^1^ 
 
 A 
 
 A: 
 
 ; 
 
 i 
 
 o! 
 
 5 i 
 1 i 
 
 7 I 
 
 3 I 
 
 1 i 
 i 
 
 ^^.^gt^^r<^^ 
 
 "^^fT" 
 
 ■^p ■^^^-««*Ej> 
 
 , "S 
 
 r"
 
 
 V 
 
 \^' 
 
 ^^■^^ 
 
 -V- If U'l-^ 
 
 :;
 
 
 m
 
 <
 
 TUB CHURCH. 
 
 We return to the charge of the Bishop of Exeter, which, 
 as we hare already stated, enters at large into the merits of 
 the Oxford tract writers. 
 
 EFFECTS OF THE WHITINGS OF THE TRACTARIANS. 
 
 " The result of their unauthorised teaching has, upon the] 
 whole, I firmly believe, been highly useful, to not only of 
 sacred learning, but also of true religion. Whatever may 
 be the clamour with which they have been assailed, andl 
 while I think that in some important particulars they have 
 erred in doctrine, and in others, both important and unim- 
 portant, they have been injudicious in their recommenda 
 tions of matters of practice, and still more, perhaps, in 
 the manner in which they have set forth their views 
 both of doctrine and practice, still I do not scruple 
 to repeat the avowal 1 made three years ago, of my 
 own deep sense of the debt the Church owe* to the 
 authors of these tracts. The candid ecclesiastical his- 
 torian of the nineteenth century, whatever else he 
 might say of these men, will speak of them as having 
 largely contributed by their own energy, and by exciting the 
 zeal and energies of others, to the revival of a spirit of in- 
 quiry into the doctrines of our primitive fathers — into the 
 constitution of our Church, and generally into the prin- 
 ciples of our Christian faith, which has spread with a degree 
 of rapidity and usefulness to the cause of truth wholly un- 
 exampled since the days of Cranmer. But I will not 
 enlarge on these topics. He whose station best entitled 
 him til speak of those writers — their own venerable dio 
 tesan — has already anticipated me. My only object is to 
 do an act of simple justice, at whatever hazard, of sharing 
 in the obloquy which has been most unjustly heaped, not 
 only up"n the tract ivriters themselves, but upon many who, 
 ditf -m them upon many important ])ointa, as I have 
 
 d»i ■ Helf ti> differ, do yet regard thsm with respect 
 
 and gratitude, as good, pious, ana able men, who have 
 laboureJ most earnestly, and, on the whole, most bene- 
 ficially, in the service of the Church of Christ."
 
 % 
 
 J SRLP 
 
 URL 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN THE 
 THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 2 
 
 § 1. Articles vi. & XX. — Holy Scripture, and the Autho- 
 rity of the Church 5 
 
 § 2. 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 Q,^ 
 
 §12. Article xxxvii. — The Bishop of Rome 77 
 
 Conclusion 80 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. B
 
 Tntrodttclion. 
 
 It is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there 
 are in the Articles ])ropositions 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 furtiier of 
 approximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which 
 most men have an implicit apprehension, though they may have 
 nothing more. That there are real difficulties to a Catholic 
 Christian in the Ecclesiastical position of our Church at this day, 
 no one can deny ; but the statements of the Articles are not in 
 the number ; and it may be right at the present moment to insist 
 upon this. If in any quarter it is supposed that persons who 
 profess to be disciples of the early Church will silently concur 
 with those of very opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation 
 of 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. Kcligious 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 it notinennt to hinder acta of Catholic consent, <iich as occurred an- 
 cicnlly, when the Catholic body aids one portion of a particular Church against 
 another portion.
 
 Introduction. 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 feel we have received from above, from an ill-regulated, untrue 
 desire of unity, but returning to each other in heart, and coming 
 
 B 2
 
 4 Introduction. 
 
 together to God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, no 
 change can be for the better. Till her members are stirred up 
 to this religious course, let the Church sit still; let her be con- 
 tent to be in bondage ; let her work in chains ; let her submit to 
 her imperfections as a punishment ; let her go on teaching with 
 the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies, and inconsistent 
 precedents, and principles but partially developed. We are not 
 better than our fathers ; let us bear to be what Hammond was, 
 or 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, through God's good providence, to say 
 the least, not uncatholic, and may be subscribed by those who 
 aim at being catholic in heart and doctrine. In entering upon 
 the proposed 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, that 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 ; for some of them, — as, for 
 
 ^ The passages in brackets relate to rites and ceremonies which are not here 
 in question.
 
 6 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 11. 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 
 to St. Augustine, that those Ixjoks which are not received by all 
 
 > De Doctr. Chriil. ii. 8.
 
 Ilohj Scripture and the Aatuorkij of the Church. 7 
 
 the Churches, 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 confirmation 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." {Prcef. ad Reges.) 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 imply that he considers that it contains no deadly 
 heresy or dangerous mistake. And about its simplicity, majesty, 
 gravity, harmony, and venerableness, there can be but one 
 opinion. 
 
 3. Next we come to the main point, the adjustment which 
 this Article 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 ; 6. but may not expound one 
 passage of Scripture to contradict another ; 7. nor enfoice as an 
 article of faith any point not contained in Scripture. 
 
 From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and eiforces 
 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 Scripture and the Authority 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 the Church 
 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 jjhrase ' 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 uj) in the Creed, and 
 not the Bible, the liegula Fidei, or Uiile. Moreover, its use as 
 a technical phrase, seems to be of late introduction in the Church, 
 that is, since the days of King William the Third. Our groat 
 divines use it without any fixed sense, sometimes for Scripture, 
 sometimes for the whole and perfectly adjusted Christian doc- 
 trine, sometimes for the Creed ; and, at the risk of being tedious, 
 we will |)rove this, by quotations, that the point may be put 
 beyond dispute. 
 
 " Ussher, after St. Austin, identifies it with the Creed;— when
 
 Hohj Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 9 
 
 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 Flis 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. S46. 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 Rule of Faith; 
 since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the 
 Tn>o Regular Precepts, by which a divine is governed about his 
 faith,' &c. — Conference rvith Fisher, p. 42. 
 
 " Bramhall also : ' The Scriptures and the Creed are not two 
 different Rules of Faith, but one and the same Ride, 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 {De 
 Rat. fin. Controv. p. Hi, &'C.). Elsewhere, Stillingfleet calls 
 Scripture the Rule (/6/rf. i. C. 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,' he says, ' what is the Rule of that judgment whereby 
 the Church discerneth between truth and falsehood, the faith and heresy, and 
 to whom it properly pertaineth to interpret those things which, touching this 
 Rule, are doubtful. The Rule of our Faith in general, whereby we know it to 
 be true, is tiie infinite excellency of God.... It being pre-supposed in the 
 generality that the doctrine of the Christian Faith is of God, and containeth 
 nothing but heavenly truth, in the next place, we are to inquire by what Rule 
 we are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of it. 
 
 *" This Rule is, I. 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. All such things as every Christian is bound expressly to believe, by the 
 light and direction whereof he judgeth of other things, which are not absolutely 
 necessary so particularly to be known. These are rightly said to be the Rule 
 of our Faith, because the principles of every science arc the Rule whereby we 
 judge of the truth of all tilings, as being better and more generally known than 
 any oilier 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 .BooA-* were delivered unto us, as written by them, to whom 
 the first and immediate revelation of the divine truth was made. 
 
 "'.'i. Whatsoever hath been delivered by all the saints with one consent, 
 which have left their judgment and opinion in writing. 
 
 " ' fj. Whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, 
 aa 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 tlicni, in such sort 
 that the contradictors and gainsaycrs were in their beginnings noted for singu- 
 larity, novelty, and divinioii, and afterwards, in process of time, if they persisted 
 in such contradiction, charged with heresy. 
 
 " ' These throe latter Rules of our Faith we admit, not because they arc equal 
 with the former, and ori(ririiilly in ihcniselvi's contain the diriTlioii of our Fjiilh, 
 but because nothing ran be delivered, with such and so full consent of the
 
 Holy Scripture and the Authority 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 Romanists 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, vee 
 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 infen-ed. 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, but that other 
 things in their kiiid 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. — Just'if cation hij 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- 
 vient of justification. Now, to show briefly what such statements 
 imply, and what they do not. 
 
 1. They do not imply a denial o^ Baptism as a means and an 
 instrument of justification ; which the Homilies elsewhere affirm, 
 as will be shown incidentally in a later section. 
 
 " The instrumental power of Faith cannot interfere with the 
 instrumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is the sole 
 justifier, not in contrast to all means and agencies whatever, 
 (for it is not surely in contrast to our Lord's merits, or God's 
 mercy,) but to all other graces. When, then, Faith is called the 
 sole instrument, this means the sole internal instrument, not the 
 sole instrument of any kind. 
 
 " There is nothing inconsistent, then, in Faith being the sole 
 instrument of justification, and yet Baptism also the sole instru- 
 ment, and that at the same time, because in distinct senses ; an 
 inward instrument in no way interfering with an outward instru- 
 ment, Baj)tism 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 aUo. And that it is a mean, 
 the Homily of Alnis-decds declares in the strongest language, as 
 will also be quoted in Section 1 1. 
 
 *' 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 
 jii8tinc>, this would be a contradiction in terms ; but Faith only 
 may justify in one sense — Good Works in another: — and this is 
 all tliat is here maintained. After all, does not Christ only 
 justify ? How is it that the doctrine of Faith justifying does not
 
 Justijication 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, ori:he 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 
 beoran 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 Justijicat'ion. 
 
 Articles xii. S: 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 hatli 
 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 SriiiiT." 
 
 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 
 afier " are pleasing and acceptable (grata et accepta) to God," 
 
 Two propositions, mentioned in these Articles, remain, and 
 deserve consideration : First, tiiat works before justification do 
 not make or dispose men to receive grace, or, .is the school 
 writers say, deserve grace of congruity ; secondly, that works 
 nftcr •• cannot j)ut away our sins, and endure the severity of 
 God's judgment."
 
 Works before and after Justification. 15 
 
 1. As to the former statement, — to deserve de congruo, or of 
 congruity, is to move the Divine regard, not from any claim upon 
 it, but from a certain fitness or suitableness ; as, for instance, it 
 might be said that dry wood had a certain disposition or fitness 
 towards heat which green wood had not. Now, the Article 
 denies that works done before the grace of Christ, or in a 
 mere state of nature, in this way dispose towards grace, or 
 move God to grant grace. And it asserts, with or without 
 reason, (for it is a question of historical fact, which need not 
 specially concern us,) that certain schoolmen maintained the 
 aflBrmative. 
 
 Now, that this is what it means, is plain from the following 
 passages of the Homilies, which in no respect have greater claims 
 upon us than as comments upon the Articles : — 
 
 " Therefore they that 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. 460. 
 
 To take a passage which is still more clear : 
 
 " As these examples are not brought in to the end that we should thereby 
 take a boldness to sin, presuming on the mercy and goodness of God, but to the 
 end that, if, through the 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 miglit a>id 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
 
 16 Works before and after Justification. 
 
 being an actually existing one. Men are not always either in 
 light or in darkness, but are sometimes between the two ; they are 
 sometimes not in a state of Christian justification, yet not utterly 
 deserted by God, but in a state something like that of Jews or of 
 Heathen, turning to the thought of religion. They are not gifted 
 with hahitual grace, hut they still are visited by Divine influences, 
 or by oc^t/cf^ 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, 6<?/o?e 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 tlicm 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. 
 
 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 tlie Article, " grata," " pleasing to God ;" 
 and they are accepted, " accepta ;" which means tliat 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."
 
 17 
 
 § 4. — The Visible Church. 
 
 Art. xix. — "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of 
 faithful men (ccetus fidelium), in the which the pure Word of 
 God is preached, and the 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/ G'od 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 pious." Theodoret : " The 
 Apostle calls the Church the assembly of the faithful." Pope 
 Gregory : " The Church, a multitude of the faithful collected of 
 both sexes." Bede : " The Church is the congregation of all 
 saints." Alcuin : " The 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 Church." 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. c
 
 18 The Visible Church. 
 
 Hugo Victorinus : " The Holy Church, that is, the university of 
 the faithful." Arnulphus : "Tlie Church is called tlie congre- 
 gation of the faithful." Albertus Mngnus : " The Greek word 
 Church means in Latin convocation ; and whereas works and 
 callings belonj; 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 whici 
 divers offices are celebrated ; in another spiritual, which is the 
 collection of the faithfd." Alvarus : " The Church is the multi- 
 tude of the faithful, or the university of Cliristians." Pope 
 Pius n. : " The Church is the multitude of the faithful dispersed 
 througli all nations." Estius, Chancellor of Douay : " There is 
 a controversy between Catholics and heretics as to what the word 
 Church means. John Huss, and the heretics of our day who 
 follow him, define the Church to be the university of the predes- 
 tinate ; Catholics define it to be the society of those who are 
 joined to each other by a right faith and the sacraments^." 
 
 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 rvhat a Church is, but is descri- 
 bing, and, as it were, pointing to the Catholic Church 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 Word and Sacraments is 
 mentioned as a further note of it. As to the question of its 
 limits, whether Episcopal Succession or whetlicr intercommunion 
 with the whole be necessary to each part of it, — these are ques- 
 tions, most important indeed, but of detail, and are not treated of 
 in tiie Articles. 
 
 This view is further illustrated by ilie following passage from 
 the Homily for Wliitsunday : — 
 
 " Our Saviour Ciiriht departing out of tlip world unto His Fatiikr, promised 
 Hiw DiacipleH to nend down anollicr CoMroHTl'.n, tliat should continue willi (liein 
 fur ever, and direct them into ail truth. Wliicli thing, to be raillifuliy nnd 
 truly performed, the Scriptures do sufficiently bear witness. Neither must we 
 
 * These instances arc from Launoy.
 
 The Visible Church. 19 
 
 think that this Comforter was either promised, or else given, only to the Apos- 
 tles, but also to the universal Church of Christ, dispersed through the whole 
 world. For, unless the Holy Ghost had been always present, governing and 
 preserving the Church from the beginning, it could never have suffered so 
 many and great brunts of affliction and persecution, with so little damage and 
 harm as it Iiath. 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 ill 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 u-hole body 0/ 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 Rom& therewith, 
 to discern how well they agree together. The true Church is an universal 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 Goi), 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 quoted, not for all it contains, but in that re- 
 spect in which it claims attention, viz. as far as it is an illustration 
 of the Article. It is spe.iking of the one Catholic Church, not 
 
 c 2
 
 20 The Visible Church. 
 
 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," &f., which as closely corresponds to the coelus 
 Jidelium, or " congregation of faithful men" of the Article, as the 
 above descriptions from Fathers or Divines do. Therefore, the 
 coelus 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 
 witiiout 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, 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-evident 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, unless in any case it is 
 promised, as a matter of express supernatural privilege, that they 
 shall 7iot 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 qualidj, found at limes 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 jjather- 
 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 tlie pope. 
 
 Another ol^ these conditions, however, the Article goes on to 
 mention, viz. tliat 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 CEcumenical 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 
 bishops, for of conference never saw I good come, or a remedy so much as an 
 increase of evils. For there is strife and ambition, and these have the upper 
 hand of reason." — Ep. 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.
 
 23 
 
 § 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 purgatory, pardons, and image-worship, is spoken against. 
 Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the 
 Romish doctrine. Accordingly, the Primitive doctrine is not 
 condemned in it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the 
 Romish, which must not be supposed. Now there nas 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. 
 
 This is clear without proof on the face of the matter, at 
 least as regards pardons. Of course, the Article never meant 
 to make light of every doctrine about pardons, but a certain 
 doctrine, the Romish doctrine. 
 
 And a verification of such an understanding of the Article is 
 aflforded 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
 
 24 Purgatory, Pardons, Images, 
 
 see what authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that most 
 ancient history give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius." 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the Emperor, 
 saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it. She worshipped the King, 
 and not the wood, surely (for that is an heathenish error and the vanity of the 
 wicked) but she worshipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name 
 was written on the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's fact, and 
 St. Ambrose's judgment at once j they thought it had been an heathenish error, 
 and vanity of the wicked, to have worshipped the Cross itself, which was embrued 
 with our S.wioi R Christ's own precious blood." — Peril of Idolatry, part 2, 
 circ. ill it. 
 
 In these passages the writer docs not positively commit 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. 
 
 If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine con- 
 cerning 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 doctrine, because this Article was drawn up before the 
 decree 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 Rovian schools; a conclusion wliich is still more clear, by 
 considering that there are portions in the Tridentine doctrine on 
 these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning, by antici- 
 pation approves, as far as they go. For instance, tlie Decree of 
 Trent enjoins concerning purgatory thus : — " Among the un- 
 educated vulgar let dijjicutt and nubile rptestions, wliich make not 
 for edification, and seldom contribute aught towards piety, be 
 kept back from popular discourses. Neither let them sufler 
 llie public mention and treatment of uncertain points, or such 
 aH look like falsehood." Session 25. Again, about images : 
 " Due honour and veneration is to be paid unto them, not 
 that we believe that any divinity or virtue is in them, for
 
 Relics, Invocation of Samls. 25 
 
 which they should be worshipped (colendae) or that we should 
 ask any thing of them, or that trust should be reposed in images, 
 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 doc- 
 trine, 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 the flames which attend the Judge, 
 will be an ordeal through which all men will pass ; that great 
 saints, such as St. Mary, will pass it unharmed ; that others will 
 suffer loss ; but none will fail under it who are built upon 
 the right foundation. Here is one " doctrine concerning 
 purgatory" 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 poena damni, 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 of private 
 belief; not that they are here advocated, one or other, but they 
 are adduced as an illustration of what the Article does not mean, 
 and to vindicate our Chfistian liberty in a matter where the 
 Church has not confined it. 
 
 On the other hand, what the doctrine is which is reprobated, 
 is plain, from the following passage of the Homilies : — 
 
 " Now doth St. Augustine say, that those men which are cast into prison 
 after this life, on that condition, may in no wise be holpen, 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 1 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 is plain, from this passage, that the Purgatory contem- 
 plated 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 unchangeable, and cannot be revoked again ; there 
 is no place for repentance." On tlie 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 baliolding the face of God. 
 Tl)e Homily, then, and therefore the Article, 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 conditional 
 sense of the terms of the Article now under consideration. Por 
 such prayers are obwously not condemned in it in the abstract,
 
 Purgatory. 27 
 
 or in every shape, but as offered to rescue the lost from eternal 
 fire. 
 
 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 house, 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, thA 
 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 tiie living; and the sister 
 of St. Damianus, being too much pleased with bearing 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 wise j 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 Gentries, taking them 
 away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by authority." 
 — Jer. Taylor, Works, vol. x. pp. 151, 152. 
 
 Another specimen of doctrine, which no one will attempt to 
 prove from Scripture, is the following : — 
 
 " 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
 
 28 Purgatory. 
 
 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, tliere they found St. Michael the Archangel 
 and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Si. 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, affording 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 proved by Miracle, by S. Johnson, pp. 8 — 10. 
 
 2. Pardons, or Indulgences. 
 
 The history of the rise of the Reformation will interjiret " the 
 Romish doctrine concerning pardons," without going further, 
 Burnet thus speaks on the subject. 
 
 " In the primitive church there were very severe rules mnde, obliging all that 
 had sinned publicly (and they were afterwards applied to such as had sinned 
 secretly) to continue for many years in a slate of separation from the Sacrament, 
 and of penance and discipline. But because all such general rules admit of a 
 great variety of circumstances, taken from men's sins, their persons, 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, aa the Popes came to take this power in 
 the whole extent of it into their own hatids, 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 tnen were strangely possessed with 
 the terror of it: so a deliverance from purgatory, and by consequence an imme- 
 diate admiiiion into heaven, was believed to be the certain effect of it. Multi-
 
 Pardons. 29 
 
 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 they 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 Reformation : 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 this 
 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 aiSxed 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 Church in this 
 matter, and decreed that indulgences should be continued ; only they restrained 
 some abuses, in particular that of selling 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,
 
 so Pardons. 
 
 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, eitiier 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. 
 
 " 1. That a most scandalous and unchristian dissolution and death of 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 theChuicli, are 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 is meant by so many years of pardon, and 
 so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural inter|)ri-t3tion of it; 
 and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are but fantiutical, 
 and not true; and in tliis I find no fault, save only that it ought to have been 
 ■aid, that all of ihcm are fantastical. 
 
 " 3. It were fit we learned how to compute four thousand and ciglit Inindrcd 
 yearn of quarantines, and a remifsion of a third part of nil their sins; for so 
 much is given to every brother and sister of this fraternity, upon Kaster-day, 
 and eight dayt after. Now if a brother necd« nut thus many, it would be cun- 
 lidercd whether it did not encourage a brother or a frail sister to use all their 
 medicine, and sin more freely, lc»t lo great a gift become uselei*. 
 
 " 4. .Ku(\ ihii it io murh the more considrralile because the gift is vast 
 bcyotiil lU iiiia^'iiiation. The first four days in Lent they may purchase thirty-
 
 Images and Relics. 3 1 
 
 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 purgatory. The fourth week in Lent, 
 threescore thousand years of pardon, besides a remission of two-thirds of all 
 their sins, and one plenary remission, and one soul delivered. The fifth week, 
 seventy-nine thousand years of pardon, and the deliverance of two souls ; only 
 the two thousand seven hundred years 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 shall, upon these days, visit the altar in the church of St. Hilary. And 
 this runs on to the Fridays, and many festivals, and other solemn days in the 
 other parts of the year." — Jer. Taylor, vol. xi. p. 53 — 56. 
 
 The pardons then, spoken of in the Article, are large and 
 reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money 
 payments. 
 
 3. Veneration and worshipping of Images and 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, 
 would kneel before men, carpenters, masons, plasterers, founders, and gold- 
 smiths, their makers and framers, by whose means they have attained this 
 lionour, 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 confesselh, say- 
 ing, ' I was once a vile block, but now I am become a god,' &c. What a 
 fond thing is it for man, who hath life and reason, to bow himself to a dead and 
 insensible image, the work of his own hand ! Is not this stooping and kneeling 
 before them, which is forbidden so earnestly by God's word? 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,
 
 32 Imases and Relics 
 
 o' 
 
 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 be/ore 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, burii incense, offer up 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 sailh 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 
 lying 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 
 •hip could not carry; or Jupiter Olympius, 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- 
 i«h weather. Some spake more monstrously than ever did Balaam's ass, who 
 had life and breath in him. Such a cripple came and saluted this saint of oak, 
 and by and by he was made whole ; and, lo ! here hangeth 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 
 
 ■ee where his fetters hang." " The Relics we must kiss and offer unto, 
 
 ipecially on Relic Sunday. And while we oiTer, (that we should not be weary, 
 or repent us of our cost,) the music and minstrthy goeth merrily all the oflier- 
 tory time, with praiiting and calling upon those saints, whose relics be then in 
 presence. Yea, and the water also, wherein those relict have been dipped, 
 
 must with great reverence be reserved, a* very holy and efTectuous." 
 
 " Because Relics were to gainful, few places were there but they had Relict 
 provided for them. And for more plenty of Rclic», tome one saint had many 
 heads, one in one place, and another in another place. Some had six arms,
 
 Images and Relics. 33 
 
 "a 
 
 and twenty-six fingers. And where our Lord bare His cross alone, if all the 
 pieces of the relics thereof were gathered together, the greatest ship in England 
 would scarcely bear them ; 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 tiling 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 offeredunto for 
 a relic. For rather than they would lack a relic, they would offer you a horse 
 hone 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 also have far exceeded them in all vrickedness, 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 of 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. 
 
 In another place the 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 
 ivell-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 decldng, most differing from their sober 
 and godly lives. And because the whole pageant must throughly be played, 
 VOL. VI. 90. D
 
 84 Images and Relics 
 
 s 
 
 it is not enough thus to deck idols, but at last come in the priests themselves, 
 likewise decked v?ith 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 ihey pass forth before these golden puppets, and fall doivn to the 
 ground on their marrow-bones before these honourable idols ; and then rising 
 up again, offer up odours and incense unto them, to give the people an example 
 of double idolatrj', by worshipping not only the idol, but the gold also, and 
 riches, wherewith it is garnished. Which thing, the most part of our old 
 Martyrs, rather than they would do, or once kneel, 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 
 than 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 heads, and no man covereth them, are 
 pined with hunger and thirst, and no man giveth them a penny to refresh them ; 
 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 thirit." — 
 Ilomihj on Peril of Idolatry, p. 219—222. 
 
 Again, with a covert allusion to the abuses of the day, the 
 Ilomilist 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 them, think- 
 ing that an high merit before God, and to be cilecmed above the precepts and 
 commandment* of God." — Homily on Good Works, p. 42.
 
 Irtiages and Relics. 35 
 
 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 tliey 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, sliould 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, 46. 
 
 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 
 
 D 2
 
 36 Invocation oj Saints. 
 
 cease from sin ; and to be profited by " pilgrimage-going," in 
 which " Lady Venus and her son Cupid were rather worshipped 
 wantonly in the flesh, than God the Father, and our Saviour 
 Christ His Son, truly worshipped in the Spirit?" 
 
 Here again it is remarkable tliat, urged by the truth of the 
 allegation, tl;e 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 setup All superstition also in invocation of saints, 
 
 veneration of relics, and sacred use of intyiges, be put away; 3.\\ filthy lucre be 
 cast out of doors ; and all wantonness be avoided ; so that images be not painted 
 or adorned u-ith 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. 
 
 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 tlie righteous," and in the Benedictus, St. 
 John Baptist. 
 
 Nor is it a " fond" invocation to pray tliat unseen beings may 
 bless us ; for this Bishop Andrews does in his Morning Prayer, 
 supplicating that " the Angel of peace, a faithful guide, may go 
 before us, ever suggesting what is salutary." Indeed it is not 
 unnatural, if" the seven Angels before the throne " have sent us, 
 through St. John the Evangelist, " grace and peace," that we, in 
 turn, should send up our thouglits and desires to them. 
 
 On the other hand, judging from the example set us in the 
 Honiilies themselves, invocations are 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 ititcrjcclions. The I loniilist 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.
 
 Invocation of Saints. 37 
 
 " 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, 
 heaven, O earth, and seas^, what madness and wickedness against God are 
 men fallen into ! What dishonour do the creatures to their Creator and 
 Maker ! And if 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 /ttrn/rom <Ae 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. 
 
 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. ApoUin, &c. Neither do beasts nor cattle lack 
 their gods with us ; for St. Loy is the horse-leech, and St. Anthony the swine- 
 herd."— /6?U, p. 188. 
 
 The same subject is introduced in connexion with a lament 
 ' O coelum, o terra, o maria Neptuni. Terent. Adelph. v. 3.
 
 88 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 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 sucVi 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, singing, chanting, and playing upon the organs, that we could before V 
 But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice, and give God thanks, that our 
 churches are delivered of all those things which displeased God so sore, and 
 filthily defiled his house and his place of prayer, for the whicii 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, are utterly abolished, as they most justly 
 deserved : and yet those things that either God was honoured with, or his 
 people edified, are decently retained, and in our churches comely practised." — 
 On the Place and Time of Prayer, pp. 293, 294. 
 
 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 
 a> may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that He understand better than our- 
 selves what we lack, and how far wc have need of help. If these things be to 
 be found in any other, saving only GoD, then may wc lawfully call upon some 
 other besides God. But what man is so gross, but he well underslandcth that 
 thcte things are only proper to Him who is omnipotent, and knoweth all 
 thing!, even the very secrets of the heart ; that is to say, only and to GoD 
 alone? Whereof it followelh that wc must call neither upon angel, nor yet 
 upon saint, but only and solc-ly upon God, as St. Paul doth write: ' How shall 
 0)cn call upon Him, in whom they have not believed?' So that invocation or 
 prayer m«y not be made without faith in Him on whom they call j but that wc 
 must first believe in Him before wc can make our prayer unto Him, whereupon
 
 Invocation of Saints. 39 
 
 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 searcheth 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 therefore is this, 
 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 lo 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 suflScient 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
 
 40 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 hands. When Paul healed a certain lame man, which was impotent in his 
 feet, at Lystra, the people would have done sacrifice unto him and Barnabas ; 
 who, rending their clothes, refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true 
 God. Likewise in the Revelation, when St. John fell before the angel's feet to 
 worship him, the angel would not permit him to do it, but 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 donn in ivorship. 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 organ, and of invoking 
 saints as 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 
 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 tlicm ; wherefore neither is the 
 priest wont to say, / offer sacrifice to ihce, 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 Hisho]) Andrews' answer to Cardinal 
 Perron : — 
 
 " This one point is needful to be observfd lliroughout ull the Cardinal's 
 answer, that he lialh framed to himself five distinctions: — (1.) Vtaycr direct, 
 and jirayer oblique, or indirect. (2.) Prayer absolute, and prayer relative. 
 (3.) Prayer lovereign, and prayer subaltern. (4.) Prayer final, and prayer 
 transitory. (6.) Prayer sacrificial, and pr.iycr out of, or from the sacrifice. 
 Prayer direct, absolute, final, sovereign, sarrifirial, that nnist not be made to the 
 saints, but to God only : but as for prayer oblique, relative, transitory, subaltern, 
 from, or out of the sacrifice, tliat (saith he) wc may make to the saints.
 
 Invocation of Saints. 41 
 
 " 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 minus principaliter. (3.) Primarie et secundarie : Ca- 
 piendo striate et capiendo large. And, as for ultimate, principaliter, primarie et 
 capiendo stride, they concluded it must go to God : but non 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 ^ra^er relative, 
 and 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 not. 
 
 " 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 some 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 ' Succurre miseris, juva pusillanimes, resolve flebiles, accipe quod 
 oiferimus, dona quod rogamus, excusa quod timemus,' &c. &c 
 
 "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 \\\ai prier pour prier, is not all, but 
 that ' Tu dona ccelum, Tu laxa, Tu sana, Tu solve crimina, Tu due, conduc, 
 indue, perdue ad gloriani; Tu serva, Tu fer opem, Tu aufer, Tu confer vitam,' 
 are said to them (totidem verbis) : more than which catinot be said to God hijn- 
 self. And again, ' Hie nos solvat a peccatis. Hie nostros tergat reatus, Hie 
 arma conferat. Hie hostem fuget, Haec gubernet. Hie aptet tun conspectui ;' 
 which i{ ihey he not direct and absolute, it would be asked of them, what is 
 absolute or direct ?" — Bishop Andrews' Answer to Chapter XX. of Cardiiial 
 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-
 
 42 Invocation of Saints. 
 
 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 God. 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 gods, but as able to 
 gain from God what they wish. However, it must be observed, when we say, 
 that nothing should be asked of saints but their prayers for us, the question is 
 not about the words, but the 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.
 
 § 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 lationem,) 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 nith an outward sign ordained of Goo. 
 
 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 has 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- 
 ries 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
 
 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 " accordins 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 q/" 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 law 
 either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from mar- 
 riage." Art. xxxii. 
 
 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. Augustin] calleth sacraments holy 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 appeareth, 
 tliat 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. 2W>, 2UT. 
 
 Accordingly, starting with this definition of St. Augustine's, the 
 writer is necessarily carried on as follows : — 
 
 " You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our 
 Saviour Ciiuist, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in 
 due time and order, and fur such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them 
 to be received. And as fur the number of them, if they should be considered 
 according to the exact lignificalion of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs 
 expressly commanded in the Nev» Testament, whercunfo is annexed the pro- 
 mise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in CiiRi.sT,
 
 The Sacraments. 45 
 
 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 tiiis 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 sicch sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And 
 though 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 
 tlie 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 limiting it to the two principal rites of the Christian 
 Church, is also contained in the Catechism, as well as alluded to 
 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-
 
 46 The Sacraments. 
 
 merits] ; we do not strictly determine the number. We define 
 the word generally to be an 'outward sign of an inward grace,' 
 without saying to how many ordinances this applies. However, 
 what we do determine is, that Christ has ordained two special 
 sacraments, as generally necessary to salvation. This, then, is 
 the characteristic mark of those two, separating them from all 
 other whatever ; and this is nothing else but saying in other 
 words that they are the only justifying rites, or instruments of 
 communicating the Atonement, which is the one thing necessary 
 to us. Ordination, for instance, gives power, yet without making 
 the soul 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 barrier 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. — Transuhstant'iat'ion. 
 
 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, overthroweth 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 
 hold that the only substance such, is the bread which we see. 
 
 This is plain from Article xxix., which quotes St. Augustine 
 as speaking of the wicked as "carnally and visibly pressing with 
 their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," 
 not the real substance, a statement which even the Breviary 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 first he took in his arms and kissed, but did eat him up presently in his 
 other shape, in ihe shape of a wafer. • Speciosa certd pax nebulonis, ut qui
 
 48 Transuhstantiation. 
 
 oris prsebuerat basium, dentium inferret exitium,' said Berengaiius: ' 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 Jhe 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 
 pieceof 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 Kap\ac>6Sovriq, and to 
 have such 'saws in their mouths :' these 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 witij His divinity." — On the Real 
 Pretence, II. 
 
 And again : — 
 
 " They that deny the tpiritiial sense, and aflirm the natural, are to remember 
 (hat (-'mkist reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And 
 by the way let nic observe, that the expressions of sonic chief men among the 
 Romanists are so rude and crass, that it will be impossible to excuse them from 
 the understanding the words in the sense of the men of Capernaum ; for, as they 
 undcritood CiiiiisT to mean His ' true flesh natural and proper,' so do they : as 
 they thoiiBhl CiiiilsT intended they shoulil trar Ilim with their teeth and suck His 
 blood, fur which (hey were ufTciided ; so do these men not only think so, but 
 tay Ko, and arc not ofTcndcd. So said .Alaniis, ' Asscrlissime loquimur, corpus 
 Chriiili vcre a nubii contrectari, uianducnri, circumgcsluti, dcnlibus teri 
 [ground by the teeth], tensibiliter sarrificari [sensibly sacrificed], non minus
 
 Transuhstantiation, 49 
 
 quam ante consecrationem 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, spendeih 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.' .... Tlie 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 de 
 Voragine was among the Latins) in the life of Arsenius, .... how that a little 
 child was seen upon the altar, and an angel cutting 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. 62 — 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 Transuhstanlialion. 
 
 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.' lie 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 vv-ere 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 tliat 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." — Boivden' s Life of Gregory VH., vol. ii. p. 243. 
 
 Another illustration of the sort of doctrine ofTercd 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 introsusception, vvliich 
 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 Duraiidus, who 
 thought it probable that the substance of the body of Christ in the 
 Eucharist was without magnitude; and that of certain ancients, 
 which Occam seems afterwards to have followed, that though it has 
 magnitude, (which they think not really separable from substance,) 
 yet every part is so penetrated by every other, that the body of 
 CiiKisT is without Jignrc, without distinction and order of parts." 
 With this he contrasts the doctrine which, he maintains, is that of 
 the Chiirih of Rome as well as the general doctrine of the schools, 
 that " in the KuchariHt wiiole Christ exists with niaf^nilnde and 
 all accidents, except that relation to a heavenly location which He 
 has as He is in heaven, and those things which are concomitants
 
 Transubstantiatlon. 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 
 den\ing a "mutatio panis et 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 requires 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 Transuhstant'iatton. 
 
 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 [j. e. carnal] 
 presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood." 3. That " the 
 sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural 
 substances." 4. That to adore 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. c. in locality] 
 of "Chkist'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 j^resence at all of His 
 body and blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here ? How 
 can there be any presence, yet not local ? 
 
 Yet that this is the meaning of the parograjih in question is 
 plain, from whnt 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 Homilies, as (piotod above, and the question is, 
 as just now stated, " How can there be a presence, yet not a 
 local one?" 
 
 Now, first, let it be observed that tlie question to be solved is 
 the truth of a certain jjhilosophical deduction, not of a certain 
 doctrine of Scripture. That tlieie is a real presence. Scripture 
 assorts, and the Homilies, Catechism, and Conunuiiion 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 contrary to the word of God" Now, a position like this 
 may not be, and is not, " contrary to the word of God," and yet 
 need not be true ; e. g. we may accept St. Clement's Epistle to 
 the 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 Phcenix — 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 commonly 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 distinjiuish 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 indef.r.itely
 
 Si Transuhstantiation. 
 
 divisible ; neither need it be distant either, 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 n)ay be asked, What is the meaning of saying tiiat 
 Christ is really prefent, 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 presence, then, of a thing is a relative word, 
 depending, in a popular sense of it, upon the chaimels of com- 
 munication between it and him to whom it is i)resent ; and thus 
 it is a word of degree. 
 
 •• Such is the meaning of presence, when used of material 
 objects; — very diHlTcnt from this is the conception we form of 
 the presence of spirit with spirit. The most intimate presence
 
 Transuhstantiation. 55 
 
 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 further, 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 Church'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 remaininji on God's right 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 hi 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 ])rescnt 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 ofl", yet they impress ideas upon 
 our souls through our sight. We know but of five senses : we 
 know not whether or not human nature be capable of more ; we 
 know not wliethi r or not the soul possesses anything analogous 
 to them. Wr know nothing to negative the notion that the soul 
 may be capable of iiaving Christ present to it by the stimulating 
 of dormant, or the development of possible energies. 
 
 " As sight for certain purposes annihilates space, so other nn-
 
 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 ascension; 
 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 have 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 answ-er, then, to the problem, Iinw 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 sail 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 Transubslantiation. 
 
 cratnent ; 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 tliis seeming impossibility. 
 
 '• If it be asked, why attempt to remove it, I answer that I have 
 no wish to do so, if persons 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 ofllcious 
 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 which it 
 was commonly said, that the priests did offer Christ for the 
 quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- 
 phemous fables and dangerous deceits (perniciosae imposturse)." 
 
 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 of Masses,'' certain observances, for the most 
 part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles saw 
 before their eyes, and knew to have been in force in time past, 
 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 on 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 filtiiy lucre. 
 
 1. That the " blasphemous fable" is the teaching that masses 
 are sacrifices for sin distinct from the sacrifice of Christ's death, 
 is plain from the first sentence of the Article. " The offering 
 of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
 and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original 
 and actual: And there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that 
 alone, /^r/iere/bre 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 07ice offered, a. full, jHrfect, 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 
 hy 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 s\ns and all other benefits of His passion." 
 
 But the popular cliarge 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 
 quotations of this part of the Article. 
 
 2. That the " blasphemous and pernicious imposture " is the 
 turning the Mass into a gain is plain from such passages as the 
 following : — 
 
 "With what earnestness, with what vehement real, did our Saviour Christ 
 drive ihc buyers and scIUth out of the temple of Gui>, and hurled down the 
 tablet of the changers of money, and tiie seats of the dove-sellers, and could 
 not abide that a man should carry a vessel through the temple, lie (old them, 
 that they had made His Fatiieii'ii house a den of thieves, partly through their 
 supemliiton, hyporri»y, fdic worship, Til'e dac'ilnc, and iniaiiublc covetous-
 
 Masses. 61 
 
 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 Christ 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, ppr229, 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 j so may we the boldlier 
 have access thither to our comfort." — Homily concerning the Sacrament, pp. 377» 
 378. 
 
 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, ib evidently designed and contrived to serve the interest 
 and profit of them that rule that Church, by the disservices, yea, and ruin of
 
 G2 Masses. 
 
 those souls that are nnder 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 ? Wiiy 
 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 tlie 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 \s great gain, but no godliness at all, in this doctrine ?" 
 — Bp. Bull's Sermons, 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, bad not restrained the profuseness 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 temporally to the spiritualty. 
 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 the souls of their ancestors and pos- 
 terity, so 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. 303, 304. 
 
 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 lo have crept in heretofore, whether by 
 the fault of the times or by the neglect and wickedness of men, foreign to the 
 dignity of so great a sacrifice, in order that it may regain its due honour and 
 observance, lo the glory of God and the edification of His faithful people, the 
 Holy Council decrees, that the bishops, ordinaries of each place, diligc-iitly 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 \nelcncc of true piety, has introduced. And, to 
 ■ay much in a few words, firit of all, us to avarice, let them ultogclher forbid
 
 Masses. 63 
 
 agreements, and bargains of payment of whatever kind, and whatever is given 
 for celebrating new masses; moreover importunate and mean extortion, ratlier 
 than petition of alms, and such lilie practices, whicli border on simoniacal sin, 
 certainly on filthy lucre. . . . And let them banisli 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 for the quick and the dead for the remission of sin ; 
 but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of 
 or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy, 
 and, on the other, its being directed to the emolument of those 
 to whom it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in 
 addition.
 
 64 
 
 § 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. The duty of clerical celibacy is grounded 
 not on God's law, but on the Church's rule, or on vow. No 
 one, for instance, can question the vehement zeal of St. Jerome 
 in behalf of this observance, yet he makes the following admission 
 in his attack upon Jovinian : — 
 
 " Jovinian says, ' 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, i. 34. 
 
 And the Council of Trent merely lays down : 
 
 " If any shall say that clerks in holy orders, or regulars, who have solemnly 
 professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid in 
 spite of ecclesiastical law or vow, let him be anathema." — Scss. 24 Can. 9. 
 
 Here the observance is placed simply upon rule of the Church 
 or u])on vow, neither of wliich exists in the I^nglisli Church ; 
 " therefore^' as the Article logically proceeds, " it is lawful for 
 them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at t/icir own dis- 
 cicfion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness." 
 Our Church leaves the discretion with the clergy ; and most 
 persons ivill allow that, under our circwnslanccs, she acts wisely 
 in doing so. That she has jwwer, did she so choose, to take 
 from tlietn this discretion, and to oblige tliem either to marriage 
 or to celibacy, would seem to be involved in the doctrine of the 
 following extract from the Homilies ; though, whether an en-
 
 Marriages of Clergy. 65 
 
 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 break them, when 
 they tend either to superstition or to impiety ; when they draw the people from 
 God rather than work any edification in them. This authority Christ Him- 
 self used, and left it to His Church. He used it, I say, for the order or decree 
 made by the eiders 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, 
 
 " It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and 
 utterly like ; for at all times they have been divers, and fnay 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 
 approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly." — Article XXXIV . 
 
 VOL. VI. 90.
 
 66 
 
 § II. — The Homilies. 
 
 Art. XXXV. — " The second Book of Homilies dotli contain a 
 godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as 
 doth the former Book of Homilies." 
 
