Body is here present? — Sermon on the Christian Altar 
 and Sacrifice, p. xii. 
 
 c2
 
 36 
 
 We pray that the bread and wine may be made the Body, 
 and the cup the Blood of Christ, without any manner of re- 
 striction .... We pray that the Holy Ghost may make them 
 Christ's Body and Blood, which implies as if we expected some 
 extraordinary change to be made in the elements, requiring an 
 omnipotent power to produce it. And I freely confess, for my 
 own part, (and believe I may say the same for my brethren in 
 communion with me) that I do believe so. — Collection of Litur- 
 gies, p. 256. 
 
 k GRABE. 
 
 The English Divines teach, that in the Holy Eucharist the 
 Body and Blood of Christ, under the species, that is, the signs, 
 of bread and wine, are offered to God, and become a representa- 
 tion of the Sacrifice of Christ once made upon the Cross, whereby 
 God may be rendered propitious. 
 
 BISHOP WILSON. 
 
 We offer unto Thee, our King and our God, this bread and 
 this cup. We give Thee thanks for these and for all Thy 
 mercies, beseeching Thee to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon 
 this Sacrifice, that He may make this bread the Body of Thy 
 Christ, and this cup the Blood of Thy Christ, and that all we 
 who are partakers thereof, may thereby obtain remission of our 
 sins, and all other benefits of His Passion. — Sacra Privata. Lord's 
 Supper. After Consecration. 
 
 WHEATLY. 
 
 In these words [of the Consecration Prayer] the sense of the 
 former is still implied, and consequently by these, the Elements 
 are now consecrated, and so become the Body and Blood of 
 our Saviour Christ. . . . 
 
 A Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the 
 Eucharist, is what our Church frequently asserts in this very 
 office of Communion, in her Articles, in her Homilies, and her 
 Catechism. — On the Common Prayer, vi. § 22. 31. 
 
 k Quoted in " Tracts for the Times," No. 81, p. 378.
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE CATHOLIC SPIRIT OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH DURING THE HEIGNS OF 
 JAMES I. AND CHARLES I. 
 
 The following extracts from Neal's History of the Puritans 
 will enable the reader to form some idea of the tone which per- 
 vaded the theolog-y of our Church in its best and brightest times, 
 since the Reformation. Some persons may object to the testimony 
 of a Dissenter, but we might easily obviate this objection by 
 verifying his statements by actual reference to the divines of the 
 period in question. 
 
 " The new Bishops (under James I.) admitted the Church of 
 Rome to be a true Church, and the Pope the 'first Bishop of 
 Christendom. They declared for the lawfulness of ™ images in 
 Churches ; for the Real Presence ; and that the doctrine of tran- 
 substantiation was a school nicety. They pleaded for "confes- 
 sion to a Priest, for sacerdotal absolution, and the proper merit of 
 
 good works They claimed an ° uninterrupted succession of 
 
 the Episcopal Character from the Apostles through the Church of 
 Rome, which obliged them to maintain the validity of her ordina- 
 tions, when they denied the validity of those of the foreign 
 Protestants. Further, they began to imitate the Church of Rome 
 in her gaudy ceremonies, in the rich furniture of their chapels, 
 and the pomp of their worship. They complimented the Roman 
 Catholic Priests with their dignitary titles, and spent all their 
 zeal in studying how to compromise matters with Rome, while 
 they turned their backs upon the old Protestant doctrines of the 
 Reformation, and were remarkably negligent in preaching, or 
 instructing the people in Christ ian knowledge. Things were come 
 to such a pass, that Gondamar, the Spanish Ambassador, wrote 
 to Spain, that there never was more hopes of England's conver- 
 sion, 'for there are more prayers,' says he, 'offered to the 
 Mother than to the Son of God.' " — Vol. i. p. 396. Ed. Parsons. 
 
 We are further informed by Burnet, that of the Scotch Bishops 
 
 ' Vid. Appendix ii. "" Appendix iii. " Appendix iv. 
 
 ° Appendix v.
 
 38 
 
 " some that were stricter and more learned did lean so grossly to 
 Popery, that the heat and violence of the Reformation became 
 the main subject of their sermons." — Hist, of his Own Times. 
 
 Neal thus describes the theology of the Enghsh Church under 
 Charles I. : — 
 
 " The Bishops and courtiers not being insensible of the number 
 and weight of their enemies, among the more resolved Protest- 
 ants, determined to balance their power by joining the Papists ; 
 for which purpose the difference between the two Churches was 
 said to be trifling, and the peculiar doctrines of popery preached 
 up as proper to be received by the Church of England. 
 
 "Bishop Montague speaking of the points of faith and morality, 
 affirmed that none of these are controverted between us, but that 
 the points in dispute were of a lesser nature, of which a man 
 might be ignorant without any danger of salvation. Franciscus 
 de Clara, an eminent Franciscan Friar, published a book, wherein 
 he endeavoured to accommodate the Articles of the Church of 
 England to the sense of the Church of Rome, so that both parties 
 might subscribe them. The book was dedicated to the king, and 
 the friar admitted to an acquaintance with the Archbishop. 
 
 " Great stress was laid upon the uninternipted succession of the 
 Episcopal character through the Church of Rome ; for ' miserable 
 were we,' says Dr. Pocklington, ' if he that now sits Archbishop of 
 Canterbury could not derive his succession from St. Austin, St. 
 Austin from St. Gregory, and St. Gregory from St. Peter.' 
 Bishop jMontague published a treatise of the Invocation of Saints, 
 in which he says that departed Saints have not only a memory 
 but a more peculiar charge of their friends ; and that some Saints 
 have a more peculiar patronage, custody, protection and power, 
 as Angels liave also over certain persons and countries, by special 
 deputation, and that it is not impiety so to believe. 
 
 " Dr. Cosins says in one of his sermons, that when our reformers 
 took away the Mass they marred all religion ; but that the Mass 
 was not taken away, inasmuch as the real presence of Christ 
 remained still, otherwise it were not a reformed but a deformed 
 religion. And in order to persuade a papist to come to church, 
 he told him that the Body of Christ was substantially and really 
 in the Sacrament.
 
 39 
 
 •' Mr. Adams, in a sermon at St. Mary's in Cambridge, asserted 
 the expedience of auricular confession, saying it was as necessary 
 to salvation as meat is to the body. Others preached up the 
 doctrine of penance, and of authoritative priestly absolution for 
 sin. Some maintained the proper merit of good works, in oppo- 
 sition to the received doctrine of justification by faith. Others 
 that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, there was a full and 
 proper sacrifice for sin : and some declared for images, crucifixes, 
 and pictures in churches, for purgatory, and for preserving, 
 reverencing, and even praying to the reliques of saints. 
 
 " Remarkable are the words of Heylin. ' The greatest part of 
 the controversy between us and the Church of Rome,' says he, 
 ' not being in fundamentals or in any essential points of the 
 Christian Religion, I cannot otherwise look upon it but as a 
 most Christian and pious work to endeavour an agreement in the 
 superstructure : as to the lawfulness of it, I could never see any 
 reason produced against it : against the possibility of it it has 
 been objected that the Church of Rome will yield nothing ; if 
 therefore there be an agreement, it must not be their meeting us, 
 but our going to them ; but that all in the Church of Rome are 
 not so stiff, appears from the testimony of the Archbishop of 
 Spalato, who acknowledged that the Articles of the Church of 
 England Avere not heretical. Now if without prejudice to truth, 
 the controversies might be composed, it is most probable that 
 other Protestant Churches would have sued to be included in the 
 peace ; if not, the Church of England will lose nothing by it, 
 being hated by the Calvinists, and not loved by the Lutherans.'" 
 — Vol. i. p. 492 et seqq. 
 