 This Article has been treated of in No. 82 of these Tracts, in 
 the course of an answer given to an opponent, who accused its 
 author of not fairly receiving the Homilies, because he dissented 
 from their doctrine, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, and 
 that regeneration was 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 wiih that system which should 
 impose upon the conscience a thick octavo volume, written flow- 
 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 imj)ossible (I will say) for any one member, 
 lay or clerical, of the Churcli to remain in it, who was sub- 
 jected to such an ordeal. Tor instance; I do not suppose that 
 any reader would be satisfied with tlic 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, are we boimd to (he Homilies ? By the Thirty- 
 fifth Article, which speaks as follows: — ' 'J'lic second Book of
 
 The Homilies. 67 
 
 Homilies . . . doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and 
 necess;iry for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies.' 
 Now, observe, this Article does not speak of every statement 
 made in them, but of the 'doctrine.' It speaks of the view or 
 cast, or body of doctrine contained in them. In spite of ten 
 thousand incidental propositions, as in any large book, there is, 
 it is obvious, a certain line of doctrine, which may be 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 prophecy. 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 cut the sense of the 
 
 F 2
 
 G8 Tlie Homilies. 
 
 Articles, and are not of authority where tliey do not. For in- 
 stance, they say that David, thouoh 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 
 tlie 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 0[)inion, as, 
 that Rome is the Antichrist ; or of historical fact, as, that there 
 was a Pope Joan. But now, on ihe other hand, can you sub- 
 scribe the doctrine of the Homilies under every one of its for- 
 mal headings? I believe you cainiu/. 'I'lic Homily against 
 Disobedience and Wilful Rebellion is, in many of its ele- 
 mentary principles, decidcd!y uncongenial with your senti- 
 ments." 
 
 'J his illustration of the subject may be thought enough ; yet 
 it may be allowable to add from tlie 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. 1'his is 
 not done, as the extract already read will show, with the inten- 
 tion of maintaining that they arc one and all bin ling on the con- 
 science of those who sni)scril)e the Thiriy-fifth Article; but since 
 the strong language of the Homilies against the Bi.-»!ioj) of Rome 
 is often (jiioied, as if it were thus j)iovod to be the doctrine of 
 our Church, it rnay be as well to show thai, 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 Clirysos- 
 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. Uierome, St. Martin, Origen, Prosper, Ecumenius, 
 Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, Didymus, Theophylactus, Tertullian, 
 Athanasius, Lactantius, Cyrillus, Epiphanius, Gregory, Ire- 
 nseus, 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- 
 fruitfully 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 undeceivable Word of Gov>, that," &c. — 1 B. x. 1. 
 
 6. "The due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood, under 
 the form of bread and wine." — Note at end ©/"B. i. 
 
 7. " In the Primitive Church, which was most holy and godly 
 . . . open offenders were not suffered once to enter into the 
 house of the Lord . . . until they had done open penance . . . 
 but this was practised, not only upon mean persons, but also 
 upon the rich, noble, and mighty 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 antl contempt in coming 
 to the house of the Lord ; and resorting thitlier 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 pure and uncorrupt, and contrary to the sentences 
 and judgments of the most ancient, learned, and godli) doctors of 
 the Church." — 2 B. ii. 1. init. 
 
 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 ?i'as 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, Bisiiop of Salamine, in Cyprus, a very holy 
 and learned man." — Ibid. 
 
 15. "To whose (Ej)iphanius'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 autliority." — Ibid. 
 
 17. "St. Augustine, the best learned of all ancient doctors." 
 —Ibid. 
 
 18. " That ye may know why and when, and by whom ininges 
 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 
 Chrisiinn princes, I will briefly collect," &c. [The bishops and 
 doctors which follow arc :] " St. .Jerome, Serenus, Gregory, 
 the Fathers of the Council of Elibcris." 
 
 19. " Constantine, Bishop of Kome, assembled a Council of
 
 The Homilies. 71 
 
 bishops of the West, and did condemn Philippicus, the 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 allowed and received of 
 aU 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 asainst 
 all our images . . . appeareth further by the judgment of the 
 old doctors and the Primitive Church." — Ibid, 
 
 26. " The Primitive Church, which is specially to he followed, 
 as most incorrupt and pure." — Ibid. 
 
 27. " Thus it is declared by God's Word, the sentences of the 
 doctors, and the judgment of the Primitive Church." — Ibid. 
 
 Z&. " The rude people, who specially as the Scripture teacheth, 
 are in danger of superstition and idolatry ; viz. Wisdom xiii. 
 xiv."— /iirf. 
 
 29. " They [the ' learned and holy bishops and doctors of the 
 Church' of 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. 
 
 30. *' The most virtuous and best learned, the most diliorent 
 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 ■s.iv."—Ibid. 
 
 32. " The saints, now reigning in heaven with God." — Ibid.
 
 72 The Homilies. 
 
 S3. " The fountain of our regeneration is there [in God's house] 
 presented unto us." — 2 B. iii. 
 
 3G. " 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 vieat, drink, and all bodily fvod 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 gll 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 G'30 fathers, grounding 
 their determinations in this matter upon the sacred Scriptures . . . 
 is a wiihhohling of meat, drink, .ind all natural food from the 
 body, for the determined time of fasting." — Ibid. 
 
 40. •' Tlie 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 ])rofitable sacrament, the 
 sacrament of our regeneration or new birth." — 2 B. iv. 2. 
 
 41. "lasting thus used vvitii prayer is of gnat ej/icacy and 
 rveigliclh much with God, so the angel Raphael told 'J'obi.is." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 42. "As lie" [St. AuguHtiiieJ " v\iine.sseth in anotiur place, 
 the martyrs and holy men in times past, were wont alter their
 
 The Homilies. 73 
 
 death to be remembered and named of the priest at divine service; 
 but never to be invocated or called upon." — 2 B.vii. 2. 
 
 43. " Thus you see that the authority both of Scripture and also 
 of Augustine, doth not permit that we should pray to them." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 44. " To temples have the Christians customably used to resort 
 from time to time as to most meet places, where they might . . . 
 receive His holy sacraments ministered unto them duly and 
 purely." — 2 B. viii. 1. 
 
 45. "The which thing both Christ and His apostles, with all 
 the rest of the holy fathers, do sufficiently declare so." — Ibid. 
 
 46. Our godly predecessors, 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 holy sacraments, and be devout hearers 
 of His holy Word," &c.—Ibid. 
 
 49. "It [ordination] lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all 
 other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore 
 neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as 
 Baptism and the Communion are." — 2 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 and godly doctor Chrysostom 
 giveth this admonition But what mean these often admoni-
 
 74 The Homilies. 
 
 tions and earnest exhortations of the prophets, apostles, fathers, 
 and holy doctors?" — 2 B. xi. 1. 
 
 52. " The holy fathers, Job and Tohk."— Ibid. 
 
 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 prof table 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 \& profitable \.o imrge the soul from 
 the infection and filthy spots of sin." — Ibid. 
 
 57. *' The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in sundry 
 places of the Scripture, saying, * Mercifulness and alms-giving,' 
 &c. [Tobit iv.] . . . The wise preacher, the son of Sirach, con- 
 firmeth the same, when he says, that ' as water qucncheth burn- 
 ing fire,' " &c. — Jbid. 
 
 58. "A great confidence may they have before the high God, 
 that showmcrcy and compassion to them that are afilicted.'' — Ibid. 
 
 59. " If ye have by any infirniity or weakness been touclied 
 and annoyed with tl>em . . . straightway shall mercifulness wipe 
 and wash them aivay, as salves and remedies to heal thtiir sores and 
 (grievous diseases." — Ibid. 
 
 GO. *' And therefore that holy father Cy|)rian ailmoiiishcth to 
 consider how wholesome and pnfituble it is to relieve tiie needy, 
 
 &c by the which we may purge our sins and heal our 
 
 noundcd .iduls." — Ibid. 
 
 61. " We be therefore tvashcd in our baptism from ihefillhiness
 
 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 we move 
 God to be merciful to our sins." — Ibid. 
 
 63. " ' He was dead,' saith St. Paul, * for our sins, and rose 
 again for our justification' . . . He died to destroy the rule of the 
 devil in us, and He rose again to send down His Holy Spirit 
 to rule in our hearts, to endue us with 'perfect righteousness.^' 
 — 2 B. xiv. 
 
 64. " 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 blaod 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 comme- 
 moration, and justification by inherent righteousness, are taught
 
 76 The Humllies. 
 
 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 
 
 § 12. — The Bishop of Rome. 
 
 Article xxxviii. — " Tlie Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction 
 in this reahn of England." 
 
 By " hath " is meant " ought to have," as the Article in the 36tli 
 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, l.ath, 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 Bisiiop of 
 Rome has jurisdiction and authority here, why do we not acknow- 
 ledge it, and submit to him ? To say then the aboye words, is 
 nothing more or le.'^s tlian 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. 
 ^^ hat 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
 
 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, tiieir 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 confeileracy 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 enga^iements, or of ecclesiastical force from 
 the canons of Councils, but not necessary in order to the convey- 
 ance of grace, or for fulfdmcnt of the ceremonial law, as it may 
 be called, of unity. Hishop 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 Engh"sh Church violated a duty in the 16th 
 century, in releasing itself from the Roman supremacy, still 
 it did not thereby commit that special sin, which cuts off from it 
 the fountains of grace, and is called schism. It was essentially 
 complete without Rome, and naturally independent of it ; it had, 
 in the course of years, whether by usurpation or not, come under 
 the supremacy of Rome ; and now, whether by rebellion or not, 
 it is free from it : and as it did not enter into the Church invisible 
 by joining Rome, so it was not cast out of it by breaking from 
 Rome. These were accidents in its history, involving, indeed, 
 sin in individuals, but not affectinij 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 claim the supremacy of Divine right; 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 
 
 Conchmion. 
 
 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 duly 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. 
 
 2. In piving 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 Ratification 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 7iew 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 Mclanch- 
 tlioii, from whose writings our Articles are principally drawn, and 
 whose Cathohc tendencies gained for him that same reproach of 
 popery, which has ever been so freely bestowed upon members of 
 our own reformed Church.
 
 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 Scripture, 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«c? 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 princes may err ; 
 they do not determine whether councils called in the name of 
 Christ will err. 
 
 6. 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 aiuhors took themselves. 
 
 VOL. VI. — 90. G
 
 S'2 Conclusion, 
 
 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 the 
 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 the clergy at the first convocation, 
 but not published. Burnet observes on it thus : — 
 
 " When these Articles were <it 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, shevrs 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 this matter ; in which 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,' &c., was put in its stead, and was rt- 
 reived and published by the next convocation ; which upon the matter was a 
 full explanation of the way of Christ's presence in this .Sacrament; that 'lie 
 is present in a lieavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is the mean by 
 wiiich He is 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 (Juccn Hlizabcth'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 wc 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- 
 kcribed it, though they did not think Jit to publish it at first ; and though it was 
 afterwards changed for another, that was the same in sense." — Unmet on 
 Arlutr XXVIH., p. lU;. 
 
 What has lately taken place in the political world will afford 
 an illustration in point. A French minister, desirous of war, 
 nevertheless, as a inutler rjl'poliiy, draws up his bt.ile p;tptrs in 
 
 8
 
 Conclusion. 83 
 
 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 including 
 Catholics ; and Catholics now will not be excluded. What 
 was an economy in the reformers, is a protection to us. What 
 would have been a perplexity to us then, is a perplexity to Pro- 
 testants now. We could not then have found fault with their 
 words ; they cannot now repudiate our meaning. 
 
 Oxford. 
 The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. 
 
 isn. 
 
 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 Waterloo place. 
 
 1841. 
 
 Gilbert & RiviMiTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.
 
 The following works, all in single volumes, or pamphlets, and recently 
 published, will be found more or less to uphold or elucidate the general 
 doctrines inculcated in these Tracts : — 
 
 Bp. Taylor on Repentance, by Hale. — Rivingtotis. 
 
 Bp. Taylor's Golden Grove. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Vincentii Lirinensis Commouitorium, with translation. — Parker, 
 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, 4 vols. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Newman on Romanism, &c. — Rivingtons. 
 
 The Christian Year. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Lyra Aj^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 Suflragan 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. — Rii'ingtons. 
 
 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. 
 
 •Tones (of Nayland) on the Church. 
 
 Bp. Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Bp. 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 Sennons 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. 
 
 I'usey's Sermon on November 5. — Rivingtons. 
 
 Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 The Cathedral, a Poem. — Parker, Oxford. 
 
 Palmer's Ecclesiastical History. — Bums. 
 
 Larger IVorks which may be profitably studied. 
 
 Bishop liull's Sermons. — Parker, Oxford. 
 Bishop liuU's Works. — University Press. 
 Watcrland's Works.— Do. 
 Wall on Infant Haptisni. — Do. 
 Pearson on the Creed — Do. 
 IjCMlic's Works. — Do. 
 Bingham's Works. — Straker, Ijondnn. 
 Palmer on the Liturgy — University Press. 
 Palmer on the (^luircii. — Ririuglmis. 
 Hooker, cd. Keble. — University Press.
 
 M^^* /i^*^ 
 
 o»^ 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIME S. 
 
 No. 90. 
 
 To the Editor of the " Tracts for the Times.!' 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Our attention havino; been called to No. 90 in the series of 
 "Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford," 
 of which you are the editor, the impression produced on our raind 
 by its contents is of so painful a character, that we feel it our duty to 
 intrude ourselves briefly on your notice. This publication is entitled 
 " Remarks on certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles ;" and, 
 as these articles are appointed by the statutes of the University to be 
 the text-book for tutors in their theological teaching, we hope that 
 the situations we hold in our respective colleges will secure us from 
 the charge of presumption in thus coming forward to address you. 
 
 The tract has, in our apprehension, a highly dangerous tendency, 
 from its suggesting that certain very important errors of the Church of 
 Rome are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of England : 
 foi' instance, that those Articles do not contain any condemnation of 
 of the doctrines — 
 
 1. Of Purgatory, 
 
 2. Of Pardons, 
 
 3. Of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, 
 
 4. Of the Invocation of Saints, 
 
 5. Of the Mass, 
 
 as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome ; but only 
 of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent Romanists 
 repudiate as much as we do. It is intimated, moreover, that the 
 declaration prefixed to the Articles, so far as it has any weight at 
 all, sanctions this mode of interpreting them, as it is one which takes 
 them in their *■' literal and grammatical sense," and does not " affix 
 any new sense" to them. The tract would thus appear to us to have 
 a tendency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires, and to the
 
 prejudice ofllie pure truth ut' tlie gospel, the very serious differences 
 which separate the Church of Rome from our own, and to shake the 
 confidence of the less learned members of the Church of England in 
 the scriptural character of lier formularies and teaching. 
 
 We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty, in inter- 
 preting the formularies of our Church, which has been advocated 
 by many of its most learned bishops and other eminent divines ; but 
 this tract puts forth new and startling views as to the extent to which 
 that liberty may be carried. For if we are right in our apprehension 
 of the author's meaning, we are at a loss to see what security would 
 remain, were his principles generally recognised, that the most 
 plainly erroneous doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome 
 might not be inculcated in the lecture-rooms of the University, and 
 from the pulpits of our churches. 
 
 In conclusion, Me venture to call your attention to the impropriety 
 of such questions being treated in an anonymous publication, and to 
 express an earnest hope that you may be authorized to make known 
 the writer's name. Considering how very grave and solemn the 
 whole subject is, we cannot help thinking that both the Church and 
 the University are entitled to ask that some person, besides the printer 
 and publisher of the tract, should acknowledge himself responsible 
 ff^r its contents. 
 
 AVe are, Sir, 
 Your obedient humble Servants, 
 
 T. T. CiiunTON, M. A., Vice-Principal and 
 Tutor of Brascn-nose College. 
 
 Jl. ii. Wii^oN, B. D., Fellow and Senior 
 Tutor of St. Jolm's College. 
 
 .foiiN GiuFMTns, M. A., Sub-Warden and 
 Tutor of Wadham College. 
 
 A. (". Tait, M. a.. Fellow and Senior Tutor 
 ofBalliol College. 
 
 (Ufor.l, Mnrrli R. llHl.
 
 At a Meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and 
 Proctors, in the Delegates'' Room, March 15th, 1841. 
 
 Considering that it is enjoined in the Statutes of this University, 
 (Tit. III. Sect. ii. Tit. IX. Sect. ii. §. 3. Sect. v. §. 3.) that every 
 Student shall be instructed and examined in the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 and shall subscribe to them ; considering also that a Tract has re- 
 cently appeared, dated from Oxford, and entitled " Remarks on 
 certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles," being No. 90 of the 
 Tracts for the Times, a series of anonymous Publications, purporting 
 to be written by Members of the University, but which are in no 
 way sanctioned by the University itself; 
 
 Resolved, That the modes of interpretation, such as are suggested 
 in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the 
 Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them, with the 
 adoption of errors, which they were designed to counteract, defeat 
 the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above- 
 mentioned Statutes. 
 
 P. WYNTER, 
 
 Vice-Chancellor.
 
 Mn. ViCE-CllAXCELLOR, 
 
 I write this respectfully to inform you, that I am the 
 author, and have the sole responsibility, of the Tract on which the 
 Hebdomadal Board has just now expressed an opinion, and that 
 I have not given my name hitherto, under the belief that it was 
 desired that I should not. I hope it will not surprise you if I say, 
 that my opinion remains unchanged of the truth and honesty of the 
 principle maintained in the Tract, and of the necessity of putting it 
 forth. At the same time I am prompted by my feelings to add my 
 deep consciousness that every thing I attempt might be done in a 
 better spirit, and in a better way ; and, while I am sincerely sorry 
 fur the trouble and anxiety I have given to the members of the 
 Board, I beg to return my thanks to them for an act, which, even 
 though founded on misapprehension, may be made as iirofituble to 
 myself as it is religiously and charitably intended. 
 
 I say all this with great sincerity, and am, 
 Mn. Vice-chancellor, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 .lOlIX HENRY NEWMAN. 
 
 Olitl (^)>llri/r, 
 
 MnrrI, \<;i/l. l.'Ml.
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 to the Editor of the Globe. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 As allusions have been made in the House of Commons 
 to the Tracts for the Times, reported to be written by members of the 
 University of Oxford, it may be as well to call the attention of the 
 nation to some of the statements made in a tract lately published by 
 Rivington, entitled, " Remarks on certain Passages in the XXXIX 
 Articles," being No. 90 of the series. 
 
 With regard to Holy Scriptitre, the language of the tract is as 
 follows : — " We may dispense with the phrase ' Rule of Faith,' as 
 applied to Scripture, on the ground of its being ambiguous," — p. 8 ; 
 and afterwards, " Perhaps its use had better be avoided altogether. 
 In the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, Scrip- 
 ture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith." — 
 P. 11. 
 
 With regard to Purgatory, — None of these doctrines (the Pri- 
 mitive, the Catholic, the Tridentine, and the one maintained by the 
 Greeks at Florence, having just been enumerated) does the Article 
 condemn; any of them may be held by the Anglo-Catholic as a 
 matter of private belief. — P. 25. 
 
 With regard to the Veneration of Relics, — A certain toleration of 
 them is compatible with the meaning of the Article. — P. 24. 
 
 With regard to the Invocation of Saints, — Judging from two 
 examples set us in the Homilies themselves, invocations are not cen- 
 surable, and certainly not " fond," if we mean nothing definite by 
 them, addressing them to beings which we know cannot hear, and 
 using them as interjections. — P. 36. 
 
 With regard to Transubstantiation, — Let them believe and act on 
 the truth that the consecrated bread is Christ's body, as he says, and 
 no officious comment will be attempted by any well-judging mind. 
 But when they say, " this cannot be true, because it is impossible,"
 
 2 
 
 then tbev force those ^vho think it Uteralh; irne, to explain hou", 
 according to their notions, it is not impossible. And those who ask 
 liard questions must put up with hard answers.-P. 58. 
 
 With recrard to il/a....,-Nothing can shew more clearly than 
 this passage (a part of Article XXXI) that the Articles are not 
 .vritten against the creed of the Church of Rome, but agamst 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 doctnne 
 would be introduced, but the sacrifice of masses,-V'09', and agam, 
 On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before us ne.tW 
 speaks against the mass in itself, nor against its being an oftenng for 
 the quick and the dead for the remission of sin,-p. G3. The words 
 
 of the Article alluded to are— • , i , 
 
 " The Sacrifice of .Masses, in the which it was commonly said that 
 the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remis- 
 sion of pain or guilt." It may be as well to observe, that m the 
 tract, the word priests is substituted for the word priest (sac.rrfofm), 
 an important alteration, which is pregnant with meaning. 
 
 With re-ard to the iMarriaye of the C/.rr/^, -That she (the 
 Church) ha°s power, did she so choose, to take from them this dis- 
 cretion, and oblige them either to marriage or celibacy, would seem 
 to be involved in the doctrine of the Homilies.-P. 64. 
 
 With re-^ard to the Bishop of Rome-\Ve 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 
 de.rree come into the question.-P. 79. This seems scarcely recon- 
 cilable with the words of the oath of supremacy-" No foreign 
 prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any 
 jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, eccle- 
 siastical or spiritual, within this realm." 
 
 It cannot be denied that extracts taken apart from the context 
 ,„ay not fullv explain the writer's views, who seems to leave more to 
 be infc-nc.l tl.an he chooses to state ; but these passages arc selected 
 as elucidations of ihe theological statements of the Tractanans, 
 which .taUMuents appear at length to have assumed a more definite 
 fonn in thi. tract ( No. 'JO.) There is an introduction, and a con-
 
 elusion to it, both contributing to develop the writer's views. In 
 the former he observes, " Religious changes, to be beneficial, should 
 be the act of the whole body ; they are worth little if they are the 
 mere act of the majority j" to which passage a note is appended — 
 " It is not meant to hinder acts of Catholic consent, such as occurred 
 anciently, when the Catholic body aids one portion of a particular 
 church against another portion." The import of this note is, that 
 the minority of a particular church, when aided by the Catholic 
 body from without, is justified in bringing about a change, which 
 would be unjustifiable in the majority, unassisted by foreigners. 
 
 In the conclusion we find it stated, " In the first place, it is a 
 duty we owe to the Catholic Church, and to our own, to take our 
 reformed confessions in the most Catholic sense they will admit ; we 
 have no duties to their framers." And again, " Whatever be the 
 authority of the ratification prefixed to the Articles (by Charles I. in 
 1628,) so far as it has any weight at all, it sanctions the mode of 
 interpreting them above given. For its enjoining the ' literal and 
 grammatical sense,' relieves us from the necessity of making the 
 known opinions of their framers a comment upon their text; and its 
 forbidding any person ' to affix any nem sense to any Article,' was 
 promulgated at a time M-hen the leading men of our Church were 
 especially noted for those Catholic views which have been here ad- 
 vocated." The sophistry of this remark is transparent, for the term 
 " any new sense," in the declaration, is clearly opposed to the " literal 
 and grammatical sense," or what is styled in a preceding clause "the 
 true, usual, and literal meaning of the said Articles ;" which " literal 
 and grammatical sense" must have been the same in the reign of 
 Charles I. as in the reign of Elizabeth, and must have represented 
 the honest opinions of the framers, unless they are supposed to have 
 been bad or foolish men, which, I think, has not yet been asserted 
 of them. 
 
 The few last sentences of the conclusion are as follows : — " The 
 Protestant confession was drawn up with the purpose of including 
 Catholics; and Catholics wow Avill 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 Protestants now. We
 
 could not then have found fault with their words ; they cannot now 
 repudiate our meaning.^' 
 
 It is beyond the province of a letter to discuss the above observa- 
 tions. The argument throughout the tract is pretended to be based 
 on logical considerations, — p. 64 ; but there is not much attempt at 
 reasoning. A dexterous play of words, and some subtlety of inter- 
 pretation, seem to be what the writer mostly trusts to ; and as his 
 readers are chiefly young men, such weapons may possess the desired 
 efficacy. How far this method of interpretation will be allowed, 
 rests mainly with our bishops and our universities, who, in proposing 
 subscription to the XXXIX Articles as a test of the soundness of 
 religious views, attach of course a definite meaning to the subscrip- 
 tion; and to quote the words of Isidorus,''Qiiacunque arte verborum 
 quisque juret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae, testis est, ita hoc accipit, 
 sicut ille, cui juratur, intelligit." 
 
 Let me add, that no intelligent person reading these tracts, and 
 other productions of the same school, can doubt that a most for- 
 midjlble party has at last openly declared its intention of destroying 
 our Venerable Church as by law established, and of reviving in its 
 stead undisguised Popery. Whatever may be the particular view of 
 the individuals who contribute to these tracts, whatever be their piety, 
 whatever be their learning, the object of them as a party cannot be 
 mistaken, and it is now at length plainly avowed. 
 
 A Membeh 01 THE Ciiriicii of England. 
 
 riiiNTKn ANii rrnMsHKi) i.
 
 J iU^ , Ji^ 
 
 J 
 
 L^l^ 
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 No. 90 OF THE 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 
 
 " I M. N. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles aboYe 
 mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them." — Canon 36. 
 
 Lectures on Romanism. 
 Lect. X. p. 297. 
 Scripture is the foundation of the Creed ; 
 but belief in Scripture is not the founda- 
 tion of belief in the Creed. 
 
 Art. VI I r. 
 
 The three Creeds ought 
 
 thoroughly to be received and believed : 
 for thej- may be proved by most certain 
 warrants of Holy Scripture. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT. 
 
 J 841.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 It seems hardly necessary for the writer of the following 
 pages to apologize for puhlishing a defence of those Articles 
 which he has solemnly sworn to ohserve, and especially as 
 no answer as yet has heen published in opposition to the most 
 extraordinary method used in Tracts for the Times, No. 90, 
 to explain away the grounds of subscription. The system 
 pursued in this publication can need no defence, for standard 
 authorities are constantly appealed to, and the authorized 
 documents of our Church. 
 
 It must be evident, that although no excuse can be ren- 
 dered for making an attack under cover of an anonymous 
 publication, yet the present is perfectly justifiable, as being a 
 defence, and not an attack.
 
 ON THE INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It is perhaps difficult at first sight to detect the latent meau- 
 ing of sophistical sentences and to reduce them to a degree of 
 explicitness, which is required before they can be satisfactorily 
 controverted. But though the writer of No. 90 has begun 
 with a considerable degree of caution and circumspection — 
 though he has exhibited great fear lest a certain party should 
 claim him as their own in revolutionary movements — yet he 
 has explained with sufficient clearness his opinion of our 
 dreadful state as a Church. He must be thanked, however, 
 for at last exhibiting to his followers that the Articles offer 
 no real difficulty — that they are so vague — that they are 
 so much against the fancies of individual Romanists as to 
 have forgotten the publicly professed dogmas of the Papal 
 Church, — because, when our Articles have seemed even to 
 his own party to " gall" them, it would have been unsatis- 
 factory for the " disciples"'" not to have had the explanation of 
 of the master. Thanks must be rendered him for " ap- 
 proximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which 
 most men have an implicit apprehension, though they have 
 nothing more.'''' For certainly, till the fantastic enlightenment 
 thrown upon antiquity by the nineteenth century had uude- 
 ceived them, men usually held our Articles " to be the text- 
 book for tutors in their theological teaching," and consequently 
 supposed them to be a considerable restraint and check upon
 
 any heretical opiuioiis. Perhaps, however, they were led into 
 this erroneous view from reading the Introductory Lecture to 
 Mr. Newman's Lectures (p. 28), in which it is said, that " the 
 Thirty-nine Articles are a second trial of our liiiniility and 
 self-restraint." Among other declarations of the intentions of 
 the writer, we have this, that they will never further " a re- 
 la.vation of subscriptions" ..." against the wish of the great 
 body of the Church.'" We should have thought that it would 
 have been sufficient to leave this unsaid, if " the objection" 
 to the Articles is " groundless," as the writer had written a 
 few lines before. This, however, is a mere trifle ; for some 
 persons wish to be so explicit in their statements, that none of 
 their opponents may be able to misunderstand them. Again, 
 we have an explanation of the writer's views with regard to 
 the opinions of a majority, and " never can he, without a 
 great alteration of sentiment, be party to forcing the opinion 
 or project of one school upon another." Now, all must admit 
 this to be extremely satisfactory ; but a note appended to the 
 following sentence introduces a possible occurrence, which vir- 
 tually establishes the principle before condemned. " This is 
 not meant to hinder acts of Catholic consent, such as occurred 
 anciently, when the Catlu)lic body aids one portion of a i)ar- 
 ticular Churcli against another portion." This, then, is to 
 be the exception to so good a rule ; this is to palliate so grave 
 an admission ; lest the Clninh should, in the writer's theory, 
 be in the slightest degree injured. Foreign interference, how- 
 ever imj>racticablc, yet seems too pleasant a topic altogether 
 
 to be omitted. 
 
 In page •!•, wo have a sentence which appears to have escaped 
 til'' writer, fVoin the ardour with which he supports his princi- 
 ploH. I'or we had it.mI, that there were "real dillicnltie,s to a 
 Catholi*' (Jhristiaii in the ecclesiastical position of our Church in 
 tlie present day; yet the Articles, i. e. her Theological teach-
 
 ing, were not among the number; but the disciple of the worthy 
 fathers of our Church — Hammond, Andrews, and Hooker — 
 now fully impressed with the burden and conscientious oppres- 
 sion which they had undergone, bursts forth into a declaration 
 of the real, though implied, object of this Anglo-Catholic teach- 
 ing: " Till her members are stirred up to this religious course," 
 (unity, and surrendering their private opinions,) "let the Church 
 sit still ; let her be content to be in bondage ; let her work in 
 chains ; let her submit to her imperfections as a punishment ; 
 let her go on teaching with the stammermg lips of ambiguous 
 formularies, and inconsistent precedents and principles but 
 partially developed; we are not better than our fathers ; let us 
 bear to be what Hammond was, or 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." Either this passage 
 means that the Church ought to change her present position, 
 and ought to leave her present bondage, or I am uttei-ly at a 
 loss to understand the meaning of an English sentence. The 
 writer of these Tracts alloAvs that there may be a meaning 
 extracted from out of any book, though the meaning be not 
 on the surface. Now, let the reader turn to p. 8, and he will 
 find this declaration, " A change in Theological teaching in- 
 volves either the commission or the confession of sin ; it is 
 either the co7ifession or renunciation of erroneous doctrine^ 
 Thus, in a word, the Church ought to change, because in 
 bondage and suifering for her sins ; and all change implies sin 
 previously existing, i. e. erroneous teaching. Is not then the 
 
 ^ The mention of theso great men would shew that the writer's intention, in tliis 
 passage, w.is not to refer to restrictions of 1G88 and 1G89, as is done in Lectures on 
 Romanism ; but the mCTition of these names certainly will not prove their opinion to 
 have been similar to those of the writer of No. 90, for Hooker, at least, seems to have 
 been quite satisfied with our Church.
 
 8 
 
 state of tlie Church of England one which confesses sin ? for 
 surely the writer will not avoid the dilemma which he himself 
 has put. If we ought to cliange, it implies past guilt or 
 erroneous doctrine. Further, " If it" (i. e. change) " does not 
 succeed in proving the fact of past guilt, it ipso facto implies 
 present." That is, if there is no past guilt to warrant a 
 change, then the very change convicts its authors of guilt. 
 Now, could the Tract writer then speak in such terms of 
 a desire for unity, and its end a change in the teaching of 
 the Church, unless he were truly convinced of her need of 
 change, and consequently of her present guilt ? Other mem- 
 bers of our Church do not feel this galling bondage. Other 
 members of the Church do not consider her to be afflicted 
 with stammering lij)S, nor themselves to be restrained in 
 preaching or teaching (for remember this word is used in the 
 quotation) the Gospel, and expounding the Rule of the word 
 of God. And so bv the shewing of these very men, avIio have 
 attacked the Mant of discipline and those changing regula- 
 tions of a Church, hi/ their oxen showing they are convicted of 
 being members nf a Church, whose state is that of sin and 
 erroneous teaching. Can we sign that which we believe to be 
 erroneous, and then deceive ourselves bv an " arnumentative 
 answer^ to any objections which may present themselves? 
 
 The importance of this view will not allow me to raise any 
 minor o])jections, many of which must occur to all who read 
 this Tract ; but as the writer says that " these remarks are 
 beyond <>iir present scoj)e," perhaps it is to be expected that 
 he will exi)laiii his views nnin- full v. 
 
 Rut liefore we enter upon tliis point, let me suppose a case 
 whieh may illustrate the suliject. If .i iViend express his in- 
 tention of doing yon a l<in«lncss bv a letter writtni on the 
 subject, woulcl yon, for a nionieiit, think that his intt-ntions 
 were to be judged by some collateral ccidencc, and not by his
 
 own declaration i If you doubted bis word, you would evi- 
 dence bow little trust you bad in tbe bonesty of bis inten- 
 tions. NoAv wbat is tbe case as regards tbe Cburcb ? there is 
 no friend dearer than tbe Cburcb, and tbis Cburcb explains 
 ber views in set Articles ; and for wbat are Articles but tbe 
 very purpose " of avoiding diversities of opinion, and for tbe 
 establisbing of consent touching true religion V (it even tells 
 you bow you are to understand tbem, i. e. in " tbeir literal 
 and grammatical sense ;"' and yet some seem to prefer a rule 
 of faitb wbicb tbe Cburcb never sanctions — some seem to 
 imagine tbat tbe collateral evidence — wbicb however may 
 be, and is of use — some seem to imagine that tbis is of more 
 importance than the direct guide. In such a case, some be- 
 lieve the Cburcb can explain herself better by " the stam- 
 mering lips of ambiguous formularies,"" than by the direct 
 letter which is written to prevent heresy, to effectuate agree- 
 ment. Why are those who call themselves Anglo-Catholics 
 claiming tbe Liturgy as tbat on which doctrine is to be 
 founded 2 why not be content with tbe plain meaning of the 
 Articles, if the Articles support tbeir views I If we have to 
 distort and explain away a document, it is the strongest 
 evidence of our mistrust of that document. Is Catholic doc- 
 trine sound 2 tben tbe Articles which churchmen grant to be 
 sound must be equally Catholic with the Liturgy ; or if there 
 is any superiority, all who have any confidence in our Church 
 must believe, tbat that which it appointed as a guide of faitb 
 would be more suited for a guide, and would express its 
 meaning more than something accidentally suitable to the 
 purposes of devotion. In one word, the Articles are to ex- 
 pound the Liturgies, not tbe Liturgy the Articles. For if you 
 reject the view tbat the Articles are a rule, you may well fear 
 the Twentietb, which declares tbat "the Church hath power 
 to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies
 
 10 
 
 of faith."" Nor k there any denial that tliis refers to a par- 
 ticuhir visible Church, and therein to our Church ; for unless 
 this be the case, our Church has, by an arbitrary act, consti- 
 tuted herself falsely as thoug-h having power, and her whole 
 basis is unsound and wicked. If the authority declared in 
 the Article, and signed b}' us all, belong to our Church, 
 and to none other can any Anglican attribute it ; then 
 by refusing to acquiesce in any iota of her doctrine and 
 the spirit of her teaching, we become inconsistent and self- 
 contradicted members. In violation of this principle of 
 common sense, those who rail the loudest at private judg- 
 ment, even within the pale of our Church, question her au- 
 thority, and set up for themselves a standard of one century, 
 and discuss how fur certain doctrines set forth b}' our 
 Church (as they say to include Catholics) will permit them 
 conscientiously and argiimentatively to subscribe. " The Arti- 
 cles may he subscribed." Not " the spirit and doctrine of our 
 Church is scriptural, and therefore do I hold them thoroughly;'"' 
 but " I can subscribe the Articles as not uncathollc ; I do 
 rul(^ myself by the prayers, because they preceded the lie- 
 formation."" As though not to be written by our Reformers 
 were a higher praise than to be (lie rule set forth Ity our 
 Church. a\e, and acknowledged as scrii)(iii;il by all who have 
 signed them. It sccnis that by signing the Articles we grant 
 that the Church has power under certain limitations, and if, 
 aft<'r granting this, we attack the Articles which are the result 
 of that j)ower, it becomes incumbent on us (o shew how the 
 Church has vi(tlated such limitations, (i. c. the word of Cod,) 
 and if it has, we cannot stay within its pale, because it is in- 
 cumbent on us to set forth df)ctrines contrary to (he spirit and 
 dj'clarations of llu* Churcli ; and this is as much a schisma- 
 tical act, as i>|)ciil\ lo lf;i\c ils c(iiinmiiii<iM. Ihil aic (licrc 
 members ot niir ('hurch who do oiler this insult 1(» our
 
 11 
 
 Church's exposition of the Rule of Faith, the word of God i 
 There are, and many are the assaults which are made ; hut 
 none with such success as in deteriorating the Articles, by 
 comparing- them with authorized formularies which is here 
 the. case; but let the writer speak for himself, and I will 
 compare it with an extract from the Lectures on Romanism. 
 
 THE PRAYER-BOOK AS SUPERIOR TO THE ARTICLES. 
 
 Tract, iYo. 90. p. 4. Year 1841. 
 While our Prayer-book is 
 acknowledged on all hands to 
 be of Catholic origin,^ our Ar- 
 ticles also, the offspring of an 
 uncatholic age, are, through 
 God"'s good providence, to say 
 the least, not uncatholic, and 
 ma9/ he subscribed by those 
 who aim at being Catholic in 
 heart and doctrine. 
 
 Lectures, p. 29. Year 18-38. 
 No member of the English 
 Church allows himself to build 
 on any doctrine different from 
 that found in our book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, That formulary 
 contains the elements of our 
 Theology, and herein lies the 
 practical exercise of our faith, 
 &c. 
 
 There we have extracts agreeing in spirit and matter ; and 
 the substance is, that the Prayer-book must be considered 
 nearer the truth than the Articles ; but I give a farther illus- 
 tration of this view : " There is no mistaking then in this day, 
 in England, where the Church Catholic is, and zchat her 
 
 •" Tract, No. 9. — "Conscious of the incnngniity of primitive forms and modern 
 feelings, our Reformers undertook to construct a Service more in accordance with the 
 spirit of their ago. They adopted the English language : thej' curtailed the alrcadj' 
 compressed ritual of the early ritual," &c. &c. Tempora imdaidur. Now the ritual 
 is every thing, and the Articles are to be distorted. See further, No. 38. " But 
 is there not certainly a distinction of dpctrine and matter between the Liturgy and 
 the Articles?" This is to shew how a clergyman is justified in preaching mure than 
 the Articles.
 
 ieacking." To t'ollow her is to follow the Prayer-book, in- 
 stead of following preachers who are but individuals:" and a 
 few lives further on, " Did we receive the Creed as our Gospel, 
 embrace and act upon the doctrine of our services, and if any 
 where we differed, differ in silence V &c. p. 321, Lectures. 
 Thus we find the Creed as the guide of the Anglo-Catholic, and 
 the Articles are not even mentioned. Now surely this cannot 
 be very intelligible, unless we understand the writer to sur- 
 render the Articles at once; which would seem to be the case, 
 as he does not refer to them as any part of the teaching of 
 our Church in this Lecture (X.) 1 am, to say the least, not 
 ignorant that an objection has been raised to our Articles, 
 which, if granted, would aj)pear a formidable support of this 
 view: for if our Articles are mere protests against heretical 
 views, and are dubious and uncertain, and we cannot under- 
 stand them ; of course, if we can understand the Creed and 
 Fornndaries, we are bound to consider them the teaching 
 of our Church.'' liut remember that this, if true, proves 
 either an imbecility or dishonesty on the part of our Church. 
 Imbecile, if unable to explain; dishonest, if pretending to ex- 
 
 ' How the writer of these Lectures can be consigtcnt with the writer of No. 90, 
 will 1m best dctcmiiiii'tl by comparing the pasAtigcs. 
 
 Tnwt, \u. 'M. 
 " Let her go on teuchiiii/ with the stuin- 
 meriuff lipi of ambiyuotu formularies " he. 
 
 L,At„,;s, p. .320. vd. liCJH. 
 " She professes to be the Calliolic 
 Church, and to transmit tliat one ancient 
 Catiiolic Faith : and she does transmit it 
 hiniply and iNTKi.LUiiui.v ; not the most 
 unlettered of her members can viiis her 
 meaning. She speaks in her furmularios 
 and services." A^mIu, " Thurc is no wj's- 
 /(i/t'w//," &c. lis quoted above, p. '.Vl\. 
 
 ITiin would appear contradictory, but the tfritrm must reconcile their own writings, 
 or where nhnll we refer for a yuiJe in understanding tlic Chiireh-' 
 
 *' Nor let me be nuHUiiderhtond in tills matter, for thenr is no ilisliiiiiuin of doc- 
 Irlnr iM-tweeii the Formularies and .\rticlcs, and I only protest against a rejectifin of 
 the Church's cxpohition (the Articles) to make room for the I'myer-book. Neitlier of 
 thcM do I conceive in the least degree to support TracUirianism : but let r.ich 
 occupy the place assigned it by our Churcli.
 
 13 
 
 plain and appoint a standard, it has set forth one for the pur- 
 pose of its being distorted to all points, when her own rule 
 of interpretation is observed, I mean " in a literal and gram- 
 matical sense." 
 
 First, then, let us refer to the Tractarian method of treating 
 the Articles, and see how far they agree or differ in their 
 opinions. We find (No. 5. p. 13) these words: "When cor- 
 ruptions, prevalent among the professedly Christian world, 
 render it necessary for her to state the substance of her faith 
 in Articles, (as was done in A.D. 1562,") &c. &c.; but in 
 after Numbers their principles are explained in contradiction to 
 this view. The Church stated the substance of her faith in 
 Articles, says No. 5 ; but see the doctrines of No, 38 for the 
 further development.^ 
 
 "There is a popular confusion on this subject. Our 
 Articles are not a bod^ of divinity, but in great measure 
 only protests against certain errors of a certain period of 
 the Church," (No. 88, near the end.) Again: "A states- 
 man of the last century is said to have remarked, that we 
 have Calvinistic Articles and a Popish Liturgy. This, of 
 course, is an idle calumny. But is there not certainly a dis- 
 tinction of doctrine and manner between the Liturgy and the 
 Articles ? And does not what I have just stated account for it? 
 viz. that the Liturgy, as coming down from the Apostles, is the 
 depository of their complete teaching, while the Articles are 
 polemical, and for the most part only protests against certain 
 definite errors l Such are my views about the Articles," &;c. 
 Then we have an apology for preaching more doctrines than are 
 contained in the Articles, on the ground that they are nearly 
 
 * A quotation with reference to this and other developments from a high authority 
 must be acceptable. " It is ever the tendency of novelty and schismatical teaching, to 
 develope itself further, and detach itself more from the doctrines of the Church," &c. &c. 
 Dr. Pusey's Preface to 4th edition of his Letter.
 
 14 
 
 all mere protesits against error; that they only condemn, and 
 do not assert. If this be the ease, how strange that we never 
 call them protests, but Articles. For the very name will 
 imply something more than denial — something ofimi)ortance — 
 something of assertion. How strange it would seem if I were 
 to apply the same objection to the Greedy and assert, that be- 
 cause it was a protest against certain definite errors, that it 
 contained nothing to guide me in my teaching. Now, I ask, 
 what is to hinder any other latitudinarian from pursuing this 
 course, and, upon a Tractarian's own ground, declaring that 
 he had nothing to guide him ; Is the Nicene Creed of no im- 
 })ortance, because against a heresy i Did it not hereby give 
 an opportunity to the Church to declare her opinion and exert 
 her authority i Is not St. Johu*'s Gospel — to speak after the 
 manner of men — attributable to the erroneous views held by 
 "certain definite'' heretics? To u:?e any argument of this 
 character is of such a dangerous tendency, that we should use 
 it with particular caution. 
 
 If we grant the objection in part, yet there still i-emains 
 strong ground against the assailants of the Articles, for doc- 
 trine may be conveyed in form of protest, if the worship of 
 t»aiuts and angels is prohibited, much is to be inferred from 
 it, and both Pagan and Popish idolatry is signified. 
 
 One more objection is urged, that not all doctrines are men- 
 tioned, and therefore our Artich'S cannot be a system of di- 
 vinity. Now it seems difficult to discover what doctrines are 
 omitted ; and a^'ain the Tracts assist us : but only one doctrine 
 liave I found mentioned as an omistiion, and that is the inspira- 
 tion of Scripture; but for the discussion of this point see 
 section 1. It would seem, from tlie frequency with which this 
 apparent omis-^if)!! is brought forward, anrl this only, that our 
 Articles an* noarly a n-ligious svstem. a body of divinity. 
 Hear tin- Kfctunr. |i. .'!.'2 : "To which I an-^ucr by asking in
 
 15 
 
 turn, why the Articles contain no recognition of tlie inspira- 
 tion of Holy Scripture i There are, as all 
 
 parties must con/ess, great truths not expressly stated in the 
 Articles." Again, No. 41, p. 5: "All of us do believe, as es- 
 sential, doctrines which nevertheless are not contained in the 
 Articles, as, e. g. the inspiration of Holy Scripture." Again, 
 No, 38 : "Let me ask, do you not hold the inspiration of Holy 
 Scripture I C. Undoubtedly. — C. Is it not a Clergyman"'s duty 
 to maintain and confess it ? L. Certainly. — C. But the doctrine 
 is no where found in the Articles," Sec. he. More passages are 
 unnecessary, and I will endeavour to answer the objection in 
 the main. That because the Articles do not mention ex- 
 pressly some one or more doctrines, therefore they are not a 
 system, or body of divinity; by which terms we understand 
 a whole connected substance of doctrine. 
 
 Again I call to your minds the fact, that this same objection 
 lies against the Creed, which some call Regula Fidel ; and 
 Avhich, to use the words of Newman''s Lectures on Romanism, 
 p. 268, " was called the Regula Fidei, or Rule of Faith ; as 
 the formulary by which all statements of doctrine made in 
 the Church were to be measured and estimated." Now if the 
 Creed is so satisfactory, a fortiori, the Articles are — and here I 
 again refer to No. 38, p. 9, to prove this point : " Our Articles 
 are one portion of that accumulation," (i. e. the " accumulated 
 wealth of ages.") " I look upon our Articles as, in one sense, 
 an addition to the Creeds." (Ibid.) But, perhaps, some may 
 fancy that the Creed had expositors, or that there was a 
 latent doctrine ; and on this point hear the Lectures, p. 272 : 
 " The Romanists would maintain that the Baptismal Creed 
 was but a portion of the sacred deposit specially committed 
 to the Church's keeping. But with the passages already 
 cited before us, which expressl}' call the Creed the rule of 
 teaching, is it possible to conceive that that rule of teaching
 
 16 
 
 then comprised any thing that did not nataralli/ rise out of it, or 
 teas an explanation of it? Even granting there were Articles of 
 Faith, which as yet lay amid the general ti-aditionary teaching, 
 undefiled and unrecognised in public formularies, such as the 
 divinity of the Holy Ghost, is it not plain that they still must 
 have been implied and virtually contained in the Creed, if the 
 Creed had an}' title to the name of Symbol, or Rule, or Sum- 
 mary of Christian doctrine ?" Yet after this we may again 
 hear that our Articles do not contain or express some Chris- 
 tian doctrine, even in open defiance of their own writer/ 
 
 But we need not this authority or parallelism, for we can 
 judge for ourselves by examining the Articles, and it may 
 easily be inferred from their structure that they are a system 
 of religious teaching. The first five regard the Deity; and 
 surely these are not mere protests. The sixth gives the Rule of 
 Faith, or sufficiency of Scripture ; and the seventh shews how 
 this Rule of Faith is to be adapted between the two Testa- 
 ments. (In the sixth, the Church shews cause against some 
 false introductions to the Canon, and certainly the protest is 
 not the prominent part of the Article.) The next shews the 
 standard authorities in their interpretation. From the ninth 
 to the seventeenth inclusive, the concernments of individuals 
 and tlic method of salvation is shewn, and, in the course, 
 R.onianist corruptions are exposed. The eighteenth appears 
 to be a summary in a kw words of the hope and ])rofession of 
 a Christian — he need to belong to some Churcli. Th<> 
 nineteenth defines the particular visible Church. Twentieth, 
 its authority. Twenty-first, the authority of the Universal 
 visible C'jiurcli. Tiie following regard the important matters 
 in the Church, or a guide for its services and efficacy of its 
 rites. Several follies which were prevalent with regard to 
 
 ' Seo this wliolc liCctiiro, to i-t plain tho nictluMl in which any thinj; .-iddcd may be 
 an cxplitriiitioii.
 
 17 
 
 • 
 
 men's duties as citizens, conclude her system. Hear Bishop 
 Jewel, whose Apology is au authorized work, though he be 
 but as an "irreverent Dissenter :" " We have declared at large 
 unto thee, the very tvhole matter of our Religion, what our 
 faith is of God the Father, of his only Son Jesus Christ, of 
 the Holy Ghost, of the Church, of the Sacraments, of the 
 Ministerie of Scriptures, of Ceremonies, and of every part of 
 Christian belief." Now an objection may be raised to this, as 
 being said not of the Articles, but of the Apology: and to this 
 I answer, that the coincidence is stronger; for here Jewel 
 mentions the whole matter of our Religion, (not the whole 
 matter of the Popish controversy,) and yet he only mentions 
 the points decided in the Articles. See, again, the very 
 object of the Articles, and answer how far that could be ac- 
 complished, unless men had something definite as a " system 
 and body of Divinity " to guide them, so as to produce " a 
 consent touching matters of Religion.''''^ See, further, the ten- 
 dency and direct meaning of the Declaration ^ prefixed to the 
 Articles : " To conserve and maintain the Church committed 
 to our charge in unity of true Religion, and in the bond of 
 peace," &c. &c. Let me ask, how the unity of the Church 
 can be preserved, if all heretics can twist the true meaning, 
 or if the Articles are so vague as not to decide systematically 
 upon matters of Faith I " The Articles .... do contain the 
 true doctrine of the Church of England, agreeable to God's 
 ■word : " — " prohibiting the least difference from the said Ar- 
 ticles." " The true doctrine " surely cannot mean " a part 
 
 e This is in the Canons, and therefore the Tractarians must have signed it ; and 
 perhaps its authority may be allowed literally, as it is not from the Articles. 
 
 •> This declaration was of the King : " We have, therefore, upon mature delibera- 
 tion, and with the advice of so many of our Bishops as might conveniently be called 
 together, thought fit to make the declaration following." Thus we may regard this as 
 at least Cranmer's act, and a necessary result of the Articles being agreed upon in 
 Convocation.
 
 18 
 
 • 
 
 of the true doctrine,"' theretbre the Articles must contain the 
 ^^ hole doctrine of our Church ; and whence have Clergymen 
 liberty to add of their ^^ri'm^e judgment ? Or how can au- 
 thorities •' prohibit any difference," which from the vagueness 
 of the Articles can never occur I Therefore the view quoted 
 from the Tract No. 88, and the Lectures, and on which the as- 
 sertion p. 4. of No. 90 depends, is, to say the least, not founded 
 on reason or authority, and seems to be part of the " novel 
 and schismatical teaching, the tendency of which is to develope 
 itself more fully as it advances." 
 
 To enter upon the question more fullf* in this introduction 
 is impossible ; and as remarks with regard to the tendency of 
 these views and subscription will be brought forward in the 
 conclusion, to delay upon them longer will be unnecessary. 
 But let the Tractarians consider, whether they are not pro- 
 ducing all the dangers of change, without any of its beneficial 
 results. That they are in error, and have not the consent of 
 the Articles in their literal and grammatical sense, (the 
 Church's rule,) their own words will shew ; and how far 
 sophistry and argumentative conviction may prevail, I know 
 not ; but of one thing I am fully conscious, that if their 
 principles of interpretation prevail, we may have all doctrine 
 preached in our pulpits, but that which is scriptural, catholic, 
 and true. 
 
 That Jewel, as has been said, believed our Articles to be 
 a system, will be evident if we refer to the 17th section, eh. i. 
 
 of his Ajtology: — "So we therefore liave thought 
 
 it not unreasonable f)r uiij)r()ritable to propound opcnJij and 
 freely tlw finlli in u liicli we .st:inil. and nil thni liojic which we 
 have in Christ Jesus, that all may see wlial we think of -every 
 part of the Cliristian Religion, " &c. «Jcc. : and in accordance 
 with this view he immediately proceeds, and his next chapter 
 ''contains tlu; doctrine received in tlic Church of Kni,dand ;"
 
 19 
 
 and this we find to be the same as that propounded in the 
 Articles ; e. g. Of God. Christ. Of his going down into Hell. 
 The Holy Ghost. The Church. The Pope's supremacy. The 
 calling of Ministers. Their Authority and Keys. Matrimony. 
 Canonical Scriptures. The Sacraments, and their Number. 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Presence of Christ. Tran- 
 substantiation. Purgatory, and the subjects of the other Ar- 
 ticles. 
 
 Lest any persons should be inclined wrongly to suspect the 
 writer of No. 90, of having pursued a novel method of ex- 
 plaining away our Articles, I subjoin an extract from Bishop 
 Waterland, a high authority : " For does the faith of Christ 
 lie in words only, or in things ? or is the repeating of the bai'e 
 letter of Scripture, after a man has spirited away the sense, 
 delivering divine truths, or contradicting and defeating them ? 
 To make the case plainer, I shall illustrate it by a resembling 
 instance. Franciscus a Sancta Clara, a known papist, (who 
 published his book A.D. 1634,) contrived to make our Thirty- 
 nine Articles speak his own sentiments, reconciling them with 
 great dexterity and most amazing subtilty to the Council of 
 Trent. Now put the question, whether upon his thus pro- 
 fessing his faith in Protestant terms, popishly interpreted, he 
 could justly claim every privilege of a Church of England 
 man, and whether we were bound to receive him as a fellow 
 Protestant ? A very little share of common sense, I presume, 
 will be sufficient to determine the question in the negative." 
 Waterland on the Trinity, p. 211. ed. Camb. 1800. 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 1. Holy Scripture^ and the Axdhorlty of the Church. 
 A rticles VI. and A'A". 
 
 However much we may object to the method of quotation 
 and parenthesis pursued, other matters of higher importance 
 will occupy our attention ; but we must continually bear in 
 mind, that an " argumentative answer" is the scope of this 
 Tract., and by this wc are to interpret it. This section pro- 
 fesses to inquire, (1.) what is meant by Holy Scripture? and 
 we may infer that there is some difficulty to be explained 
 away in reference to this point, or it would not have been dis- 
 cussed at all. The first words on this subject appear to say 
 that the difficulty is not here : " And the books of Holy 
 Scripture are enumerated in tlio latter part of the Article, so 
 as to preclude question ;" but this is not all, as the writer 
 proceeds — " Still two points deserve notice." But before we 
 enter upon these, we must digress to a point not here ques- 
 tioned, i. e. How far the Articles imply or express the in- 
 spiration of Scripture? for it seems a matter worthy of atten- 
 tion. Passages where our Articles are said not to mention it 
 have been quoted. 
 
 Tlio heading of tlic Article in the Latin is, " De dlmnis 
 Scriptnris, cpiod siilliciant ad salutein." The Article com- 
 mences in the Latin, " Scriptura sacra continet omnia, quic ad 
 salutcm sunt necessaria." Now let me ask, what is meant by 
 "sacra" and "divina," unless some distinctive title is here 
 given to inspired writings over all others? and that both of 
 thorn refer to the Canonical hooks on/// is shewn I'loni the 
 words which foll<n\. by which they are placed in connection 
 with things neccss.-iiy to salvation.
 
 21 
 
 " Sacred and divine" are high words to apply to any 
 writing-; and who could apply them to any writings unless 
 from God ? But, further, they are said to contain all things 
 necessary to salvation ; and surely no writing can be of such 
 awful importance, unless inspired and from God. From 
 these we prove our faith, and know all things ; and must they 
 not then be more than human ? These reveal the will of God 
 to us ; and shall we not call them a revelation ? Can we dis- 
 cover a method of salvation for ourselves ? and if we cannot, 
 God must have revealed himself to us in some books, or in 
 some way, and this our Article declares to be the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. It would seem a contradiction to common sense to 
 sav, that such words as are used in our Articles could be said 
 of any other writing than the revealed will of God ; and if 
 they can only thus be used, to whatever they are applied, to 
 these also must be attached, that they are inspired. The 
 attack on this Article is only another specimen of the method 
 pursued by the Tractarian party, which must expose to all 
 doubts and fears the people in this country, and that, too, on 
 the most important points.* 
 
 * We may refer to another matter in Catholic teaching, which has also been 
 omitted in No. 90. Let us compare two passages. 
 
 Lectures on Homanism, p. 399. 
 "Nothing, I think, is plainer from 
 these extracts, than that the authors of 
 them looked upon Scripture as the public 
 standard of proof, the tribunal of appeal, 
 in controversy, however conclusive the ar- 
 gument from Catholic Tradition might be 
 for private conviction. Now how strik- 
 ingly coincident with this view are the 
 words of our Articles ! ' Holy Scripture 
 containeth all things necessary to salva- 
 tion, so that ' (i. e. in such sense that) 
 ' whatsoever is not read therein, nor may 
 be proved thereby, is not to be required of 
 any man.' The Article is altogether of a 
 polemical character." 
 
 Lectures on Romanism, p. 344. 
 
 " The Article is certainly engaged in 
 stating a great principle ; it begins with a 
 formal enunciation, as if uttering what it 
 felt to be a bulwark of the Truth and an 
 antidote against the errors of the times."
 
 oo 
 
 The first point discussed, is not of that importance to this 
 subject, as to induce me to enter fully upon the question, and 
 therefore let us turn to the second observation : " 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." Examine this passage closely, and you will find no 
 assertion in favour of the inspiration ; yet no single individual 
 can read it without understanding it to hint, that our Church 
 does not negative the inspiration of the Apocrypha. Before 
 we enter upon the question of authorities produced in support 
 of this half-view, we will endeavour to shew, by the same line 
 of argument as in the inspiration of Scripture, that our 
 Church docs declare to all who can " unfeignedly and ex ammo''' 
 sign her Articles, " that she rejects the inspiration of the 
 Apocrypha. *• If Holy Scriptures are canonical books, and 
 canonical books alone are Holy Scriptures, as is shewn in the 
 second clause of this Article, then what are other books ? 
 To say the least, not holy, not divine ; for we have shewn the 
 
 "A bulwark of the Truth " seems little adapted to the concluding words of this 
 paragraph, which is exactly as in the copy of the Lectures ; and who is there that on 
 reading this would not form an incorrect notion of our Article, from the method 
 of punctuation ob»cr\cd, and from the words in Italics? See the 45th Tnict, p. 4. 
 where, by the same Article falsely, or mther short-cjuoted, the sense of it is ijuile 
 altered, and contradicta the Homily. ** For in Holy Scripture \t>fuUy cont.oined what 
 wc ought to do," &c. 
 
 •" Suppose wc pursue the Tractarian argument, and follow Augustine De Doctr. 
 Chr. ii. K, it is quite possible to profe that the words " those canonical books," 
 mean those nf the canonical books, of whose authority there never hath been any 
 doubt," as though all books of the Old and New Testament were canonical, and the 
 present received Bible was made up of such books as were never doubted. Now 
 this might easily bo done, and jtrovnl from yVugustine, as we shall see. Yet, surely, 
 wc must understand canon in an Anfjliran sense, and by its received sense
 
 23 
 
 term dimna to apply to the same thing as the sacra. Why- 
 do the Holy Scripture and the Apocrypha differ specially in 
 point of doctrine I For now I take the Tractarian point, and 
 Avill endeavour to shew, that if they differ on point of doc- 
 trine, it is quite enough to prove that they are not inspired. 
 Inspiration must either render a man infallible, or leave him 
 as he was before, fallible. If it renders him infallible, he 
 must be so in all points ; and therefore the writers cannot err 
 in doctrine ; but the Apocrypha does err in doctrine, therefore 
 it is not infallibly inspired. Again, if the inspiration be but 
 fallible, then it would have been absurd to mention it in the 
 Articles ; inasmuch as by confessing them profitable, they 
 allow that they are, to a certain extent, inspired. But let 
 
 there be no confusion as to this point, for the Apocrypha is 
 
 .... * 
 
 not inspired in a scriptural sense ; and it might be said with 
 
 Chrysostom, " I know that many of the holy fathers have 
 spoken of the creation, and have said many great and glorious 
 things as the grace of the Holy Spirit measured unto them. 
 Yet, though many great and glorious things have been spoken, 
 nothing hiniiers us also to speak as the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit may have guided us." (De Mundi Great. 1. i.) But 
 infallible inspiration was implied in the Article as belonging 
 to Holy Scripture ; and from this Holy Scripture it excludes 
 the Apocrypha, and declares it to be fallible ; and how then 
 can it be inspired? If it were inspired in any other sense 
 than as Chrysostom, it would be an infallible authority, and 
 consequently teach infallibly; but it teaches wrong in doctrine, 
 (as the Article implies,) and therefore is not inspired in a 
 sense which admits of being placed any higher than human. 
 Thus much for proof from the Article: but a text of Scripture 
 on this last point sets the matter at rest. " All Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
 
 24 
 
 reproof," Sec. All Scripture, (iraa-a ypa(f)r],) (here there is no 
 exception, no omission :) all Scripture — how can we say that 
 the Apocrypha is profitable for these things ? Our Article 
 and Anglican teaching denies it of the Apocrypha, and 
 consequently denies of the Apocrypha that it is a part of 
 Scripture. Whence, then, its inspiration ? Or, whence the 
 need for our Church to assert the same thing over and 
 over again, to convince those who might be disposed to raise 
 objections and pervert them ? The words which follow the 
 quotation from Jerom place the views of the Tractarian be- 
 yond doubt : " That this is the limit to which our disparage- 
 ment 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 in- 
 cidentally shewn in Section XT." So our Church has dis- 
 paraged the Apocrypha, but yet only to a certain limit ; i. e. 
 as hinted above, the Church"^ considers them inspired, only 
 not so inspired as to prove doctrine. Now we have shewn 
 that they cannot be inspired, and that the Church does 
 not consider them so: but the objection from the Homilies 
 shall be answered incidentally, as in No. 90. (See Ap- 
 pendix A.) 
 
 If the Church bo a witness of the truth, how can she sur- 
 render from the Canon that which has an equal claim to bo 
 contained in it i 
 
 IJut further on we have the authority of two fathers ad- 
 duced to prove that " such reverence" (i. e. holding them in- 
 spired) is compatible with " such disparagement," (i. e. reject- 
 
 ' The Church might read the Hninilios of ChrysoBtom, and some j^reat ndniirer» 
 of thin Father might claim liim as n giiidu in innttcrH of fuith ; and if tlic Church 
 denied him as a guide, and yet Miid he had Home good in him, shal! wu thenceforth 
 rite up and itny, the Church alloWH hiit innpiration ?
 
 25 
 
 ing them from the Canon,) " both of whom imply more or less 
 their inferiority to canonical Scripture, yet use them freely 
 and continually, and speak of them as Scripture. St. Augus- 
 tine savs," 
 
 DE DOCT. CHRIST. 11, 8. 
 
 St. Augustine^ as in the Bene- 
 dictine Edition. 
 " Tenebit igitur hunc mo- 
 dum in Scripturis Canonicis 
 ut eas, quae ab omnibus acci- 
 piuntur ecclesiis CatholiciSy 
 prseponat eis, quas qusedam 
 non accipiunt." 
 
 St. Augustine, as quoted p. 6. 
 No. 90. 
 
 " Those books which are re- 
 ceived 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 great- 
 er authority."" 
 
 (Given exactly as in p. 6.) 
 
 Here I have given parallel the two quotations ; and after 
 shewing some few omissions, I shall shew to a certainty that 
 Augustine has no more in this chapter to support the Tractarian 
 view, than to overturn the Newtonian System. First, I have 
 a charge that the writer has omitted the two most important 
 words, and has given such a translation as entirely to alter the 
 sense of the passage. This may perhaps appear a bold as- 
 sertion, but yet perfectly true. 
 
 So extraordinary is this misapplication, that unless history 
 had rendered it impossible that I can be mistaken, (as I 
 will shew presently,) I should have feared to make the attack ; 
 but chapter and book are given, and the passage which I have 
 placed in parallels is the only one in any degree alike. In 
 this a rough translation is given, and these words are put in 
 italics, and said to be the very language of the Article ; a 
 strange coincidence ; whereas the orginal has " ab omnibus ec- 
 clesiis Catholicis,'''' which quite alters the parallel in words, and
 
 26 
 
 proves that St. Augiistiue considered tliat there was more than 
 one CathoUc Church. 
 
 But there is another charge, that this quotation is turned so 
 as to signify something utterly different from the original ; and 
 if a literal translation had heen given, the passage never could 
 have been here quoted. For instance, the writer of No. 90 
 wishes to give some authority to the Apocrypha, though "not 
 canonical;" and the extract being only with regard to ca- 
 nonical Scripture, cannot apply at all to the Apocrypha unless 
 it is canonical, since the Latin is in Canonicis Scripturis, and 
 points out a rule for discriminating between them. Perhaps 
 the best method of exhibiting this opposition will be to give 
 that ]iart of the chapter which refers to the matter. The 
 chapter commences with an exhortation to read Scripture and 
 avoid other books, and then commences as to these canonical 
 books. 
 
 " In Canonicis autem Scripturis ecclesiarum Catholicarum 
 quam })lurium auctoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illre sint, 
 quai Apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. 
 Tenebit igltur hunc modum in Scripturis Canonicis, ut eas quaj 
 ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis Catholicis, pracponat eis quas 
 qu.x'dam non accipiunt. In eis vero, qune non accipiuntur ab 
 omnibus, pra3ponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis 
 quas pauciores minorisque auctoritatls ccclesiuo tcnent. Si 
 autem alias invenerit a j)luril)us alias a gravioribus haberi, 
 quan(juam lioc facile Inveniii nun possit, ;i't[ualis tamcii aucto- 
 ritatis eas luibcndas j)uto. Toius avft^m. Canon Scrijifvrarnm, 
 in quo istam consideraiionem vcrsamluiu tlicimus, his libris 
 continctur." Here follows an enumeration of Scripture, in 
 wliieli the A jiorn/pha iii included. 'IMms, in a word, Augustine 
 conniders tiie ApocrvpViri canonical; and yel (he \vrlter of 
 No. no, well n;i<l in r.itiistie lore, we may j)resunie, so flir 
 furg«.'ts liimself and Augustine's views as to produce him as
 
 27 
 
 one of two witnesses in proof of an assertion, that " we might 
 disparage the Apocrypha by excluding it from the Canon, and 
 yet treat it with some reverence." How far then is the as- 
 sertion verified I " both of whom (Augustine and Jerom) imply 
 more or less their inferiority to canonical Scripture." 
 
 The syllogism which follows is one which cannot stand. 
 
 The major premiss ;=bad translation, as shewn. 
 
 The minor premiss contradicts the authority on which the 
 major rests. 
 
 Minor Premiss. 
 
 Books which are canonical 
 cannot have less authority 
 than others. 
 
 Augustine, from whom the 
 Major is a wrong transla- 
 tion, as shewn hy 'parallel in 
 p. 25. 
 
 In eis vero, quae non acci- 
 piuntur ab omnibus, prseponat 
 eas, quas plures gravioresque 
 accipiunt, eis quas pauciores 
 minorisque auctoritatis eccle- 
 sise tenent. 
 
 That the words in eis can only refer to the canonical 
 Scriptures, and that in consequence the authority of some 
 canonical looks, in the opinion of St. Augustine, is to be pre- 
 ferred to that of others, will be plain and evident to all who 
 read the chapter above quoted. 
 
 The conclusion, then, only remains : " It follows, accord- 
 ing to St. Augustine, that those books which are not received 
 by all the churches are not canonical." As the premisses, so 
 the conclusion will be seen, by comparison with the passages 
 above quoted, to be utterly contrary to Augustine\s meaning. 
 
 But historical testimony has been alluded to, and now let 
 us examine it. History, as well as the chapter quoted, shews 
 that Augustine received the Apocrypha as canonical ; and
 
 28 
 
 let us hear Bishop Marsh on this point : (Comparative View, 
 p. 95.) 
 
 " Such was the state of things, when the Greek Bible was 
 adopted by the early Latin Church, as a kind of original for 
 the Old Testament. And, as the Latin translator or trans- 
 lators were unable to discriminate between books originally 
 Greeli^ and books originally Hehreic^ they translated them ia 
 the mass, and received them with equal veneration, (pari 
 pietatis affectu ac reverentia.) Hence the celebrated St. Au- 
 gustine, bishop of Hippo, whose reading was chiefly confined 
 to works in his native language, regarded all the books of 
 the Latin Version as books of canonical authority. In his 
 treatise De Doctrina Christiana, he has stated what he calls 
 the 'Whole Canon of Scripture,"" (Totus Canon Scripturarum ;) 
 and in this Canon he expressly names the books of Tobit, 
 Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and two books of Maccabees.*^ 
 No notice indeed is taken in this Canon, either of the apo- 
 cryplial parts of Esther and Daniel, or of the book of Baruch. 
 
 '"* Totus autera Canon Scripturarum, in quo istam considerationcm versandam 
 dicimus, his libris continetur ; quinque Moyseos, id est, Genesi, Exodo, Leritico, 
 Numeris, Dcutcronomio ; et uno libro Jesu Nave ; uno Judicum, uno libello, qui 
 appellatur Ruth, qui niagisad Rcpnorum principiuni vidctur pcrtincre: deinde quatuor 
 Regiioruin, et duobus Paraiipomcnon, non conscqucntibus, sod quasi a latere adjunctis, 
 simulquc porgentibus. Hai-c est historia, qux sibinet annexa tempora continct, atque 
 ordinem renim. Sunt alia: tanquani ex diverse ordine, qua; nequc huic ordini, neque 
 inter sc connectuntur : sicut est Job, et Tobias, et Esther, et Judith, et Afachabceorum 
 lihri duo, et Esdrfe duo, qui magis subsequi vidcntur ordinatjim ilhini historiam usque 
 ad Regiionim et Paraiipomcnon teniiinatnni. Deinde Propheta; ; in quibus David 
 unu8 liber Pnalmorum, et .Salomonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica Canticonim, et Ec- 
 clenListcB. Nam illi duo libri, unus, qui Sapientia, et alius qui ICcclesiasticua inscri- 
 bitur, dc quadam similitudine .Sti/omonu dicuntur ; nam Jesus Sirach eos conscripsisse 
 conittantiiisime perhibetur ; qui tanicn, (juoniam in auctoritatcm rccipi nionierunt, 
 inter prophclurit numerandi sunt. Augustini <>pp. torn. iii. p. i. p. 2."?. ed. Rencdict. 
 He then mcntionn by name each of the sixteen prophetical books ; and concludes with 
 the obsonation, II in qmidrnginta quatuor libris Trstamenii Veteris terminatur tiucto- 
 rittu. — His Canon of the AVir Textamml, which is subjoined to his Canon of the Old 
 Tmtamenl, is exactly the s.iiiie with our own.
 
 29 
 
 But as in the Latin Version the two former were constituent 
 parts of Esther and Daniel, and Baruch was an appendage to 
 Jeremiah, the very circumstance of his mentioning those books 
 without an observation, shews that he received those books 
 entire, (libros ipsos integros, cum omnibus suis partibus/) 
 
 " At length, in the beginning of the ^/th century, a new 
 Latin translation of the Old Testament was published by 
 Jerom.^ And this translation was made, not, like the old 
 Latin translation, from the Greek version, but from the 
 Hehreto original. From thai period, the difference between 
 the Latin Canon and the Hebrew Canon became generally 
 known : and Jerom himself has clearly explained it in his 
 Prolog us galeatus.^ He has there enumerated the books con- 
 tained in the Hebrew Bible, ' that we may know, that what- 
 ever is beside them, should be placed among the Apocrypha}' 
 
 " * Though we are not at present concerned with the Canon of the Greek Church, 
 it will not be superfluous to observe, that the Gfreek Fathers did not make such mis- 
 takes in regard to the canonical writings of the Old Testament, as the Latin Fathers. 
 But even the Grceh Fathers were sometimes led into mistakes by the use of the Sep- 
 tuagint, and its intermixture of apocryphal -with canonical books. Modem WTiters 
 on the Canon of the Old Testament have frequently attempted to explain the mistakes 
 both of the Greek and of the Latin Fathers, by contending that, when they ascribe 
 canonical authorit}- to an apoc7-i/]:ihal book, they do it only to a certain degree, or 
 under certain limitations. Now a book is either canonical, or it is not canonical : 
 there is no such thing as a medium. Indeed such explanations are mere subterfuges, 
 founded on the false notion, that the Canon of the Old Testament must be regulated 
 by the opinions of the Fathers. It must be regulated ifholly and solely by the answer 
 to the question ; What books were contained in those Hebrew Scriptures, which re- 
 ceived the sanction of our Saviour ? 
 
 " ^ It was begun before the end of the fourth century, but not finished till after 
 the year 405. See Martianay's second Prolegomenon to the Divina Bibliotheca 
 Hieronymi. 
 
 " S The Prologus galeatus was so called, because it was considered as a sort of 
 helmet, at the head of Jerom's translation of the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, Jerom him- 
 self calls it galeatum principium omnibus libris, quos de Hebrseo vertimus in Latinum. 
 It is called also Pra/atio Hieronymi de omnibus libris Veteris Testamenti, and is 
 printed under that name in the Benedictine edition of Jerom 's Works, vol. i. p. 318 — 
 322. 
 
 " '' Ut scire valeamus, quicquid crtra lios est, inter 'AirSKpvcpa esse poneJidum. 
 R. p. :^,-22.
 
 30 
 
 But though Jerora was far the most learned among the Latin 
 Fathers, his opinion on the Canon of Scripture did not prevail 
 in the Church of Rome. The books, which he had termed 
 apocryphal, were not only retained in the Latin version, but 
 retained intermixed, as before, with the books confessedly 
 canonical. Thus the Canon of Augustine continued to be the 
 Canon of the ruling party. But, as there were not wanting 
 persons, especially among the learned, who, from time to 
 time, recommended the Canon of Jerom, it was necessary for 
 the Council of Trent to decide between the contending parties. 
 And, as Luther, on the one hand, decided in favour of Jerom,' 
 the Council of Trent, on the other hand, decided in favour of 
 Augustine. Hence also we discover (what is not generally 
 known) the reason why the Council of Trent omitted the third 
 and fourth books of Esdras, with the Prayer of Manasses. 
 They were omitted in the catalogue of Augustine.''" 
 
 This quotation throws considerable light on the canonicity 
 of Scripture, and also confirms the view given of Augustine''s 
 meaning. We may conclude, from most certain evidence, 
 that the passage of Augustine is misapplied in consequence of 
 misquotation, and made to distinguish between Canonical and 
 Apocryphal books, which Augustine, it seems, does not. 
 
 After having found that this authority has fallen to the 
 ground and has " rather"" entangled the writer of No. 90, 
 perhaps we shall discover something " more express and 
 pertinent" in Jerom. But with regard to his authority, 
 
 " ' The bookn, nnd parts of books, of which Jfirom had said that they should be 
 placed ' inter air6Kpv<pa,'' were sopamted in Luther's (lomian tmnHlntion from the 
 books contiiincd in tlie Hebrew Hible, and placed together by thcniRelves \nider the 
 title ' Apocrj-pha ; that is, KookB, which are not to be considered as equal to IIoli/ 
 Scriplnrr, and yet are useful and good to read.' 
 
 '* ^ If it be asked why Augustine /iimse//' omitted them, an answer may easily 
 \}C given. The fnurth book of Esdras, or the grcoiid ajmcn/jihil book of Ksdrns, is 
 neither contained in the jirrnrnt copies of the S<>ptuagint, nor is it known to have 
 rtv?r occupied a place in it ; though it once prohiilily exiHtcd rlM-irhrre in CJreek. (See 
 Fnbricii Bib. (inn-n, toni. iii. p. "11. <"il. Iliirlch.)"
 
 31 
 
 what is it ? " he distinctly names many of the books which 
 he considers not canonical, and virtually names them all by 
 naming which are canonical;" and is this a proof of his reverence, 
 or not-disparagement ? If so, then also our Article proves the 
 point, and the writer need not have referred to Jerom. Two 
 quotations follow, and these do prove that Jerom mentions 
 certain apocryphal books as not in the Canon : but this no one 
 doubts ; and I cannot understand the reason of their introduc- 
 tion, unless to supply a want of any single extract to prove 
 the point asserted. This matter is concluded by an assertion 
 utterly unsupported by any proof: but even if it were proved, 
 it in no degree asserts the inspiration of the Apocrypha, 
 unless reverence or respect for any thing necessarily implies an 
 immediate divine origin. One observation occurs in reference 
 to this point : why is there no distinction made between 
 canonical and sacred writings (if there is any) in the standard 
 writers of our Church i Why is this theory now broached 
 for the first time, if this was the interpretation of Catholics 
 in the days of the Reformation, and if this was their " argu- 
 mentative answer V The Homily on the Holy Scriptures 
 makes no such distinction ; for it never mentions the Apo- 
 crypha, nor does it even quote it. We need neither the 
 Canon of Rome, nor any such perversion of the plain meaning 
 of words. What again is the opinion of Hooker? Has he 
 made this distinction in any shape or degree in his discussion 
 on Holy Scripture? (book i.) On the contrary, he continually 
 explains the necessary effects of Scripture, and agrees literally 
 with the Article, yet never mentions the Apocrypha, nor does 
 he imply the existence of other inspired writers ; and surely in 
 such a discussion it was necessary, if the Apocrypha be an 
 inspired book. Again, hear Jewel, " The Scriptures are the 
 word of God : What title can there be of greater value ? what 
 may be said to make them of greater authority, than to say
 
 32 
 
 the Lord hath spoken them i that they came not by the will 
 of men, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost." (Jewel on the Holy Scriptures.) This can in 
 no degree be applied to the Apocrypha. See Bishop Hall, 
 " No peace with Rome," section 14. " Six whole books should 
 by their fatherhoods of Trent, under pain of a curse, im- 
 periously be obtruded upon God and his Church.'''' See also 
 Usher, and other divines. It would not have any beneficial 
 effect to give more quotations ; nor is it required, as the view 
 brought forward in No. 90 is not supported by any. 
 
 The next paragraph concerns the received version, and we 
 find some observations of which the only end is to unsettle 
 men's minds ; for the translation is declared to have been 
 " made and authorized by royal command, which cannot be 
 supposed to have any claim upon our interior consent : " but 
 surely this is not the most fair method of stating the fact ; for 
 our translation is not a selection by the King from a number 
 of others, but merely his act, so far forth as he appointed 
 those great and learned men the Translators. This act was 
 merely the official part ; and from the men engaged on the 
 work, we have every reason to assent to the correctness of the 
 translation. 
 
 S. The adjustment between tlie respective offices of Scrip- 
 ture and the Church. 
 
 " From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and 
 enforces the faith ;''^ {phtrudit, or, as other copies, obtendit ;) 
 " for it is forbidden to expound in a particular way, or so to 
 enforce as to obtrude : next, that it derives the faith wholly 
 from Scripture: thirdly, that its office is to educe an har- 
 monious interpretation of Scripture. 'I'lius much the Article 
 settles. Two important (piestions however it does not settle, viz. 
 whether the Church judgos, first, at her Wt? discretion; next, 
 on her sole responsihilitif ; i. o. first, what the media are by
 
 which the Church 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 in- 
 terprets Scripture rightly, or not ; what is her method, if any; 
 who is her judge, if any. In other words, not a Avord is said, on 
 the one hand, in 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, o^ i\\e private judgment of 
 the individual being the ultimate standard of interpretation." 
 I have given the whole passage, because it is such an illustra- 
 tion of the method by which the plainest statements may 
 be made unintelligible. For instance, the conclusion ar- 
 rived at from the three points declared as the teaching of the 
 two Articles is, that two points are unsettled. But if the 
 Article had been allowed to explain itself, neither of these 
 doubts could have arisen. The Article commences by an as- 
 sertion of authority, yet the Tractarian omits that entirely; I 
 will not say, because it is the turning point of the Article, but 
 perhaps from oversight. Now let us examine the question 
 more fully. Authority in matters of faith is declared to belong 
 to the Church, and the first question which would suggest 
 itself is, to what extent is that authority I If any one gives 
 a friend authority to complete a purchase or transact other 
 business, and does not give hiui any further advice, or con- 
 fine him by any restrictions, then all would hold, that the 
 person to whom the commission was given had unlimited 
 authority. Again, if any one commissions his friend, and tells 
 him, in the transaction, to avoid some one course or some two 
 acts, the authority is limited so far, and so far only, as the 
 words extend, and consequently a discretionary power is 
 allowed in all other points. This must be granted by all as 
 evidently the case, and therefore we may apply it to this 
 Article. Does the Church receive her authority unshackled,
 
 84 
 
 aud are there no restrictions I Certainly, some restrictions are 
 mentioned in the Article. To the authority it is attached, (1.) 
 that it must not interpret contradictorily ; (2.) that " besides 
 the same, (i. e. Holy Writ,) it ought not to enforce any thing 
 to be believed for necessity of salvation." Now apply the in- 
 stance taken to the Church, and we may say that the atitho- 
 7'ifj/ is limited so far, and so far only, as these two points, and 
 that consequently a discretionary power is allowed in all other 
 points. That these limitations form the exception to un- 
 limited authority, is clear ; and if any other limitations can be 
 shewn, they are only joined to those previously existing, and 
 in nowise disqualify the remaining authority. If this be 
 correct, can it be said that the Article does not settle whether 
 the Church judges at her sole discretion ? No ; for the limit 
 (1.) is, that Scripture must be interpreted harmoniously;^ 
 (i. e. that Scrii)turo must be interpreted according to Scrip- 
 ture :) (2.) that nothing must be added besides the liible ; 
 (i. e. that tradition can never be brought forward to j^rove 
 doctrine.) So that, also, it is left to the Church " to decide on 
 the media by which she interprets Scripture ;" and surely if 
 the Church is an authoritative guide in interpreting Holy 
 Writ — surely if this high dignity can be granted her, we 
 may, at least, not wonder that the choice of means is also left 
 to hir authority, liut in reading the Tract No. 00, and its 
 summary, it miglit not occur to the reader, that the word 
 authority had such importance: and this should be an example 
 to writers, carefulli/ to use the very trord-^ of the Article, be- 
 fore they make a charge of indistinctness. 
 
 Let UH refer next to the second " imj)ortant tjucstion"" whit-li 
 our ('liiuih is said to have left undecided ; i. e. " whetlier the 
 
 ' TIm- wiipi!. "I till- I^atiii ArticlcR, in tlic Bocond claiim-, bliuw more clearly that 
 thom are tho only liniitu, " Qunmri.n Eerlrnim turn lii'fl," \c. " And yet it iH not 
 lawful," in the Knglish Article*.
 
 35 
 
 Church judges on hei- sole resj^onsibillii/ ; or who is to decide 
 Avhether it interprets Scripture rightly or not?" I will not 
 urge the evident distinction between jus and auctoritas, but 
 will refer to the Article. The Church appoints herself limits, 
 and consequently implies her own imperfection : and if the 
 Church is confined to certain rules, then there must be some 
 other party to judge how far she observes them ; for if not, 
 then the same party is judge as well as criminal, so to speak. 
 As the Church is fallible, she may lead her members into 
 error ; and no one can be justified in following authority to do 
 evil. Now that this is no strange view, will be seen from the 
 following authorities. 
 
 Tract for the Times, No. 20, page 8 : " True it is, were the 
 Church to teach heretical doctrine, it might become incumbent 
 on us (a miserable obligation) to separate from it." 
 
 No. 5, p. 13 : " She puts the Bible into the hand of every 
 member of her communion, and calls upon him to believe 
 nothing as necessary to salvation which shall not appear, upon 
 mature examination, to be set down therein, or at least to be 
 capable of being proved thereby; but shewing at the same 
 time her authority as its appointed interpreter, she cautions 
 him not rashly, or without having fully weighed the subject, 
 to dissent from her expositions, the results of the accumulated 
 learning and labour of centuries. She warns him not without 
 cause to run the risk of incurring the fearful sin of schism," &c. 
 
 Bishop Marsh, (Compar. View, page 166) : " Shall any man 
 be bound to accept an interpretation of Scripture imposed on 
 him by the will of another, if on mature deliberation he him- 
 self is convinced that such interpretation is false ? Un- 
 doubtedly, he is not bound, nor does our Church impose the 
 obligation." 
 