 APPENDIX 11. 
 
 ON THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF. 
 
 The ' Essays on the Church i'' complain that " Rome itself, and 
 its Bishop are regarded," by certain divines, "with a degree of 
 reverence and favour tvholly unhnoion to the Apostolic ages." 
 
 Certainly none of the passages quoted from the " Tracts for the 
 
 1' r. 403. Ed. 1810.
 
 , 40 
 
 Times," or the British Critic, in confirmation of this charge, at 
 all come up to the following extracts from some of the old divines 
 of the Anglican Church. 
 
 DEAN FIELD. 
 
 (On the Church, book v. chap. 32.) 
 " We deny not but that blessed Peter had a kinde of Primacie of 
 honour and order, that in respect thereof, as all Metropolitans do 
 succeed him, as being greater than other" bishops in honour and 
 place ; and amongst them the Romane Bishop in the first place. . . . 
 " We deny not, therefore, to the Romane Bishop his due place 
 among the prime Bishops of the world, if therewith he will rest 
 contented, but Universal Bishop in sort before expressed, we dare 
 by no means admit him to be, knowing right well, that every 
 Bishop hath in his place, and keeping his own standing, power 
 and authority immediately from Christ, which is not to be re- 
 strained or limited by any but by the company of Bishops ; 
 wherein, though one be chief for order sake, and to preserve unity, 
 and in such sort, that all things must take their beginning from him, 
 yet he can do nothing without them." 
 
 (Id. book V. chap. 50.) 
 " Touching the presidentship of General Councils, it pertained 
 in a sort, to all the Patriarches .... Yet we deny not, but that 
 as these were over all other Bishops, so even amongst these also 
 there was an order, so that one of them had a preeminence above 
 and before another. For the Bishop of Alexandria was before 
 the Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome before him, an- 
 ciently even before the time of the Nicene Council, and afterwards 
 the Bishop of Constantinople, made a Patriarch, was set before 
 
 the other two, next unto the 15ishop of Rome 
 
 "The Canon of the Church prcscribeth that no General Council 
 shall be holden without the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops 
 subject to him ; but the meaning of the Canon is, not that all 
 proceedings arc void and unlawful, wherein his presence is not 
 had, but wherein it is not sought and expected."
 
 41 
 
 BISHOP GOODMAN. 
 
 (His Last Will.) 
 
 " I die most constant in all the articles of our Christian Faith, 
 and in all the doctrine of God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, 
 whereof I do acknowledge the Church of Rome to be the Mother 
 Church ; and I do verily believe that no other Church hath any 
 salvation in it, but only so far as it concurs with the faith of the 
 Church of Rome." 
 
 [It is, perhaps, needless to state, that Bishop Goodman's views 
 were such as to bring upon him the suspicion of being a concealed 
 Romanist. There is not however the slightest authority for sup- 
 posing this to be the fact. The very same suspicions, though 
 perhaps not to the same extent, were fixed by the Puritans on 
 almost all his contemporaries. The following extracts from one 
 of the highest authorities in our Church are almost equally 
 strong. They might at first sight be mistaken for the words of 
 some Galilean divine, arguing against an ultra-montane ; the same 
 well-known distinction being maintained throughout, between 
 the Church of Rome and the Court of Rome.] 
 
 ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL. 
 
 *' I demonstrate to thee that the true controversy is not concern- 
 ing St. Peter: we have no formed difference about St. Peter, nor 
 about any point of faith, but of interest and profit, nor Avith the 
 Church of Rome, but with the Court of Rome, and wherein it 
 doth consist ; namely, in these questions, who shall confer English 
 Bishoprics ? who shall convocate English Synods ? who shall 
 receive tenths, and first fruits, and oaths of allegiance and fide- 
 lity, &c. 
 
 " Thou desirest to bear the same respect to the Church of Rome 
 that thy ancestors did ; so do I. But for that fulness of power, 
 yea, coactive power, in the exterior court, over the subjects of 
 other princes, and against their wills, devised by the Court of 
 Rome, not by the Church of Rome ; it is that pernicious source 
 from whence all these usurpations did spring. 
 
 "Docs not all the world see that the Church of England stands 
 no otherwise in order to the Church of Rome, than it did in
 
 42 
 
 Henry the Eighth's days ? He adcleth farther, that it is confessed 
 that the Papal power in Ecclesiastical affairs was cast out of 
 England in Hemy the Eighth's days. I answer, that there was 
 no mutation concerning Faith, nor concerning the Power of the 
 Keys, or any jurisdiction purely spiritual, but concerning co- 
 active power in the exterior court, concerning the Patronage or 
 civil sovereignty over the Church of England, and the legislative, 
 judiciary, and dispensative power of the Pope in England over 
 English subjects." — Works, pp. 289. 342. 
 
 BISHOP COSIN. 
 
 (Points of Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome. ) 
 " 5. In acknowledgment of the Bishop of Rome, if he would 
 rule and be ruled by the ancient Canons of the Church, to be 
 the Patriarch of the West, by right of Ecclesiastical and Imperial 
 Constitution, in such places where the Kings and Governors of 
 those places had received him, and found it behoveful for them to 
 make use of his jurisdiction, without any necessary dependance 
 upon him by Divine Right." 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 That Images were unknown, nay, we may add strictly forbid- 
 den, in the earliest ages of the Church, is an historical fact, and 
 this would be sufficient to justify our Church, did she prohibit 
 any decorations of this kind in her places of worship. This is 
 fully acknowledged by Roman Catholic divines, who include 
 Images among the several points of variable discipline. Protest- 
 ant controversialists, on the other hand, assert that not only the 
 veneration of Images, Pictures, or Relics, but the very having 
 them, is Idolatry. This we can by no means allow : — There has 
 been a time when the second Council of Nice has been received 
 by all parts of the Church, whether P2ast or West ; and, whether 
 Ave acknowledge this Council as Qicumenical or no, we dare not 
 assert that the whole Catholic Church, at this time, was guilty of 
 idolatry, and that the greater part of it has remained idolatrous
 
 43 
 
 up to this very day. If so, our own Church was idolatrous, until 
 the Rebellion at least, for it was not till then that the greater part 
 of the images and painted windows in the Churches were broken 
 down. The Iconoclasts, moreover, were severely punished by 
 the Star-chamber, and enquiries instituted after them by many of 
 the Bishops. 
 
 As the subject of Images is one of minor importance, we shall 
 only quote two of our divines upon them, both Bishops, and 
 l^ersons of great influence in their day, but representing two very 
 different schools of theology. 
 
 BISHOP MONTAGUE. 
 
 " Images have three uses assigned by the schools. Stay 
 there. So we will go no further, and we charge you not 
 with idolatry. The pictures of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, 
 and of the Saints, may be had in houses, set up in churches ; 
 respect and honour may be given to them, the Protestants give 
 it ; you say, they must not have Latria, so say we ; you give 
 them Dulia, I quarrel not with the term, though I could. There 
 is a respect due to the pictures of Christ and his Saints. If you 
 call this Dulia, we give it too, let doctrine and practice go to- 
 gether, we agree." — Gagger gagged, p. 300, 
 
 ARCHBISHOP TENNISON. 
 