 It may be asserted, that Hooker is opposed to this ; but 
 that his remarks on submission only refer to non-essentials, is 
 
 c 2
 
 3G 
 
 plain from his wortls, (vol. i. p. 437. ed. Keble :) " The indispo- 
 sition, therefore, of the Church of Rome to reform herself, must 
 be no stay unto us from performing our duty to God ; even as 
 the desire of retaining conformity with them could be no 
 excuse, if we did not perform tliat duty." Thus we are in- 
 excusable, according to Hooker, unless we perform our duty ; 
 and how can we perform our duty in hypocrisy ? We must 
 believe that which we assent to ; and unless we can believe an 
 interpretation, are we justified in doing violence to our con- 
 science ? The writer of " Lectures on Romanism" has seen 
 the weight of this point, and sought to provide against it, and 
 for this purpo.se he declares that the Creed is the only docu- 
 ment of essential truth, and that the Church allows liberty as 
 regards other matters. " I have said, that the Church was 
 indefcctil)le in the faith, or in the fundamentals of revealed 
 religion, and that in consequence she superseded private judg- 
 ment so far, and enforced her authoritative declarations of 
 Christian truth ; in other words, that she imposed a certain 
 faith as a condition of communion with her, iullicting anathemas 
 on those who denied it." — p. 2(52. Now this plainly rests the 
 unlimited authority of the Church upon its indefectibility, and 
 on this matter let us hear Jeremy Taylor: " If the Church of 
 Christ have an indef(>ctiliility, then it must be that which is in 
 the state of grace and the divine favour. 'IMiey Avhom Cod 
 does not love, cannot fall from God's love, but the faithful 
 only and obedient are beloved of G'od ; others may believe 
 rightly, but so do (he <levil<, who :ue ))i) jxtrt of the Church,'''' 
 &c. Since the (Jhurch (i. e. (he visil)le ('Imreli) i'^ defectible, 
 and none l)u( an indefeet il)le Clmi-eli can supersede j)rivate 
 judgment, (as seen from the l^ecture,) we may conclude (hat 
 our |)iiva(e judginent is not HU])erseded. Itu( an answer re- 
 mains, that though the Church may be saiij to be defectible, 
 ,'i^ 'i'rivlor inean( it, yot as a witness f»(' the essential truth.
 
 37 
 
 and as transmitting the Creed, it cannot err. To this we nmst 
 reply, that the mere document is no such proof of its own 
 meaning as to refuse any hut a sound interpretation,"' and 
 that we have no certain guarantee for its continuance. All 
 must remember, that at their oic7i risk they will dissent, 
 " to their own Master they stand or fall ; " hut surely the 
 Church, by erring in fundamentals, or producing Articles con- 
 trary to God's word, would forfeit her compact, and transgress 
 the limits which are self-appointed, or rather derived by her- 
 self from the word of God. In conclusion, we may safely 
 assert, that neither in theory nor in practice does our Church 
 deprive men of their judgment, and rest her decisions on the 
 infallible word of God. 
 
 We must now refer more closely to the subject which was 
 declared to be the first point undecided, and for that purpose 
 let us again quote the Tract, p. 8. line 11 : " In other words, 
 not a word is said, on the one hand, in favour of Scripture, 
 having no rule or method to fix interpretation by, or, as it is 
 commonly expressed, being the sole rule of faith.'"'' 
 
 Though the first part of this sentence is literally true, its 
 spirit, or latent meaning, is by no means correct, as we have 
 shewn previously, when discussing this subject ; since we 
 proved that the church uses her sole discretion in selecting her 
 method of interpretation, only under two limits, (i. e. two 
 negative methods of interpretation, as we shall shew pre- 
 sently.) 
 
 The second part of the sentence would lead us to conclude, 
 (as will be seen by careful reading,) that Scripture cannot be 
 the sole rule of faith ^ if it has any rule or method to fix its 
 interpretation by. Or in other words, that Scripture " is not 
 the sole rule of faith, if it has any rule to guide its interpreta- 
 
 "' See Waterland on the Insufficiency of Scripture Language to express one's 
 Creed, p. 211.
 
 38 
 
 tion." The best method of controverting this extraordinary 
 statement is to quote from ^"aterlaud, (on the Trinity, p. 395. 
 ed. 1800, Camb.) " It has been sometimes pleaded, that the 
 Scriptures are in themselves a perfect rule of faith ; what 
 need therefore can there be of Fathers, with respect to funda- 
 mental Articles ? (Whitby, Dissertat. de Scriptur. Inter, in 
 Pnefat.) p. 8, 9. To which we answer, that we produce not 
 Fathers to superadd new doctrines to Scripture, but only to 
 secure the old ; not to complete the ride^ but more strongly to 
 assert and maintain both its true sense and whole sense. 
 The more perfect the rule is, the more care and circumspec- 
 tion it demands, that we may preserve it entire, both as 
 to words and meaning," Sec. Here, then, Waterland holds 
 Scripture to be a complete and perfect ride; and yet he reve- 
 rences antiquity, and advises all to obtain assistance in the in- 
 terpretation from every source in their power. In p. 40G, he 
 says, ''There is a great deal of dift'ercnce between admitting 
 either of them'''' (i. e. reason and antiquity) " to govern abso- 
 lutely, and throwing them quite out: and there is a just medium 
 between giving each of them a negative, and making either 
 of them sole umpire,"" kc. AV^aterland further quotes from 
 Dr. Rogers, p. 407, and gives his method of interpretation, 
 which he declares to agree in the main with his own. And 
 Waterland says, in conclusion of it, ''So this excellent writer 
 resolves the positive character of true and just interpretation 
 into immediate view, rational deductions and authority, all 
 having their [>ropcr weight of evidence respectively, but in 
 ditlcrent degrees. The two negative characters are checks 
 upon all the positive ones, to ascertain tlnir aj)pIication and 
 to prevent the pushing any of them too far." These quota- 
 tions prove satisfactorily, that Waterland brlicved it quite 
 consiNtent that Scripture s-honid be a perfect and complete rule 
 of faith, and yet that we might have rulrs of interpretation
 
 39 
 
 applicable to it. And here we see the result of placing the 
 words '"'' sole rule of faith ^'' in that collocation; for by this is 
 implied, that if Scripture has any rule of interpretation, then 
 it cannot be the sole rule of our faith : but as we have shewn 
 that the two have no connection, this subject may be dis- 
 missed. 
 
 The subject which follows has no connection whatever with 
 the Twentieth Article, and could only have been drawn in by 
 the confusion between rule of faith and rule of interpretation. 
 The rule of faith is Holy Scripture, as shewn in the Sixth 
 Article; and the interpreter and expounder (under certain 
 limits) is the Church, as set forth in the Twentieth Article. 
 That the authority of the Church implies a choice in the rules 
 of interpretation, (except only as far as a limitation has been 
 appointed,) has been proved. That our Church never violates 
 the rights of conscience, has been shewn as implied in the 
 Article, and as the opinion of several of her divines, to which 
 are joined some testimonies from the earlier Tracts. That 
 the Bible is the only authorized document, is clear from the 
 Sixth Article, and consequently, in this sense, is the Rule of 
 Faith. 
 
 Now to all impartially reading the Articles, the two 
 points of discussion never could have occurred, and therefore 
 it is hardly fair to raise difficulties which, in the end, are 
 shewn to be the coinage of the private judgment of some one 
 who is earnestly struggling to reconcile subscription of the 
 Articles to his own and to the minds of his followers. 
 
 Remember, then, that there is no necessity for discussing 
 the question of the Rule of Faith : but as it has been entered 
 upon in the Tract, I am disposed to follow ; and let us be 
 careful to remember with Waterland, that the two rules are 
 independent. To avoid all confusion, I repeat that the Church 
 has fixed a rule of faith, a standard of doctrine, a measure of
 
 40 
 
 faith in the Sixth Article, and that therefore to assail the 
 Twentieth for omitting to settle the question is most absurd. 
 But even the Twentieth Article does determine the question, 
 by declaring that the Church, " beside the same, ought not to 
 enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation," 
 as if that there might be no doubt on the subject. Such is 
 the Anglican rule ; but what is the opinion of the Tractarians 
 with regard to this point ? 
 
 Let us hear No. 90 : " 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 shews, by in- 
 stances from our divines, that the application of the phrase to 
 Scripture is but of recent adoption. 
 
 " We may dispense Avith the phrase ' Rule of Faith,' as ap- 
 plied 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 ]3ible, the Regula Fidei, or Rule. More- 
 over its use, as a technical phrase, seems to be of late intro- 
 duction in the Church ; that is, since the days of King William 
 the Third. Our great divines use it without any fixed sense, 
 sometimes for Scripture, sometimes for the whole and perfectly 
 adjusted Ciiri.stiini ductrinc, sometimes for the Creed; and, at 
 the risk of being tedious, we will prove lliis by ([notations, 
 that the point may be put beyond dispute." 
 
 With the notion that we may dispense with any term be- 
 cause it is ambi'j-uoiis. I cannot agree ; and T fear this is too 
 dangerous n rule to apph in the case of No. !M), wliicli is rather 
 Indistinct in name few ])assages; or, again, in the case of tlie 
 wor<l Clnircli, for this .'ipiiears to be an anibiguous phrase to 
 many, if not to all. In rercrence to the second charge, i.e. 
 itH use in :i novel sense, because the ancient <"|iiireh applied
 
 41 
 
 this term to the Creed, we may answer, that if the phrase be 
 ambiguous, as asserted two lines before, then there is no 
 reason why it should not apply to two different things. For 
 by a " rule of faith," neither Irenseus nor Tertullian mean a 
 criterion or ground of doctrine, but the " leading Articles of 
 Faith," (Dr. Hampden's Tradition, p. 45 ;) and to this the 
 quotations from Tertullian and Irenseus, in p. 270, Lectures, 
 bear witness. In fact, the very phrase itself must have a differ- 
 ence in its meaning, according to that to which it is applied ; but 
 yet, of course, it will always retain its own idea, and imply its 
 own meaning. In other words, it can be applied to the Creed as 
 well as to the Scriptures ; but when applied to the Creed, all 
 would understand it to mean a rule of the then essential truths : 
 a rule of the fundamentals, and certainly not sufficient to attain 
 all the ends of Holy Scripture, consequently not enough to 
 guide us in all things relating to Heaven. And we cannot 
 call it an absolutely perfect rule, unless it is equal to Holy 
 Scripture. It may be a perfect rule so far forth as such a rule 
 need be perfect, i. e. so far forth as a standard of doctrine is 
 requii'ed. But that the words regiilw fidei admit of degrees is 
 evident to all who consider the number of these little regidwjidei 
 which were in the primitive Church. Now let none imagine, 
 that because we allow no one fixed and definite signification to 
 these words, that therefore they are of no use as phrases ; for 
 the meaning of the Creed teaches fully Avhat is the object of 
 that rule, as applied to itself. The full sufficienc}' of Holy 
 Scripture, as taught in our Sixth Article, shews what the 
 meaning of Rule of Faith must be when applied to Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 AYith this view, then, we say that the subject matter de- 
 cides, and therefore there need be no ambiguity as to this 
 phrase ; and hence we draw an inference as follows. If the 
 Bible contains all things necessary to life and godliness, and
 
 42 
 
 the Creed does not, then the one is more extensive than the 
 other. In the Lectures, we have Creed set side by side with 
 Revelation, and Tradition set as a part of a joint rule of faith, 
 p. 334. Now this seems an erroneous view ; for even if 
 the Apostles' Creed be of Catholic antiquity, and of an au- 
 thority, its authority to us, as members of the Anglican 
 Church, never can reach beyond the Scriptures, because it is 
 pi'oved by the Scriptures. To use the words of Bramhall, 
 " the Scriptures and the Creed are not two dilferent Rules of 
 Faith, but (y)ie and the same rule;" dilated in Scripture, con- 
 tracted in the Creed." They both are one, because the Creed 
 is the correct meaning of God's word. There is no opposition 
 or joining, as of two distinct things, but one springs from the 
 other. And to hold that the Scripture is not our rule of 
 faith M'ithout tradition is absurd, as all the authority of the 
 Creed is derived from the Scripture. (See Article viii.) If 
 this view be correct, then we have no need to claim a distinct 
 source of authority, or rule of faith in the Creed, nor can we 
 fairly reject the phrase as ambiguous. It remains, therefore, 
 that we refer to the authority quoted in No. 90, and ex- 
 plain those which appear to oppose this method of removing 
 the objection, (i. e. that the Creed, as a Rule of Faith, means 
 merely the leading Articles of Faith, and depends on the fact 
 of its having hcen 2) roved and drawn from Scripture; and that 
 the Scriptures, as "the Rule of Faith," mean the measure and 
 guide of our faith ; and from the perfectness of the Scripture, 
 that this is thcj supreme rule; and that Anti<iuity," or Tradition, 
 or by whatever name it may be called, is an attestation of 
 doctrines.) The first authority is that of Usher ; but in what 
 
 " Sen further oxplnnalion. "Thim wc liavc scon wliat in the Uule of Fuith," (the 
 Hnly Scripture,) "ftiiil by whom, and liow far re»|)cctivcly, this rule is to be applied." 
 Kr.iinhall, as rjuoUd in No. 711, p. ."{fi. 
 
 ° As wc have shewn from Watcrhind, p. .'{K.
 
 48 
 
 sense Usher held the Creed as the Rule of Faith, will be 
 evident from the following extract, in which he styles it common 
 principles of salvation. 
 
 " For we may not think that heaven was prepared for deep 
 clerks only, and therefore beside that larger measure of know- 
 ledge whereof all are not capable, there must be ' a rule of 
 faith common to small and great,' which, as it must consist of 
 few propositions, (for simple men cannot bear away many,) so 
 is it also requisite that those Articles should be of so much 
 weight and moment, that they may be sufficient to make a 
 man ' wise unto salvation ; "* that howsoever in other points 
 learned men may go beyond common Christians, and exceed 
 one another likewise by many degrees, yet in respect of these 
 radical truths, which is the necessary and common food of all 
 the children of the Church,"" &c. And a few lines further on, 
 he calls this rule common principles : " If then salvation by 
 believing these common principles may be had, and to salva- 
 tion none can come that is not first a member of the Catholic 
 Church of Christ, it folio weth thereupon, that," &c. — (See 
 p. 30, 31. Catena Patrum, No. 78.) 
 
 Jeremy Taylor follows next in order, but his works demand 
 a separate notice. 
 
 Laud is quoted as calling the Creed, or rather the Creed 
 tvith Scrijyture, the Bule ; but as he is controverting Romish 
 heresy, the argument M^hicli he assumes is most on their own 
 ground ; but an exti*act from the same conference will shew 
 his opinion of the Rule of Faith : " If any unfit mixture of 
 state councils, if any departure from the rule of the \^'ord of 
 God, if any thing else sway and wrench the council ; the 
 whole Church upon evidence found in express Scripture, or 
 demonstration of this miscarriage, hath power," »Sz;c. — No. 78, 
 p. 16. 
 
 We have taken the quotation from Bramhall already to
 
 44 
 
 illustrate this view; ami as the Tract declares Stillingfleet and 
 Thorndike to say the same, they can onl}- confirm the view 
 here taken. " Elsewhere, Stillingfleet calls Scripture the Rule, 
 as does Jackson. But the most complete and decisive state- 
 ment on the subject is contained in FieUrs work on the 
 Church, from which shall follow a long extract." And, ac- 
 cordingly, more than a page does follow on the suhjecf, i. e. the 
 subject of interpretation ; p but as we shewed that Waterland 
 could hold the perfect rule of Scripture, and besides have in- 
 dependent rules of interpretation, it is unnecessary to enter 
 upon this matter again, although it may be proved to a de- 
 monstration, that the one does not aflect the other. But 
 perhaps the writer of No. 90 Avill excuse my suggesting a 
 cause for this apparent confusion in his Tract, when I assert 
 my belief, that it may easily happen to persons — who consider 
 the Scriptures a sealed book \\ ithout a commissioned inter- 
 preter — that it may most easily seem to such to consider the 
 Scripture and its interpretation as synonymous. Hence, per- 
 haps, also arises the notion of a joint rule. " Scripture and 
 tradition, taken together, are the joint Rule of Faith." (Tract, 
 No. 78, p. 2.) Or, again, in No. 00 : " Tn the sense in which 
 it is commonly understood at this day, Scrii)ture, it is plain, 
 is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith." 
 
 Here it will be proper to adduce some Anglican testimony, 
 from an impartial source, in op{)osition to this vi^w. 
 
 1. Bii-so.N, Brsnoi'. — " Tli( re can nothing be Catholic, unless 
 it be confirmed two ways : first by the authority of («od\s law, 
 
 I' 1 cannot avoid giving in a note tlic conclusion arrivpil nt by Kicltl, wliich to a 
 grcit rxt«Mit biipportu the view taken in this Tract, in tliat the force of the words 
 Kulc of Faith in decided by that to whicli it is applied : " So, then, we do not 
 make ScrijUurr the HiiU' uf our Faith, hut that other thim/s in titeir kind are HuUs li/cn- 
 tciae ; in iuch iiort tlint it in not safe, irilhaiit reaped had unto them, to judjr thiiii/s lt\j 
 the Scripture alone,"' kc.— iv. 14. p. .3(>1, ^G.'i. This was Ijelicved to 1)0 so conclusive, 
 that the writer of No. !H> ha» given it all in iUilicH.
 
 45 
 
 and next by the tradition of the Catholic Church : not that the 
 Canon of Scripture is not perfect and sufficient enough for all 
 points of faith, but because many men draw and stretch the 
 Scriptures to their fancies, therefore it is very needful that the 
 line of the prophetical and apostolical interpretation should 
 be directed by the rule of the ecclesiastical and catholic 
 sense."" — p. 9. 
 
 2. CoNvocATiox OF A. D. 1603. — " Following the royal steps 
 of our most worthy King, because he therein followeth the 
 rules of the Scriptures and the practice of the primitive Church, 
 we do commend to all the true members of the Church of 
 England."— Canon 30, p. 10. 
 
 3. White, Bishop. — " The reformed Churches reject not all 
 traditions, but such as are spurious, superstitious, and not con- 
 sonant to the prime rule of faith, to wit, the Holy Scrip- 
 ture."— p. 15. 
 
 4. Jackson, Presbyter and Doctor. — " Howbeit this unani- 
 mous tradition ecclesiastic, was not in these times held for 
 any proper part of the Rule of Faith ; but alleged only as an 
 inducement to incline the hearts of such as before acknow- 
 ledged the written word for the only Rule of Faith, to believe 
 that the interpretations or decisions of those councils did 
 contain the true sense and meaning of the rule acknowledged 
 by all. So that the written tradition which Vincentius so 
 much commends, was not by the Nicene Council used to any 
 such purpose as the Romanists now use unwritten tra- 
 ditions."" — p. 25. 
 
 5. Jackson, Presbyter and Doctor. — "First, Ave affirm 
 with antiquity, and in particular with Vincentius Lirinensis, 
 that the Canon of Scripture is a Rule of Faith, perfect for 
 quantitv, and sufficient for quality; that is, it contains all 
 things in it, that are necessary to salvation, or requisite to be 
 contained in any rule ; and so contains them as they may be
 
 46 
 
 believed and understood, without relying on any other rule or 
 authority equivalent to them in certainty, or more authentic 
 in respect of us, than the Scriptures." — p. 23. 
 
 6. Sharpe, Archbishop. — " We believe all the Holy Scrip- 
 tures; and not only so, but we make them the rule of our 
 faith."— p. 83. 
 
 7. Sharpe, Archbishop. — Speaking of the Fathers, he says, 
 " By bringing their doctrines to be tried by the ancient usages 
 and doctrines of the Apostolic Churches, and especially by the 
 divine oracles of Scripture, which they looked upon as the 
 entire and only rule of Faiths — p. 84. 
 
 8. Thorxdike, Presbyter. — Of the Principles of Christian 
 Truth. — " Whatsoever then is said of the rule of Faith in the 
 writings of the Fathers, is to be understood of the Creed ; 
 whereof, though it be not maintained, that the words which 
 pretenders were required to render by heart were the same, yet 
 the substance of it, and the reasons and grounds which make 
 every point necessary to be believed, were always the same 
 in all churches, and remain unchangeable. I would not have 
 any hereupon to think, that the matter of this rule is not, in 
 my conceit, contained in the Scriptures. For I find St. Cyril 
 (Catech. V.) i)rotesting, that it contains nothing but that which 
 concerned our salvation the most, selected out of the Scrij)- 
 tures. And, therefore, in other places he tenders his scholars 
 evidence out of the Scriptures, and wishes them not to believe 
 that whereof there is no such evidence." — p. 55. 
 
 All the above references are to No. 7>S, Tract for the 
 'J'imes. and therefore thoy will be considered impartial. I will 
 refrain from giving any more extracts, with the exception of 
 the writing.^ of Jeremy Taylor, tu which 1 now refer. 
 
 In the first extract quoted in No. JH), in which Taylor 
 rails the ApostleM' Creed, "the suHicient and perfect llule of 
 l''aith," we must allow him to ('.vplain himself; nor must we
 
 47 
 
 • 
 
 forget that he believed the Creed to be the writing of the 
 Apostles, and consequently of a higher authority than is 
 asserted by our Church: and even, in explanation of this 
 declaration, he declares, " with the whole Catholic Church of 
 God in the primitive ages, that all things necessary to salvation 
 are sufficiently contained in the plain places of Scripture," we 
 therefore need not enter upon this quotation more fully. The 
 second quotation is only similar to innumerable passages in his 
 writings, which say, " That the Scripture is a full and sufficient 
 rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect 
 declaration of the will of God," &c. The third and fourth 
 quotations are perfectly consistent with the Anglican doctrine, 
 that Scripture is the sole Rule of Faith." (In b. i. §. -t. he 
 enters more fully into the question of the essentials of salva- 
 tion.) See his treatise " Of the Church," b. i. §. 1. '' They 
 who slighting the plain and perfect word of Scripture," »S:c. 
 See his b. i. §. 2. " Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures to 
 Salvation ; " where his opinion is put forward most fully and 
 satisfactorily. We have already explained in what w^ay these 
 two assertions are to be reconciled ; and Jeremy Taylor, at 
 least, is not in favour of the Tractarian view. 
 
 With these authorities we will dismiss the discussion of 
 " the Rule of Faith," especially as we have before shewn that 
 it does not immediately concern the subject of discussion in 
 this section.
 
 48 
 
 2. Justljxcation hy Faith only. 
 
 In this section, the writer proceeds to consider the great 
 fundamental doctrine of Christianity, as Laid down by the 
 Church of England. By his method of interpretation he 
 opens wide a door for almost every possible heresy on the 
 subject. The present object is not to set up an interpretation 
 of the Article contrary to that of the Tract, but only to prove 
 this latter neither Anglican nor scriptural. We read — " 1. They 
 do not imply a denial of Baptism as a means and an instru- 
 ment of justification, which the Homilies elsewhere affirm, as 
 will be shewn incidentally in a later section." Now let us 
 turn to this later section, and see how far the quotations from 
 the Homilies contradict the assertion of the Article, and " do 
 not imply a denial of Baptism as a means and an instrument 
 of Justification." 
 
 I shall, without any remark, place side by side the quotation 
 in the Tract and the passage in the Homily, book i. ch. 3. §. 1. 
 page 23. (Oxford, 1832.) 
 
 Trad, p. (>i). 
 "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 tliuy turn U) 
 God unfeigrjedly, they are 
 likewue wa-^hfd by this sacri- 
 fice,"' k.c. 
 
 Homily. 
 Tlie note at the side tells us 
 that this passage speaks of 
 '7//0 efficacy of Chrisfs 2>assion 
 and ohlation.^' " Tnsoniuch 
 tliat infants being baptized 
 and dying in their infancy, 
 arc by this sacrifice washed 
 from their sins, brought to 
 (mxPs favdiir, and made bis 
 children, aii<l inberitors of liis
 
 49 
 
 kingdom of heaven. And they 
 which in act or deed do sin 
 after their baptism, when they 
 turn again to God unfeignedly, 
 they are likewise washed by 
 this sacrifice from their sins in 
 such sort, there remaineth not 
 any spot of sin, that shall be 
 I imputed to their damnation." 
 
 The next quotation in section 11. is taken from the Homily, 
 book i. 8. part 3. page 34. " Our office is not to pass the 
 time of this present life unfruitfully and idly after that we 
 are haptized or justified^ not caring how few good works we 
 do to the glory of God, and profit of our neighbours." Now 
 let the note in the margin explain this passage. " They that 
 preach faith only justifieth, do not teach carnal liberty, or that 
 we should do no good ivorks.'''' Surely this is enough to shew, 
 that if baptized and justified are used synonymously in the 
 text, the Church would teach that faith is that requisite in 
 Baptism which makes that sacrament a justifying one. 
 
 Again we must resort to parallel columns, to refute the in- 
 sinuation implied against our Church in the next extract. 
 The passage occurs in the Homily of Swearing, part i. page 72. 
 
 Tract, p. 69. 
 4. " By holy promises we 
 be made lively members of 
 Christ, receiving the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism. By like 
 holy promises the Sacrament 
 of Matrimony knitteth man 
 and wife in perpetual love." 
 
 The note at the side is, 
 ''''Commodities had hy lawful 
 oaths made and observed^'' "By 
 holy promises, with calling the 
 name of God to witness, we 
 be made lively members of 
 Christ, when we profess his re- 
 ligion, receiving the Sacrament 
 of Baptism. By like holy 
 
 1)
 
 50 
 
 promise, the Sacrament of 
 Matrimony knitteth man and 
 wife in perpetual love, that 
 they desire not to be separat- 
 ed for any displeasure or ad- 
 versity that shall after hap- 
 pen." 
 
 The next quotation in reference to Baptism is at page 252, 
 on keeping clean churches : " The fountain of our regeneration 
 is there presented unto us/' Now this is no proof of Baptism 
 being a justifying sacrament, unless regeneration is justification; 
 and the language is only like that of the Article, which speaks 
 of Baptism as " a sign of regeneration." The next quotation 
 is page 266, and goes no further on this point than to speak 
 of Baptism as " the sacrament of our regeneration, or new 
 birth." 
 
 The last passage is at page 377 : " Christ hath not so re- 
 deemed us from sin that we may safely return thereto again : 
 but he hath redeemed us, that we should forsake the motions 
 thereof, and live to righteousness. Yea, we be therefore 
 washed ia our baptism from the filthincss of sin, that we 
 should live afterward in the pureness of life." This, Jio more 
 than the preceding passages, proves Baj)tism in any sense to 
 bo a means of justification, unless we consider regeneration to 
 be a synonyme for justification ; or, in other words, that we arc 
 justified by an inherent righteousness. Tt is necessary to con- 
 sider this point now, before we proceed with the notes of the 
 Tract upon this Article. We have another instance of that 
 reserve, so well illustrated in the eleventh section, in a «iuota- 
 tion from the Homilies, intended to prove that the Church 
 hohls justification by inherent righteousness: it is No. 63. 
 The Iloniily is of the liesurrection, p. 395. At page 75 «>f (lie 
 Tract, the extract is thus inserted: ''lie was dead," saith
 
 51 
 
 St. Paul, "for our sins, and rose again for o\xr justification. . . . 
 He died to destroy the rule of the devil in us, and He rose 
 again to send down His Holy Spirit to rule in our hearts, to 
 endue us with perfect righteousnessy Now the second part of 
 this extract is at page 397, two pages off the first part ; and 
 the word in the Homilies is " endow," not " endue." To endue 
 is " to supply with mental excellencies ;" but to endow " to 
 enrich with a portion, to supply with any external goods, to 
 enrich with any excellence."^ We do not deny, that Christ 
 rose again both to endow and endue us with his Holy Spirit ; 
 but we do deny that the passage adduced is any proof, that 
 the Church teaches justification and sauctification to be one 
 and the same act of grace. 
 
 However, it may be well to shew that the doctrine of in- 
 herent righteousness, as justifying righteousness, is the doc- 
 trine of the Roman Catholic Church. Peter Dens, on Justi- 
 fication, vol. ii. p. 446, (Coyne, 1832,) writes thus: "Quid est 
 Justificatio." " Est translatio a statu peccati ad statum gratice 
 hahitualis et adoptionis filiorum Dei per Jesum Christum Sal- 
 vator nostrum." " Nota etiam, quod sub gratia habituali 
 comprehendantur habitus charitatis, virtutum et aliorum do- 
 norum, qui cum gratia sanctificante simul infunduntur." 
 
 "Arguraentum gratiee sanctificantis solet etiam vocari justi- 
 ficatio juxta hoc Apocalypsis ultimo v. 11. qui Justus est justi- 
 ficetur adhuc." 
 
 Then, among the errors of heretics, the second is thus de- 
 scribed : " Justificationem non fieri per gratiam habitualem 
 inhserentem animse, sed per solam justitiam Christi nobis im- 
 putatam." And the third : "Ad justitiam non requiri aliam 
 dispositionem, quam solam fidem." At page 449 is the follow- 
 ing: "Conclude, ad justificationem cujusque peccatoris requiri 
 
 •J To endue may sometimes be used for endow, but to endow seems never used for 
 to endtte. See Todd's Johnson. 
 
 D 2
 
 htec duo 1, gratite sauctificantis infusionem et 2, omnium pec- 
 catorum mortalium remissionem, quod perficiendum in parvulis 
 per Baptismum sine ulla prfevia dispositione, non sic in 
 adultisr 
 
 Now hear the decree of the Council of Trent, made in the 
 sixth session, A.D. 1547, fifteen years before our Articles were 
 first drawn up. 
 
 " C. VII. Quid sit just iji cat io impii, et quce ejus caiiscc. 
 
 " Hanc dispositionem seu preparationem justificatio ipsa 
 consequitur, qua non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et 
 sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam 
 susceptionem gratise et donorum ; unde homo ex injusto fit 
 Justus, et e.x inimico amicus ut sit haeres secundum spem vitae 
 seternse. 11 u jus sanctificationis causa? sunt, finalis quidem, 
 gloria Dei et Christi ac vita seterna ; efficiens vero, misericors 
 Deus, qui gratuito abluit, et sanctificat signans et ungens 
 Spiritu promissionis sancto ; qui est pignus lijereditatis nostras ; 
 meritoria autera, delectissimus unigenitus suus, Doniinus noster 
 Jesus Christus, qui, quum essemus inimici, propter niniiam 
 charitatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passionc in ligno 
 crucis nobis justilicationem meruit, et pro nobis Deo Patri 
 satisfecit ; instrumentalis item, sacramentum baptismi, quod est 
 sacramentum fidei, sine qua nulli unquara contigit justificatio ; 
 demum unica formalis causa est justitia Dei non qua ipse Justus 
 est, sed qua nos justos facit, (jua videlicet ab eo donati, reno- 
 vamur sj)iritu mentis nostnc, et non modo reputamur, sed vera 
 justi noniiiiamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes 
 uniusqui.S(|ue suam secundum mensuram, quam Spiritus Sauctus 
 partitur singulis prout vnlt, et secundum j)roj)riani cujusque 
 dispositionem et cooperationem/' 
 
 So mnrli for Rome on this point. In Archhi.sliop Usher's 
 Jiody of Divinity, (London, KJ70,) l)age 193, we read thus: 
 '• .Tustificntioii is the sentence of (iod, whoreby lie of his grace
 
 53 
 
 for the righteousness of his Son, by him imputed unto us, and 
 through faith apprehended by us, doth free us from sin and 
 death, and account us righteous unto life. For hereby we 
 both have a deliverance from the guilt and punishmerit of all 
 our sins, and heing accounted righteous in the sight of God hy 
 the righteousness of our Saviour Christ imputed unto us, are 
 restored to a better righteousness than ever we had in Adam." 
 " Though there is a power of purging the corruption of sin, 
 Avhich followeth upon justification, yet it is carefully to be 
 distinguished from it." " The matter of justification, or that 
 righteousness whereby a sinner stands justified in God's sight, 
 is not any righteousness inherent in his own person and per- 
 formed by him, but a perfect righteousness inherent in Christ 
 and performed by him." 
 
 So also we find in Tract for the Times, No. 88, last page 
 but one : " I consider that it is unscriptural to say with the 
 Church of Rome, that ' we are justified by inherent righteous- 
 ness.'' " 
 
 So Bishop Hall, in his " No peace with Rome," says, "The 
 Papists make this inherent righteousness the cause of our justi- 
 fication ; the Protestants the efiect thereof." 
 
 In like manner the judicious Hooker speaks of three kinds 
 of righteousness : one glorifying in the next world, both in- 
 herent and perfect ; one justifying in this, perfect, but not 
 inherent ; one sanctifying, inherent, but not perfect. 
 
 We next read, " 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 an}- kind." 
 So says the ninth Canon of the sixth Session of the Council of
 
 54 
 
 Trent : •' Si quis dixerit sola fide impium justificari : anathema 
 sit." This, Dens tells us, was directed against an error of 
 Simon Magus, revived by Luther and Calvin. 
 
 Hear now the Homily of Salvation, page 27 : " And yet that 
 faith"" (namely, justifying faith) '' doth not shut out repent- 
 ance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God, to be joined with 
 faith in every man that is justified ; but it shuttefh them out 
 from the office ofjustifyinq. So that, although they be all pre- 
 sent together in him that is justified, yet they justify not 
 altogether. Nor the faith also doth not shut out the justice 
 of our good works, necessarily to he done afterwards of duty 
 towards God ; (for we are most bounden to serve God, in 
 doing good deeds, commanded by him in his Holy Scripture, 
 all the da^'s of our life;) but it excludeth them, so that we 
 may not do them to this intent, to be made good by doing 
 of them. For all the good works that we can do be unperfect, 
 and therefore not able to deserve our justification : but our 
 justification doth come freely by the mere mercy of God, and 
 of so great and free mercy, that, whereas all the world was not 
 able of theirselves to pay any pari towards their ransom, it 
 pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any 
 our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious 
 jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might 
 be fully paid, the law fultilled, and his justice fully satisfied. 
 So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly 
 do heliece in him. He for them paitl their ransom by his 
 death. lie for them fulfilled the law in his life. So that now 
 in him, and by iiini, evi-ry true Christian man may be called a 
 fuliiller of the law; forasnmch as that which their infirmity 
 larked, Christ's justice hath supplied." 
 
 This doctrine is yet more fully assrrted anti prove<l in the 
 following part of the Homily; and among the authorities 
 qtioted is St. Basil, who writes, '' This is a perfect anil whole
 
 55 
 
 rejoicing iu God, when a man advancetli not himself for his 
 own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself to lack true 
 justice and righteousness, and to be justified by the only faith 
 iu Christ. And Paul saith he doth glory in the contempt of 
 his own righteousness, and that he looketh for the righteous- 
 ness of God by faith." 
 
 Archbishop Usher speaks thus, (Body of Divdnity,) page 
 417: " The promises of God touching justification, remission, 
 adoption, are made and sealed in Baptism to every elect child 
 of God ; then to be actually enjoyed when the party baptized 
 shall actually lay hold upon them hy faith. Thus Baptism to 
 every elect infant is a seal of the righteousness of Christ, to 
 be extraordinarily applied by the Holy Ghost, if it die in its 
 infancy ; to be apprehended 5y faith, if it live to years of 
 discretion." 
 
 The next paragraph is little more than a fresh statement of 
 the dogma just discussed. It still speaks of Baptism as a 
 " sole instrument of justification," bvit adduces not Scripture 
 to prove it, nor any passage from the Homilies, or even any 
 other authority. The Church Catechism only says, that it is 
 '"'' general! ■(/ necessary to salvation:" now if it is to be "the 
 hand of the givei'," or in any respect an instrument of justifica- 
 tion, which is to entitle us to salvation, it would be universally 
 rather than generally necessary. 
 
 The doctrine of works, as instruments of justification, 
 is next brought before us, as contradictory of the Article. 
 Yet surely they are an evidence, rather than a means or 
 instrument ; and if we refer to the passage in St. James, 
 where the matter is discussed, we find he rather describes the 
 faith by which we are justified, than asserts works in opposition 
 to faith, as the means of our justification. The very instance 
 of Rahab, by which St. James illustrates his statement, tends 
 to confirm this view. For the act was one of itself criminal
 
 56 
 
 to her country, and therefore sin in the sight of God : but her 
 faith made the work a work of faith, and so by it she was 
 justified. 
 
 A reference is next made to sect. 11. on the Homilies, 
 where we find eight extracts from the Homily on Alms-deeds. 
 The first merely states the doctrine of the Article, that 
 " Good works after justification are pleasing and acceptable 
 unto God." The language of the others is strong ; but is all 
 thus explained a little further on in the Homily, p. 855: "Ye 
 shall understand, dearly beloved, that neither those places of 
 the scripture before alleged, neither the doctrine of the blessed 
 martyr Cyprian, neither any other godly and learned man, 
 when they in extolling the dignit}-, profit, fruit, and efi^'ect of 
 virtuous and liberal alms, do say that it washeth away sins, and 
 bringeth us to the favour of God, do mean, that our work and 
 charitable deed is the original cause of our acception before God, 
 or that for the di<rnitv or worthiness thereof our sins may be 
 washed away, and we purged and cleansed of all the spots of our 
 iniquity ; for that were indeed to deface Christ, and to defraud 
 him of his glory. But they mean this, and this is the under- 
 standing of those and such like sayings ; that God of his mercy 
 and special favour towards them, whom he hath appointed to 
 everlasting salvation. Iiath so oHcred his grace especially, and 
 they have so received it iVnitl'ully, that although, by reason of 
 their sinful living outwardly, they seemed before to have been 
 the children of wrath and perdition; vet now the Spirit of 
 God mightily workinLf in tlii'iii. unto (tl)odienrp to (lotrs will 
 and commandnients, tlic\' declare by their outward deeds and 
 life, in the shewing of mercy and eliariu. (\\hich cannot come 
 but of the Spirit of^Jod, and his especial grace.) tlial they are 
 the undoubted children <)r(;(Kl .-ippointed to everlasting life. 
 AtmI ho, as liy (heir w iekedness and ungodly living they 
 shewed themselves, according to tie' judgment of men, which
 
 57 
 
 follow the outward appearance, to be reprobates and castaways ; 
 so now bj their obedience unto God's holy will, and by their 
 mercifulness and tender pity, (wherein they shew themselves 
 to be like unto God, who is the fountain and spring of all 
 mercy,) they declare openly and manifestly unto the sight of 
 men, that they are the sons of God, and elect of him unto 
 salvation." This plainly sets works and alms-deeds forth as 
 an evidence, rather than a mean or instrument of justification ;_ 
 and does neither contradict our Article, which says, " by faith 
 only we are justified ;" nor scripture, which says that we are 
 "justified by faith without the works of the law;" and are 
 saved by grace, through faith, and that not of ourselves, but 
 the gift of God. 
 
 As the theory and statements contained in the next para- 
 graph appear to be overturned by what has already been 
 brought forward, I shall make no remarks upon it. 
 
 We now come to the inquiry, " In what sense Faith only 
 does justify V two only are mentioned. 
 
 "1. It is the pleading or impetrating principle that 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." If this were the case, we should re- 
 ceive justification /or, not by Faith. God's promises constitute 
 our title, and that faith which he worketh in us is only an 
 evidence that the title is in our possession.'' " Faith is the 
 hand of the receiver," as stated in the opposite page of the 
 Tract ; how then can it be the thing received by that hand ? 
 
 ■■ f]ph. ii. 8. " By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is 
 \\\e (jift of God;" more like a channel than a title. Eph. i. 13, 14. "In whom" (that 
 is Christ) "after that ye believed ye were scaled with that Holy Spirit of promise, 
 which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession 
 unto the praise of his glory."
 
 58 
 
 The twelfth chapter of the CathoHc Epistle of St. Barnabas 
 gives a confirmation of this view ; it was an act of faith by 
 which Israel prevailed over Amalek : and the eyeing of the 
 brazen serpent was not an asking for a cure, because this they 
 had previously done, but looking unto it by faith they were 
 saved ; a work resulting from faith. The title to the use of the 
 brazen serpent was their need, and God's command ; while by 
 faith, by looking, they applied it at once to themselves, and did 
 not by that act apply only for it. 
 
 But to continue. " A number of means go to effect our 
 justification. We arc justified by Christ alone, in that Pie 
 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."' This 1 
 cannot admit. These matters meet in justified persons, and of 
 necessity result from one another. The lower ones may be 
 found apart from the rest, but then they have no justifying 
 efficacy, and do not argue the existence of any one place of 
 the series above them. But when we find the highest, we 
 may be sure the rest arc not separated froni it. Let us hear 
 the Church in hor Homilies on this matter, page 27, Homily 
 on Salvation : '• In these foresaid places, the Apostle toucheth 
 specially three things, which must go together in our justifica- 
 tion. Upon God's part, his great mercy and grace; upon 
 Christ's part, justice ; that is, the satisfaction of God's justice, 
 or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, 
 and shedding of his blood, with fullilling of tin- law perfectly 
 and throughly; and uj»on oiii ]Kiit, true and lively faith 
 in the merits of Jesus Christ, whieh yet is not ours but by 
 
 • .So I)cii% ii. 452. " Si fides non ndsit, si elccinoHyim non detur, si noii adsit spes, 
 lion pnU>»t fieri juHtific.itii) ;" and we are nivcii this taiion of iiitcriireUilion, iliat 
 wlicru it it Kiid we are juHtiiicd liy luiy one tliiiiji alone, wu an- lu ijiiclcrsl.iiiil " h! 
 caitcru adftiiit"
 
 59 
 
 God's working in us : so that in our justification, is not only 
 God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle 
 calleth the justice of God ; and it consisteth in paying our 
 ransom, and fulfilling of the law : and so the grace of God 
 doth not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but 
 only shutteth out the justice of man ; that is to say, the justice 
 of our works, as to be merits of deserving our justification. 
 And therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf 
 of man concerning his justification, but only a true and lively 
 faith, which nevertheless is the gift of God, and not man's 
 only work without God." So that, according to our Homilies, 
 the " interpreters of our Articles," instead of " a number of 
 means going to effect our justification," there are " three things 
 "which must go together in our justification." 
 