 " The article of the creed of Trent is this ; ' I most firmly pro- 
 fess that the images of Christ, and of the Mother of God, always 
 a Virgin, as also those of other Saints, are to be had and retained, 
 especially in churches, and that due honour and veneration be 
 given to them.' Due honour and veneration are in themselves 
 modest words ; and where we admit the pictures and images of 
 Christ, we refuse not the honour that is due to them. We do not 
 choose to put them in vile places, we do not use them in vile 
 offices ; we esteem them as ornaments, we value them as the 
 images of persons more honourable than our prince or our friend, 
 we use them as i remembrancers of the great mystery of man's 
 
 q "Bien loin de croire coiume les idolatres que quelque divinite habite dans 
 les images, nous ne leur attribuons aucune vertu que celle d' exciter en nous le 
 souvenir des originaux." — Bossuet. Exposition de La Foi Catholiquc.
 
 44 
 
 redemption, which we cannot too frequently be reminded of." — 
 Sermon on Idolatry, p. 280. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of Bishop Montague, no one who 
 knows any thing of Archbishop Tennison will accuse him of 
 Romanism, and yet his words are as strong as any of those 
 which have been so much censured in the 90th Tract for the 
 Times. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 PRIVATE CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 
 
 BISHOP OVERALL. 
 
 " Let him come to me.'] Confession of sins must necessarily 
 be made to them to whom the dispensation of the Mysteries of 
 God is committed. For so they which in former times repented 
 amonsr the saints are read to have done. It is written in the 
 Gospel, that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist. In 
 the Acts they all confessed their sins unto the Apostles of whom 
 they were baptized." — Notes on the Common Prayer. 
 
 BISHOP MONTAGUE. 
 
 " Doth he (the Minister) especially exhort them (his parish- 
 ioners) to make Confession of their sins to himself, or some 
 other learned, grave, and discreet minister, especially in Lent, 
 against that holy time of Easter ; that they may receive comfort 
 and absolution, so as to become worthy receivers of such sacred 
 mysteries?" — Articles of Inquiry, tit. vii. 4. 
 
 BISHOP WHITE. 
 
 " Protestants, in their doctrine, acknowledge that private Con- 
 fession of sins, made by penitent people to the Pastors of their 
 souls, and particular absolution, or special application of the 
 promises of the Gospel to such as are penitent, are profitable 
 helps of virtue, godliness, and spiritual comfort." — Conference 
 ivilh Fisher, p. ISO.
 
 45 
 
 BISHOP TAYLOR. 
 
 " We may very mucli be heliicd if we take in the assistance 
 of a spiritual guide ; therefore the Church of God in all ages hath 
 commended, and in most ages enjoined that we confess our sins, 
 and discover the state and condition of our souls to such a per- 
 son whom we or our superiors judge fit to help us in such need. 
 For so, if w^e confess our sins to another, as St. James advises, 
 we shall obtain the prayers of the holy man whom God and the 
 Church hath appointed solemnly to pray for us : and when he 
 knows our needs, he can best minister comfort or reproof, oil or 
 caustics ; he can more opportunely recommend your particular 
 state to God, he can determine your cases of conscience, and 
 judge better for you than you do for yourself, and the shame of 
 opening such ulcers may restrain your forwardness to contract 
 them. . . . vVnd it were well if this duty were practised prudently 
 and innocently, in order to public discipline." — Holy Living, chap, 
 iv. sec. 9. 
 
 BISHOP COSIN. 
 (Points of Agreement with the Church of Rome.) 
 
 6 "In public or private absolution of penitent sin- 
 ners." .... 
 
 11. "In the use of Indulgences, or abating the rigour of the 
 Canons imposed upon offenders, according to their repentance, 
 and their want of ability to undergo them." 
 
 And Wheatly in later times ; — 
 
 " We may still, I presume, wish very consistently with the 
 determination of our Church, that our people would apply them- 
 selves oftener than they do, to their spiritual Physicians, even 
 in the time of their health. Since it is much to be feared, they 
 are Avounded oftener than they complain, and yet through aver- 
 sion of disclosing their sore, suffer it to gangrene, for want of 
 their help who should work the cure. But present ease is not 
 the only benefit the penitent may expect from his confessor's 
 aid ; he will be better assisted in the regulation of his life, and 
 when his last conflict shall make its approach, the holy man, 
 being no stranger to the state of his soul, will be better prepared
 
 46 
 
 to guide and conduct it througli all difficulties that may oppose."' 
 — On the Common Prayer, chap. xi. sec. 4. 
 
 [See also Hammond's Annotations on James v. 16.] 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 ox THE VALIDITY OF ISON-EPISCOPAL ORDIXATIOX. 
 
 As a Catena Patrum has already appeared in the Tracts for 
 the Times, (No. 74,) on the Apostolical Succession, it will be 
 unnecessary to repeat quotations here. We shall therefore be 
 content with the following very decided extracts which have 
 not yet been adduced. 
 
 BISHOP TAYLOR. 
 
 (Episcopacy Asserted.) 
 
 " We have clear evidence of the Divine Institution of the 
 perpetual order of Apostleship ; marry for the presbyterate, I 
 have not so much reason or confidence for it as now it is in the 
 Church, but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception. And to 
 this Bishops do succeed. For that it is so, I have proved from 
 Scripture ; and because ' No Scripture is of private interpreta- 
 tion,' I have attested it with the Catholic testimony of the Primi- 
 tive Fathers, — calling Episcopacy the Apostolate, and Bishops 
 successors of St. Peter in particular, and of all the Apostles in 
 general in their ordinary offices." — Sect. xi. 
 
 " Are all ordinations invalid which are done by mere presbyters, 
 without a bishop 1 What tliink we of the reformed Churches ? 
 
 " 1. For my part, I know not what to think. The question 
 hath been so often asked, with so much violence and prejudice, 
 and we are so bound by public interest to approve all that they 
 do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. . . . 
 
 *' 2. Why is not the question rather, what we think of the 
 primitive Church, than what we think of the reformed Churches ? 
 Did the primitive fatliers and councils do well in condemning 
 the ordinations made by mere presbyters ? If they did ill, from 
 what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations ? since 
 
 I
 
 47 
 
 there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by 
 Apostles and Bishops. . . . 
 
 " So as in Scripture there is nothing for presbyters ordaining, 
 so in Antiquity there is much against it ; and either, in this 
 particular, we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and 
 Antiquity, or not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of re- 
 formed presbyteries. . . . 
 
 " But will not necessity excuse them, who could not have orders 
 from orthodox bishops ? 
 
 "1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done 
 any thing either of error or suspicion, but in cases of necessity. 
 But then, I consider that M. Du Plessis, a man of honour and 
 great learning does attest, that at the first Reformation, there 
 were many Archbishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, 
 France, and Italy, that joined in the Reformation, whom they 
 might, but did not employ in their ordinations ; and what neces- 
 sity there can be pretended in this case, I would fain learn, that 
 I might make their defence. But which is of more and deeper 
 consideration .... it is their constant and resolved practice, at 
 least in France, that if any returns to them, they will re-ordain 
 him by their presbytery, though he had before episcopal ordina- 
 tion, as both their friends and their enemies witness. 
 