 The last paragraph only in this section remains for exami- 
 nation. It speaks of the second sense in whicii faith justifies. 
 " Faith, as being the beginning of perfect or justifying righte- 
 ousness, is taken for what it tends towards and will ultimately 
 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 bi-ought forth and flourish — partly 
 in this world, fully in the next." Now the Article plainly 
 denies that faith is the beginning or any part of our justifying 
 righteousness : " Christ is the author and finisher of our faith." 
 " The Lord our Righteousness." Faith is the means only 
 by which we apprehend this righteousness ; but however 
 perfect that faith may be, it has been shewn that it never 
 can constitute a title to a justifj'ing righteousness, much less 
 that righteousness itself. Nor is faith the work for which we 
 receive a reward : Christ paid the full price of our redemption 
 
 ' In the Council of Trent, Session 6. c. 8. Faith is called " Humanse salutis 
 jnitiam, fundiuuentum et radix omnis justificationis."
 
 60 
 
 for us," and bis merits for ever absolve us from every debt. 
 " He died once for all, and perfected for ever tbem tbat are 
 sanctified."'' And in the words of the Homily, " this justifica- 
 tion or righteousness, which we receive of God's mercy and 
 Chrisfs merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted, and al- 
 lowed of God for our perfect and full justification." 
 
 The '• confusions " of the Tractarians on this subject, have 
 been refuted in an answer to Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop 
 of Oxford, by a resident member of the university and clergy- 
 man of the diocese. No direct reply having been given to 
 this publication, it will be unnecessary, at jiresent, to enter 
 further upon the question. 
 
 " " That Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the 
 redemption oi the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Eph. i. 13, 14. 
 ' " The Church of God, which He purchased with his own blood." Acts xx. 28.
 
 CI 
 
 8. Worh he/ore and after Just ijicat ion. 
 Articles XII. and XIII. 
 
 It will be unnecessary to dwell at any considerable length on 
 this section, as it is so nearly connected with the last, and is 
 only a result of the doctrine there refuted ; namely, that of 
 justification by inherent righteousness, with the same Romish 
 error running all through, of justification by habitual grace. 
 
 We will comaience our strictures with the last paragraph, 
 at page 3 5: " 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 any thing 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." " It is quite true, that works done icith divine aid, and 
 in faith, lefore justification, do dispose men to receive the 
 grace of justification ; such were Cornelius''s alms, fasting, 
 and prayers, which led to his baptism," This view is sup- 
 ported by the Church of Rome, in Canon vii. Sess. 6, in the 
 Council of Trent : " Si quis dixerit, opera omnia quae ante 
 justificationem fiunt, quacunque ratione facta sint, vere esse 
 peccata, vel odium Dei mereri, aut quanto vehementius quis 
 nititur se disponere ad gratiam, tanto eum gravius peccare : 
 anathema sit." Dens also describes the state of mind neces- 
 sary to precede justification, evidently founded on the doctrine 
 of baptismal justification ; and on deserving grace of con- 
 dignity and congruity he writes as follows: (ii. page 450. 
 nota ^.) " Quod dispositiones preevife non sint meritoria? de
 
 62 
 
 condlgno justificationis, adeo ut justificatio nostra semper sit 
 gratiiita, prout docet. Cone. Trid. Sess, 6. cap. 8, juxta illud 
 ad Rom. cap. S. v. 24: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius 
 ' potest tamen peccator divina gratia adjutus per actus fidei, 
 spei, dilectionis, etc. illani de congruo mereri."' 
 
 " Dispositiones, qure conjunguntur cum ipsa gratia sanctifi- 
 cante in primo instanti justificationis, possunt dici de condigno 
 nieritorise vita^ seternse, quae nondum habetur, non tamen 
 gratise, quae jam habetur." 
 
 Now let us see if our Articles be not very '■^precise'''' on this 
 point. The Tenth Article speaks thus : " Wherefore we have 
 no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, 
 without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we 
 may have a good will, and working with us when we have 
 that good will.'' The Twelfth Article speaks of " good 
 works, which are the fruits of faith, being pleasing and accept- 
 able to God:"" while the Thirteenth Article evidently speaks 
 of works before justification, as works done before the grace 
 of Christ, and as not springing from faith. Now, what pos- 
 sible state can there be between having no faith, and having 
 some faith, even .so small a portion, that he who has it must 
 be said to be only ''^faithful in the leasts yet, inasmuch as 
 works done by such a person are grateful and pleasing to God, 
 they must be works of faith, and 1)c done after the grace of 
 Christ, and the inspiration of the Spirit ; which has before 
 been shewn to be a consequence of justification, and by no 
 means its 'precursor. With respect to Cornelius, it is said 
 that he was one who " feared God :" ho can hardly be brought 
 forward as a case in j)oint, since he appears to have been a 
 Jewinh proselyte ; one who possessed all that was necessary 
 for any to possess under the old dispensation to render his 
 services plcasini/ aiid ;ic(Tj)labl(' to (iod. Thr writer then 
 attempts to (h-aw a nice and subtle distinclion, and asserts
 
 63 
 
 that it is not the tcorks done, but the grace imparted, which 
 makes us meet to receive justification, and that this grace is 
 the " portion of the baptized ;" very differently from Arch- 
 bishop Usher, who asserts, " that the sacrament of baptism is 
 effectual in infants, only to those, and to all those who belong 
 unto the election of grace." And it is also implicitly denied 
 in the Twenty-seventh Article on Baptism, where it states 
 that at that sacrament " grace is"" (not then first given to 
 make us meet to receive the grace of justification, but) " in- 
 creased by virtue of prayer to God ;"*' certainly implying the 
 pre-existence of grace in the recipient of the sacrament. The 
 Homily of Faith also asserts, (page 39,) " that without it 
 (faith) can no good works be done, that shall be acceptable 
 and pleasant to God." 
 
 We now come to the concluding passage of this section. 
 " If works hefore justification, when done by the influence of 
 divine aid, gain grace, much more do works after justifica- 
 tion. They tire, 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." I presume, that we shall probably find 
 some explanation of this statement in the twenty-fourth Canon 
 of the sixth Session of the Council of Trent. " Si quis dix- 
 erit, justitiam acceptam non conservari atque etiam augeri 
 coram Deo per bona opera ; sed opera ipsa fructus solummodo 
 et signa esse justificationis adeptse, non autem ipsius augendae 
 causam : anathema sit." St. Paul says, that when men are 
 called, and obey the calling, they do it b}^ grace : now if this 
 obedience be a work pleasing to God, as we believe it is, yet 
 they do it after, not before the grace of Christ, but as a fruit 
 of faith, (else, according to our Article, it cannot be " grata " 
 or " accepta " to God,) it is a work after justification. Thus 
 no place is left for the intermediate state spoken of above ;
 
 64 
 
 and the consequence " that works after justification gain 
 grace,'''' falls at once. 
 
 Scripture calls Faith the " work of the Spirit," Gal. v. 22. 
 And in Isaiah we read, " Thou hast wrought all our works in 
 us." Heb. xi. 6. " Without Faith it is impossible to please 
 God." Rom. viii. 8. " They that are in the flesh, cannot 
 please God;" "Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of 
 thistles ' even so every good tree bi"ingeth forth good fruit ; 
 but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree 
 cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring 
 forth good fruity Matt. vii. 16 — 19. " No fountain can yield 
 both salt water and fresh." James iii. 12. "If any man have 
 not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. viii. 9. "Jesus 
 Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates." 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 
 " As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide 
 in the vine ; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I 
 am the vine, ye are the branches : without me ye can do 
 nothing." John xii. 4, .5. " It is not of him that willeth, nor 
 of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Rom. 
 ix. 16. "What hast thou that thou didst not receive?" 
 1 Cor. iv. 7. " Now to him that worketh is the reward, not 
 reckoned of grace but of debt. But to him that worketh not, 
 but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is 
 counted for righteousness." Rom. iv. 4, 5, " Whatsoever is 
 not of Faith is sin." Rom. xiv. 2:}. 
 
 §. 4. ry Vinhle Church. 
 
 Article XIX. — " The visible Church of Christ is a congrega- 
 tion of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is 
 preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to 
 Christ^H orditiancc, in all tjiosc things that of necessity are 
 requisite to the same.
 
 65 
 
 "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, 
 have erred ; so also the Church of Eome hath erred, not only 
 in their Hving and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters 
 of faith." 
 
 Tract, p. 17. 
 This is not an abstract de- 
 finition of a Church, but a de- 
 scription of the actually exist- 
 ing One Holy Catholic Church 
 diffused throughout the world; 
 as if it were read, " The Church 
 is a certain society of the 
 faithful," &c. 
 
 Bens, ii, 119. 
 
 " Calvinus et Sectarii duas 
 dumtaxat Ecclesise notas con- 
 stituunt, nimirum, sinceram 
 Verbi Dei prsedicationem, et 
 legitimum Sacramentorum 
 usum. Per notam ecclesise in- 
 telligitur quoddam signum et 
 proprietas, per quam vera ec- 
 clesia potest cognosci et dis- 
 cerni ab omnibus aliis coeti- 
 bus. Quae duo, licet in vera 
 Christi ecclesise reperiantur in- 
 epte tamen ecclesia? notse sta- 
 tuuntur; nam notae debent 
 esse notiores re, quam notare 
 debent : sed ad minus tarn 
 difficile est cognoscere, quae- 
 nam sit sincera Verbi Dii 
 prsedicatio, quisnam legitimus 
 Sacramentorum usus, quam 
 quse vera sit ecclesise .^ 
 
 The last quotation given by the writer of this Tract to 
 prove his statement, is from Estius, Chancellor of Douay. 
 " There is a controversy between Catholics and Heretics as 
 to what the word Church means. John Huss, and the He- 
 retics of our day who follow him, define the Church to be 
 
 • The notes put forward by the Church of Rome, are well refuted by Sherlock.
 
 6G 
 
 the University of the predestinate ; Catholics define it to be 
 the Society of those tcho are joined to each other hi/ a right Faith 
 and the Sacraments^ Here it is admitted that tliese two 
 further notes, as he calls them, (p. 18.) are said to '"'' define" 
 the Church. It is not, however, my intention to press this 
 point, but, to shew how this Article is a logical definition of 
 the Church, and that this is the opinion of authorities in the 
 Anglican Church. 
 
 The coetus fidelium is a definition of any Church, whether 
 sound or unsound ; but if the notes in this Article be really 
 true of any Church, then that Church is sound, and we are 
 bound to submit to it. Thus, for instance, the Church of Rome 
 is a coetus fidelium, but has not these notes, and consequently 
 cannot claim submission. 
 
 The quotations, it may be well to notice before proceeding, 
 adduced in page 17, must be shewn to refer to the subject of 
 the present article, before they can be allowed to support in 
 any degree the opinion to which they are appended. They 
 do not rcffuire a separate investigation, but one or two will be 
 incidentally noticed as wc proceed. 
 
 Our first authority is Archbishop Usher, page 396. 
 
 " Sith God doth not reveal the covenant of prace, nor afford 
 sufficient means to salvation to the whole rcorld, but only to the 
 Church: explain here what you mean by the Church ? 
 
 *' Wc speak not here of tliat part of God's Church which is 
 triumphant in glory ; who, being in perfect fruition, have no 
 nee<l of these outward means of communion with him, (Rev. 
 xxi ; xxii ; xxiii :) but the subject here is the Church militant. 
 And that we consider also, as visible, in the parts of it; con- 
 sisting of divers assemblies and companies of believers, making 
 profession of the same common faith : howbcit many times, 
 by force of porsocution, the exercise of the |)nblir ordinances 
 mnv for a time be suspended among (liom.
 
 67 
 
 '''But are none to he accounted members of this Church, but such 
 as are true. believers, and so inseparahly united unto Christ their 
 head? 
 
 " Truly and properly none other. (1 John ii. 19.) Howbeit, 
 because God doth use outward means with the inward, for the 
 gathering of his saints; and ealleth them as well to outv\'ard 
 profession among themselves, (Acts ii. 42 ; Cant, vii.) as to 
 inward fellowship with his Son, whereby the Church becomes 
 visible : hence it is, that so many as partake of the outward 
 means, and join with the Church in league of visible profession, 
 are therefore in human judgment accounted members of the 
 true Church, and saints by calling, until the Lord (who only 
 knoweth his) do make known the contrary. As we are taught 
 in the parable of the tares, and of the draw-net, and of the 
 threshing-floor, where lieth both good corn and chaff. 
 
 ''''Hath Christ then his Church visible upon earth? 
 
 " Yea, throughout the world, in the particular congregations 
 of Christians, (Rom. iii. 3,) called to the profession of the true 
 Faith and obedience of the Gospel. In which visible assemblies, 
 and not elsewhere, the true members of the true Church in- 
 visible, on earth, are to be sought, (Rom. xi. 5.) and unto 
 which, therefore, all that seek for salvation must gladly join 
 themselves. (Isa. Ix. 4.) 
 
 " What are the marks and infallihle notes ichereby to discern 
 a true visible Church, with lohich we may with safety join ? 
 
 " First, and principally, the truth of Doctrine which is pro- 
 fessed, and the sincere preaching of the Word ; together with 
 the due administration of the Sacraments, according to the 
 commandment of Christ our ^aviour. (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) 
 
 " Secondarily, the right order which is kept ; with a sincere 
 and conscionable obedience yielded to the Word of God. 
 
 " 7s not the Church ahoays visible in her parts ? 
 
 "The persons are always visible. For Christ hath, and ever
 
 68 
 
 had from the beginning, his Church visible upon earth, (Rom. 
 ii. 1 — 4.) that is, some companies of believers making pro- 
 fession of the same common faith." 
 
 Let us now take the judicious Hooker, in the third book 
 of his Polity, chapter 2. " That Church of Christ, which we 
 properly term his body mystical, can be but one ; neither can 
 that one be sensibly discerned by any man, inasmuch as the 
 parts thereof are some in heaven with Christ, and the rest 
 that are on the earth (albeit their natural persons be visible) 
 we do not discern under this property, whereby they are truly 
 and infallibly of that body. Only our minds, by intellectual 
 conceit, are able to apprehend, that such a real body there is, 
 a body collective, because it containeth a huge multitude ; a 
 body mystical, because the mystery of their conjunction is 
 removed altogether from sense. Whatsoever we read in 
 Scripture, concerning the endless love and the saving mercy 
 which God sheweth towards his Church, the only proper ob- 
 ject thereof is this Church. Concerning this flock it is that 
 our Lord and Saviour hath promised, ' I give unto them 
 eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any 
 pluck them out of my hand.' They who are of this society, 
 have such marks and notes of distinction from all others, as 
 are not objects unto our sense ; only God, who seeth their 
 hearts anfl uiiderstandelh .'ill thoir secret cogitations, unto 
 liim they are clear and manifest. ('A.) And as those ever- 
 lasting promises of love, mercy, and blessedness belong to the 
 mystical Church ; even so, on the other side, when we read of 
 any duty which the Church of God is bound unto, the Church 
 whom it doth concern is a sensibly known company. And 
 this visible Church, in like sort, is but one, continued from 
 the first beginning of the world, to lli«' last md. Which 
 company being divided into tuo moieties, the one before, the 
 other since the coming of Christ ; that part which, since the
 
 69 
 
 coming of Christ, partly hath embraced and partly shall 
 embrace the Christian Religion, we term, as by a more proper 
 name, the Church of Christ. * * The unity of which visible 
 body and Church of Christ, consisteth in that uniformity 
 which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason 
 of that one Lord, whose servants they all profess themselves ; 
 that one Faith, which they all acknowledge ; that one Bap- 
 tism, wherewith they are all initiated. * * 
 
 (7.) '' We speak now of the visible Church, whose children 
 are signed with this mark, 'One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.'' 
 In whomsoever these things are, the church doth acknowledge 
 them for her children ; them only she holdeth for aliens and 
 strangers in whom these things are not found. * * All men 
 are, of necessity, either Christians or not Christians. If hy 
 external profession they he Christians, then are they of the visible 
 Church of Christ, and Christians by external profession they 
 all are, whose mark of recognizance hath in it those things 
 which we have mentioned ; yea, although they be impious 
 idolaters, wicked heretics, persons excommunicable, yea, cast 
 out for notorious improbity. Such, withal, we deny not to be 
 the imps and limbs of Satan, even as long as they continue 
 such. 
 
 (9.) " For lack of diligent observing the difference, first, 
 between the Church of God, mystical and visible ; then 
 between the visible, sound, and corrupted, sometimes more, 
 sometimes less, the oversights are neither few nor light that 
 have been committed. 
 
 (10.) " The Church of Christ, which was from the beginning, 
 is, and continueth unto the end : of which Church, all parts 
 have not been always equally sincere and sound. * * In 
 St. Paul's time, the integrity of Rome was famous; Corinth 
 many ways reproved ; they of Galatia much more out of 
 square. In St. John's time, Ephesus and Smyrna in far
 
 70 
 
 better state than Thyatlra and Pergamus were. We hope, 
 therefore, that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have 
 done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were 
 of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still. 
 
 (11.) " Where professed unbelief is, there can be no visible 
 Church of Christ ; there may be where sound belief wanteth. 
 
 (14.) " By the Church, therefore, in this question, we 
 understand no other than only the visible Church. * * The 
 Catholic Church is, in like sort, divided into a number of 
 distinct societies, every of which is termed a Church within 
 itself. In this sense, the Church is always a visible society of 
 men ; not an assembly, but a society."'' 
 
 The next authority is that of Jeremy Taylor, whose 
 opinions are very nearl}^ coincident ^\•ith those just given 
 from Hooker. The (juotations are taken from the .second 
 part of his Dissuasive from Popery, book i. sect. 1. "The 
 Church is a company of men and women professing the same 
 doctrine of Jesus Christ. This is the Church ' in sensu forensi,"" 
 and in the sicflit of raenr 
 
 Then, speaking of the Church visible and invisible, he de- 
 clares that they are not two churches, or societies: "no, 
 these two cluirclies-are but one society; the one is within 
 the other." 
 
 "If any part of mankind will aiiree to call the universality 
 of professors by the title of the ' ( 'luiroh,"' thov mav if they 
 will; anv word, hv consent, mav siLTnit'v anv tiling: but if 
 by 'Churcii,' we mean that society which is really joined to 
 Christ, which hath received the Holy Sj)irit. \\hi<h is heir to 
 the promises and the good things of (xod, w hieh is the body 
 of wliicli Christ is head; then the invisible part of the visible 
 
 '' ll'Hiki-i « Uir()i\ iif tho Cliurcll ;i)ilM-.ii^ 1(1 111- ;i!. Iii1|iu\h; 
 
 I. Mystical, known only t<i fJod. 
 
 II. Viwiljlu: (I) Rouiul, (2) unKoiind.
 
 71 
 
 Church, that is, the true servants of Christ only, are the 
 Church; that is, to them only appertain the spirit and the 
 truth, the promises and the graces, the privilege and ad- 
 vantages of the gospel. 
 
 "If it he asked, 'What is the Catholic Church ? the Apostles' 
 Creed defines it: it is communio sanctorum,'' (not '' ccetus fide- 
 lium.'') To the same sense, Clemens of Alexandria defines the 
 Church to he ' the congregation of the elect/ But more full is 
 that of St. Austin, who spends two chapters in affirming, that 
 only they who serve God faithfully, are the Church of God. * * 
 We have seen what is the true meaning of the Church of God, 
 according to the Scriptures, and Fathers, and sometimes 
 persons formerly in the Church of Rome. In the next place, 
 let us see what now-a-days they mean by the Chui-ch, with 
 which name or word they so much abuse the world. There- 
 fore, by Church, sometimes they mean the whole body of them 
 that profess Christianity : * * all the number of the bap- 
 tized, except excommunicates, that are since cut off, make 
 this body. * * * They are bound up in common by the 
 union of Sacraments and external rites, name, and profession ; 
 but by nothing else. * * And this, to my sense, all the 
 churches in the world seem to say; for when they excom- 
 municate a person, then they throw him out of the Church : 
 meaning, that all his being in the Church of which they could 
 take cognizance, is but by the communion of sacraments and 
 external society. 
 
 " So that which ice call the Church, is permixta ecclesia, as 
 St. Austin is content it should be called, 
 
 " Here are two senses of the word 'Church,' God's sense and 
 man's sense ; the sense of religion, and the sense of govern- 
 ment ; common rites, and spiritual union. 
 
 " Of the Church, in the first sense, St. Paul affirms, it is ' the 
 pillar and ground of truth.' He spake it of the Church of
 
 72 
 
 Ephesus, or the holy CathoHc Church over the world ; for 
 there is the same reason of one and all, if it be, as St. Paul 
 calls it, Ecclesia Dei vivi. If it be united to the head, Christ 
 Jesus, every Church is as much ' the pillar and ground of 
 truth,' as all the Churches ; which, tliJlt we may understand 
 rightl}-, we are to consider, that what is commonly called the 
 ' Church,' is but domus Ecclesice verw, as the Ecclesia vera is 
 Domus Dei : it is the school of piety, the place of institution 
 and discipline. Good and bad dwell here ; but God only and 
 his Spirit dwell with the good," 
 
 On the term " Catholic Church" we quote from the same 
 eminent writer : " but so it is in the case of every par- 
 ticular Church, as really as of the Catholic, that is, as to all 
 Churches ; for that is the meaning of the word Catholic ; not 
 that it signifies a distinct being from a particular Church ; and 
 if taken abstractedly, nothing is eftected by the word ; but if 
 taken distributively, then it is useful, and material, for it signi- 
 fies, that in every congregation, ' where two or three are 
 gathered in the name of Christ, God is in the midst of them"' 
 with his blessing, and with his spirit ; it is so in all the 
 Churches of the saints ; and in all of them, as long as they 
 remain such, the truth and faith is certainly preserved. ♦ * * 
 There is no Church Catholic really distinct from all particular 
 Churches ; and therefore there is no promise made to a 
 Church in the capacity of being Catholic or universal ; for 
 that which hath no distinct being can have no distinct pro- 
 mises, no distinct capacities, but the promises arc made to all 
 Cimrches, and to every Church : ^^ * 
 
 Such arc the opinions on this subject of the three highest 
 authorities tliat can be produced. To these we may add the 
 authority of Archbishop Laud, as quoted in Tracts for the 
 
 ' So Sherlock, in hi* ExAtnination of the Popish Notci of the Church : " Catholic 
 (lo«* not declare what n Church it, but in what communion it it.**
 
 73 
 
 Times, No, 78, p. 38 : " For where it is said that Christ makes 
 to himself a Church without spot or wrinkle, (Eph. v.) that 
 is not understood of the Church Militant, but of the Church 
 Triumphant : and to maintain to the contrary is a branch of 
 the spreading- heresy of Pelagianism. Nor is the Church on 
 earth any freer from wrinkles in doctrine and discipline than 
 she is from spots in life and conversation." These extracts 
 plainly prove that our Article is a definition, not a mere de- 
 scription, and that not of the " One Holy Catholic Church 
 diffused throughout the world," but of an individual portion 
 of it, one of its component parts. That " coetus fidelium''^ 
 means a congregation oi professedly faithful men; or, as Taylor 
 says, " The congregation of all that profess the name of 
 Christ ; of whom every particular that is not known to be 
 wicked is presumed to be good." They also throw a very 
 clear light upon the long list of sentences quoted from Papists, 
 Popes, and Fathers, shewing that in all probahility they 
 refer to the mystical Church ; though, as the Avriter has not 
 thought lit to give the places where they are to be found, 
 they could not now easily be verified. Taylor, however, 
 quotes two of them in reference to the mystical Church, and 
 one other from Augustine is to be found in the Catechism 
 authorized by the Council of Trent, (De nono articulo, q. 2,) 
 where it is evidently used in connection with true believers 
 united in the invisible Church. 
 
 But the Article appears to decide for itself to what the 
 word "visible Church of Christ" refers: for how are we to 
 understand the last part of the Article, wliich is not quoted in 
 the Tract, except by supposing naturally, that after describing 
 the visible Church, it proceeds to deny its infallibility; and to 
 declare, that as certain Churches erred in olden time, so of 
 late the Church of Rome hath erred, even in matters of 
 Faith.
 
 74 
 
 In addition to this, the following Article (the twentieth) 
 goes on to assert the anthority of the Church. Now to what 
 Church does this Article refer, if not to the one just defined I 
 And if the Church therein described (if the writer still prefer 
 that expression) be the " One Holy Catholic Church diffused 
 throughout the world" as has before been asserted, then the 
 Church of England has committed a grievous and heretical 
 act, in exerting the authority assigned in the twentieth Article 
 only to the Church Universal. 
 
 It onlv remains to allude to the extract from the Homilv. 
 The writer, to save trouble, informs us, that " it is quoted not 
 for all it contains," but only " as far as it is an illustration of 
 the Article." The Church is mentioned three times in it. 
 The first and second time, it plainly refers to the elect of God ; 
 and the third need onh- be placed in juxta position with the 
 Article, to shew how unfounded is the writer's conclusion, 
 after the extracts already given from standard authorities of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 Hoiiiilr/. 
 
 " The true Church is an 
 universal congregation, or fel- 
 loicship of GoiVs faithful and 
 elect i)eoi>le^^ &:c. 
 
 Article. 
 "The visible Church of 
 Christ is a congregation of 
 faithful men," &:c. 
 
 \V^e have shewn that the cwtm fdelium of our Article 
 does not mean the elect, or mystical Church, therefore 
 these two extracts cannot refer to the same Church ; and 
 it remains to shew how this Homily is to be understood. 
 Hooker says, that the Church of the elect cannot Ix' dis- 
 cerned by men. Jiy which, of course, he means, that no men, 
 as units of the mystical Church, can bo distinguished. "S'ct 
 here are notes mentioned, and to reconcile this lloniily to 
 itself, (i. c. to use the only fair method of intcrjtretation,) wo
 
 75 
 
 must understand it to refer to the general notes of the 
 mj'stieal Church. None belong to Chrisfs elect, or mystical 
 Church, unless they have, as a general note, the description 
 appended. 
 
 Thus we see, that though the notes belong alike to the true 
 Church of Christ, diffused throuohout the world, and also to 
 every visible professing Church, they by no means prove, tliat 
 because the Homily refers to the former, the Article must also. 
 As Taylor and the Twenty-sixth Article teach, in the visible 
 Church the evil is ever mingled with the good, but in the 
 universal congregation of God's people, who are faithful and 
 elect, evil cannot exist ; in Christ they are complete ; for 
 them he hath wrought out a perfect righteousness, and at the 
 last day he will be able to present unto his Father that blessed 
 company without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. To 
 this Church may we all belong ; and I trust nothing has oc- 
 curred in the preceding pages inconsistent with this heart v 
 desire. They are indited in a spirit of love ; and should anv 
 apparently harsh v.'ords be let fall, may they be attributed 
 rather to oversight and infirmity, than to any desire to wound 
 or afflict. May the Lord heal all the distractions of his 
 Church, and hasten the time when more properly it may be- 
 come one fold, under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 
 These Strictures will he concluded in a Second Part, with 
 Observations on the State of the Controversy.
 
 APPENDIX A.— p. 24. 
 
 " If the Romanist asks, wlietliev belief in Scripture is an 
 essential part of the Faith i which he is apt to do ; I ask him 
 in turn, whether the infallibility of the Church is or is not in 
 his system an article of Faith I It is nowhere so declared ; 
 how then is it less defective in the Creed of Romanism to omit 
 so cardinal a doctrine, than in our own Creed to omit the in- 
 spiration and cauonicity of the Scriptures 'I Whatever answer 
 he gives in his own behalf, will serve for us also. If he says, 
 for instance, that the whole of Romanism implies, and is built 
 upon the principle of infallibility; that the doctrines which it 
 holds as fundamental could not be such, were not the Church 
 an infallible oracle ; that every truth must have some truth 
 beyond it until we come to the ultimate principles of know- 
 ledge ; that a creed could never recount all the previous steps 
 by which it became a creed ; and that, after all, the doctrine in 
 question is at least indirectly expressed in Pope Pius"'s Creed ; 
 1 answer, that much the same pleas may be offered in explana- 
 tion of Scripture not being recognised in the Apostolic Creed. 
 It may be something more than a fundamental of Faith ; it 
 may be the foundation of the fundamentals, and may be passed 
 over in the Creed as being presupposed and implied in it. 
 This might be said in explanation. liut in truth it is really 
 recognised in it as the standard of appeal ; viz. in those 
 Articles which, after St. PauPs 2)attern, speak of our Lord"'s 
 resurrection as being ' according to the Scriptures."" What 
 liai)j)ens to be expressed in one instance, as regards the Old 
 'IV'stament, is a kind of index of what is tacitly signified 
 throughout. This, indeed, is no [)ruof to a Romanist, who 
 denies that the JJible was considered by the original framers 
 of the Creed, as the fundamental record of the Gospel : but it 
 gocH as far as this, to slu-w thai the BibK' maj/ have been so 
 (considered by them, to shew that our tloctrines is <'onsistent 
 with itself. As far as the facts of the case go, that iitaf/ be, 
 which we say really /;;. Tin- indirect manner in which Scrip- 
 ture is alhnlcd to in tiie Creed, while it agrees with the notion 
 that th(! Creed contains all the fundamentals, seems also to 
 imj»ly liiat Scrripture is tlieir foundation."' — Lecturer on Jfo- 
 vianixiii, p. 21l*j — '). 
 
 VI.\CKNT, I'KINTKR, UXKORD.
 
 \l 
 
 CERT^N 
 
 DOCUMENTS, 
 
 CONNECTED WITH 
 
 TEACTS FOE THE TIMES, 
 
 No. 90, 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. The Resolution of the Hebdomadal Board. 
 
 2. Letter to the Editor of the Standard from " Academicus." 
 
 3. Letter to the same from " Academicus Alter." 
 
 4. The Letter of the Four Tutors. 
 
 5. Mr. Newman's Letter to the Vice- Chancellor, with remarks. 
 
 6. Letter to the Editor of the Times from " A Protestant." 
 
 7. Opinions of the people, from the Morning Chronicle. 
 
 8. Opinions of Bishops, from the Standard. 
 
 9. Letter to the Editor of the Sifrt72f/fl?-dfrom" A Member of Convocation. 
 10. Letter to the same likewise from " A Member of Convocation,'' 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 PRINTED BY W. BAXTER. 
 1841.
 
 The Tract No. 90 bears the date of Monday, January -20, 
 l)iit it was not ])ublishcd in Oxford before Saturday, 
 February 27, 1841. 
 
 The Letter of the Four Tutors, by which public attention 
 was first called to the Tract, was circulated in Oxford on the 
 jnorninf^ of Tuesday, March f), 1841. 
 
 The llesolution of the Hebdomadal Board was circulated 
 in Oxford on the morning of Tuesday, March lO, 1841.
 
 At a Meeting of the V ice-Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and 
 Proctors, in the Delegates'' Room, March 15, 1841. 
 
 CoNsiDEUiNG that it is enjoined in the Statutes of this 
 University, (Tit. III. Sect. 2. Tit. IX. Sect. II. §. 3. 
 Sect. V. §. 3.) that every Student shall be instructed and 
 examined in the Thirty-nine Articles, and shall subscribe to 
 them ; considering also that a Tract has recently appeared, 
 dated from Oxford, and entitled " Remarks on certain 
 passages in the Thirty-nine Articles," being No= 90 of the 
 Tracts for the Times, a series of Anonymous Publications 
 purporting to be written by Members of the University, but 
 which are in no way sanctioned by the University itself; 
 
 Resolved, That modes of interpretation such as are sug- 
 gested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the 
 sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling subscription 
 to them with the adoption of errors which they were de- 
 signed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent 
 with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statutes. 
 
 P. WYNTER, 
 
 Vice-Chancellor.
 
 (From the Standard of March 20, 1841.) 
 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 Si 11, — As some of the correspondents of the morning papers 
 seem to be at a loss to understand the nature of the official 
 document lately issued at Oxford with the Vice-Chancellor's 
 signature, it may be as well to make it known, that it is an 
 authoritative declaration of the executive of the University 
 as to the meaning of the statutes, and is intended as a notice 
 to all Tutors of Colleges and Public Examiners, by virtue of 
 certain statutes recited in the preamble, that if they adopt 
 such modes of interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles as 
 are suggested in No. 90 of the " Tracts for the Times," they 
 will do so at their peril. 
 
 ACADEMICUS. 
 
 (From tiie Standard of March 26, 1841.) 
 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 Oxford, March 25. 
 SiK, — As a morning newspaper has said that the late con- 
 demnation of Mr. Newman's Tract was the act of a small 
 majority of the " Hebdomadal Board,'*" I think it right to 
 acquaint you, that the resolution to take public and official 
 notice of the Tract passed the Board with only two dissen- 
 tient voices ; and that one of the two Gentlemen who formed 
 this minority expressed his sense of the tiangcr and mischief 
 of this particular Tract. These circumstances are perfectly 
 well known to every one here, although there is no official 
 pul)lication of the divisions or debates of the Board. 
 
 I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 ACADEMICUS AI/J'ER.
 
 THE LETTER OF THE FOUK TUTORS. 
 To the Editor of the " Tracts for the Times" 
 
 Sju, — Our attention having been called to No. 90 in the 
 series of " Tracts for the Times by Members of the University 
 of Oxford," of which you are the Editor, the impression 
 produced on our minds by its contents is of so painful a 
 character, that we feel it our duty to intrude ourselves briefly 
 on your notice. This Publication is entitled " Remarks on 
 certain Passages in the Thirty Nine Articles;" and, as these 
 Articles are appointed by the Statutes of the University to 
 be the text-book for Tutors in their theological teaching, we 
 hope that the situations we hold in our respective Colleges 
 will secure us from the charge of presumption in thus coming 
 forward to address you. 
 
 The Tract has, in our apprehension, a highly dangerous 
 tendency, from its suggesting that certain very important 
 errors of the Church of Rome are not condemned by the 
 Articles of the Church of England : for instance, that those 
 Articles do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines, 
 
 1. Of Purgatory, 
 
 2. Of Pardons, 
 
 3. Of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, 
 
 4. Of the Invocation of Saints, 
 
 5. Of the Mass, 
 
 as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome ; 
 but only of certain absurd practices and opinions, which in- 
 telligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do. It is 
 intimated, moreover, that the Declaration prefixed to the 
 Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, sanctions this mode 
 of interpreting them, as it is one which takes them in their 
 " literal and grammatical sense," and does not " affix any 
 new sense" to them. The Tract would thus appear to us to 
 have a tendency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires, 
 and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the
 
 very serious differences which separate the Church of Rome 
 from our own, and to shake the confidence of the less learned 
 members of the Church of England in the Scriptural character 
 of her formularies and teaching. 
 
 We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty in 
 interpreting the formularies of our Church, which has been 
 advocated by many of its most leainied Bishops and other 
 eminent divines ; but this Tract puts forward new and 
 startling views as to the extent to which that liberty may be 
 carried. For if we are right in our apprehension of the 
 Author's meaning, we are at a loss to see what security would 
 remain, were his principles generally recognised, that the 
 most plainly erroneous doctrines and practices of the Church 
 of Rome mijjht not be inculcated in the lecture-rooms of the 
 University and from the pulpits of our churches. 
 
 In conclusion, we venture to call your attention to the 
 impropriety of such questions being treated in an anonymous 
 publication, and to express an earnest hope, that you may 
 be authorized to make known the writer's name. Consider- 
 ing how very grave and solemn the whole subject is, we can- 
 not help thinking, that both the Church and the University 
 are entitled to ask, that some person, besides the printer and 
 publisher of the Tract, should acknowledge himself responsi- 
 ble for its contents. 
 
 We are. Sir, 
 Your obedient humble Servants, 
 
 T. T. CHTRTON, M.A. 
 
 N'icf-PrincipHl and Tutor nf Brase-nose College. 
 II. 15. WILSON, B.I). 
 
 Kt'llow and St-nior Tutor of St. John's College. 
 .lOHN GRIFFITHS, M..\. 
 
 Suh-\Var«len and Tutor of Wndhain College. 
 A. C. TAIT, M.A. 
 
 Fellow and Senior Tutor of Baliiul College. 
 
 OTfnrd, Marvh 8, 1841.
 
 (From the Standard of March 17, 1841.) 
 
 Mr. Newman has at length avowed himself the author of 
 the 90th number of the " Tracts for the Times." The 
 following is the avowal of the Kev. Gentleman : — 
 
 " Oriel College, March 16, 1841. 
 " Mr. Vice-Chancellor, — I write this respectfully to 
 " inform you, that I am the author, and have the sole 
 " responsibility, of the Tract on which the Hebdomadal 
 " Board has just now expressed an opinion, and that I have 
 " not given my name hitherto, imder the helief that it was 
 " desired that I should not. I hope it will not surprise you 
 " if I say, that my opinion remains unchanged of the truth 
 " and honesty of the principle maintained in the Tract, and 
 " of the necessity of putting it forth. At the same time, I am 
 " prompted by my feelings to add my deep consciousness, 
 " that every thing I attempt might be done in a better 
 " spirit, and in a better way ; and, while I am sincerely 
 sorry for the trouble and anxiety I have given to the 
 *' Members of the Board, I beg to return my thanks to them 
 " for an act, which, even though founded on misappre- 
 *' hension, may be made as profitable to myself as it is 
 ^' religiously and charitably intended. 
 
 " I say all this with great sincerity, and am, 
 " Mr. Vice-Chancellor, 
 
 " Your obedient Servant, 
 
 "JOHN HENRY NEWMAN." 
 
 This is a badly written letter; but it is not our business 
 to criticise style. We have, in order to direct our readers' 
 attention to them, printed in italic characters a few words 
 which we think stand in need of explanation ; first, Mr. 
 Newman says he acted " under the belief that it was desired 
 that he should not give his name." By whom did he believe 
 
 <c
 
 8 
 
 that the desire was entertained ? From the first he must 
 have been well aware that the University, and every friend 
 of the University, was anxious to relieve the University of 
 all responsibility for the Tracts, which could not be done in 
 any other way so well, as by showing that they were the 
 work of a man of no authority, mark, or influence in that 
 learned body ; and after the four Tutors had called for the 
 name of the Author of the Tract No. 90, it must have been 
 quite apparent to Mr. Newman that the desire entertained 
 was precisely the reverse of that which he pretends to have 
 believed to be entertained. 
 
 Again, Mr. Newman speaks of the necessity of promul- 
 gating his Popish doctrines, but does not condescend to 
 explain the ground of this necessity. The following extract 
 from a correspondent, to whom we are deeply indebted for 
 many favours, may, perhaps, supply the deficiency: — 
 
 " The ' necessity"' supposed to be meant by him is said to 
 " be that certain of his followers began to feel themselves 
 " obliged to go over to the Roman Catholics, and he there- 
 " fore took rather a bolder line than hitherto, to enable them 
 " to satisfy themselves without leaving the Church of Eng- 
 ** land. I should imagine that his method, instead of stop- 
 *' ping the few, will hasten the niany. It is quite certain 
 " that ardent imaginations, over inflamed with the views 
 *' that he suggests they may indulge in with impunity, will 
 *' not content themselves with the withered ami shrunken 
 *' Popery tiiat he would fain substitute in the place of our 
 " Scriptural (.'hurch and sound moderation of nligious 
 *' views. It is expected that an<Jther more formal reply will 
 ** be i.ssued by the party- i he chief objection to Mr. N.'s 
 " letter is the assertion of the * honesty of the principle,' for 
 " this must apply to the principle of interpretation. If 
 ** there was a neces><ity of his publi:^hing the Tract, it is a 
 • necessity of his own making, or of the party "'s imagining.
 
 9 
 
 ^ and is only a still stronger proof of the dangerous effects 
 '" of the principles which have been so long advocated in an 
 " under-current." 
 
 (From the Times of March 9, 1841.) 
 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 Sir, — I have read with deep concern your remarks, in last 
 Saturday's paper, on the character of the religious party 
 lately formed by some members of the University of Oxford. 
 I trust that your object was merely to do justice, and to re- 
 call what you considered to have been unjust censure in times 
 past. But it seems to me that in doing this you have over- 
 stepped the line of impartiality, and expressed yourself in 
 terms which convey high praise, and almost deny the ex- 
 istence of any ground for censure. To find The Times 
 absolutely embarked in the cause of a small, and, I cannot 
 but fear, a most dangerous party in the Church, would be 
 lamentable indeed. In the hope that this is not the case, 
 I would crave a small space for a few brief remarks on the 
 article in question. 
 
 I would offer an exception or two as to the terms of praise 
 applied to the Oxford Tractarians. 
 
 1. " That they are learned and pious persons.""- — To be 
 learned is surely no very remarkable distinction among the 
 members of the University of Oxford. To be earnest and 
 pious after their own fashion is a praise that cannot be with- 
 held from Beckett, or Hildebrand, or Loyola, or even from 
 many founders of most mischievous sects in Protestant days. 
 Few sects or parties in the Church, indeed, have been formed 
 by other than " learned and pious persons." 
 
 2. " That they have propagated their opinions without 
 " agitation." — Men who have the best possible vantage- 
 ground need not to resort to outcries. Wesley or Irving
 
 10 
 
 would have gladly rL-linquislied all their out-of-doors excite- 
 ment, could they but have been allowed to instil their notions 
 into the minds of our college youth. 
 
 3. " That to their teaching the great reaction which is 
 " visible in favour of the Church is mainly owing." — The 
 fact of such a reaction is obvious enough ; but its connexion 
 with the Oxford Tracts is about as clear as the connexion 
 between the Goodwin Sands and Tenterden steeple. Nine 
 years ago the Liberals would have outpolled the Conser- 
 vatives on an East Surrey election in the proportion of two 
 to one. Now the Conservatives can outpoU the Liberals in 
 the same proportion. Rut how many of these electors have 
 ever seen the Oxford Tracts ? Not a score ! 
 
 4. " That their doctrines have gained access to the minds 
 " of the greater part of the clergy.'' — Never was there a 
 greater miscalculation ! I know, indeed, that these gentlemen 
 occupy a prominent position, and are active ; but they 
 surely cannot persuade themselves that they constitute even 
 a respectable minority in the Church. I remember lamenting, 
 a ievf months back, their increase, in the presence of an aged 
 rector of this metropolis ; when he stopped me by asking 
 how many there were of all the hundreds of clergy in London 
 and its vicinity who preached these doctrines ; and I found, 
 to my surprise, that it was diflicult to point out a dozen out 
 of all the hundreds so located ! 
 
 But there is a still better test just now before the public. 
 