 " 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delin- 
 quency, but I never heard that necessity did build a Church .... 
 Indeed, if God means to build a Church in any place, he will do 
 it by means proportionable to that end, that is, by putting them 
 into a possibility of doing and requiring those things which him- 
 self hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church. 
 So that supposing ordination by a Bishop, is necessary for the 
 vocation of priests and deacons, as I have proved it is, and there- 
 fore for the founding and perpetuating of a Church, cither God 
 hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such 
 ordinations .... or if He hath not given such possibility, then 
 there is no Church there to be either built or continued, but the 
 candlestick is presently removed. 
 
 '* I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it will be 
 thought so, I cannot tell, and yet why it may not, I cannot 
 guess, unless they only be impeccable, which, I suppose, will
 
 48 
 
 not so easily be thought of them, who themselves think that all 
 the Church possibly may fail. 
 
 " I hope it may happen to us ... . rather to die (to wit, the 
 death of martyrs, not rebels) than lose the sacred order and 
 offices of Episcopacy, without w^hich no priest, no ordination, no 
 consecration of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite or sacra- 
 ment legitimately can be performed in order to eternity"'." 
 
 DAWSON. 
 
 (Origo Legum.) 
 
 " In the Reformation of any particular Church, great care ought 
 to be taken, that no separation be made from the Catholic 
 Church .... For every Church is a member, or part of the 
 Catholic Church, and every part ought to be congruous to the 
 whole, or else it ceaseth to be a part, or at best it is but a de- 
 formed and a deforming part of it 
 
 " Again, one thing more is to be observed in the Reforming any 
 particular Church, and it is such a one which will both lead to 
 the greatest purity, and also keep it from swerving from the 
 Church Catholic ; and it is that a diligent and watching eye be 
 had to the faith and practice of the Primitive Church. . . . 
 
 " One only Priesthood was always owned in the Church, and 
 the same Priesthood is owned here, and no other ; namely. That 
 which was conferred by Christ on His Apostles, and transmitted 
 by them to Bishops, their successors, and by them to others, in 
 a continued succession to this day. . . . 
 
 "The Churches of Geneva and Scotland have cast away all 
 Episcopal Ordination, and by consequence, as we think, have no 
 true Priesthood .... And therefore I conclude that the exam- 
 ples of other Refonned Churches ought not to be a law for the 
 Church of England. . . ." 
 
 WHEATLY. 
 
 (On the Common Prayer, chap. 2. sec. 3.) 
 " A commission to ordain was given to none but the Apostles, 
 and their successors .... Consequently none but such as are 
 
 » Compare with these extracts from Bishop Taylor, Mr. Froude's Ilemaius, 
 (part ii. vol. i. p. 13.)
 
 49 
 
 ordained by Bishops can have a title to minister in the Christian 
 Church." 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 ON THE BLESSED VIBGIN AND THE SAINTS. 
 
 1. On the Blessed Virgin. — Vid. Essays on the CJnirch, 1838, 
 p. 288, 289; and 1840, p. 402, 403. 
 
 BISHOP ANDREWES. 
 
 " Making mention of the all-holy, undefiled and more than 
 blessed Mary, Mother of God, and Ever- Virgin, with all Saints, 
 let us commend ourselves and each other, and all our life, to 
 Christ our God." — Devotions. Translated. Tracts for the Times, 
 No. 88, p. 60. 
 
 BISHOP TAYLOR. 
 
 " Hither bring in succour from consideration of the Divine Pre- 
 sence, and of His holy Angels, meditation of death, and the 
 Passion of Christ upon the Cross, imitation of His purities, and 
 of the Virgin ]Mary, His unspotted and holy Mother" &c. — Holy 
 Living. 
 
 BISHOP PEARSON. 
 
 " s We believe the Mother of our Lord to have been not only 
 before and after His Nativity, but also for ever, the most Im- 
 maculate and Blessed Mrgin It was her own prediction, 
 
 ' From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,' but the 
 obligation is ours to call her, to esteem her so. If Elizabeth 
 cried out with so loud a voice, ' Blessed art thou among wo- 
 men,' when Christ was but newly conceived in Her womb ; 
 what expressions of honour and admiration can we think suffi- 
 cient now that Christ is in heaven, and that Mother with Him ? 
 Far be it from any Christian to derogate from that special privi- 
 lege granted Her, which is incommunicable to any other. We 
 cannot bear too reverend a regard unto tlie Mother of our Lord, 
 so long as we give her not that worship which is due unto 
 
 » Archbishop Bramhall includes among the genuine Apostolical Tradition, 
 " the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God." — Works, p. 33.
 
 50 
 
 the Lord Himself. Let us keep the language of the Primitive 
 Church, ' ' Let Her be honoured and esteemed, let Him be wor- 
 shipped and adored.' " — On the Creed, Article iii. 
 
 BISHOP JOLLY. 
 
 " The Blessed Virgin Mother is undoubtedly the most highly 
 exalted and honoured of all creatures ; the second Person of the 
 all-glorious Trinity having assumed Her substance and united it 
 with the human soul, in One Person with His Divinity, never to 
 be divided. She may, therefore, without hesitation be called, 
 as She is by the Church, ' The Mother of God.' She is so 
 named by the third General Council at Ephesus ; and her cousin 
 Elizabeth by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, called Her in 
 terms equivalent when, meeting Her, she cried in rapture. Whence 
 is this to me that the mother ' of my Lord,' who is God our Sa- 
 viour, ' should come to me.' ' All generations,' according to 
 Her divine canticle foretold, do ' call Her Blessed.' And cer- 
 tainly the highest honour that can be paid to a creature is due 
 to Her."— 0?? the Eucharist, p. 94. 
 
 2. Intercession of the Saints. 
 
 DEAN FIELD. 
 
 " That the Saints do pray for us ' in genere,' desiring God to 
 be merciful unto us, and to do unto us whatsoever in any kind, 
 He knovveth needful for our good, there is no question made by 
 us ; and therefore this prayer, wherein the Church desireth God 
 to be gracious to her, and to grant the things she desireth, the 
 rather for that the Saints in heaven also are suppliants for her, 
 will not be found to contain any point of Romisli doctrine dis- 
 liked by us." — On the Church, Appendix to book iii. p. 223. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL. 
 
 " Concerning the ' Intercessions, prayers, merits of the Saints,' 
 (taking the word 'merit' in the sense of the Primitive Church, 
 that is, not for desert, but for acquisition,) I know no difference 
 
 * Of this very passage Dr. "Wiseman says, " How moderate, how tni-Pro- 
 teslant is the language of St. Ejjiphanius." — Remarks on Mr. Palmer's Letter, 
 p. 53.
 
 51 
 
 about them among men -who understand themselves, but only 
 about the last words, * which they invocatc in their temples ' 
 rather than Churches. A comprecation both the Grecians and 
 we allow, and ultimate invocation both the Grecians and we 
 detest; so do tlic Church of Rome in their doctrine, but they 
 vary from it in their practice." — JVorks, p. 418. 
 