 Some months since the Oxford Tract party put forth a 
 proposal for the publication of a series of works, selected 
 from the writings of the Laudian divines and the Nonjurors. 
 About the same time ruiother scluiiu' came forth, for the 
 publicatif)n of the works of the Reformers — a class of divines 
 especially disliked by the Tractarian school. The subscribers 
 to the first of these two schemes are about seren or eight 
 Inmdrr.d : ilu- subscribers to thf second }ilan are nearly /o/tr 
 thousand !
 
 11 
 
 5. " That their doctrines are calculated to win back the 
 " people to the Church." — Very strangely adapted to such a 
 purpose, seeing that they are filled with complaints and 
 fault-finding. Mr. Froude declared that he " hated the 
 " Reformers," that he " liked Bonner," and thought Bishop 
 Jewell " an irreverent Dissenter." Mr. Newman speaks of 
 our communion service as filling him with " grief and impa- 
 " tient sorrow." And the very last number of the " Tracts 
 for the Times" exhorts us to " let the Church sit still ; let 
 " her be content to be in bondage ; let her work in chains ; 
 " let her go on teaching with the stammering lips of am- 
 " higuotis formularies and inconsistent precedents, and prin- 
 " ciples but partially developed." Whether this is the sort 
 of language which is likely to recommend the Church to the 
 people, let any reasonable man decide ! 
 
 6. " That their obedience to all lawful authority should 
 " lead us to leave them to the judgment of the Bishops." — 
 To that judgment we must leave them : but of the tendency 
 of their publications, poured forth upon the public in swarms, 
 the public must of course form and express an opinion. That 
 the Tractarian party are giving the Bishops much trouble, is 
 abundantly notorious ; that the Bishops of Exeter, Chester, 
 and Chichester, have felt it their duty publicly to warn their 
 clergy against them, is matter of record ; that the Bishop of 
 London has had rebukes to administer, the Bishop of Win- 
 chester cautions to inculcate, the Bishop of Salisbury injunc- 
 tions to issue, is all sufficiently well known. But, while we 
 interfere not between the diocesan and his clergy in these 
 matters, we may, as bystanders, regret the rise of a system 
 which already involves so many injurious discussions, and 
 must inevitably strengthen the hands of dissent. 
 
 I remain, Sir, 
 
 Yours very respectfully, 
 
 A PROTESTANT.
 
 12 
 
 (From the Mortiing Chronicle of March 15, 1841.) 
 
 It is generally thought, by those who have considered the 
 subject attentively, that the authors of the Oxford Tracts 
 have presumed too much on their supposed success with the 
 clergy of the establishment. The Tract No. 90 could hardly 
 go down with a Protestant nation like the English. The 
 people of this country generally believe, that the doctrines of 
 the Church of England not only differ, but differ essentially, 
 from the doctrines of the Church of Rome; and an attempt 
 to prove that the difference is imaginary is rather too bold 
 an experiment on the settled conviction of the nation. The 
 authors of the Tracts have been very industrious in paving 
 the way for Popery, but they have over-rated the effect pro- 
 duced on the public mind by their labours, if they suppose 
 that the time is at length arrived for proclaiming that a 
 Roman Catholic and a Church-of-England-man labour under 
 a misapprehension when they attribute to each other a differ- 
 ence in doctrines. 
 
 (From the Stcmdard of March G, 1841.) 
 
 Lord Morpeth and his master, Mr. O'Connell, have, to 
 some extent, succeeded in their attempt to injure the cause of 
 religion, by imputing to the Establi>hc'd Cluiic h and to the 
 University of Oxford an liiclinatiou to the doctrines of the 
 " non-Protestant" sect that has lately risen to smooth the 
 path for Popery. V\'e are no theologians ; we are contented 
 with the Scriptures and the Articles and Liturgy of the Esta- 
 blished Cliuich — Articles and Liturgy wjiicli, as far as the 
 judgment of unlearned men can aid us to know the truth, 
 seem to rest upon a Scriptural foiuuiatiou ; but if we must 
 look bivond tliisi' instructors, we shall certainly prefer, to
 
 13 
 
 the guidance of men who prove the comprehensiveness of 
 their views by a devotion to copes and tippets — by denying 
 to the Protestant Churches of Scotland and of the Continent 
 the means of salvation which they allow to the Church of the 
 Inquisition and of St. Bartholomew — by refusing to Baxter 
 and Doddridge that blessed hope which they extend to Alex- 
 ander the Sixth and M'Hale — by telling us that " the sure 
 word of prophecy" has not given warning of an apostacy now 
 of twelve centuries' duration — who, in short, would distract 
 mankind by disputes upon the credentials of the messenger 
 and the proper formalities of his introduction, to the utter 
 neglect of the full and faithful promulgation of the message — 
 we would prefer, we say, to the guidance of suck men, writing 
 bad Latin and badly expounding plain Greek, the guidance 
 of the learned and pious fathers of the Reformation, who have 
 told us that Popery is the great apostacy foretold — that the 
 Pope, as a corporatioji sole (to borrow a phrase familiar to 
 lawyers), is Antichrist — is the man of sin ; and after the 
 fathers of the Reformation, we would follow the wise and 
 learned and pious men of our own day, who have received 
 the sacred mantle with their offices. Few of the Bishops have 
 as yet spoken of the " non- Protestant" sect, but the few who 
 have spoken have proved how little they countenance its doc- 
 trines. We think it seasonable to offer proofs, and we shall 
 beffin with one to whom all the sincere Protestants of the 
 empire look up with hope and gratitude. The following is 
 an extract from a Charge lately delivered by the Bishop of 
 Exeter. Speaking of the " non-Protestants," his Lordship 
 says— 
 
 " I lament to hear them speak of adherence to ' the Bible 
 " and nothing but the Bible' as 'an unthankful rejection of 
 " another great gift equally from God.' I lament to see them 
 " state ' as the sounder view, that the Bible is the record of 
 *' necessary truth, or of matters of faith, and the Church
 
 14 
 
 " Catholic's tradition is' — not a most venerable witness, or 
 " most useful assistant in interpreting it, but — ' the interpreter 
 " of it.' 
 
 " I lament to see them following indeed the order of Bishop 
 " Hall, but widely departing from his truly Protestant senti- 
 " ments on more than one important article. Of the ' rcorsliip 
 " of images,' (for so that great divine justly designates what 
 " they more delicately call ' the honour paid to images,') they 
 " say only that it is ' dangerous in case of the uneducated,' 
 " that is, of the great part of Christians. But Bishop Hall 
 " treats it, as not merely dangerous to some, but as sinful in 
 "all; as 'against Scripture:' ' the book of God is full 
 "of his indignation against this practice;' — and 'against 
 " reason.' 
 
 " I lament to read their advice to those who are contending 
 " for the truth against Romanists, that ' the controversy about 
 " transubstantiation be kept in the back ground, because it 
 " cannot be well discussed in words at all without the sacri- 
 " fice of godly fear :"" — as if that tenet were not the abundant 
 " source of enormous practical evils, wiiich the faithful ad- 
 " vocate of truth is bound to expose. 
 
 " 1 lament too the encourai>;ement fjivcn bv the same 
 " writers to the dangerous practice of prayer for the dead." 
 " I cannot but deplore the rashness which has prompted them 
 " to recommend to ])rlvatc Christians the tiedication of parti- 
 " cular days to the religious conmicmoration of deceased men, 
 " and even to furnish a special service in honour of Bishop 
 " Ken, founded apparently on the model of an office in the 
 " Hreviary to a Konii^h Saint.*'*' 
 
 " ' If after having been then (in baptism) washed once for 
 " all in Christ's blood, we again sin, there is no more such 
 ** complete ablution in tlii> life.* Passages like this, however 
 " they may be ex|)lained, tend to rob the Gospel of the blessed 
 " Jesus of nuich of that assurance of the richesof the goodness
 
 15 
 
 " and mercy of God in Christ which is its pecuhar message — 
 " its ' glad tidings of great joy:' — ' come unto me all ye that 
 " labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' Our 
 " Church teaches us to apply this blessed promise to those who 
 " are ' heavy laden with sins' committed after baptism." 
 
 " Lastly, I lament, and more than lament, the tendency at 
 " least, if not the direct import of some of their views, ' on 
 " reserve in communicating religious knowledge ;' especially 
 " their venturing to recommend us to keep back from any 
 " who ai-e baptized the explicit and full declaration of the 
 " doctrine of the atonement. I know not how such reserve 
 " can be made consistent, not only with the general duty of 
 " the Christian minister, to be able to say with St. Paul, that 
 " he has ' not shunned to declare all the counsel of God,' but 
 " also with the special and distinct requirement of our own 
 " Church." 
 
 Not less explicit is the rebuke of the Bishop of Chester: — ■ 
 
 " It is daily assuming a more serious and alarming aspect, 
 " and threatens a revival of the worst evils of the Romish 
 " system. Under the specious pretence of deference to an- 
 " tiquity, and respect for the primitive models, the founda- 
 " tions of our Protestant Church are undermined by men 
 " who dwell within her walls ; and those who sit in the 
 " Reformers' seat are traducing the Reformation. It is again 
 " becoming matter of question, whether the Bible is sufficient 
 " to make man wise unto salvation ; the main article of our 
 " national confession, — justification by faith, — is both openly 
 " and covertly assailed ; and the stewards of the mysteries of 
 " God are instructed to reserve the truths which they have 
 " been ordained to dispense, and to hide under a bushel those 
 *"' doctrines which the apostles were commanded to preach to 
 " every creature." 
 
 The learned Bishop of Chichester speaks with equal plain- 
 ness : —
 
 IG 
 
 "' I cannot, nor do I wish to conceal my opinion that the 
 '* doctrines which they advocate, should they become po})ular, 
 " woidd in other hands be essentially injurioits to the cause 
 " of pure Protestantism, and with it to sound Christianity in 
 *' this country. In this case, the respectability of the advo- 
 " cates must not make us blind to the danger likely to ensue 
 " from the principles which they adopt. The integrity and 
 " sufficiency of the written revelation of God's will has been 
 *' openly impugned by them. 
 
 " When they teach, that the Eucharist is a continually 
 " reneived sacrifice for reconciliation with God, and for the 
 " e.vpiation of sin, I think they are deviating from the original 
 " institution, and setting up their own fancies in the place of 
 '* God's ordinances." 
 
 Not one member of the Right Rev. Bench has dropped a 
 syllable in approbation of the doctrines of the sect. We shall 
 add the testimony against it of a distinguished colonial Bishop, 
 the Rijrht Rev. Daniel Wilson, of Calcutta: — 
 
 •' It is to me a matter of surprise and shame, that, in the 
 ** I9th century, we should have thefujidamental posilio7i of 
 " the ivhole system of Popery virtually re-asserted in the 
 " bosom of that very Church which was reformed so deter- 
 " minately three centuries since from this same evil, by the 
 ** doctrine, and labours, and martyrdom of Cranmcr and his 
 " fellow-sufferers. AVhat ! are we to have all the fond tenets 
 *' which formerly sprung from the traditions of men re-intro- 
 " duced, in however modified a form, amongst us.'' Are we 
 " to have a refined transubstantiation ; the sacraments, and 
 "not faith, the chief means of salvation; a confused and 
 " tmcertain mixture of the merits of Christ and inherent 
 " grace, in the matter of justification ; remission of sins and 
 *• the nc w creation in Christ tJesus confined, or almost con- 
 " fined, to baptisM) ; perpetual doubt of pardon to the 
 " |)( nit( lit after that sacrniiuiit ; the dutv and advantage of
 
 17 
 
 •* self-imposed austerities ; the innocency of prayers for the 
 " dead ; and similar tenets and usages, which generate a 
 " spirit of bondage, again asserted among us ? And is 
 " the paramount authority of the inspired volume, and 
 " the doctrine of the grace of God in our justification by 
 " the merits of Jesus Christ, which reposes on that autho- 
 " rity, to be again weakened and obscured by such human 
 " superadditions, and a new edifice of will-worship, and 
 " ' voluntary humility,' and ' the rudiments of the world,* 
 *' as the apostle speaks, to be erected once more, in the place 
 " of the simple gospel of a crucified Saviour ?" 
 
 The Scriptures, Articles, Liturgy, the writings of the 
 fathers of the Reformation, the declaration of so many of the 
 living prelates as have spoken — and if others have been silent, 
 it is because they would not give too much encouragement to 
 sectarians whose ruling vice is vanity — these are surely enough 
 to acquit the Church of any inclination to non-Frotestant 
 doctrines. And to the rest of the clergy who respect the 
 episcopal order without adoring it, such advice as we have 
 quoted from such men must be sufficient. If there are any 
 who, as it is said, take liberties with the Liturgy, their num- 
 ber must be small, for we have never heard of them ; but, if 
 there are any, their misconduct is no apology for a relapse, 
 however slight, into Popish practices and Popish doctrines. 
 Popery is the enemy, and he is no true Protestant who is 
 ingenious in searching for any other. 
 
 (From the Standard of March 25, 1841.) 
 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 Oxford, March 24. 
 Sir, — Although you have declined entering into any fur- 
 ther controversy respecting the " Tract for the Times,""'
 
 18 
 
 recently condemned by the authorities of the University of 
 Oxford, I hope that you will not refuse the admission into 
 vour columns of a plain matter of fact of some importance. 
 " It is said," observes a writer in the Morning Chronicle^ 
 " that the leaders of the Tract party are in possession of 
 correspondence with high ecclesiastical authorities, which 
 protects them from ecclesiastical censure." Now it happens 
 that letters have been received by members of this University 
 from the Bishops of London, Winchester, Chester, Chichester, 
 and Ripon, strongly condemning the Tract in question, inde- 
 pendently of the more general censures of the Bishops of 
 Exeter and Calcutta, which you put before your readers in a 
 leading article the other day. 
 
 I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, 
 
 A MEMBER OF CONVOCATION. 
 
 (From the Standard of March 0, 184J.) 
 TO THE EDITOR. 
 
 Oxford, March 8, 1841. 
 
 SiK, — The bearing of this communication upon certain 
 recent statements and imputations will at once be understood 
 when the well-known connection of Mr. Newman with the 
 " Tracts lor the Times" is taken into account. 
 
 In November, 1H3J), the Vicc-ChanccUor of the University, 
 and the Bishop of the l^iocesc, each separately and independ- 
 ently disapproving of the doctrine inculcated from St. Mary's 
 pulpit l)y a gentleman, a follower and friend of Mr. Newman, 
 and appointed by him to preach there as his deputy, ofliciall}' 
 a<lmonished and reproved him. 
 
 In support of this asserti(jn I enclose you my name and 
 address, and am, your obedient Servant, 
 
 A MEMBER OF CONVOCATION. 
 
 IIAXTKR, I'RINTKK, uXFrilU).
 
 .»>
 
 SOME PAPERS 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE OF 
 
 TRACT FOR THE TIMES, 
 
 No. 90, &c. 
 WITH AN APPENDIX AND NOTES. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 1. Testimony lo Mr. Newman's View of the Yearnings of 
 
 the Ag-e, from a work published in 1830. 
 
 2. Rinnarks on Mr. Newman's Letter, from the Morning- 
 
 Post. 
 
 3. Rev. W. B. Barter's Letter on the Tracts for the Times, 
 
 their effects, and the spirit of their opponents, from 
 the Conservative Journal. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 \. The Sixth Article of Religion, with the Church's Comment. 
 2. Quotations from Chillingworth, Bishop Marsh, &c. 
 
 OXFORD: 
 
 W. GRAHAM, HIGH STREET, 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1841.
 
 SOME PAPERS 
 
 ILLUSTRATIVE OF 
 
 TRACT FOR THE TIMES, No. 90, &c. 
 
 From the Morning Post of March 24th. 
 
 To the Editor. 
 Sir, 
 
 Every little that may help towards forming a 
 dispassionate judgment on the subject of the Tracts for 
 the Times has its value at the present moment of excite- 
 ment, and perhaps the very simple facts which follow, 
 may be worth considering with such a view. 
 
 In the preface to a volume of sermons, published in the 
 year 1830, by a member of the University of Oxford, an 
 opinion was expressed that " there must be many earnest 
 and reflecting Christians at that time little satisfied with 
 the complexion and appearances of religion in this king- 
 dom." And, among other classes specified as likely to 
 feel uneasiness, it was asked — 
 
 " Must there not be considerable numbers who shrink 
 from the too probable effects (the fruits already ripening, 
 as it appears to them) of a religious restlessness, and 
 feverishness of speculation in divine things, of such a sort 
 as seems not only tending to root out, but bent on rooting 
 out, the very notion of all visible and outward bonds of 
 unity among us; Avhich little less than mocks at discipline 
 and Church authority ; nor only that, but which — in any 
 way of natural consequence — can only be expected to un-
 
 settle or impair the personal faith of thousands, by leaving 
 it no manner of distinct standard to which to make appeal, 
 and under which to seek and find an honest shelter in the 
 iiour of storm and tempest ? # * # # # 
 
 " What, again, must be their fear and opinion, to whom 
 it seems as plain as any such tiling well can be, that 
 almost every sect and party, in this same all-important 
 province of religion, is doing (as it were) its adversary's 
 work ? Now, Calvinism (e. g.) is by a natural re-action, 
 and under a new form of that so frequent turn in men's 
 oj)inions — the meeting of extremes — enlisting numbers in 
 the ranks of Arianism, or Socinianism. Again, how the 
 outrageousness of an enthusiasm derived from broodings 
 over dark unaccomplished propliecy * * * or the 
 blind spirit of unjust and undiscriminating condemnation, 
 derived from no authority but that of an habitual unre- 
 llecting prejudice, is taking the most likclij course to cause 
 a rally and diversion in favour o{ Popery, in many minds 
 that can be least spared from the communion of our 
 Church — I mean, in dispositions of a more devotional, and 
 at tlie same time a more dutiful, comj)lexion — reflecting, 
 meek, patient — minds, therefore, which can never follow 
 such a fiery zeal to all its lengths, yet do n(jt seem to find 
 that settled anchorage of faith and hope which they desire 
 in fellowship with some counnunion of LJuir brethren, 
 except it shall be bound with cords oi' rirtual ii/fril/lbi/ifi/^" 
 
 I beg it may be observed that this preface bcnns date 
 April 22, 1H:3(), and that the dale of th.> ciiilicst Oxford 
 Tract is Se])tcmber 9, 1833, nearly three years and a half 
 l;.t(T. 
 
 Keeping thesey«c/6' in luiiid (Cor il is to the facts oCllic 
 case that 1 wish to (haw attention,) let the foregoing pas- 
 sage be compared with language in Mr. Newman's Letter 
 I., I)i..leir, of thr l:;ih in>t. "The itge," lie says, "is 
 nifiving towards something (deeper and truer than satisfied
 
 5 
 
 the last century,) and, most unhappily, the one religious 
 community among us which has of late years been practi- 
 cally in possession of this something is the Church of 
 Rome. She alone, amid all the errors and evils of her 
 practical system, has given free scope to the feelings of 
 awe, mystery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and 
 other feelings which may be especially called Catholic. 
 The question, then, is, whether we shall give them up to 
 the Roman Church or claim them for ourselves, as we well 
 may, by reverting to that older system, which has of late 
 years, indeed, been superseded, but which has been and is 
 quite congenial (to say the least,) I should rather say 
 proper and natural, and 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, (continues Mr. Newman,) I speak of what 
 especially comes under my eye, when I express my con- 
 viction that this is a A'^ery 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 (No. 90) is grounded on the belief 
 that the Articles need not be so closed as the received 
 method of teaching closes them, and ought not to be for 
 the sake of many persons. If we will close them, we run 
 the risk of subjecting persons whom we should least like to 
 Lose or distress to the 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 set before me by parties I revere to do all I 
 could to keep members of our Church from straooiino- in 
 the direction of Rome ; and as not being able to pursue 
 the methods commonly adopted, and as being persuaded
 
 that the view of the Articles I have taken is true and 
 honest, I was anxious to set it before them. I tliought it 
 would be useful to them without hurting any one else." 
 
 Such is the simple evidence here submitted. In begging 
 jittention to it, let it be granted that it is but an atom out 
 of a vast mass ; that there are wide differences between 
 the views taken in the one extract and in the other ; that 
 the interpretations of phenomena in the earlier (by no 
 means powerfully or happily expressed) may be deficient 
 or wrong ; in short, let no sj)ecial credit be claimed for 
 tJiaty of any sort whatever. But it is adduced here as tes- 
 timony to fact ; and surely, as a fact, it is impossible not 
 to perceive, and unreasonable not to admit, that its des- 
 cription contains the germ (so to express it) of that bitter 
 fruit described in the conclusion of Mr. Newman's state- 
 ment, distinctly seen in embryo at the date assigned, whe- 
 ther then rightly or wrongly accounted for. This last 
 point is immaterial ; nay, it is but of secondary importance 
 if (which is possible) the tone of some of the Oxford Tracts 
 may have since contributed to hasten its growth. The 
 material point to be acknowledged and digested is, that 
 other causes must have sewn the seed of an uneasiness, 
 affording room for fear of a specific apprehended issue, so 
 plainly traceable and left on record more than three years 
 before these Tracts had any existence. And probably no 
 single cause had been, or since has been, more operative 
 towards such tmwelcome result than that advanciu": usur- 
 pation of the Puritanical or Calvinistic spirit in the Cluirch 
 of England, irldch alwaya lias assumed an hifal/ihUi/i/ of its 
 uicn*, an<l always been intolerant of any comprehensive 
 or Catholic construction of the Articles in particular ; in 
 
 • " Of nil the repulsive peculiarities of Ihe holy discipline, ns it exhibited 
 il.s(.lf in his (Archbishop L.'iiiirs) time, tlicrfi was none, jxThiiiis so rc- 
 iiiarkiiblc, as its coarsr, huril-fcaliirtd, rrsciiiblaiue (<> that very I'<ip( ly, 
 wliich was tlif object of its proffbscd ubhorrcucc. The I'rcsbytcriaii sys-
 
 other words, which has so doggedly contended for tliat par- 
 tial and ?/??-catholic closing of them, which Mr. Newman 
 deprecates. At all events, it is demonstrable that there 
 have long been those who have anticipated the precise 
 results which INIr, Newman states to have ensued, and that 
 among the almost identical dispositions specified in each 
 of the foregoing extracts, from causes not only not con- 
 nected with the Oxford Tracts*, but utterly at variance with 
 
 them. 
 
 I am, Sir, your humble Servant, 
 
 The Writer of the Preface referred to. 
 
 torn -was, in its original principles, as sternly and avowedly intolerant as 
 the pontifical chair. ["Beware '■ , lest out of cowardice ye tolerate what God 
 would not have tolerated," said one of their preachers in his sermon be- 
 fore the Commons. "Take heed of toleration" said another, in his ser- 
 mon before the Lords; "For God's sake, my Lords, let us not leave a 
 Reformation, which may need a toleration.'"'} It extended no hope of sal- 
 vation, beyond the pale of its own communion. It affected a dominion, 
 paramount to all earthly map;istracy. It proclaimed a war of extermination 
 against heresy. It was ready to compass earth and sea for proselytes. 
 Violence and terror were employed to establish its claim to infallibility. 
 And if Popery had its Council of Trent, Calvinism had its Synod of Dort. 
 If it abjured the idolatry of the mass, it may fairly be said to have found 
 a substitute in the ordinance of preaching, &c. — Laud's Conference icith 
 Fisher, the Jesuit, p. 100." Le Bas' Life of Archbishop Laud, p. 367. 
 
 I Bishop Marsh on the consequences of neglecting to give the Prayer Book with 
 the Bible, p 25. 
 
 * " Oxford Tracts, or rather " Tracts for the Times," their title and their 
 right title, for the ti7nes called for them. People were wearied in the 
 ways of the " various denominations ;" error was preached at every step ; 
 and so soon as a man had become a Wesleyan, he was urgently provoked 
 by the Baptist ; and so on ad infinitum, until he was prompted to ask who 
 can be right ? and, moreover, ivhat standard shall decide the right ? when 
 once these questions took an earnest possession of the mind, it was clear 
 that the private ipse dixits of intemperate preachers were at an end, and 
 that we must seek the decision of a worthy and unimpassioned tribunal- 
 We might have been in danger of prefemng Rome, or anything rather 
 than tlie uneasy position in which we found ourselves. 
 
 CATHOLICUS CHRISTIANUS." 
 Morning Post. 
 
 [ For another important reason why the Tracts shotdu not be designated 
 the Oxford Tracts, see iMr. Barter's Letter below]
 
 8 
 
 FnoM THE MoRNixG PosT OF March 24tii. 
 
 Mr. Newman has perhaps not written so cautiously as 
 he might have written, and this he frankly and dutifully 
 expresses : 
 
 Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious, 
 Loyal and neutral, in a moment ? No man. 
 
 but Mr. Newman, in conjunction with others, has, under 
 Providence, accomplished a mighty work for the Church. 
 It no longer slumbers nor sleeps. The sober dignity and 
 authoritative teachinsz; of the Church are now ao-ain zeal- 
 ously maintained. The Church system and its inestimahle 
 value is far more generally understood and more dutifully 
 and effectually appreciated than it was some yearn ago. For 
 these advantages, which we cannot think likely to lead to 
 schism, but quite the contrary, we must be content to pay 
 the price of some misconstruction and some temporary 
 disturbance. 
 
 The hurricane at Oxford occasioned by Tract No. 90, 
 and by what has been said of it by many eminent and 
 valuable men, has been painful to behold, but we have 
 good hope that the results upon the whole, and in various 
 ways, will be found beneficial. 
 
 The first of these results has been the Letter of Mr. 
 Newman to Dr. .Jelf This appears to be regarded by the 
 most competent judges as a masterly performance, and has 
 given great satisfaction and comfort to thost; friends of 
 strict Church principles, who had been ollindcd or dis- 
 (piieted by Tract No. 90*. We observe, however, (and we 
 hoj)e we may b(! pardoned if some indignation mingle with 
 
 • The Triict iH forliliud willi copious quotations from the iloiiiilios, 
 whirli tlu: iiuthor tniiy Siiys uic especially autlioiitalivc whore they bring 
 out Iho »en»oof llic Article. Now an to the literal Inlcrpielalion wliich the 
 Dcclnraliuii prolixcl to the Articles especially enjoins, and which the wri- 
 ter of the tract presses, being m c m i n(//ij imi accordant with the opiniojis
 
 9 
 
 our regret at having to make the observation) that the 
 pubhcations which have been most forv^^ard to present to 
 their readers, with aggravated comments, the views of 
 those authorities who objected to the Tract, have been care- 
 ful not to present in the same way, the explanation which 
 Mr. Newman has given. And yet with very little study — 
 for it is to be found in the second page of his Letter — they 
 might have found the principal matter explained. 
 
 The gentlemen of the University who misunderstood the 
 Tract — perhaps not so much from any fault of theirs as 
 from the modes of expression adopted by Mr, Newman — 
 considered that the Tract maintained that the Articles of our 
 Anglican Church did not condemn certain errors as they 
 are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but 
 only certain absurd practices and opinions which intelligent 
 Romanists repudiate. Mr. Newman answers that he is 
 the icriter of the Tract, and that this is not his opinion; 
 but, on the contrary, his opinion is that the Articles of 
 our Church do contain a condemnation of the authoritative 
 teaching of the Church of Rome. 
 
 The argument of Mr. Newman, as he explains it, ap- 
 pears to be, that the Articles of our Church are not 
 directed against the decrees of the Council of Trent, be- 
 
 of the framcrs of the Articlps in kinp; Echvard's reign, one cannot but 
 think that if the Translators of our Bible, and the Bishops of the Savoy 
 Conference, in other M'orils, the Divines whose works are now beinp; re- 
 published in the Anglo-Catholic Library, if these Di\incs, then, difl'ered 
 in some of the points now under discussion from the fi-amers of the Arti- 
 cles and yet, though having full power to do so, did not attempt to alter 
 the wording of the Articles, at either the Hampton Court or Savoy Confer- 
 ences, not thinking that the Text of the Articles was at all inconsistent 
 with the catholic view they took of them — If this be the case, one cannot 
 see how the writer of the tract can be accused of inconsistency when 
 he holds that intei-pretation of them held by these great Divines of our 
 Church, and taught by the Clergy of the Church till within the last century. 
 
 P.S. This view is confirmed by the following passage from the second 
 eOition of the Tract: 
 
 " We have no duties toward the framers (of the Articles); nor do M-e 
 receive the Articles from their oiiginal framers, but from several succes- 
 sive convocations after their time ; in the last instance, from that of 1G62." 
 p. SO. See also sect. 3, p. so. Id.
 
 10 
 
 cause they were written before those decrees existed. That 
 other senses short of the present authoritative teaching of 
 the Church of Rome may fulfil the letter of those decrees 
 and may now be held in that Church, and that it is useful 
 to see by what extent of reformation in the Church of 
 Rome it may be brought into agreement with our Church. 
 The Letter to Dr. Jelf says at page 17 : — 
 
 " Nothing more then is maintained in the Tract than 
 that Rome is capable of a reformation ; its corrupt system 
 indeed cannot be reformed ; it can only be destroyed, and 
 that destruction is its reformation, I do not think that 
 there is anything very erroneous or very blameable in such 
 a belief; and it seems to be a very satisfactory omen in its 
 favour, that at the Council of Trent 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 Christen- 
 dom to rejoice to detect such points of agreement between 
 them and us, as a joint protest against some of their 
 greatest corruj)tions, though they in practice cherish them, 
 though they still difior from us in other points besides. 
 That I have not always consistently kept to this view in 
 fill tliat I have written, I am well aware, yet I have made 
 veiT partial deviations from it." 
 
 So, then, it ajipears that while shallow and violent per- 
 sons have been exclaiming that Mr. Newman and his 
 fellow-labourers were trying to lead Church of I'^ngland 
 folks to Romanism, the truth is ihcij have, been lubour'nuj to 
 prevent t/iat, wnd, on the other hand, .so to satisfy the 
 inenibcrs of the Romish Church of the corruptions in the 
 present authoritative teaching of that Church, that they 
 may be induced to jip|>roach more and more nearly lo our 
 Anslican doctrine and discipline.
 
 11 
 
 From the Conservative Journal of March 20th. 
 
 It is we feel unnecessary for us to do more than call the 
 attention of our readers to the following admirable 
 letter, with which we have been honoured : — 
 
 To the Editor of the Conservative Journal. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Believing that the Authors of the Tracts for 
 the Times, are the authors also of an increasing reverence 
 for our Church, as a Divine institution, and, believing that 
 in times of danger they have made known to us the real 
 strength of her position, and the only legitimate means by 
 which she may be defended, I am not surprised that un- 
 learned and unstable men should have attacked them in 
 the worst spirit of religious controversy. Such opponents, 
 however, might safely be disregarded, and permitted with- 
 out a comment, to pei'severe in their violent and contradic- 
 tory accusations. But, it seems to me, that any among us 
 who feel gratitude to these men for their exertions in our 
 sacred cause, would do well to state their reasons for this 
 feeling of firmness and moderation, when the same chaises 
 are advanced by men of piety and acknowledged talent. 
 I have read with much pleasure your remarks on Lord 
 Morpeth's speech ; what you have said on the hostility 
 manifested by some Members of our Church to the Book 
 of Common Prayer, touches a chord to which my feelings 
 so completely respond, that I cannot but hope that you 
 will not decline giving to the few remarks which I shall 
 make the benefit of your extensive circulation. With 
 regard to the attack which his lordship has thought fit to 
 make on the University of Oxford, if he considers the mat- 
 ter impartially, he must be convinced that the University 
 of Oxford is not more answerable for the publication of the
 
 12 
 
 Tracts fur tht Times, than tor the able speeches which he 
 delivers in the House of Commons, It would be a hard 
 measure to call that venerable seat of learning to account 
 for every production of those who have had the benefit of 
 its instnictions. As to the tendencv of the doctrines ad- 
 vanced in the Tracts for the Times to Popery, his lordship 
 would see immediately, if he gave any attention to the 
 matter, that even those who professed precisely the same 
 principles in their day, are among the most able defenders 
 of our Church, against the errors and encroachments of 
 that superstition, and the names of many such may be 
 found in the list of those who, in the time of James the 
 Second, periled their liberties and lives, by putting them- 
 selves in the first rank of its opponents. But I am not 
 surprised that Lord Morpeth has fallen into tliis mistake ; 
 the same error has been committed by men of hiirh talent 
 and station in our Church, who have also gone further 
 than he, and have ventured to enter into controversy with 
 these men, without fully comprehending the nature of the 
 principles which they have attemj)ted to beat down. The 
 most popular charges whicii are brought of late against 
 writers of the Tracts for the Times are the^se : A desire to 
 set up a new system of Doctrine in our Church, and to 
 put aside the principles of the Protestant Reformation. 
 I will say as few words as possible on each of these 
 subjects. 
 
 The first of these charges is an attempt to set up a new 
 system of Chiistian Doctrine in this country, as if the men 
 who write in these publications were now, for the first 
 timo, disclosing a system hitherto unheard of, and, in fact, 
 the ofispring of their own imaginations. Now, the truth 
 is, they have never endeavoured to n^connnend a single 
 oj)inioii or doctrine of their own ; they have attemj)ted to 
 fiMu the attention of tluir brethren solely to the j)ure creed 
 of ihe primitive ('hindi <•(' Christ. To their innocence in
 
 13 
 
 this respect, their enemies themselves bear Avitness, the most 
 able of whom* has allowed (as every one must who does 
 not shut his eyes to the truth) that the doctrines they ad- 
 vocate, are the doctrines of primitive Christianity — so 
 much for the novelty of their creed. Then as to their 
 setting aside the principles of the Protestant Reformation, 
 or disarming them as it has been said, of their poignancy 
 and efficacy, on account of which, eveiy sincere friend of 
 that reformation has been called upoii openly to declare 
 his dissent from these doctrines — The following I consider 
 a satisfactory answer : — 
 
 The principle of the Protestant Reformation is a wide 
 term, almost as wide as that of the Protestant religion, it 
 mav mean any thino- or nothins: ; but the true, the avowed 
 principle of the Protestant reformation in the English 
 Church, was nothing else but to restore the doctrine of the 
 primitive Church of Christ, purified from Romish corrup- 
 tions ; this was the only principle of reformation professed 
 by Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, and the principle is the 
 all-prevailing one of the Tracts for the Times, so that were 
 the real friends of the Protestant Reformation to declare 
 their dissent from these doctrines, they would make a des- 
 perate and very imwise attack upon themselves and their 
 own tenets. But, it may be asked if the writers of the 
 virtues of the Tracts for the Times are pure in doctrine and 
 blameless and harmless, Avhy is so loud a voice raised 
 against them ? Why are grave men in authority, perio- 
 dicals of conflicting religious opinions, newspapers without 
 number, unwearied in their attacks ? Some with more 
 polished weapons, others stipitihus sudihiisque prceustis, of 
 vulgar and coarse abuse ? A plain answer is this, because 
 these men have put themselves forward as defenders of the 
 
 * The author of the History of Enthusiasm. 
 [For a refutation of his Avork sec several artieles in the British Maga- 
 zine, 1610, by ipiKdKaKot^
 
 14 
 
 fortress of the Church of England — the Book of Connuon 
 Prayer ; it is for this book, and not for these men that I 
 fear, let them be trampled under foot, let them be accused 
 of favouring errors which their soul abhors, was not their 
 jNIaster crucified for aiming at the government of a petty 
 province, when he had refused all the kingdoms of the 
 world and the gloiy of them ? 
 
 To sufter under false accusation is a severe trial, but 
 they may support it with christian patience, and great will 
 be their reward in heaven. But this I know, that, if they 
 are beaten down, their adversaries will have gained no 
 victory while the Book of Common Prayer remains unmu- 
 tildted. In that book the principles of the primitive 
 church must circulate widely through the land. The con- 
 gregations of the Church of England must still address 
 their God in the words and in the spirit of the primitive 
 Church of Christ. In those prayers, in the forms of 
 Baptism, of Burial, and the rites of Confirmation, of 
 Ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, they must find the 
 main doctrines of the Tracts for the Times, set forth in as 
 pla-n terras as the wisdom of man could devise ; and in the 
 Catechism, in which, (if they act honestly) they are bound 
 to instruct their cliildren, they will find not a word to 
 favour the modern gloss on the doctrine of justification by 
 faith, but the whole in perfect harmony with that doctrine 
 as held by the primitive Church of Christ. Would that 
 all who loved this sacred dep<jsit read the history of 
 former times, and judged by the perils it has escaped of 
 its present (lunger. When Laud was beheaded there 
 would have been no triumph to indepemhmt principles had 
 not, on the same day, the use of the Book of Common 
 Prayer ceased throughout the land ; then, indeed, it gained 
 a short-lived victory. Let us considt^r for a moment the 
 state of I he Clinrch of Kiiylnnd ichcn these tracts where 
 first published.
 
 15 
 
 Independent principles had for a long time silently 
 gained ground \vithin its pale. The Liturgy, and especially 
 the church sei"vices, were in many instances mutilated 
 according to the caprice of those who, though independent 
 in principle, had become inconsistent ministers of the 
 Church of England. The Catechism was frequently dis- 
 carded from schools superintended by the clergy of our 
 church as unfit for the instruction of children in the doc- 
 trines of Christianity. Curtailments in the mornins; and 
 evening service of our church, and alterations in our 
 creeds, were spoken of with as much freedom as men 
 would discuss alterations in the shape of a garment, in 
 order to meet the varying fashion of the present hour. 
 Publications, in which the tenets of Calvin and John 
 Knox could only be sincerely maintained (for the authore 
 professed their creed and were not of our communion), 
 had crept into the families of many pious churchmen, and, 
 if they had done nothing worse, had lessened their rever- 
 ence for the real and characteristic doctrines of the church 
 of England. Tracts were circulated by thousands to pro- 
 pagate a modern system of Christianity, from which all 
 mention of the sacrament of baptism was excluded, as a 
 subject, not of sufficient importance to demand attention, 
 and although such things were done avowedly under the 
 sanction and by the aid of ministers of our church, no 
 authoritative voice was lifted up to check the evil. 
 
 In the mean time Popery was numbering her converts 
 by thousands in our land ; and, notwithstanding the ex- 
 amples of America and Scotland, in which the increase 
 was proportionably greater — it was attributed to the want 
 of lively reformation principles, with the same truth as 
 some mediciners of the present day attribute the bad 
 health of their patients to not imbibing a sufficient quan- 
 tity of their noxious specifics. Nor was this all the 
 danger; tlie clergy of the church of Enoland were un-
 
 16 
 
 armed, the dissenters claimed the victory, wlien opposed 
 on principles falsely termed evangelical; and claimed it 
 ■with justice, and the right cause was on the point of being 
 overborne by the number and violence of its assailants. 
 The Book of Common Prayer stood alone in the midst of 
 the troubled waters. It stood a beautiful fortress of the 
 olden time, but as it was constructed, as if in perfect con- 
 tempt of the rules of modern art, its mutilation or destnic- 
 tion was contemplated as an easy task, to be contemplated 
 at leisure, whenever its enemies might agree on the style 
 of building they would wish to raise in its stead. It was 
 at this juncture that God raised up pious and learned men 
 in its defence, and the firmness of the rock, on which they 
 built their outwork, may be known by the foam of the 
 waters which have dashed against it, and the violence of 
 their recoil. 
 
 So far, then, from exhorting my younger brethren of 
 the clergy not to meet these men fairly in argument, advice 
 which has emanated indeed from a very high and liberal 
 (piarter, so far from advising them a dogged adherence to 
 their own opinions, I would call on them to inquire dili- 
 gently whether these men arc employed in vindicating the 
 doctrines of Sciipture and of primitive Christianity ; and if 
 they find it to be so, I would advise them to defend not 
 these men, \\ho are subject to error, but the faith they 
 possess, which was delivered to the saints, and is treasured 
 in the Holy Catholic Church. Above all I would exhort 
 them not to meddle with thos(; \\lio are mvcn to chanf>e. 
 [f one of Raphael's tablets were in your possession (I 
 would ask them) how would you act ? woidd yon venttu'c 
 to retouch or to repaint it .' would it not riitlier be your 
 can', ir it wcic jjossiblc, to cleanse it from all stains, to 
 bring out beauties which Iiinl been obscured by the eftect 
 of time, and to rfstore every lint of'lhe glorious original ; 
 an<l will \<iii (Kill the sacr<(l cl(•jl(l^.il of cuilKiIic IrnlJi
 
 17 
 
 committed to your charge with less reverence ? God forbid ! 
 Oh guard it from those who would not hesitate to daub 
 the sacred relic with the course colouring of modern art — ■ 
 suffer not Geneva cloaks to be substituted for its graceful 
 and flowing drapery, take your side with the Church of 
 the Martyrs ; and if their memory is assailed with the 
 grossest ribaldry, who cannot be disturbed in their place 
 of rest, is it not plain that the same spirit is at work* 
 which opposed that holy army 1 700 years ago ; and that 
 it should be met on our part as it was on theirs, with the 
 same entire devotion to the cause of primitive Christianity. 
 
 WILLIAM BRUDENELL BARTER, 
 
 Rector of Highclere and Burghclere, Hants. 
 
 P. S. I write against the spirit in which the Tracts for 
 the Times are opposed ; I do not agree with all the 
 opinions advanced in those writings, especially on the 
 subject of sin after baptism, and reserve in communicating 
 religious knowledge. Divines, however, who prefer the 
 authority of the pious and eloquent Mr. Cecil to that of 
 
 * [" It cannot surely escape our observations," says Le Bas, " there is at this 
 day, a spirit on the wing, which is ready to combine itself with Popery, — 
 or with Dissent, in all its manifold varieties ; — with any society, in short, 
 or with any intci est, which may be supposed to contain, within itself, the 
 seeds of discontent or disaffection. It is a spirit which is ready to be- 
 come all things to all men. To the Nonconformist, it will become as a 
 nonconformist : to the Romanist, it will become as a Romanist. To the 
 weak, it will become as weak ; and will use the accents of candour and 
 of moderation. To the daring, it will show itself full of hardihood and 
 strength ; and will speak openly of the things which pertain to anarchy 
 and demolition. Its secret object is, to banish all fear of God, and all 
 reverence to the powers that be. But, nevertheless, it can take the form 
 of an angel of light ; and burn, like a seraph, when pointing to the glories 
 of that period, which is to witness the regeneration and the perfection of 
 the human race. It is a spirit, too, which is constantly labouring to enter 
 into the herd, and to possess them : and, if it should be suffered, flie end 
 would be, that they must be driven down the steep ; where, at last, they 
 would struggle and perish."] Life of Archhishop Laud, p 384.
 
 18 
 
 the Fathers of our Chiircli, the friends and companions of 
 the Apostles, should recollect that he acted precisely on 
 this principle of reserve, when he first entered on his 
 ministry in St. John's Chapel. Dr. Piatt, his biographer, 
 when he mentions this fact says that the religious part of 
 his auditory, " not comprehending his aim, were ready to 
 pronounce on his plan, as shunning- to declare the whole 
 counsel of God ; yet he was wisely following the example 
 of his Master in delivering the trutli, as thev who heard 
 were able to bear it, and forming a lodgment in their 
 minds, and preparing them for the full display of all the 
 doctrines of the Gospel." Those, therefore, who profess to 
 hold ]Mr. Cecil in high esteem might, on tliis point, con- 
 sistently abstain from any vei-y violent denunciation of the 
 Tracts for the Times. 
 
 FnoM THE CoNSEnvATivE Journal of jMarch 26th. 
 
 There is too much strictness of writing, too much deep 
 thought, and too nuich jthilosopliy in the Tricts for the 
 Times for the j^reat mass of readers who liave been so lonsi 
 accustomed to one interpretation of the Scrij)tures and the 
 Articles, and to one system of divinity that they are 
 startled and staggered with any thing which is opjjosed 
 not to the Scriptures or to the Articles, for it may be most 
 exactly in agreement with them, but with their oini view 
 or interjiietation of them. 
 
 We have nrme of that j)retende(l fear of .Mr. .Newman 
 and f)thers of the writers of tlie Oxford Tracts, going over 
 to Popery. Thev are, in fact, too good Ctitho/irs to become 
 Pdjtisls. And Popery is making, and ever will make 
 incomjtarably more proselytes Ik mi the dissenting sects, 
 and low and loose Chmchmen, than from sound Catholics^
 
 19 
 
 who believe, hold, teach, and advocate the doctrine of the 
 apostolical succession* and other such Catholic facts and 
 truths. In short, Popery can only be effectually opposed 
 by sound Catholics f. Dissenters and low Churchmen can 
 never overthrow the arguments with which the Papists 
 very properly attack them; and hence the reason why 
 Dissenters and low Churchmen fall a prey to Popery, 
 [as for instance at Bath,] if they be not led, by the blessing 
 of God, to embrace the scriptural and cathohc principle of 
 sound and consistent Churchmen. It is because so many 
 are every day abandoning dissent of every description 
 and embracing these sound principles, that the Dissenters 
 and their publications so violently, and bitterly, rail 
 against what they are pleased to call " Puseyism," but 
 what are in reality scriptural and immutable truths. 
 
 * It is lamentable to see a IMorning Papci- of professedly Church prin- 
 ciples, and which has at times done good service to the Church, making 
 an article against the Tracts for the Times, the vehicle for attacking, or 
 rather ridiculincr, a doctrine which mainly' distinguishes the Church from 
 the countless sects which surrounded her, viz. the doctrine of the apostolical 
 succession. Bitter would be the thought, if it should prove that the 
 shafts, thus aimed at the Church's panoply, though dipt in venom, were 
 winged with a feather from the Church's wing. 
 
 ' The doctrine of a spiritual grace in the holy sacraments is perhaps equally charac- 
 teristic oi llie Church, 
 
 t Sec Rev. W. Dodsworth's Sermon, " Romanism opposed successfully 
 only on Catholic Principles."
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The Sixth Article of the Church of England, as 
 
 FINALLY SETTLED IN 1571, AND A CaNON OF 1571. 
 
 VI. De Divin'is Scripturis, VI. Of the sufficiency of the 
 quod sufficiant ad Salu- Holy Scriptures for Sal- 
 turn, vation. 
 
 Scriptura sacra continet Holy scripture containcth 
 
 omnia quae ad salutem sunt all things necessary to sal^ 
 
 iiecessaria, ita ut quicquid in vation : so that wliatsocver 
 
 ea nee legitur, neque inde is not read therein, nor may 
 
 /irobari potest, non sit a be proved thereby, is not to 
 
 (pioquani exigenduni, ut tan- be required of any man, tliat 
 
 (plain articulusfideicredatur, it should be believed as an 
 
 aut ad salutis necessitateni article of the faith, or be 
 
 requiri putetur. thought requisite or neces- 
 sary to salvation. 
 
 The best conmient on the above Article is the Canon 
 " Dc Concionatoribus" put forth with the signatures of 
 those Bishoj)S who had just set their hands to the Thirty- 
 nine Articles. Among tlu' signatures will be found the 
 names of Matthew, (Parker) Archbishoj) of Canterbuiy, 
 and .John, Mewell) Bishoj) of Salisbury, &c.
 
 21 
 
 Extract from the Canons, agreed upon, at the 
 
 Synod, held at St. Paul's, on the 3rd 
 
 OF April, sq. 1571. 
 
 " Imprimis vero videbunt (concionatores) ne quid un- 
 quam doceant pro concione, quod a populo religiose teneri 
 et credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae 
 Veteris aut Novi Testament! quodque ex ilia ipsa doctrina 
 catholici patres, et veteres episcopi collegerint." Wilkins's 
 Concilia, vol. 4, p. 267, 
 
 From the Dedication of Bishop Jewell's Works to 
 King James the First. 
 
 " The principal end of these Treatises, the one of Reply, 
 detecting the weak grounds of the Roman Religion, and 
 the other in Defence of the Apology of the Church of 
 England ; (written both of them about forty years since, 
 by Bishop Jewell, of worthy memory,) to show to the 
 equal and Christian-minded Reader, that this is and hath 
 been the open profession of the Church of England, to 
 defend and maintain no other Church, Faith, and Religion, 
 than that which is truly Catholic and Apostolic, and for 
 such warranted, not only by the written word of God, but 
 also by the testimony and consent of the Ancient and 
 Godly Fathers. For further proof whereof; the Church 
 of England, in a Synod, A.D. 1571, (soon after the second 
 impression of the Defence of this Apology) did set out, 
 (together with the Articles of Religion repeated and con- 
 firmed again by subscription) this Canon, amongst others, 
 for the directions of those who were Preachers and Pastors, 
 viz. that they shoidd never teach any thing as matfei- of 
 faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to 
 the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and collected
 
 22 
 
 oitt of the same doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and 
 Catholic Bishops of the Church. Whereby the public pro- 
 fession of our Church, for consent with antiquity, in the 
 articles of faith and grounds of religion doth plainly 
 apj)ear; howsoever particular men may have otherwise 
 their opinions, and take some liberty of dissenting from 
 the Ancient Fathers, in matters not belonoinji to the sub- 
 stance of faith and religion, and in divers expositions of 
 some places of Scripture, so long as they keep themselves 
 within the compass of the Apostles rule of the proportion 
 of faith, and platform of sound doctrine." Rom. xii. 6. 
 2 Tim. i. 13. See also Strrjpes Annuls, vol. 2, p. 73. 
 
 The following Remarks by the late Bishop JMarsh, on a 
 much-perverted Truth, are well worth the attention of 
 the reader. 
 
 Extract from the Appendix to I3ishop Marsh's Compa- 
 rative View of the Churches of England and Home. 
 
 " A Pamphlet has been published, entitled " The Bible, 
 and nothintr but the Bible, the Reliiiion of the Church of 
 England." I have not seen the Pamphlet, and therefore 
 do not pretend to judge of it ; but the title is certainly a 
 vpiy injtidicioiis one. — For it contains a ])roposition which 
 in not only false in one sense, though true in another, but 
 it is false in that sense, in which it is most likely to be 
 und<M"stfM)d and aj)plir(|. 'I'lic proposition is true in refer- 
 ence to the anthorili/ of tlic Hibjc : lor the Church ol' 
 Kngl:ind foinxU its Articles of Fa th on llie " Bible and 
 nothing but lh<- IJihie," wlierea.'^, the C'hunli of Home 
 founds its Articles of I'jiitli on llic W Me wiid Tradition. 
 But the projiositioM IS iiiii tiiie, wIkmi it is understood with 
 refjTcnce to the nsv and distrthn/lnii of the l)il»!e. Tlie 
 religion of the Church of Ku^^land is [)roniolet! Iiy liu' use
 
 23 
 
 and distribution of both Bible and Prayer Book. Take 
 away the Prayer Book, and though we remain Protestants, 
 we become Dissenters. It should not be forgotten that 
 the rejection of the Prayer Book, in the time of Charles I. 
 was the very thing which overturned the Church." 
 
 The Texts bearing on the svibject of Tradition are thus 
 classified in Paget's Tales of the Village. — Second series, 
 page 112. 
 
 DIVINE. 
 
 1 Cor. xi. 2, marg. ref. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6. 
 
 HUMAN. 
 
 Matt. XX. 2, 6. 
 
 Col. ii. 8. 
 1 Peter i. 18. 
 
 To the earnest Christian spirit, sound argument and fine 
 taste of this excellent book, every one wdio has read it 
 through will gladly bear his testimony. 
 
 The following passages from a writer whose Protestantism 
 is unquestionable, should be well weighed by every one 
 who alories in the name of Protestant. 
 
 " Malice alone can deny," says Chillingworth, " that the 
 intent (of our reformers) was to reduce religion to that 
 original purity from which it was fallen." And after com- 
 paring some differences among the reformers, " they," he 
 says, ** did best who followed Scripture, interpreted hy 
 Catholic written Tradition ; which rule the reformers of 
 the Church of England proposed to themselves to follow." 
 Qnoted bij Rev. E. Churton, in Letters of a Reformed Catholic, 
 
 " We are ready to receive Scripture and the sense of 
 Scripture on the authority of original Tradition." 
 
 Qiio'ed in British Mnc/azine, Nov, 1840.
 
 24 
 
 The Jirst sentence of the following passage is all that is 
 commonly seen of Chillingworth. The context is here 
 given with the late Bishop Marsh's Remarks. 
 
 " The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of 
 Protestants ! Whatsoever else they believe besides it and 
 the plain, in-efragable, indubitable consequences of it, well 
 may they hold it as matter of opinion: but as the matter 
 of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to 
 their own grounds believe it themselves, nor require the 
 belief of it in others." Page 354, fol. 
 
 " Besides It (viz. the Bible) and the plain irrefragable and 
 indubitable consequences of it." — But Protestants of every 
 description, however various and even opposite in their 
 opinions, claim severally for themselves the power of 
 deducing from the Bible " irrefrasable and ijidubitable 
 consequences." The doctrine of conditional salvation is an 
 " indubitable consequence" to the Arminian ; the doctrine 
 of absolute decrees an " indubitable consequence to the 
 Calvinist. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Atonement^ 
 and the Sacraments, which the Church of England con- 
 siders as " indubitable consequences" of the Bible, would 
 not be so, if the Unitarians and the Quakers were right in 
 the consequences which they deduce from the Bible — but 
 the consequences, which they deduce apjiear "indubitable" 
 to them : and since they appeal as well as ourselves to the 
 Bible alone, we cannot according to Chillingworth's own 
 definition refuse thoni the title o^ Protestants. 
 
 Bitthop Afarah on the Consequencea of neylecling to tjiie 
 the Prayer Book with the Bible. Page 21. 
 
 " The Communion of the Primitive Church we shall 
 ciubriicc, luM- Doctrines we shall foHow, her Judgment wo 
 shall rest in, if we believe the Scri|)tui(', endeavour t<j find 
 the true Sense of it, and live according to it." 
 
 ChiUiiDjuorth'n Rvliyinn nf Prolmtunt*, p. 103. /■.'(/ \1 \'l 
 Prli'ifril for W Orahnm, IliRh Hini't. Oxford
 
 «4 
 FEW WORDS 
 
 ^♦^Z*-*^ - /t trijl t->^ 
 
 IN SUPPORT OF No. 90 
 
 OF THfi 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES, 
 
 PARTLY WITH REFERENCE TO 
 
 MR. WILSON'S LETTER. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN irENRY PARKER; 
 J. G. F. AND J. KIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1841,
 
 HAZTER, PBIN J KR, OXFORD.
 
 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 I am acquainted, I am induced 
 to say a few 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 1 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 1 do not deny that 
 Mr. Newman seems to have misunderstood them, 
 but still they also appear first to have misunderstood 
 him. 1 think the Tiact did imply, that on the 
 points mentioned in tlieir Letter, the Articles do 
 not condemn the decrees of the Council of Trent, 
 and that in j)oint of fact there is no iiecessity for 
 any Ronian Catholic either then or at the present 
 dav to hold on these points opinions which the 
 Articles condenm. And this view of what the Tract 
 implied is made certain by the following j)assage of 
 Mr. Newman's Letter to l)r Jclf, ' 'J'he simple 
 ' (|uestu)n IS, whether taken by themselves in their 
 ' mere letter, they (the decrees of Trent) express it, 
 ' (the [)icscnl corrupt teaching of the Church of 
 • Kome,; whether in lact other senses short of the 
 
 ' sense conveyed in (her) present teaching 
 
 ' will not fulfil tlicir letter, and maij not even now in
 
 * point of fact he 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 
 ' Purgator}^ &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. 
 ' Vf hat 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 icas 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 unrisrhteous
 
 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 muintained 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 
 ichich have been and are paid them so commoyily through- 
 out the Church of Home, with the superstitions, pro- 
 fanities, and impurities consequent thereupon."" p. 3G. 
 
 ' 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, 
 isuch a.s have been, and are in the Church of Rome, and 
 
 " This would seem one of the passages alluded to in Mr. 
 Newman's Po.stscript, in which the apparent vagueness arose 
 ' from the circumstance, that, the main drift of the Tract being 
 
 • tliat (»f illustrating the Articles from the Homilies, the doc- 
 ' trines of the Articles are sometimes brought ciul only so far 
 
 • a.s the Homilies explain them, which is in some cases an 
 ' ina(k(|uate representation.' In the first edition it stood, • the 
 ' pardons then spoken of in tiie Article are large and reckless 
 ' indulgences fioni the pi-nalties of sin obtained on money- 
 ' payments:' which not uiuiatiiraily ^^vems to have given many 
 pernouh iho impression, that the Tract (hd not consider the 
 d'tctrinc ol tin- Tope elainiin^r power lo remit the penalties 
 ol' Bin in the next life, condenmetl by the Article, wlien such 
 rt'nii»9i<in wa^ not ' oi)taiiK-(I on m(»ney-j)ayments."
 
 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 being obligatory on 
 the belief oi 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 beheve such 
 teaching, except so far as it is borne out by that 
 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.
 
 8 
 
 And now tor 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 cither 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 Avere composed. But 
 Mr. N. undertook to make out his principles as applied 
 to the XXII. and XXXI. Articles, chiefly by a reference 
 to them as representing the sense of the Articles. " The 
 Homily and therefore the Article," p. ^M. He rested his 
 case on ground chosen by himself; his own ground even 
 betrays him.' j). 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 tlie Homilies with respect 
 to them j* and 1 will take the two Articles (the twenty- 
 second and thirty-first), to which Mr. Wilson confines 
 his observations, sejiarately. 
 
 Hefore })roceeding however with the subject, 
 let mc beg persons to consider, that the mere 
 fact of an interj)ietation appearing at first to 
 them a forced ifiterpretation, is no argmnent 
 whatever that it is really so, but only that it is 
 new to them. 1 suppose many of us may re- 
 member doctrines or opinions on various subjects 
 which when first broachecl appealed to us cpiite ex-
 
 travagant, and which we now hold ahnost 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 ihey 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 Homilies, serious doubt 
 would be thrown over such a conclusion. The 
 Homilies are the sole contemi)orary document re- 
 cognised bv our Church in addition to the Prayer 
 l»0()k and Articles ; and did they contain, what 
 the Articles do not, carclully drawn up dogmatic 
 >laternents on the subjects mentioned in this twenty- 
 second Article, wc might well consider them as our
 
 11 
 
 Church's authoritative explanation of her words 
 ' doctrinaRoraanensium.' 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. 16, to which I shall presently 
 allude
 
 12 
 
 his extract from the ([uotation in the Tract on the 
 subject of puri^atory. 
 
 ' \\'hcre 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 judgment. 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 Anth 
 and fear, it will admit the belief of a state of 
 gradual })urification, whether with j)ain or without: 
 and if it be supposed to deny any intermediate state 
 whatever, we must impute to the homilist not only 
 a strange igiioiancc of what is so commonly con- 
 nected with St. Augustine's name, viz. his advocacy 
 of a doctrine very much rcscm!i]ii)Lc the received 
 Roman doctriiie of purgatory, but also we must 
 suppose that ins own belief was (for 1 can think oi' 
 no other alternative) that the soul is in a state of 
 insensibility, from the time of its leaving the mortal 
 bf)dy until the (ircat Day: a belief lar frotn being 
 common surely in f)ur 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. 1 1. 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, Sfc' 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 unchangeable, 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 
 tliat 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 abideih 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. Chrysostoni 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 chanyed^ in which Gou^s sentence could bo 
 reversed. ' The sentence o{ God,' says the writer, ' is un- 
 chnntjenhle, and cannot be revoked again ; there is no place 
 for repentance^ 
 
 d > »» 
 
 On the subject of pardons, the introduction 
 made in the 2d edition of the Tract as (juoted 
 (p. 0.) 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 I 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 I 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 7nosf 
 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 lie entered into a certain church to pray, 
 he found there a linen cloth hanijinjT 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, T 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/' 
 Horn. ib. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the 
 Kmperor, 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 wicke<l) hut she wor- 
 shipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and wljose Name was 
 written on the title,' and so forth. See hoth the godly empress's 
 fact, and St. .Ambrose's judgment at once; tliey thought it had 
 been an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have woi'- 
 shipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our Saviour 
 Chuist's own precious blood." — Peril of Idolatry, part 2, ciVc. 
 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." — 
 ir. p. •>4. 
 
 |{iit if the latter passagi' is finished to the end of its 
 paragraj)h, it stands thus: — 
 
 " They thoiKjht it had hrru ati hrathcniali error to have 
 worshipfied 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." 
 — Horn.
 
 17 
 
 " This is but an argument a fortiori, by no means 
 shewing that the writer wished the hearer to think lie 
 believes in the invention of the true Cros?, but — if they 
 who thought th.y had founJ it would not worship even 
 that, much less, Sc-. Neither does tiie Ilomil st at all 
 concern himself as to his hearers believingr in the miracle at 
 Epiphanius's tomb. The miracles (he says) were believed 
 of old, which shows in what oreat estimation he was held. 
 And if he of so great estimation tore a cloth painted with 
 an image &c. neither 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 line or t\io of the succeeding context should 
 have escaped the eye ; but in this case these few lines 
 would give a totally different character to tlie 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 
 
 B
 
 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 would 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 w^ould 
 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 w^as 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 
 ' haviny of images if not Popish, unlawful:' but 
 of course the cnfjuiry is, what light do the 
 Homilies throw on the phrase in the Articles 
 ' doctrina Komancnsium '^' and therefore the only 
 j)ertinent (jucstion is, what veneration of images 
 they consider ' Popish ?' But indeed the passage 
 shews j)lainly, that what the writer considers doc-
 
 19 
 
 trinally forbidden is 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 onlv 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. 
 ' Kneehng 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 imagoes privately, 
 it came to public setting of them up in churches and 
 temples, although without harm at the lir> , as was then 
 of soniL' wise and learned men ju( ged : and from simply 
 having them there, it came (.t 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 l)ut a ccrtuin ' veneration of images,' * though 
 ' of course not the Romiih?' 
 
 The last subject inider 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
 
 21 
 
 which the reahzing 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 be 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.
 
 ')"> 
 
 Gentiles' idolatrous usage, to make Ihem of saints^ gods^ 
 called Dii Medioxinii, to be mean intercessors and 
 helpers to God, as though he did not hear^ or should be 
 weary if he did (dl alone. So did the Gentiles teach, 
 that there was one chief power working hy other, as 
 jneans; and so they made all gods subject to fate or 
 destiny ; as Lncian 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, part 3. 
 
 Now does the drift of this passage seem fairly 
 aj:)plicable 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 (wliich certainlv exists, perhaps to a very 
 great extent, as jiiatter of opinion in the Roman 
 C'hurcli at the present day, and most probably at 
 that day also,) it is remarkably a[)plicable : viz. 
 such as the opinion that tlic Blessed Virgin is 
 appointed by our I^)r(l the sole necessary channel 
 throiKjh which His grace shall flow to His Church, 
 so that in fact addresses to her are more immediate 
 a[)plicalions for a supply ol' grace than to our Lord 
 llimseir: and opinions which are far from going to 
 
 •* The following passaj^es, taken from Archbishop Usslicr's 
 ;uisw«rs to a .hsiiit, have been shcnn iiic 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, 1835. 
 
 A tempore enim quo Virgo mater concipit in utero Verbum 
 Dei, 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. Bernarclin. 
 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 manus 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 plenitude gratiae sicut, in capite influente, in 
 Maria vero, sicut in coUo transfundente. Unde Cantic. vii. de 
 Virgine ad Christum Salomon ait, Collum tuum sicut turris 
 eburnea. Nam sicut per collum vitales spiritus a capite 
 descendunt in corpus, sic per Virginem a capite Christo vitales 
 gratiae in ejus corpus mysticum transfunduntur. Id. ibid. 
 Artie, i. cap. 8. et Artie, ii. cap. 10. ex Pseudo-Hieronymi 
 Sermone de Assumpt. Mariae. Sicut enim a capite, mediante 
 coUo, 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. Ilerolt. in Sermon. Discipuli de
 
 24 
 
 certainly no one ^vill doubt that to whatever extent 
 they did exist, to whatever extent Saints were 
 allowed to obscure in the mind the vision of the 
 one God, such o[)inion8 would be part ol the 
 ' doctrina Ronianensium' condemned by the 
 Article. 
 
 On the subject of the thirty-first Article, 1 hardly 
 know what to s.iy. If Mr. Wilson considers that 
 the doctrine is condemned in it of the l^^ucharist 
 
 Tempore, Serm. clxiii. Per collum Virgiiiis apud Deum 
 gratia et ini'-rcesiio iii;elligitur, ita ut cji:s intercessio sit 
 veluti collum, per quod a Deo omnes gratiac praesidiaque 
 in homines iransfunduntur. Bias. Viegas in Apocalyps. 
 cap. xii. Comment, ii. ^cct. 10. niiin 1. Collum enim dicitur, 
 quia per Virgine . univer.>>a in no> a Deo, tanquam a capita, 
 beneficia derivantur. Id. ibid. num. Q. 
 
 Quasi sublato V'irginis patrocinio, jjerinde atque halitu 
 intercluso, peccator vivere diutius non possit. Viegas, ibid, 
 sect. ii. num. 6. 
 
 . Tot creaturae serviunt gloriasae Virgini Maria?, quot serviunt 
 Trinitati. Omnes nenq)e creatura?, quemcunque gradum 
 tcneanl in creatie, sive spirituales ut angeli .sive rationales ut 
 homines, sive corporales ut corpora coclcstia vel elementa, et 
 omnia qua* sunt in icilo et in terra, s ve damn iti sive beati, 
 <jun' omnia sinit divino iniperio subjugata, gloriosae Virgini 
 sunt .subject I. Ule enim (|iii Dei I'dius est et Virginis 
 bencdictap, volens, ut sic dicam, paterno principatui quodam- 
 niodo principatum ,'i'(|uiparart' niatcnunn, ij).se (j i Dcus erat 
 matri laniulabaUir in terra. I'lide I.uca^ ii. scriptiini est de 
 Virgine et glorioso Joseph, I'rat subditus illis. Prjetcrea liaec 
 est vera, Divino imperio omnia famulantur et Virgo ; *'t iterum 
 haec est vera, Imperio X'irginis onmia famulantur et Deus. 
 Id. ibid, cap (p.
 
 25 
 
 being an offering for the quick and dead, he must 
 condemn some of our most respected Divines almost 
 from that day to this. But the whole scope of the 
 Article, as is plain from both its title and wording, 
 is to vindicate the soleness and all-sufficiency of 
 the One Sacrifice. 
 
 Of the one Oblation of Christ Jinished upon the Cross. 
 
 " The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect 
 redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins 
 of the whole \ o- Id, both original and actual ; and there is 
 none other satisfaction for sin, ut that alone. Wherefore 
 the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was crmmonly 
 said, that the Piiest did offer C.iri t for the quick and the 
 dead, to have remission of pai.i or guilt, were blasphemous 
 fables, and dangerous dece'.t.«.'" 
 
 The ' sacrifices of masses' are only introduced as 
 bearing upon this p3int : t'ley 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 a> so doing'': they considered 
 most justly any thing which did so as a ' blas- 
 ' phemous fable,' and we fin J 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- 
 niciosee imposturae' ai \\A\. With regard to Mr. 
 Wilson's quotation from Bishop Jewel, it is only 
 necessary to remark that no one has maintained 
 
 '' See page 30.
 
 26 
 
 that belief in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is required 
 of ttiose who subscribe our formularies ; and that 
 Bishop Jewel's writings have never been recognized 
 by our Church as of authority. 
 
 1 trust 1 have now succeeded in vindicating the 
 Tract's interpretation of the twenty-second and 
 thirty-first Articles from the ditficulties which have 
 prevented Mr. Wilson from receiving it. As my 
 object in writing is to support the Tract, not to 
 engage in controversy with him, no lurther 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. 
 AVilson 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 :^ 
 1 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 
 lletormation was carried on by its human agents not 
 to have been on the whole uncatholic. Such persons 
 do not feel the ditficulty which some others may 
 feel : they would join issue with those who claim 
 Uie Articles as ruling matters on the Protestant 
 hifle, by denying that any j)owlmIuI party at the 
 lime could have wished so to rule them : to them it 
 will have never occurred to (hjubt, I (|Uote the words 
 used n\ 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 [)robal)ility of its truth ; thev 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 imj)osing external appearance of Protest- 
 antism, w bile nothing is really decided which might 
 prevent those who deferred more really than they 
 did to primitive autliority from subscribing. This 
 of course is the meaning of the last paragraph in 
 the Tract, and it well deserves ourcareful attention. 
 For instance Tsce Tract, p. 44.) the passage in 
 the 28th Article, * 'J'he 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;' w^ould 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 w^ould 
 find nothing asserted beyond the very plain truth, 
 that such ordinances w'ere not ordained by Christ, 
 and so might lawfully (even the question of expedi- 
 ency being Avaived) be discontinued by the Church. 
 And so again the 14th Article, while 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 difierent 
 sentiments protested, they might be triumphantly 
 challenged to point out the statement to which 
 they objected : they could find none, amj 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) : ti-uth 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 disiiigenuousness in 
 
 - Even as to the Articles there is nothing to interfere with 
 the supposition (not an impossible one) that both in the 14th 
 and 3 let the frainers were mistaken as to the matter of fact, 
 what was the doctrine held by serious Roman Catholics. Such 
 a niistiike would seem a natural result, from their apparent 
 tendency to view religious opinions from without, rather look- 
 ing at them in their effects on the mass of men, than aj)])lying 
 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 2f)th 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 sixth and 
 twentieth Articles, as well as the one before us, a very 
 remarkable silence is maintained on the question, ivho 
 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 
 necessary 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 
 ' mav 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 ai)pears to have been altogether 
 Catholic, that oil 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 tliis, 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 j)roof of the Catholicity of this doc- 
 trine the reader is referred to the thirteenth 
 of Mr. Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical 
 Office ot the Church : and it is one which it seems 
 to have been the peculiar office ol' the English 
 Church to preserve in these later ages. To say so, 
 it n»ay be hoped, involves no uncharitablcness to 
 other Churches ; it is consistent with a full and 
 grateful acknowledgment, that on other Catholic 
 truths tluy have borne a more explirit testimony 
 than wc 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 we 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 assemhly of men 
 whereof all he 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 1 have mentioned ; but 
 I hav(; omitted a few words, which when introduced 
 spoil the natural course of the argument altogether; 
 nay it is nnt too tnurh to say make it impossible
 
 35 
 
 to construct the argument out ol" the Article as it 
 really stands. 
 
 * Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have 
 neither strength nor authority, Sec' 
 
 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 religious 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 Christ to determine religious doc- 
 trine with infallible truth ; ruling at the same time 
 so much as this, that any General Council which 
 
 c2
 
 36 
 
 determined that to be a point of necessary faith 
 which should not be contained and able to he 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 
 Ihey 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 
 Wo?;t. 
 
 It will p(rha|)s l)e hardly cogent in arguing
 
 37 
 
 on this subject to bring forward the names 
 of our divines who have held the infalUbihty 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 httle 
 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 mav 
 ' 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 primitive usage, as the Tract
 
 38 
 
 observes ; and with regard to a ditficulty felt 
 by the anonymous writer of the few {)ages to 
 which I have before alluded, it will be seen by an 
 attentive reader, that when 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, hut which are really so ; for as it implies 
 afterwards, it is an important question and not an 
 easy one ' to determine — what [those conditions are 
 ' which fuljil the notion of a gathering in the name 
 ' of Christ.' p. 22. 
 
 The same writer has found a diiiiculty 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 
 necessarv on the word ' altered,' if he will bear in 
 mind that the following paragraph was added in the 
 XXXIX Articles, not having been in the forty- 
 two, and must therefore be taken as explanatorv 
 of the former. ' The Body of Christ is r/iven, taken, 
 ' and eaten, &c.' the inference from whicli is 
 obvious. Again, this paragraph about transub- 
 stantiation, as urged 1 think quite successfully in 
 the 'IVact, is j)liiinly <^f tlu' same nature with the 
 twenty-second Article, and directed in a general 
 way against the existing super-titions of the time. 
 
 On the thirtieth Article (to which however T am 
 not aware of (objection having been as vet ex- 
 pres.sed) the Tract has not altogether satisfied me :
 
 39 
 
 * The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay- 
 people: for both the 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 coiiimunion 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 b. 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 things are in our Church, since (without 
 ' judging others) we prefer having it according to Christ's 
 ' ordinance and commandment.' 
 
 ' ' A.s to the other part of the question, — 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. tiie 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 in Tract 90, p. 66.) ' I 
 
 • look forward to success not by compelling others 
 ' to take my view of the Articles, hut by convinc- 
 ' ing them that inine is the right one.' vol. iv. p. xxxi. 
 
 ' ancients did not in some jirivate or extraordinary cases 
 
 • administer the Sacrament in one kind, we have no dispute 
 
 • with JJona.' ' Bona him.sclf tells us that there are some 
 ' instances of the Clomuiunion beinj,' carried in both kinds to 
 ' hermits and recluses.' ' As to the other instances of the sick, 
 
 • or infants, or men in a journey, who comnmnicate only in one 
 ' kind, (if they were never so true, as we see maiit/ of them arc 
 
 • fuUe,)they are private and extraordinary cases,' &c. IJinghani, 
 book XV. chap. .'i.
 
 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 ' we 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 but 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 louked upon as a branch of the Church 
 Catholic, (m our sense of" the words,) she must 
 be considered to mean certain doctrines when 
 she uses certain statements. It is not iinphed 
 that our formularies rule it that we are a branch 
 of the Church CalhoHc in this sense : many 
 persons it is well known consider the Enghsh 
 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 poiot 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 ditierent sense from that to which 
 they give utterance in our ears. To us they come 
 as the words t)f some old and revered friend, whom 
 we have known long and well, and who has long 
 
 ' It is mucli to be wished that persons, who, from the apolo- 
 getic .lir uliich to them the Tract may a])j)ear to wear, are led 
 to consider it a sophistical attem|)t at exj)laining away our 
 formal statciiiciits ot' doctrine, would consider the appearance 
 which woidd In- presented in their own CAse if l/ni/ placed un 
 paper one fifler aiidl/icr the passages in uiir foniniluries (whether 
 Prayer Hook or Articles,) which trive I lion (lijjiviillics, without 
 explicit allusion to the many j)art8 which seem to them to be 
 of an opposite tendency, and then put down in words the 
 explanation of them in wliich they acquiesce, and bv help 
 of wliirli they subscrilie.
 
 43 
 
 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 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 Mr. 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. Augustm'? 
 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 ever 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 used in our whole 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 Cranmer.
 
 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, es])ecially 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 Emjlish 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 mdeed 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 immediate y 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 ua 
 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 ir.an, passing out of the body, goeth 
 slraighlways either to Heaven, or else to Hell, whereof the one 
 needeth no prayer, and the other is without redemption. The 
 
 » See p. 30.
 
 48 
 
 only purgatory wherein ve 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 cannot be saved by faith in Christ's Blood, how shall 
 
 he look to be delivered by man's intercessions ? But rve 
 
 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 straight wat/s 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 a7iy 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. 
 
 BAXTF.R, PHISTK.n, OXP'JRP.
 
 THE CmSIS COME, 
 
 BEING REMARKS ON 
 
 MR. NEWMAN'S LETTER TO DR. JELF, 
 
 AND ON 
 
 TRACT FOR THE TIMES, No. 90. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. J. JORDAN, B.A. 
 
 VICAR OF EJfSTONE, OXON. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. L. WHEELER 
 
 1811.
 
 THE CRISIS COME, 
 
 X AINFUL as it must be to all those who love the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and Him crucified, in sincerity and truth, to contemplate 
 the events that have been for some years past occurring, and that 
 still are endeavouring to force an unholy progress amongst us; 
 painful as it must be to others, who have vainly hoped and per- 
 suaded themselves that better things were intended, and that 
 out of the School of the Tract Writers were to arise those, who 
 were to revive in pristine vigour the presumed pure Christianity 
 of an earlier age ; it is no longer to be denied or dissembled that 
 we have reached a Crisis the most important that has fallen upon 
 the Church of England since the days of the Reformation itself. 
 Not that we have now to fear the fagot and the stake, for I have 
 no surmisings of any such extravagance as that, and therefore 
 would at once renounce all idea of such a thing. The contest we 
 have now to engage in is not one of blood, but of faith — one of 
 first principles and truth : for now " when for the time we ought 
 to be teachers," to a world lying in darkness and the shadow of 
 death, " we have need that one teach us again which be the first 
 principles of the Oracles of God." Heb. v. 12. It is for the 
 Bible, and Bible truths, that we have again to strive, and that 
 manfully, against " oppositions of science falsely so called, which 
 *iome professing have erred from the faith," I Tim. vi. 20, 
 and would force upon us "another gospel, which is not another; 
 but there be some that trouble us, and would pervert the Gospel 
 of Christ." Gal. i. 6, 7. We have need to raise once more the 
 banner of the Reformation, and to take our stand upon the great 
 principle maintained by Chillingworth, the Bible, the whole 
 Bible, and nothing but the Bible. It is uot the Church that is 
 
 B 2
 
 4 Remarhs on Mr. Neiomayi's Letter to Dr. Jelf, 
 
 ill danfircr — the Church of Christ can never fall. The fiat lias 
 been spoken by the Eternal One upon earth, and can never be 
 reversed — " Tlie gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But 
 vijile the Church cannot perish, we may lose our Churchism, 
 by relinijuishing its Scriptural truth, which is the life and spirit 
 of the body. AVitliout this we are but as the clay moulded by 
 the hands of the Almighty workman, into the form and fashion 
 of Adam, beautiful to behold and fair to look upon, but dead 
 and inanimate until God breathed into him the breath of life, 
 and he became a living soul. 
 
 It is nothing, too, for us of the Church of England to unfurl 
 the standard of our faith, and to point to our Scriptural Articles, 
 ai maintaining the simplicity and integrity of Scripture truth. 
 The purity of these is the very question in dispute, and it is 
 unl)lushingly atKrmed that these were not intended to denounce 
 and to repudiate the veiy erroi-s they emphatically condemn : 
 tliat they were directed against heresies of a diti'erent age and 
 character, and consecjuently that they may include witliin them 
 those who now again advance, and wouhl propagate amongst us 
 the very same errors which they condemn. The question, then, 
 in dispute being what truths our Articles do contain, and what 
 heresies they condemn ; their validity in fact as standards being 
 impugne<l, and their plain and simple meaning according to the 
 words used being controverted, it is impossible to appeal to them 
 in tiiL'ir own defence ; and consequently we must go to that pure 
 source and fountain whence they rise and flow. In one respect 
 let us rejoice at this, thank God, and take courage. The appeal 
 b to Scripture, and to its unimpeachable authority. The iinal 
 issue of the contest, then, is safe. Truth must and will prevail. 
 Her struggles may be great, her throes may be awful, but she 
 shall at last ;issu redly '* see of the travail of her soul, and be 
 satisfied." 
 
 The writings which contain such assertions and pretensions as 
 liiesM' at the present moment, for others have before attempted 
 lliis un.scriptural work, arc No. 90. of Tracts for the Times, and 
 a Letter to Dr. Jelf, by .Mr. Nt:wman, the avowed author of the 
 'I'ract, in explanation of it. The object of both these ])ublications 
 is ti) sap the strength of the Articles, to render them in a Komish 
 and huperstilidus ?>ense, and to elaiuj lor the author, anil for those 
 who tliiiiL uiih him, Licence from his brethren in the ministry, by
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 5 
 
 their silence and concurrence to maintain these errors, and at the 
 same time to maintain communion with the Church of England, 
 and to propagate these errors under the garb of her scriptural 
 teaching. This is undisguisedly set forth in the concluding 
 pages of the Letter; and Mr. Newman invites his brethren in the 
 ministry to yield this to him, his coadjutors, and their views, in 
 the following words : — "Let me now implore my brethren to sub- 
 mit, and not to force an agreement at the risk of a schism." p. 29. 
 To leave such an invitation unreplied to, to treat it with a melan- 
 choly silence, and thereby to encourage this vain hope, were 
 treason against the Majesty of heaven, who condescended to die 
 for us on earth, and against the supremacy of that written Word 
 in which he has revealed himself to man. By all we hold dear 
 in religion on earth, by all we hope for on high, by the love we 
 have for Christ, by the charity we have for the souls of mankind, 
 and by every fond anticipation \vq rejoice in of living in the pre- 
 sence of God for evermore ; we are bound to speak out and to 
 refuse compliance with this request. 
 
 It may be, indeed, that I have not conceived Mr. Newman 
 aright, in supposing him to address the ministry at large, rather 
 than his own immediate friends, whom he has possibly intended 
 to denote by the term " ray brethren." However this may be, 
 for the passage is so far ambiguous, it is clear that whether he 
 has directly proposed the thing here, or not, he has certainly 
 aimed at it both in the Tract and in his Letter ; and the whole 
 scope and tenor of his teaching is steadily directed to this eud, 
 an assimilation of the minds and views of the ministry and the 
 people to those of himself and his coadjutors. 
 
 And what is it that Mr. Newman invites us to concede ? In 
 Tract 90. first, and in his Letter to Dr. Jelf >ince, he would 
 have us so explain and understand the Articles of the Church of 
 England, as to believe and confess that they do not condemn the 
 authoritatively taught errors of the Church of Rome according 
 to the only authority which that Church allows, the decrees of 
 the Council of Trent ; that so far from condemning these, they 
 mainly agree with them — that there is, therefore, no doctrinal 
 difference between us and Rome, but that Rome is only practi- 
 cally in error, needing a small reformation to revive her, and to 
 fit her for re-union with us ; and that consequently those who 
 hold and confide in the decrees of Trent, may also adhere to the 
 Articles of the Church of England, provided that these last are
 
 6 Jtcmarhs on 3Ir. Newmmis Letter to Dr. Jeff, 
 
 not " so closed as the received method of teaching closes them," 
 The Letter of Mr. Newman, even more than the Tract No. 90, 
 explicitly maintains these extraordinary proposals to the ministry 
 of the Church of England, We will, therefore, first of all ex- 
 amine the former of these. 
 
 In the Letter a most unjustifiable attempt is made to draw a 
 distinction between what is called the " authoritative teaching of 
 the Church of Rome," and "the decrees of Trent." This " au- 
 thoritative teaching" is represented as existing both before the 
 Tridentine decrees and since, as at the present time. That there 
 was what is technically called " authoritative teaching" in the 
 Church of Itome before those decrees is unquestionable, for 
 the multitude of her Councils testify of this, and bear witness to 
 her manifold errors. But since those decrees, where has her 
 "authoritative teaching" existed, but in the maintenance and 
 exposition of those very decrees ? They are in fact her last and 
 most authoritative teaching, and none other is there that slic 
 will recognize and allow. 
 
 But why the desire to establish such a distinction as this? — 
 Why any necessity at all for separating between the decrees of 
 Trent and the teaching of Rome before and since ? — It is a 
 grievous subtilty to make a distinction where there is none, that 
 on it may be grafted the pretence, that the Articles of the 
 Church of England, while they deny and repudiate the " authc- 
 ritativcly taught" errors of Rome, do not deny and repudiate the 
 very same identical crroi-s in the decrees of Trent. For, it is 
 most speciously argued, how could they ? — " Whereas they were 
 Avritten before the decrees of Trent, they were not directed 
 against those decrees." With as much truth and reason it 
 might be said, " Wlvcreas the Scripture was written before the 
 decrees of Trent, it was not directed against those decrees*" 
 
 But was c^•er fallacy invented so transparent as this ? What 
 if the Articles were "written" before tlie decrees ofTrent? — What 
 if tlicy were "drawn up" previously? — Would this make them 
 not condemn errors published subserjuently, merely because they 
 have been n^vivcd at a late day ? — If so, the Articles are utterly 
 valueless, for tli(!ii they arc <»f no force or validity against any 
 revived error, however plainly and em])hatieally they may con- 
 demn it. And in the same way Seripturcr itself cannot be 
 held to condenm errors wliicli have originated since its publi- 
 cation.
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 7 
 
 But where is the truth of the assertion that the Articles were 
 *< "written" and " drawn up" before the decrees of Trent ? — It is 
 in letter, not in spirit. It is true in letter, it is false in spirit. 
 The 42 Articles of Edward VI. were published in 1552, during 
 the Sessions of the Council of Trent, which lasted from 1545 to 
 1563 ; but these Articles were modified and reduced to 39 in the 
 reign of Elizabeth, and published in 1562. This might seem to 
 bring them within tire period of the Council, and so to favour 
 the notion that they were not directed against its decrees. But 
 when was the Ratification afiixed to them ? In 1571, after the 
 decrees of Trent, when the errors of those decrees had been 
 some years before the world, and when consequently the damning 
 force of them must have been directed against the decrees 
 themselves. 
 