 COLLECT IN THE ORIGINAL SERVICE TOR KING CHARLES THE 
 MARTYR, PUT FORTH BY AUTHORITY IN 16G1 : 
 
 " We beseech Thee to give us all grace to remember and pro- 
 vide for our latter end, by a careful, studious, imitation of this 
 Thy Blessed Saint and Martyr, and all other Thy Saints and 
 Martyrs that have gone before us, that we may be made worthy 
 to receive benefit by their prayers, which they in communion 
 Avith thy Church Catholic offer up unto Thee, for that part of it 
 here militant, and here in fight with, and in danger from the 
 flesh." 
 
 BISHOP PEARSON. 
 
 "The Saints of God living in the Church of Christ, are in com- 
 munion with all the Saints departed out of this life and admitted 
 
 to the presence of God If I have communion with a Saint 
 
 of God, as such, Avhile he liveth here, I must still have commu- 
 nion with him when he is departed hence, because the foundation 
 
 of that communion cannot be removed by death That we 
 
 communicate with them in hope of that happiness which they 
 actually enjoy, is evident ; that we have the Spirit of God given 
 us as an earnest, and so a part of their felicity, is certain. But 
 what they do in heaven in relation to us on earth particularly 
 considered, or what we ought to perform in reference to them in 
 heaven, beside a reverential respect, and study of imitation, is not 
 revealed unto us in the Scriptures, nor can be concluded by 
 necessary deduction from any principles of Christianity. They 
 which first found this part of the Article in the Creed, and deli- 
 vered their exposition unto us, have made no greater enlargement 
 of this communion, as to the Saints of heaven, than the "society 
 
 " Tria sunt igitur quoe in fcstivitatibus Sanctorum vig'.laiitcr considerare 
 debenius : auxilium Sancti, exemplum ejus, conf'usionem nostvam. Auxilium 
 
 D 2
 
 52 
 
 of hope, esteem and imitation on our side, of desires and suppli- 
 cations on their side." 
 
 " We have already produced the words of the one hundred and eighty-first 
 Sermon, de Tempore, concerning hope. In the same we find also that of 
 imitation. Si igitur cum Sanctis in Eetema vita communionem habere volu- 
 miis, de imitatione eorum cogitemus. Debent enim in nobis aliquid recognos- 
 cere de suis virtutibus, ut pro nobis dignentur Domino suj^plicare .... Besides 
 this imitation, he addetli their desires and cares for us below &c." — On the 
 Creed. Article ix. and note. 
 
 BRETT. 
 
 " If they [the Saints departed] still hold the Communion of 
 Saints, and it is an Article of our Creed that they do so, we cannot 
 doubt of their praying for us. And if they do pray for us, is it 
 unlawful for us to pray that God would hear their prayers for us ? 
 Is it a corruption in a Liturgy to have such a petition in it ? I 
 can by no means think so. The Apostle, speaking of our praying 
 one for another, adds, that ' the effectual fervent prayer of a 
 righteous man availeth much.' Now I cannot doubt but the 
 Saints departed are righteous men, and therefore cannot doubt but 
 their effectual fervent prayer for their brethren on earth availeth 
 much. Consequently, that it is lawful for any private Christian, 
 or any congregation of Christians, to pray that their prayers may 
 be available to them in this particular .... We know — that 
 ' there is but One Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ 
 .Tesus ;' but then we know also, that this must be understood of 
 One Mediator of Redemption, because God has so frequently 
 commanded us to pray one for another, that is, to be intercessors, 
 or mediators of intercession, for each other. For these reasons I 
 
 ejus, quia qui potens in terra fuit potcntior est in coelis ante faciem Domini 
 Dei sui. Si enim dum hie viveret misertus est peccatoribus et oravit pro cis : 
 nunc taulo amplius qiianto verius agnoscit miserias nostras, orat pro nobis 
 patrem : quia bcata ilia patria caritatem ejus non immutavit sed augmentavit 
 .... Debemu.s etiam attendere exemplum ejus quia quamdiu in terris et cum 
 hominibus conversatus est, non declinavit ad dexteram neque ad .sinistram : sed 
 viam regiam tenuit donee veniret ad Ilium qui dicit, Ego siun via, Veritas et 
 vita .... Sed et diligentiori intuitu confusionem nostram inspiciamus : quia 
 homo ille similis nol)is fuit passibilis, ex eodem luto formatus ex quo ct nos. 
 Quid ergo est quod non solum difTicile sed et impossibilc credimus ut faciamus 
 opera qu.Te fecit, ut sequamus vestigia ejus ? — S. IJcrnard. in Vigil. S. S. Petri 
 ct Pauli A])os,toloruni.
 
 53 
 
 can by no means think it amiss to pray that we may obtain a 
 place at God's right hand, by the intercession and supplication of 
 the Saints." — Liturgies, p. 3G0, 301. 
 
 [See also Thorndike's Epilogue, book iii. p. 350, (quoted at 
 length in Dr. Pusey's Letter to Dr. Jclf,) where the subject is 
 treated with the author's usual orthodoxy and accuracy.] 
 
 3. On the ' Merits' of the Saints. 
 
 DEAN FIELD. 
 
 "-^But they will say there is mention made in this prayer of 
 the Merits of those holy Apostles and Martyrs, and the Church 
 desireth God to grant her petition for those merits, which is con- 
 trary to the doctrine of Protestants, that deny all merit properly 
 so named, and therefore cannot but condemn the opinion of one 
 man's meriting for another. For answer hereunto we must 
 observe, as Cassander rightly noteth, that there is no merit pro- 
 perly so named, to be attributed to miserable and mortal men ; 
 and that though the Ecclesiastical writers use the word merit, and 
 when they speak of holy men's works call them merits, yet they 
 
 " This passage will serve as an explanation of St, Leo's words, in tlie Tracts 
 for the 1'imes (No. 75,) which appears so objectionable to some persons. 
 " Cujus sulTragantibus mentis, quae poscimus, impetrare possumus." — Vid. 
 Essays on the Chnrch, 1838, p. 289. The author of these Essays continually 
 asserts, that one of the great doctrines of the Reformation was justification by 
 Faith, in opposition to Salvation by works, maintained by the Church of Rome. 
 Does he really mean to say that the Western Church ever was Pelagian ? 
 Perhaps he is not aware of the existence of such canons as these. " Si quis 
 dixevit, hominem suis operibus quae vel per humanae naturae vires, vel per legis 
 doctrinam fiant, absque divina. per Jesum Christum gratia posse justificari 
 coram Deo: anathema sit." "Si quis dixerit, sine praeveniente Spiritus Sancti 
 inspiratione, atque Ejus adjutoris — hominem credere, spcrare, diligere aut poeni- 
 tere posse, sicut oportet, lit ei justificationis gratia conferatur : anatlicma sit." 
 "Si quis dixerit, homines sine Christi justitia, perquam nobis meruit, justificari, 
 aut per earn ipsam formaliter justos esse ; anathema sit." — Cone. Trident. Sess. 
 vi. Here is the very heresy in question anathematized by the Council of 
 Trent. " Ce meme Concile enseigiie que tout le prix et la valeur dcs a;uvres 
 Chretiennes provient de la grace sanctifiante qui nous est donnee gratuitement 
 au nom de Jesus Christ et que c'est un effet de I'influenre continuelle de ce 
 divin Chef sur ses membres .... Nous confessons hautement que nous ne 
 sommes agreables ^ Dieu qu'en Jesus Christ et par Jesus Christ, et nous ne 
 comprenous pas qu'on puisse nous attribuer une autre penscc." — Bossuet. 
 Exposition de I'Eglise Catliolique.
 
 54 
 
 think them not to be properly so, but do so name the good 
 actions of holy men that proceed from faith, and the working of 
 the Holy Ghost, because Almighty God, though they be His gifts, 
 and joined in them, by whom they are wrought, Avith defect and 
 imperfection, yet is so pleased to accept of them out of His 
 goodness, that He not only rewardeth the doers of them with 
 ample and great rewards in their own persons, but so as to do 
 good for others for their sakes .... Neither only doth He good 
 for their sakes, whose works He thus rewardeth, while they live, 
 but even after they are dead also . . . . O strange thing ! O in- 
 effable clemency ! a man long since dead patronizeth him that 
 liveth. In this sense then it is that the Church desireth God to 
 be gracious unto her in granting her petitions, for the merit of 
 those His holiest ones, that she remcmbereth, no way derogating 
 from the merits of Christ, but putting a great difference between 
 them and those of the Saints." — On the Church. Appendix to 
 book iii. p. 223. 
 
 [See also Archbishop Bramhall and Thorndike, in loc. supra 
 cit.] 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 PRAYER FOR THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED. 
 
 BISHOP ANDREWES. 
 
 " Grant, O Lord, that we may all find mercy and favour with 
 all Thy Saints, who from the beginning of the world have pleased 
 Thee in their several generations, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, 
 Martyrs, and every just spirit made jierfect in the faith of Thy 
 Christ, from righteous Abel even unto this day : do Thou give 
 them and us rest in the region of the living, in the bosoms of our 
 holy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whence sorrow, grief, 
 and lamentation are banished away, where the light of Thy coun- 
 tenance visits and shines continually, and vouchsafe to bring them 
 and us to the full enjoyment of Thy heavenly kingdom." — Devo- 
 tion ^ for Fridai/.
 
 55 
 
 DEAN FIELD. 
 
 " Touching the first of these two, wliich is prayer for the 
 dead, it is well known that Protestants do not simply condemn 
 all prayers in this kind. For they i^ray for the resurrection, 
 public acquittal in the day of judgment, and the perfect consum- 
 mation and bliss of them that rest in the Lord, and the perfecting 
 of whatsoever is yet wanting unto them." — On the Church. Ap- 
 pendix to book iii. p. 221. 
 
 BISHOP OVERALL. 
 
 " The Puritans think that here is Prayer for the Dead, allowed 
 and practised by the Church of England ; and so think I : but 
 we are not both in one mind for censuring the Church for so 
 doing. They say it is popish and superstitious, I for my part 
 esteem it pious and Christian .... Besides, Prayer for the Dead 
 cannot be denied but to have been universally used of all Chris- 
 tians in the ancientest and purest time of the Church, and by 
 the Greek Fathers, who never admitted any purgatory, no more 
 than we do, and yet pray for the dead notwithstanding. What 
 though their souls be in bliss already, they may have a greater 
 degree of bliss by our prayers : and when their bodies come to be 
 raised, and joined to their souls again, they shall be sure of a 
 better state." — Additional Notes to Nicholls'' Commentary on the 
 Common Prayer. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL. 
 
 " We condemn not all praying for the dead, not for their resur- 
 rection and the consummation of their happiness, but their prayers 
 for their deliverance from Purgatory." — IVorks, p. 35G. 
 
 BISHOP FORBES. 
 
 " The Bishops of the Church of England afterwards, at the 
 suggestion and with the counsel of Bucer and others, blotted out 
 these most ancient and pious prayers, or changed them into an- 
 other, I know not what form, savouring of the novelty now in 
 vogue. But I wish the Church of England .... had rather in 
 this matter, and some few others, conformed to the custom of the
 
 56 
 
 most ancient Universal Clinrch, than for the sake of some errors 
 and abuses, which afterwards crept in by little and little, alto- 
 gether rejected and wholly taken it away, to the great scandal of 
 almost all other Christians." — Consid. Modest, part ii. cap. 3. 
 ap. Hickes. 
 
 BISHOP TAYLOR. 
 
 " Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints de- 
 parted, and indeed generally for all, it is not now seasonable to 
 discourse ; but to say this only, that such general prayers for the 
 dead as those above reckoned, the Church of England never did 
 condemn by any express article, but left it in the middle." — 
 Dissuasive from Popery. Works, vol. x. p. 147. 
 
 HAMMOND. 
 
 ** It is certain that some measure of bliss which shall at the 
 day of judgment be vouchsafed to the Saints, is not till then 
 enjoyed, and therefore may safely and fitly be prayed for them." 
 — Annotations on 2 Tim, i. 16. 
 
 BISHOP COSIN. 
 
 (Points of Agreement with the Church of Rome.) 
 
 9. " In giving thanks to God for them that are departed out of 
 this life in the true faith of Christ's Catholic Church, and in 
 praying to God that they may have a joyful resurrection, and a 
 perfect consummation of bliss, both in their bodies and souls, in 
 His eternal kingdom of glory." 
 
 [See also Bp. Cosin's Notes on the Communion and Burial 
 Services in "Additional Notes to NichoUs' Commentary."] 
 
 THORNDIKE. 
 
 " Since unity hath not been obtained by parting with the law 
 of the Catholic Church, in mine opinion, for the love of it, I 
 continue my resolution to bound Reformation by the rule of the 
 Catholic Church. Allowing that it may be matter of Reforma- 
 tion to restore the prayers that are made for the dead, to the 
 original sense of the whole Church ; but maintaining that to take
 
 57 
 
 away all prayer for the dead, is not paring off abuses, but cutting 
 to the q\iick." — Epilogue, book iii. chap. 28. p. 337. 
 
 [See also Weights and Measures, chap. 22. p. 159.] 
 
 BISHOP BULL. 
 
 " Prayers for the Dead, as founded on the hypothesis of Pur- 
 gatory (and we no otherwise reject them), fall together with it. 
 The prayers for the dead used in the Ancient Church, those I 
 mean that were more properly prayers, i. e. either deprecations or 
 petition, were of two sorts, either the common and general comme- 
 moration of all the faithful at the Holy Eucharist, or the particular 
 prayers used at the funerals of any of the faithful lately deceased, 
 8cc:'— Works, vol. ii. p. 260. 
 
 BISHOP IIICKES. 
 
 " In answer to your last question, I do assure that I am 
 heartily of Mr. Thorndike's opinion, and as truly zealous as you 
 may imagine he was, for praying for the dead who depart in the 
 faith and fear of God, and in the peace of the Church." — ^ Sup- 
 plement of Additions to the 3rd edit, of Dr. Hic'kes' two Treatises, 
 p. 4G. 
 
 BISHOP COLLIER. 
 
 " The recommending the dead to the mercy of God is no 
 innovation of the Church of Rome ; but a constant usage of the 
 Primitive Church .... I have already observed prayer for the 
 dead does not imply purgatory ; whence it follows, that though 
 the Church of England condemns the ' Romish doctrine of Pur- 
 gatory' (Art. xxii.) we cannot thence infer her dislike of Prayer 
 for the dead." — Ecclesiastical History, part ii. book iv. 
 
 LESLIE. 
 
 " ^Vliat were these prayers ? they were for peace and rest to 
 those who were supposed to be in peace, yet might receive increase 
 
 y Quoted in Brett's Dissertation on the Liturgies. See also Hickes' 
 " Christian Priesthood" and liis " Devotions," the latter work especially, where 
 his prayers for the departed miglit easily he mistaken for the composition of 
 some Roman Catholic.
 
 58 
 
 of happiness even before the resurrection, as some suppose heaven 
 itself to consist in an eternal increase of bliss : but without this 
 we may pray for continuance of peace to those who are in peace, 
 though we know it will surely be ; as when we pray, ' Thy 
 kingdom come. Thy will be done.' "We know it must be ; but 
 this shews our assent and wishes for it. And in this sense we 
 also pray for the dead, that it would please God ' shortly to 
 accomplish the number of His elect,' &:c. And we bless Him 
 for ' all His Servants departed this life,' &c. So that we pray for 
 them as well as for ourselves, that we ivith them may be partakers 
 of His heavenly kingdom." — Case stated between the Churches of 
 England and Rome. Works, vol. iii. p. 162. 
 
 WHEATLY. 
 
 '' The sentence [in the burial service] as it is still left stand- 
 ing, may well enough be understood to imply tlie dead as well 
 as the living : for we pray, as it is now, ' that we, with all those 
 departed in the true faith of God's holy name, may have our 
 perfect consummation and bliss;' which is not barely a supposi- 
 tion, that all those who are so departed will have their per- 
 fect consummation and bliss ; but a prayer also, that they may 
 have it, viz. that we with them, and they with us may be made 
 perfect together, both in body and soul, in the eternal and ever- 
 lasting glory of God."- — On the Common Prayer, chapter xii. sec. 
 4. § 2. 
 
 BRETT. 
 
 " The Scripture requires us to pray for all Saints, and also 
 plainly teaches us that the faithful departed come into that num- 
 ber. Therefore, we disobey the Scripture when we exclude the 
 faithful departed from our prayers. This the ancients never did, 
 but, as appears from all these Liturgies, and the testimony of the 
 Primitive Fathers, they always remembered them in this particu- 
 lar, whenever they celebrated the Holy Eucharist." — Liturgies, 
 p. 281. 
 
 BISHOP WILSON. 
 
 " Together with us, remember, O God, for good, the whole 
 mystical Body of Tliy Son ; that such as are yet alive may 
 finish their course with joy, and that wo, with all such as arc
 
 59 
 
 (lead ill the Lord, may rest in hope and rise in glory, for Thy 
 Son's sake, wliose death we now commemorate. Amen." — Sacra 
 Privaia. Lord's Supper, yffter Consecration. 
 
 BISHOP JOLLY. 
 
 " For the faithful departed, in this point of view, considered 
 as expectants of full felicity, and waiting in that transporting 
 hope for the coming of our Lord, the prayers of the Church hold- 
 ing communion with them here below ; for in the Body of Christ 
 death makes no division — are very warrantably presented, while 
 commemorating the death and resurrection of Christ, who to this 
 end died, and rose, and revived, that He might be the Lord, both 
 of the dead, and living. We are commanded to malce prayers 
 for all Saints ; and surely the title saints belongs in the most 
 eminent manner, to those holy souls, happy in Paradise, with 
 whom we are fellow-citizens, as being of the same household of 
 God." — The Christian Sacrijice in the Eucharist, p. 152. 
 
 To these numerous citations we might add the epitaphs of 
 many of our great divines, composed by themselves. 
 
 Thus, in Bishop Cosin's Epitaph we find " Requiescat in 
 pace," a petition very offensive to modern religionists. 
 
 Bishop Barlow's is still stronger : — 
 
 " Exuvia} Isaaci Episcopi Asaphensis in manum Domini de- 
 positae, in spem laetae resurrectionis per sola Christi merita. O 
 vos transeuntes in Domum Domini, Domum orationis, orate pro 
 conserve vestro, ut inveniat requiem in Die Domini." — Athen. 
 Oxon. vol. ii. col. 671. 
 
 APPENDIX VIII. 
 
 DESIDERATA IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 It is well known that the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth 
 contained many things which were omitted in the second Liturgy, 
 and have never been restored in subsequent revisions. jNIany 
 persons are led from this to conclude, that the omission of these 
 things was a virtual condemnation of them on the part of the
 
 60 
 
 Church, so that any desire for their restoration must be looked 
 upon as contrary to its principles, and dangerous to its safety. 
 
 The following /ac/s, however, are worthy of consideration. 
 
 1st. These Catholic practices were expunged from the Liturgy, 
 not from any aversion to them on the part of the Anglican 
 " Reformers," but solely from a desire to conciliate those con- 
 tinental theologians who thought proper to interfere with the 
 concerns of our Church. Whether our ' reformers' were justi- 
 fied or no, in suffering this intrusion from such thoroughly un- 
 catholic minds as Peter Martyr, Alasco, and Calvin, and whether 
 the consequent suppression of truth has not been highly injurious 
 to the best interests of the Church, are separate considerations ; 
 one thing, however, is certain, viz. that the English Reformers, 
 at that time, at least, had no intention of condemning those holy 
 and apostolic practices which they sacrificed for the sake of 
 peace. 
 
 2nd. The second Liturgy was never submitted for the ap- 
 proval of Convocation, but was established by parliamentary 
 authority alone — the state being then far more Protestant than 
 the Church. Yet the very Act of Parliament, from which the 
 second Liturgy derived all its authority, expressly declares that 
 the first Liturgy contained nothing but what was agreeable to 
 the Word of God, and the practice of the Primitive Church. 
 The wording is very remarkable. 
 
 1. " There was nothing contained in the said first Book, but 
 what was agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive 
 Church, very comfortable to all good people, desiring to live in 
 Christian conversation, and most profitable to the estate of this 
 realm." 
 
 2. " That svTch doubts as had been raised in the use and exer- 
 cise thereof, proceeded rather from the curiosity of the minister 
 and mistakers than of any other worthy cause." 
 
 This testimony is of the highest importance, considering what 
 things are contained in the first Liturgy, and are thus declared 
 to be agreeable to Holy Scripture and the Primitive Church. 
 For among them we find 
 
 1. The Ancient form of Sacrifice, the words "Altar" and 
 " Mass."
 
 61 
 
 2. Prayer for the faithful departed. 
 
 3. The sign of the Cross repeatedly used in each of the Sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 4. The use of Chrism in Baptism and Confirmation. 
 
 5. Extreme Unction. 
 
 This deserves the serious consideration of those who are in the 
 habit of speaking against these Primitive practices as " Popish 
 abominations," for if they are indeed agreeable to the Word of 
 God and Apostolical Antiquity, in speaking against them we 
 are fighting against God. 
 
 The subject is of the greatest practical importance to the 
 Church, with reference to two different classes of persons, namely, 
 those who do, and those who do not pay due deference to Ca- 
 tholic Antiquity. The ^former class will, in their researches into 
 Antiquity, constantly meet with the above practices, and if they 
 are taught to believe that the English Church condemns them, 
 they will naturally leave its communion. The other class con- 
 tinually meet every argument in favour of Tradition, by the 
 assertion, that however much the Church may appeal to Anti- 
 quity, it has departed from it in these points which it condemns, 
 and therefore if Antiquity be wrong in one case, it may be so 
 in another. 
 
 It is therefore not only safe and expedient, but absolutely 
 necessary to point out that these Catholic practices have never 
 been condemned by the Church, but that the want of them is 
 to be lamented as a great deficiency. But at the same time 
 this confession need not disturb those feelings of love, reverence, 
 and submission, which we are bound to entertain towards our 
 Church, but should rather tend to make us cling to her with 
 redoubled affection, as to " ^ violently treated but a holy and 
 dear possession, more dear perliaps and precious than if it were 
 in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness and infirmity endears to 
 us our friends and relatives." 
 
 And while every true Churchman will, thankfully and with 
 deep humilit}', acknowledge the blessings mercifully vouchsafed 
 
 z See " Geraldiuc," p. 113, 3rd edit, and the following extracts from some 
 of the Non-jurors. 
 
 Rev. J. H. Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussct, p. 46.
 
 C2 
 
 to him in this branch of the Church Catholic, as greater than he 
 deserves, and more than he has a right to claim, he will think it 
 no inconsistency to look back with a longing regret upon the 
 purer days of the Church's first love, and to lift a thought in 
 prayer with holy Bishop Andrewes, " that her deficiencies may be 
 supplied, and that what remains in her may be confirmed." 
 
 GRABE. 
 
 " But, notwithstanding his preference of the English Reforma- 
 tion, he did not think every thing in the best and most primitive 
 situation. For after several articles of commendation, he sub- 
 joins some Desiderata written in capitals." .... 
 
 "And here the doctor shews his dislike of not mixing water 
 with wine in the Eucharistic cup, of eating blood and things 
 strangled, and discontinuing the ancient practice of Immersion 
 in Baptism. The learned Dr. Hickes, his intimate acquaintance, 
 reports that he used to deliver his mind very freely in defence 
 of the ancient Catholic usages of all Churches. Amongst these, 
 the same learned Dr. Hickes (with his own approbation) men- 
 tions the oblation of Bread and Wine, and the Prayer of Invoca- 
 tion to God the Father, to send down the Holy Spirit upon the 
 consecrated elements, to make them the Body and Blood of His 
 Son Jesus Christ, to the communicants, not in substance, but in 
 grace and virtue. Dr. Grabe likewise declared frankly for Chrism 
 in Confirmation, for anointing the sick with oil, for Confession 
 and Judicial Absolution, for prayer for the souls of the deceased, 
 w^ho die in the faith and fear of (Jod ; for the ancient commemo- 
 ration of the Saints in the Holy Eucharist 
 
 " On his death bed he communicated by our first reformed 
 Liturgy, refusing to receive by the other. Dr. Hickes who ad- 
 ministered the Holy Eucharist, anointed him with oil. Dr. Lee 
 a learned physician communicating with him. And jiursuant to 
 the form in the first Liturgy, he left legacies in his will to be 
 remembered in liis friends' prayers." — Collier's ylppendix to 
 Moreri, vol. iv. Art. Grabe. 
 
 JHSHOP HICKES. 
 
 " As for the transient, aerial and vanishing signs of the Cross, 
 which in the ])ure ancient times were used in religious worship,
 
 03 
 
 I very much approve of the use of them, as we do in Baptism, 
 and as I Avould have done, in anointing the sick -with oil, and 
 persons confirmed with Chrism, were wc so happy as to have 
 those primitive religious rites and usages restored." — Supi')lement 
 of Additions to the '3rd ed. of Dr. Hickes' two Treatises, p. 4G. 
 
 BRETT. 
 
 " I shall endeavour as far as in me lies, to persuade the go- 
 vernors of the Church of England to make good the declaration 
 of this Church in her 30th canon of 1G03, that 'her purpose was 
 not to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Germany, 
 or any such like Churches Szc' Now it is very certain, that 
 these and all other Churches of that communion have not fallen 
 either from themselves in their ancient integrity, or from the 
 Apostolic Churches which were their first founders in the use of 
 Chrism, at Confirmation, in mixing water with the Sacramental 
 Wine, in the Eucharist as a proper Sacrifice, in the unction of 
 
 the sick, and in praying for the faithful departed This is 
 
 a matter of fact obvious to all, and therefore the Church of 
 England has indeed obliged herself to restore these and other 
 Primitive practices observed by those Churches, before they fell 
 from their integrity : otherwise she stands self-condemned by 
 her own declaration." — Necessity of Tradition. 
 
 APPENDIX IX. 
 
 SHEKLOCK ON ' SIN AFTER BAPTISM.' 
 
 The following remarks arc from the third chapter of Dean 
 Sherlock's very popular work " On Death." Those who wish to 
 refer to that part from which these extracts are taken, will find 
 a long and valuable dissertation on this awful subject. 
 
 " I believe, upon enquiry, it would be found that justification 
 by faith always alludes to this Baptismal justification, when, by 
 Baptism, we are received into Covenant with God, and into a 
 justified state, only for the sake of Christ, and through faith in 
 His Blood. Which one thing well considered, would put an end
 
 > 
 
 64 
 
 to most of the disputes about Justification, and about Faith and 
 Works." P. 271. 
 
 *' Faith and Repentance will not justify a heathen without 
 Baptism ; ' for he that believes and is baptized shall be saved,' 
 are the express terms of the Covenant ; and therefore the con- 
 dition of apostates is very hopeless, who are relapsed into such 
 a state, that nothing but Baptismal grace and Regeneration, 
 nothing but being new made, and new born, can save them ; and 
 that they cannot have, for they must not be baptized again. A 
 Christian must be but once born, no more than a man is ; which 
 possibly is the reason why St. Peter tells us of such apostates, 
 that their latter end is worse with them than their beginning, 
 (2 Pet. ii. 20.) For Jews and heathens, how wicked soever they 
 were, might wash away all their sins in Baptism ; but such 
 apostates are like a sow that was washed, that returns again to 
 her wallowing in the mire. When they had washed away their 
 sins and infidelity in Baptism, they return to their forsaken 
 paganism again, and lose the effect of their first washing, and 
 there is no second Baptismal washing to be had. ... If any 
 such men be saved, they must be saved, as I observed before, 
 by uncovenanted grace and mercy, they are in the state of un- 
 ^^^aptized Jews and heathens, not of Christians, who have a cove- 
 jl^nant right to God's promises. And I would desne the baptized 
 
 theists and infidels of our age to consider of this What 
 
 I have now discoursed, plainly shews that a baptized Christian 
 must not always expect to be saved by such grace as saves and 
 justifies in Baptism : Baptismal Grace is inseparably annexed to 
 Baptism, and can be no more repeated than Baptism. This 
 makes the case of apostates so desperate, that infidelity can be 
 washed away only in Baptism, and those who apostatize after 
 Baptism can never be rebaptizcd again ; and therefore can never 
 have ai^- covenant title to pardon and forgiveness." Pp. 278, 
 279. 
 
 [See also Bishop Taylor on Repentance, chap. viii. sec. 2, .3, 4. 
 Also Thorndike's " Epilogue," and Rights of the Church, chap, i.] 
 
 r^T 
 
 -% 
 
 oxronD: 
 rniNTri) uv i. siiuimpton.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library from which It was borrowed. 
 
 ^
 
 3 1158 01099 5545 
 
 AA 000 979 253 2