 For, in truth and honesty, what matters it whether the Articles 
 were written before or after the promulgation of those decrees ? 
 It is not the decrees, so much as the errors they contain, that are 
 condemned, and though the Article speaks of those included in 
 the Romish doctrine, then and since prolific of them, yet it 
 equally condemns the same errors, whether found in the Romish 
 Church or elsewhere, and whether existing in the Romish Church 
 at that time or subsequently revived in it. 
 
 And here for the moment I cannot avoid noticing the contra- 
 diction that ]Mr. Newman has fallen into of his friend and co- 
 adjutor Dr. Pusey. When it suited Dr. Pusey's purpose in his 
 letter to the Bishop of Oxford to give a late date and authority 
 to the Articles, in order that we might not appeal to the framers 
 of them, our martyred Reformers, whose praise is in all the 
 Churches, he set up the subtil distinction, "We have not the 42 
 Articles of Edward VI. but the 39 of Elizabeth ; and these have 
 their authority to us from the agreement of our Church in 1562 
 and 1571," p. 32. Now that Mr. Newman wishes the Articles 
 to have an early date and authority, he tells us they were 
 "written" and "drawn up" befoi'e the decrees of Trent. Dr. 
 Pusey, to suit himself, will have them late ; Mr. Newman, for his 
 turn, will have them early. How are these gentlemen to be re- 
 conciled ? — How are they to be pleased ? — They are like 
 children sitting in the market place, and crying one to another, 
 and saying, " We have piped unto you and ye have not danced, 
 we have mourned unto you and yc have not wept."
 
 8 Remirhs on Mr. Newnians Letter to Dr. Pusmf, 
 
 In truth, what matters it whether the Articles of the Churcb 
 of England were written before or since the decrees of Trent, so 
 that they comicmn and utterly repudiate as they do the damnable 
 heresies and doctrines which those decrees contain ?— This is 
 their excellency and their glory, and it must continue to be such 
 so long as there is truth and honesty in the Ministry, who have 
 vowed" the maintenance of them. To prove them otherwise, 
 however, is to draw us nearer to Rome, to make our difference 
 from that heretical Church a mere visionary fancy, and not a 
 reality, and thus in fact to merge us once more in the swamp of 
 her blasphemies. Such is INIr. Newman's aim, now no longer 
 concealed beneath the veil of a pretended agreement with the 
 Articles. He avows his " belief that the Articles need not be so 
 closed as the received method of teaching closes them, and omihi 
 not to be for the sake of many persons," p. 28 ; and that he is 
 desirous of so opening them, that the age may pass unsuspectingly 
 to the enjoyment of the "something" it wants, and which some- 
 thiufT is only to be found in the Church of Rome. 
 
 Here there is no disguise, and that there may be no mistake of 
 his design, let us see it in fulL At page 27 he remarks, « lu 
 truth, there is at this moment a great progress of the religious 
 mind of our Church to something dt^eper and ti-ucr than satisfied 
 the last century." From the depth of my heart I echo this 
 sentiment, with thanksgivings to God for it, but not one jot in 
 the sense Mr. Newman intends. I believe that there is in the 
 religious mind, not of our Church only, but of all the Churches 
 ©f Christ in this kingdom, something deeper and truer tlian satis- 
 fied the last century. Then indeed religion was well nigh dead, 
 the great doctrines of the Gospel were unknown; its morality was 
 disregarded, its heavenly affections were ridiculed and despised, 
 and we had almost come to the completion of George Herbert's 
 prophecy, for 
 
 Rclic/ion stoml a-tiploc in the land, 
 lleadij to pans to the ylmcrinui strand, 
 
 or to find a resting place for herself wheresoever slie could. 
 But thcrt! were yet some "seven tliousaiid h;ft, all tiie men that 
 liad n.jt bowed the knee" falsely. Tlie day of grace came. The 
 revival 1«gan. It has gone on and prospered. Tlie truths and 
 promises of Scripture arc now tlie ground of our hope. The
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 9 
 
 Bible is in the hands of the people, millions having been circu- 
 lated here at home. It is spreading the Divine seed abroad. 
 Our missionaries are breaking up the ground for its reception. 
 Renewed calls are made upon God for increased energies of 
 His Spirit, They are answered by the successful ministrations 
 of the Word. The idols are falling. The people are awaking 
 from their sleep of ages. India, China, the isle-bespangled 
 Pacific, even " the servant of servants," Africa, ai'e receiving the 
 light of trutli. These great acts of our God return upon us to 
 bless us, and to strengthen us to renewed exertions. We seek 
 to him again for increased favour, for greater outpourings of his 
 Spirit. While we marvel at these things, and piously exclaim, 
 What hath not God wrought I we look at ourselves with fear- 
 fulness and trembling ; we enquire whether we are keeping pace 
 in our growth in holiness with his mercies vouchsafed to us, and 
 thus we make progress indeed to "something deeper and truer 
 than satisfied the last century," or even the age that has preceded 
 us, grateful as we are to it for the blessings it has, under God, 
 been the means of opening upon us. 
 
 But does Mr. Nev>man mean anything of this sort? Not at 
 all. He looks not to the ministers or missionaries of God's 
 Word, to test the progress that is making, but he is satisfied 
 with "the poets and pliilosophers of the age !" forgetful of the 
 exhortation of the Apostle, " not many wise men after the flesh, 
 not many mighty, not many noble are called: but God hath 
 chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise ; and 
 God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the 
 things which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and 
 things which are despised, hath God chosen ; yea, and things 
 which are not to bring to nought things that are : that no flesh 
 should glory in his presence." Mr. Newman, however, sees the 
 spirit of the times through a medium very difierent from that 
 which I have represented above. In his view, "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 tliis something, is the Church of Rome." So then 
 this same Church of Rome, who by her " authoritative teach- 
 ing" at the present day of the decrees of the Council of Trent, 
 in which she "goes beyond those decrees," is the only commu-
 
 10 Remarks on Mr. Newmans Letter to Dr. Jclf, 
 
 nion " practically in possession of the something" uhich the 
 religious fervour of the age desires. How a church can have 
 cxrossly corrupted and perverted her own corrupt and perverse 
 decrees, which very decrees are admitted by Mr. Newman to 
 have a "tendency to foster and produce" those corruptions and 
 perversions, and yet at the same time maintain herself so far 
 rioht, as, « amid all the errors and evils of her practical system, 
 toV«practicallv in possession of the something" needed, it is 
 most difficult to 'comprehend according to the instructions of 
 Scripture. There we are taught, that if the fruit be good, the 
 tree is good also, and that the tree can only be known by its 
 fruits How her fruits, her " practical possession" can be good, 
 and she herself so in error as to be condemned by our Articles, 
 it is impossible to imagine, to comprehend, or to reconcile. ^ 
 We come, at length, however, to the enquiry as to what this 
 "something" is, which poets, and philosophers, and enthusiasts 
 bear testimony to the cravings of the age for. " 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 prac- 
 tical system, has given free scope to the feelings of awe, mys- 
 tery, tenderness, reverence, devotedness, and other feelings 
 which may be especially called Catholic." And is this all? 
 What a melancholy picture, in sooth. Catholic all these may 
 be, but where is Christianity in them? Where are the 
 "weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith? 
 Where is the message of reconciliation to fallen man ? Where 
 is the peace of God which passeth all understanding ? W here 
 is charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues? Where 
 is the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ? Where arc 
 the promises of free grace ? Where is the sanctifying influence 
 of the Holy Si)irit? Where are the joy and peace of believing ? 
 In one word, where is the Gospel, its gladdening promises, its 
 renovating principles, and its invigorating grace and truth? 
 No gleam of its brightness can be discerned amidst the thick 
 c-loud of darkness, yea of gross darkness, with which it is thus 
 attempted to enshroud the people. Instead of simple evangelical 
 truth, "awe and mystery" arc to be revived amcM.gst us, ami we 
 arc once more invited to taote of the g.)lden cup in the hand ot
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 1 1 
 
 her upon whose forehead is inscribed the name, " Mystery, 
 Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots akd Abo- 
 minations OF the Earth." 
 
 That tills is the consummation Mr. Newman desires tliere 
 can be no doubt about. He advances it plainly in the following 
 words : — " The question then is, whether we shall give them 
 (the feelings of awe, mystery, &c.) up to the Roman Church, or 
 claim them for ourselves, as we well may, by reverting to that 
 older system, which has of late j'ears indeed been superseded, 
 but which has been, and is, quite congenial (to say the least), I 
 sliould 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." Here then is the issue to be joined. 
 Here is the Crisis we are called upon to act in. We must either 
 allow an elasticity to the Articles, in order to preserve these 
 Romish principles and men, and suffer them to prevail until they 
 bind us in the trammels of their destructive errors ; or else, 
 maintaining the scriptural truth and simplicity of our Articles, 
 upholding the plain and simple truths of the Holy Scripture, we 
 must leave these men to do what they ought long since to have 
 done, not to " subscribe w ith doubt and hesitation," but to relin- 
 quish their connection with a Church from which they entirely 
 dissent, and the doctrines of which they are endeavouring to 
 undermine and destroy. 
 
 And now let us turn to the Tract No. 90, that we may see 
 the manner in which Mr. Newman has attempted practically to 
 work out his views. The object of the Tract is fully developed 
 in the concluding sentences of the introduction. It is designed 
 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, through God's good providence, to 
 .say the least, not uncatholic, and may be subscribed by those 
 who aim at being Catholic in heart and doctrine." I will delay 
 no longer over the assumption made here, that the Prayer Book 
 is of Catholic origin, fui-ther than to protest against it. I have 
 rather to do with the avowed object and design of the Tract, 
 which is to make out and to strain such a perversion, I will not 
 say understanding, of the Articles, that those who are of what the 
 author calls a Catholic spirit may subscribe them. What he 
 intends by a Catholic spirit, " Catholic in heart and doctrine,"
 
 12 Remarks on Mr. Newmans Letter to Dr. Jelf, 
 
 there can be no difficutly in understanding from the subtle dis- 
 tinction he has drawn between the " authoritative teaching" of 
 the Churcli of Rome and the Tridentine decrees. It is evident 
 that they who are of his catholicity do not differ froni or disagree 
 with these decrees, and accordingly his sole object is to distort 
 the Articles into such a form, that they may appear not to be 
 contrary to, if they do not altogether square with the decrees 
 
 of Trent. 
 
 The Articles are arranged in twelve sections, and there is a 
 comraentarv upon each, conceived in the above spirit. The first, 
 fourth, and fifth sections treat of the sixth and twentieth Arti- 
 cles, the nineteenth, and the twenty-first. I select these sections 
 first, because these same Articles have been dealt with, in pre- 
 cisely the same manner that Mr. Newman here deals with them, 
 by Dr. Pusey in his letter to the Bishop of Oxford in 1839, a 
 fact which I desire may be especially noted, as a warning to 
 those who have hitherto shut their eyes to the direct tendency 
 of the Tracts altogether, and who have suffered the most valu- 
 able of our Protestant symbols to be explained away, and the 
 most precious truths of the Gospel to be questioned, and only 
 at length arouse themselves to their danger when the gross 
 errors of Romanism are offered to us instead. Had the contest 
 begun, as it should have begun, long since, when the sole su- 
 premacy of Scripture was first denied, when the doctrine of 
 Justification by Faith in the alone merits of Jesus Christ was 
 first trifled with and despoiled of its excellency and power, we 
 should not now have heard of such questions as purgatory and 
 comprecation with the saints, and others of a like import. It is 
 no new thing then to read as in this Tract, "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 Iteuula Fidci, or rule." And again, '« In the sense in 
 uhich it is commonly understood at this day. Scripture, it is 
 plain, is not, on Anglican principles the Rule of Faith." In tliis 
 way it is attempted to get rid of Scripture, and to destroy tlic 
 <;mcacy of our sixth Article, which affirms that " Holy Scripture 
 containetli all things necessary to salvation," and consequently 
 must be, an<l is. the only Rule of Faith. I intend not, however,
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 1 3 
 
 hero to dwell upon the several sections I have cited above, l)e- 
 cause I can refer the reader to a recent publication of mine, 
 " A Review of Tradition as taught by the Writers of the Tracts 
 for the Times," in which he will find that I have contended with 
 Dr. Pusej^ for the true and scriptural understanding of these 
 several Articles, and have there sufficiently proved, what I am 
 now therefore relieved from with respect to these Article?, that 
 both himself and Mr. Newman have in vain attempted to destroy 
 the force and value of them altogether. 
 
 I gladly, therefore, pass on to another Article, our eleventh, 
 treated of in the second section of the Tract, because here we 
 have to grapple with the most important doctrine of the Gospel. 
 This is the sum and substance of the Gospel. The doctrine of 
 Justification by Faith is the very essence of truth, and the 
 preaching of it in simplicity and truth was justly declared by 
 the great Luther to be the sign of a falling or rising Church. I 
 w ill do what Mr. Newman has not done, and set out the Article 
 unmutilated. I am not afraid to see it entire, and I pray God I 
 may never cease to make it the one end, and aim, and subject 
 of all my preaching, to His great honour and glory through 
 His Son Jesus Christ. 
 
 Of the Justification of Man. — We are accounted righteous 
 before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings : 
 Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most whole- 
 some doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is ex- 
 pressed in the Homily of Justification. 
 
 But why did not Mr. Newman in commenting on the Articles 
 set out and observe upon the whole of this the most essential 
 one ? Because, first, the Article states plainly and broadly that 
 there is one only means of salvation " the merit of our Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ by faith," even as the Scripture says " be- 
 lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved ;" and 
 again, " there is no other name given amongst men whereby we 
 must be saved, but that of the Lord Jesus Christ and Him cru- 
 cified." And secondly, because Mr. Newman will have not one 
 means of salvation only, but several. He says, " A number of 
 means go to effect our justification. 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
 
 14 Bemarhs'on Mr. Newmans Letter to Dr. Jelf, 
 
 hy newness of heart alone, for newness of heart is the life of it." 
 The issue, then, between Mr. Newman and the Article is simply 
 this. The Article says we are justified by Christ alone. Mr. 
 Newman says we are justified by Christ alone, by faith alone, 
 by baptism alone, by newness of heart alone. The Article allows 
 only one means of salvation— Mr. Newman will have four means, 
 and will have each of these alone, and consequently independent 
 of one another. The Article refers us to the Homily for a more 
 complete exposition of the truth of its assertion ; and if the reader 
 consult it, as it deserves to be consulted at large, he will find 
 abundant proof in it from Scripture, and such a faithful expla- 
 nation of the doctrine, as will both demonstrate the truth of the 
 Article and condemn the error of Mr. Newman. 
 
 With this, however, I will not at present rest satisfied. My 
 appeal a-ainst INIr. Newman's judgment is to Scripture, and to it 
 only do I go to prove the fallacy of the doctrine he endeavours 
 to maintain as that of justification. I shall proceed to shew the 
 truth of the Article, as affirmed in the following words : " We 
 are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith." It only needs that T 
 cite Scripture itself upon the subject, without observation or 
 comment, for its declarations are so plain as to require no human 
 aid to enforce them. " Whosoever shall call on the name of the 
 Lord shall be saved." Acts ii. 21. Rom. x. 1.3. "Neither is 
 there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under 
 heaven given among men, whereby we nmst be saved." Acts 
 iv. 12. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
 saved." Acts xvi. 31. "We shall be saved from wrath through 
 him." Rom. v. 10. " If thou shalt confess witli thy mouth the 
 Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, tliou shalt be 
 saved." Rom. x. 9. " God hath not appointed us to wrath, but 
 to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thess. v. 9. 
 " Clirist Jesus came into the world to save sinners." 1 Tim. i. l.j. 
 and elsewhere frequently. " All mankind have sinned, and come 
 short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Rom. iii. 23, 
 2t. " liiing justified by faith, we have peace with God, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. v. i. " Being justified by his 
 blood, we siiall be saved from wrath through him." Ibid. 9. 
 *• Ye arc ju-stificd in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
 
 I 
 
 and on Tract for the Times, No. 90. 15 
 
 Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. vi. 11. "A man is not justified by 
 the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Gal. ii. 16. 
 *' The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
 might be justified by faith." Gal. iii. 24*. 
 
 I have now done with Mr. Newman's Letter and Tract. I 
 could easily extend the subject of these pages by entering in 
 detail into the various topics treated of in the Tract. But I must 
 leave this work to others. I have defended the great doctrine of 
 our holy religion, Faith, Avhich Is in Christ Jesus ; I have before 
 now contended with Dr. Pusey against the same perversions of 
 the 6th, 20th, and 21st Articles, that are here maintained by 
 Mr. Newman ; I have shewn the fallacy of the distinction he has 
 attempted to draw between the "Tridentine decrees" and the 
 " authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome ; I have shewn 
 the nature of the Crisis that now impends over the Church ; I 
 have raised my voice in disclaimer of the proposal made to widen 
 our Articles for the admission of so called Catholics, but in truth 
 of Papists in spirit though they choose not to acknowledge the 
 name ; and I would therefore humbly hope that, however unwor- 
 thily I have done my part. It only remains that I invoke my 
 brethren in the ministry to do theirs. I would implore them by 
 our common faith, common to high and low, to rich and poor, 
 to the sovereign in his palace, and to the beggar on the dunghill ; 
 I would entreat them by the precious gift of God's most Holy 
 Son, by the promises in Him, and by the hope set before us of 
 eternal life, to arouse themselves from the lethargy in which they 
 have hitherto been sunk, and to buckle on in defence of truth the 
 sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. Let not the 
 present Crisis pass without completing the work. If having been 
 aroused the Church fall once more into slumber she may awake 
 again when it is too late. ' It is said by some, that we need men 
 of the greatest ability and learning to cope with our opponents, 
 who are themselves men of great attainments, and of indefatigable 
 research. It is not to be denied that they are, and it makes it only 
 the more painful to reflect that their talents are not consecrated 
 to the honour of God and of his Christ. But to suppose that 
 they are to be met with their own weapons, and to be controverted 
 by wisdom such as they rejoice in, is utterly to mistake the 
 nature of the truth for which we have to contend. It is not for 
 Mhat they pretend as truth, and in search of which they would
 
 1 6 Ronarks on Mr. Nexomans Letter to Dr. Jelf, ^-c. 
 
 earn* us through the interminable mazes of ecclesiastical antiqui- 
 ties and history, that we must exert ourselves, but for that which 
 lies open to the comprehension of all, philosopher and peasant, 
 who ^ ill seek it humbly in the revealed will of God in Scripture. 
 If antiquity were anything we could boast a more ancient system 
 than any that they can shew, for we can point to our Articles 
 and say. See what our Reformers modelled in the sixteenth cen- 
 tury from that Holy Volume which dates from the day of Moses 
 to that of Christ. But such things as antiquity are nothing. If 
 it were probable that God at this day should give us a new reve- 
 lation of his will, its novelty would no more detract from it now 
 than it did in the day of Abraham. Its antiquity, therefore, 
 cannot add to it, nor make it more true now than it was eighteen 
 hundred years since. It is its verity alone that ought to give it 
 value in our eyes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is, like himself, the 
 same. The Scripture partakes of the nature of that God who 
 gave it, and is unchangeable. Nothing can add to, nor diminish 
 from its sanctity. Truth is still the same. *' Let us hold fast the 
 profession of our faith without wavering ; for he is faithful that 
 promised ; — but he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven 
 with the wind and tossed to and fro by the sleight of men, and 
 cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
 
 THE 
 
 ARTICLES 
 
 TREATED ON IN TRACT 90 
 
 RECONSIDERED 
 
 AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 
 
 VINDICATED 
 
 IN A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. R W. JELF, D.D. 
 
 CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX FROM ABP. USSHEK ONTHE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
 ANCIENT AND MODERN ADDRESSES TO SAINTS. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 
 
 REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, 
 LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
 
 J, G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1841.
 
 BAXTKK, PnTNTKR, i)XKORn.
 
 contp:nts. 
 
 Introduction . . . . , 
 
 The Catholic Interpretation ot the Articles the true one 
 
 Art. V. and xx. Holy Scripture and the Authority of 
 the Church .... 
 
 Art. xix. The Visible Church 
 
 Art. xxi. General Councils distinct from Oecumenical 
 
 Art. XXV. Number of the Sacraments 
 
 Art. xxviii. Tran substantiation 
 
 Art. xxxi. Sacrifices of Masses 
 
 Art. xxii. Introductory Remarks 
 
 Romish doctrine of Purgatory 
 
 of Pardons 
 
 of Invocation of Saints 
 
 >of veneration and worship- 
 ping of Images and Relics 
 
 Art. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy 
 
 Art. xxxvii. Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome 
 
 Art. xi. Justification by Faith only 
 
 Art. xii. and xiii. Works before and after Justification 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Condemnation of the Tract precipitate 
 Tendency of individuals to Romanism 
 Condition and prospects of our Church and 
 our duties in her 
 
 Abp. Ussher on the difference between ancient 
 addresses and modern invocations of 
 Saints .... 
 
 Illustrations of Romish doctrine of invocation 
 still existing, from Liguori's Glories of 
 Marv .... 
 
 Page 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 23 
 33 
 
 42 
 
 59 
 70 
 
 79 
 
 90 
 
 104 
 
 123 
 129 
 135 
 140 
 141 
 
 148 
 154 
 
 174 
 
 187 
 
 204
 
 My Dkar Friend, 
 
 The deep interest which you have ever taken in 
 all which concerns the well-beingof our Church, both 
 when serving her, away from your home, in aiding 
 to form (under God) a valuable character which may 
 be, by His blessing, of importance to thousands, and 
 more recently, since you have been restored to us, 
 leaves me no doubt that you will gladly allow 
 yourself again to be addressed on the subject, out 
 of which so much agitation has recently been 
 raised. And this the rather, since, although you 
 have uniformly from the first held " that form of 
 doctrine which was delivered" to us, and wherein 
 your mind was moulded, you have, by your absence, 
 been detached from the efforts of those who have 
 been of late endeavouring to restore it to others, 
 and so also, from the imperfections, infirmities, 
 or errors, which may have clung to any of us in the 
 execution of our task. Agreeing with us as to our 
 general principles on the authority of the Church, 
 the value of " Catholic consent" as a guide to 
 the meaning of Holy Scripture, the high dignitv 
 of the Sacraments, the necessity of a higher 
 
 B
 
 2 Tntroducliun. 
 
 standard of holiness, self-denial, self-discipline, 
 almsgiving, than has of late been common among 
 us, you are not committed to any thing which 
 we have said on these subjects in detail. You 
 are come among us, I hope, to assist, under God's 
 guidance, — separately, yet one in heart and object, 
 — in the restoration of a higher sense of our privi- 
 leges and duties as members and Ministers of the 
 Apostolic Church of this land. 
 
 Nor would I, by any thing I write, seek to 
 identify you with myself: enouirh that we are 
 hound by the privileges of our common duty, 
 and the friendship of most of our lives hitherto. 
 
 Nor, again, do I wish to enter into a vindi- 
 cation of the Tract, which has been the centre 
 of this excitement. That, I am convinced, is 
 best left in the hands of its writer ; nor do I wish 
 to make him, who views things far more deeply than 
 I can, responsible for my construction of its details. 
 I wish only to help to relieve, if I may, the per- 
 plexity of some minds, who think principles which 
 they hold, involved in the censure passed upon 
 the Tract, as also the anxieties of another class, 
 who fear lest the adoption of the principles therein 
 inculcated, should lead to a relaxation of the mode 
 in which the Articles are subscribed. As an in- 
 stance of this perplexity, I may mention, that calm 
 and conscientious persons have been seriously per- 
 plexed, whether they could retain their offices, as 
 Tutors, after the sentence of condemnation passed
 
 Introihiction. 3 
 
 on the Tract by the Heads of Houses. In this 
 place, where the advice of elders can easily be had, 
 such could readily be reassured, that the sense in 
 which they understood the Tract, and consequently 
 the way in which they subscribed and explained the 
 Articles, was not that which the Heads of Houses 
 meant to condemn. The perplexity how^ever w^ould 
 be much more extensive and embarrassing, if any 
 of our Bishops should hereafter advert to the 
 Tract, and, without explaining their own views, 
 seem to countenance the general condemnation 
 by the Heads; among those, who coincide with the 
 real view^s of the Tract, are many by whom the 
 slightest word of their Bishop w-ould be deeply felt; 
 and who yet would find a difficulty in explaining 
 themselves to him ; circumstances, to which I need 
 not here advert, have added to the distance at which 
 a Presbyter must naturally feel himself removed from 
 his Bishop; such persons would naturally too shrink 
 from wearying their already overburthened Bishop 
 with explanations, which w^ould necessarily require 
 much detail, and exhibition of their own personal 
 feelings and views. " Why speakest thou any more 
 of thy matters ?" would be the feeling of such per- 
 sons. And thus they would seem left to decide, as 
 they best might, w^hether they could continue to 
 serve in a Diocese in which their views of the Arti- 
 cles, on subscribing which they had been admitted to 
 their cure, seemed to have been censured, whether 
 it might not give scandal, even if otherwise allow- 
 
 B 2
 
 4 Introduction. 
 
 able, whether they ought not silently to withdraw, 
 and yet whether such withdrawing w^ould not be a 
 tacit admission, that the sense in which they had 
 hitherto signed the Articles was an " evasion." On 
 these and other grounds, valuable persons, whose 
 labours our Church could ill spare, might be much 
 harassed, if a Bishop should, by any unexplained 
 reference to the censure of the Heads, seem to lay 
 down that the Articles could not be conscientiously 
 signed on the principles of the Tract, whereas 
 such would, in fact, sign them or adhere to them, 
 not on the principles objected to, but on such, 
 as would be recognized by their Bishops them- 
 selves. On the other hand, I have had reason 
 to know, that one chief fear of those who have 
 blamed the Tract, has been lest it should in- 
 troduce lax ways of signing the Articles generally, 
 or sanction their being signed by persons, w^io 
 had parted even with the most essential truths 
 which they embody. 
 
 On these grounds, I examined (as I was able) 
 the Tract itself, with the view to ascertain what 
 was the amount of the relaxation of the Articles 
 involved in it. It is the result of that examination 
 with whicli I am now going to trouble you. 
 
 Some of the causes, which may have led to mis- 
 apprehension, the Author of the Tract has, with 
 that simplicity and candour which we so well 
 know, mentioned to yourself in his Letter to you, 
 and its Postscript. I5ut what 1 wish to draw
 
 Introdiiction. j> 
 
 attention to is something distinct. The Author 
 had, apparently, two objects in view; one, to vin- 
 dicate the Catholic interpretation of the Articles 
 against a modern popular system of interpreting 
 them, and to shew that our Articles, fairly con- 
 strued, were in no case opposed to any teaching of 
 the Church Catholic ; secondly, to shew, that 
 certain opinions or practices, which, though not 
 Catholic, are to be found more or less prevalent 
 in the early centuries, may yet be held as private 
 opinions by individuals, without hindering any 
 from signing the Articles with a safe conscience. 
 In few words, that our Articles neither contradict any 
 thing Catholic, nor are meant to condemn any thing in 
 early Christianity, even though not Catholic, hut only 
 the later definite system in the Church of Rome. 
 Perhaps these two points would be better elicited 
 without reference to the Tridentine decrees, since 
 this part of the question relates rather to the hope 
 of the future repentance and restoration of Rome, 
 than to any thing which concerns ourselves at this 
 moment. 
 
 Now it appears to me, 1st, that the proposed 
 interpretation of the Articles relates almost entirely 
 to the first of these two points, on which no 
 question would be raised, at least by none, except 
 those of extreme views ; 2dly, that there is so 
 broad a line between any practices or doctrines 
 occurring any where in earlier Christianity, and 
 any later corruptions in the Church of Rome, that
 
 6 Introduction. 
 
 there is no grounds whatever to think that the 
 framers of the Articles, in condemning the latter, 
 had any view to the former. I cannot then but 
 think, that apart from the construction which has 
 been put upon expressions in the Tract, its main, 
 real, principles will be acknowledged, at once or 
 gradually, to be true. 
 
 The point which I have put second, is neces- 
 sarily matter of detail. The first, as 1 have stated 
 it, (and it alone is of essential moment,) was, 
 I conceive, never objected to, although it would 
 seem to be included in the. general condemnation 
 of " the modes of interpretation suggested by the 
 Tract." 
 
 For it would be generally admitted, except 
 by those trained in a modern school, that any 
 particular Church owes obedience to the Universal 
 Church, of which it is a part ; that what can be 
 proved to have been universally received in the 
 primitive ages, is more likely to be true than 
 any view promulgated by individuals in modern 
 times ; that what in times near to the Apostles 
 was universally received by the Church, is more 
 likely to be Ai)ostolic, than any system formed 
 now. For myself, you are aware, I hold much 
 more than this, and, with the current of our great 
 Divines, believe that what in early ages can be 
 proved, according to the rule of Vincentius, to 
 have been held " every where, at all times, and by 
 all," is, if matter of doctrine, binding still. But
 
 Catholic, the correct Interpretation of the Articles. 7 
 
 at the least, such a prhiciple would not be con- 
 demned by those who hold the chairs of Laud, 
 Jackson, and Fell, or in the University of 
 Hooker, Sanderson, Hammond, and Bull. Con- 
 sidering the reverence which our Church has 
 ever paid to Christian Antiquity, the mode in 
 which our Homilies join its teaching with that of 
 Holy Scripture itself*, and in which the Convoca- 
 tion, which inforced subscription to the Articles, 
 refers us to it, as our guide to the doctrine of those 
 Scriptures''; considering, again, the reception of the 
 four or six first General Councils, the directions 
 obtained by our Bishops for the studies of this very 
 University % the tone w^hich has prevailed among 
 
 * e, g. " contrary to the most manifest doctrine of the Scrip.- 
 tures, and contrary to the usage of the Primitive Church, which 
 was most pure and uncorrupt, and contrary to the sentences of 
 the most ancient, learned, and godly doctors of the Church." 
 Quoted Tract 90, p. 70. n. 10. " being warned by God's holy 
 word, and by the writings of the old godly doctors aad ecclesi- 
 astical historians." ib. no. 22. add nos. 23. 27. 43. 45. 50. 51. 
 
 *" " They [preachers] shall in the first place be careful never 
 to teach any thing from the pulpit to be religiously held and 
 believed by the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of 
 the Old and New Testament, and collected out of that very doc- 
 trine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops." Canons of 
 1571. 
 
 ' " Let young Students of Theology be directed to study such 
 books as be most agreeable in doctrine and discipline to the 
 Church of England ; and incited to bestow their times in the 
 Fathers, the Councils, Schoolmen, Histories, and Controversies; 
 and not to insist too long on compendiums and abbreviatures, 
 making them the grounds of their study in Divinity." 
 
 " 7th Direction which the most wise King James, (A.D.
 
 8 Catholic, the correct Interpretation of the Articles. 
 
 her great Divines, it is little to say that her present 
 Heads could not have meant to have prescribed to 
 the Tutors of their respective Colleges to expound 
 the Articles according to the private interpretations 
 of modern schools, or the supposed opinions of the 
 framers, in contradistinction to the teaching ol 
 Catholic Antiquity. 
 
 But yet further, the framers of our Articles 
 themselves had no such wish. Our Reformers did 
 not wish that we should be Cranmerites or Rid- 
 leyans; they did not wish to stamp their own image 
 and superscription upon our portion of God's 
 Churcii ; whatever imperfections they may as men 
 have been subject to, they wished only to clear the 
 fine gold from any tarnish which had come over it ; 
 we have remained since the Reformation, as before, 
 a branch of the Church Catholic ; we were placed 
 on no new platform ; our Reformers did not, 
 like Luther, form for us any new system of doc- 
 trine, such as that which bears his name ; they 
 ever appealed to Catholic Anti(juity ; submitted 
 their own judgment to hers. " To depart," says 
 1>ishop Ridley, " from that the sentences of the old 
 ancient writers do more allow, without any war- 
 rant of God's word, I cannot think it any Godly 
 wisdom." And even Cranmer, at a very solemn 
 
 1017.) by the advice of t lie Bishops, addressicl to the Uuiversily 
 of Oxford, the V'ice-( hancellor, the (loverriors of Colleges and 
 Halls, the two Professors, to lie l>y tlieru diligently ol)st>rved." 
 lip, Hull, Apolofjin pro f/mmonia, S. 1. ^. 4.
 
 Catholic, the correct Interpretation of the Articles. 9 
 
 moment % professed his readiness " in all things to 
 follow the judgment of the most sacred word 
 of God and of the holy Catholic Church." And 
 confessed, 
 
 " In all my doctrine and preaching both of the Sa- 
 craments, and of other my doctruie, whatsoever it be, not 
 only I mean and judge, as the Catholic Church and the 
 most holy Fathers of old meant and judged, but also, 
 I would gladly use the same words that they used and 
 not any other words; but to set my hand to all and 
 singular their speeches, phrases, ways, and forms of 
 speech, which they do use in their treatises upon the 
 Sacraments, and to keep still their interpretation." 
 
 It were, also, manifestly, a grievous yoke, and 
 such as it has not been ever attempted formally 
 to lay upon us, so to tie us down to the opinions 
 of (to use a favourite expression of a modern 
 school) " fallible men," that we should be com- 
 pelled to search up and down the works of the 
 Reformers in order to expound the Articles ac- 
 cording to their insight into Divine truth, and 
 to take, as authoritative, all which, in the per- 
 plexity of controversy, may have dropped from 
 them. The difficulty of ascertaining the meaning 
 of Catholic Antiquity is sometimes urged by the 
 opponents of its authority as an argument against 
 its use ; yet its language in matters of faith is 
 clear and definite ; but what a task were it to turn 
 us adrift in writings, whose authors on some points 
 
 ' Appeal at liis degradation, Works, vol. iv. [>. 126, 7.
 
 10 Catholic, the correct Interpretation of the Articles. 
 
 confessedly changed their views ; who had a diffi- 
 culty in fixing their language, lest while avoiding 
 prevalent errors, they should unsettle kindred 
 truth ; who Avere embarrassed by all that per- 
 plexity, which any change of rooted opinions, for 
 the time, almost of necessity, involves ; who were 
 surrounded by opposing errors ; were, in some 
 degree, joined in one common cause of removing 
 abuses with men, like the Swiss Reformers, them- 
 selves involved in grievous error, and so must and did 
 sympathize with them, and wished to mould them 
 with themselves in one Reformed Church ''. If 
 it be thought difficult in Christian Antiquity to 
 separate what is Catholic from what may be pecu- 
 liar to the mind of the writer, what a task were it 
 to take the works of such a period as this, for the 
 rule of our theological teaching ! 
 
 Again, (as has been often stated,) we have not our 
 Articles from their framers ; the Forty-two Articles 
 of Edward VI. were never accepted by the Church 
 at large" ; though mainly the same, they were still 
 modified, when formed into the Thirty-nine ; pri- 
 mitive and essential words of our Liturgy were 
 then restored ; our Services were then, in ex- 
 pression certainly, restored to a more primitive 
 mould than under the Reformers ; why then is 
 our Church to be bound to go back to the Re- 
 
 '' See Tract bl, p. "27. note od the origin of tlie I'orty-two 
 Articles. 
 
 « Strype'8 Cranmer, ii. 27,34. Heylyn, j). 121.
 
 Catholic, the correct Interprotatiuii of the Articles. 1 1 
 
 formers, for the exposition of Articles, which in 
 their present forms he did not receive from them, 
 and whose work in other respects she reformed 
 upon the primitive model ? 
 
 The last Convocation from which we received 
 them, was at a period (1662) when the deference 
 owed to Catholic Antiquity, which the Reformers 
 felt, was most fully developed and understood. 
 
 One needed not to have used many words on 
 this subject but for a recent tendency to set up the 
 Reformers — not as instruments onlv of God's 
 good Providence in removing error, but — as the 
 founders of a system of faith, and the authorized 
 expositors of our belief. This is the real point at 
 issue, of which there were other indications before 
 this controversy arose. Men must lean upon some 
 authority; they cannot guide themselves ; they who 
 think they derive their faith immediately and ex- 
 clusively from Holy Scripture, for the most part 
 follow human guidance more rigidly than others ; 
 the only real question is, from whom, under God's 
 guidance, we shall learn the meaning of those 
 Scriptures, from ancients or from moderns. 
 
 Whatever then individuals may practise for 
 themselves, it will not, I conceive, be generally ob- 
 jected to any of us, as a grave error, that we hold 
 that the Articles are to be interpreted according 
 to the teaching of the Church Catholic. Let me 
 then request you, as briefly as may be, to go through 
 with me the several Articles relating to the points
 
 )J 
 
 1'2 A/f. \i. and s.'s.. Holy Scripture and the 
 
 in controversy between us and the Romanists, and 
 so see whether the main objects of the Tract be not 
 what I have said. If, even on points of doctrine or 
 practice not-Cathohc, there be a distinct line be- 
 tween what is early and what is Romanist, it will, 
 of course, be no relaxation of the Articles to main- 
 tain, that when they speak of what is " Romish, 
 they do not contemplate any thing in early Chris- 
 tianity ; on the other hand, in what forms, as we 
 shall see, the main object of the Tract — to shew on 
 points, where there is a Catholic doctrine, that our 
 Articles are in harmony with the teaching of the 
 Church Catholic ; — this view, so far from relaxing 
 the meaning of the Articles, gives them greater 
 stringency, and lays us under a deeper obligation ; 
 since now we are bound to receive them not only 
 on the authority of our immediate mother, but of 
 her, " the Jerusalem from above, who is the" com- 
 mon " mother of us all." 
 
 Articles vi. and xx. 
 
 " Holy Scripture and the Jiitfunlty of the Church. 
 
 " Holy Scripture contaiiuth all things necessary to 
 salvation ; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may 
 be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that 
 it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought 
 
 recjuisite or necessary to salvation The Church hath 
 
 power to decree (statuendi) rites and ceremonies, and au- 
 thority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful 
 for the ("hurch to ordain (instituere) any thing that is con- 
 trary to (lod's word written, neither may it so expound
 
 Authority of the Church. 13 
 
 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) 
 any thing against the same, so besides the same, ought it 
 not to enforce (obtrudere) any thing to be believed for 
 necessity of salvation." 
 
 With regard to these two Articles, little has been 
 done except to combine their teaching ; an Ultra-Pro- 
 testant sense can only be given to the sixth Article 
 by detaching it from the twentieth. Alone, it 
 only declares, what is the source of the articles of 
 faith, Holy Scripture ; how those articles are to 
 be derived from that source, is implied only ; it 
 stands over against the Romanist system, which 
 requires things to be believed as articles of faith, 
 which are " not read in Holy Scripture nor can be 
 proved by it:'^ who is so to prove it, who has the 
 power of " requiring" what can be so proved, to 
 be believed as an Article of the Faith, is reserved 
 for the twentieth. Only, (as observed elsewhere,) in 
 speaking of " requiring,'* it implies that some one 
 has the right to require ; and that right the twentieth 
 declares to be vested in the Church ; " the Church 
 has authority in controversies of faith." The same 
 Article implies that the Church has a right to 
 " expound Scripture" and " enforce things to be 
 beheved, which can be proved thereby ;" for it 
 were idle to say that "it is not lawful for the 
 Church so to expound one place of Scripture, that 
 it be repugnant to another," unless, within these
 
 14 Ari. vi. and xx. Holy Scripture and the 
 
 limits she were its lawful expositor ; or to say that 
 " besides Holy Writ, she ought not to enforce 
 any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation/' 
 unless out of Holy Writ she might so enforce 
 them. And this power of the Church we our- 
 selves practically acknowledge whenever we repeat 
 the Athanasian Creed. 
 
 This the Tract sums up thus : 
 
 " First, 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 
 wholly from Scripture; third, that its office is to educe an 
 harmonious interpretation of Scripture." 
 
 Indeed, the Tract, so far from pressing, as I 
 think it might, that in points of faith, or things 
 tiecessary to salvation, " private judgment" is 
 excluded, contents itself with saying that it is at 
 least an open question ; " nothing is said [in the 
 Article] of the private judgment of the individual 
 being the ultimate standard of interpretation :" nor 
 on the other does it assert any thing as to catholic 
 tradition being the Church's guide in interpreting 
 Holy Scripture, but only negatively that " not a 
 word is said in favour of Scripture having no rule 
 or method to fix interpretation by, or, as is com- 
 monly exi)resscd, being the sole rule of faith.'" So 
 that, so far from drawing the Article to any extreme 
 view, our friend only shews that it does not contain 
 any tiling contradicting the authority of the Church 
 and tradition, leaving others free possession of
 
 Authority of t fie Chvrcli. 15 
 
 their opinion, provided that they ascribe not to the 
 Article un-Cathohc statements, to which it is rather 
 opposed. At the sanne time, he maintains fully 
 against the Romish error, that the faith is derived 
 " wholly from Scripture,'' discarding only the term 
 " sole rule of faith" as ambiguous. For where 
 Scripture is by moderns termed " the sole rule of 
 faith," it is used in the sense of the sole " source of 
 faith," or the sole" ultimate standard of faith," as 
 opposed to any other independent documents of the 
 Faith ; where the title " rule of faith" is given to the 
 Creeds, it means the rule whereby the soundness of 
 the faith of individuals or Churches maybe tested. 
 Scripture is the rule of the Creeds ; the Creeds, of 
 the faith of individuals or particular Churches. 
 
 Since, however, any mention of tradition is 
 thought to favour errors in the Church of Rome, 
 (often as it has been shewn that those errors do 
 not rest upon Tradition but are opposed to it,) it 
 maybe well to set down some words of Thorndike^ 
 shewing that any reliance upon it is in fact opposed 
 to the doctrine of infallibility, as on the other hand 
 any appeal to human authorities is to that of Scrip- 
 ture being the sole guide to the faith. 
 
 " Always it is easy for me to demonstrate that this 
 resolution, ' That the Scripture, holding the meaning of it 
 by the tradition of the Church, is the only means to 
 decide controversies of Faith,' is nearer to the common 
 terms, that the Scripture is the only rule of faith, than 
 1o that infallibility which is pretended for the Church 
 
 *■ Epilogue i. 32. p. 196.
 
 16 
 
 Arf. vi. o>nf XX. Holy ScHplwe and the 
 
 of Ron.e ; having demonstrated, that to depend upon t 
 infallibility of the present, and the tradition of the Catholic 
 Church, are things inconsistent, whereas this cannot be 
 inconsistent with that Scripture, which is no less delivered 
 from age to age than tradition is, though the one by 
 writing, the other by word of mouth, and serving chiefly 
 to det'ermine the true meaning of it, when it comes m 
 debate." 
 
 And a little before ; 
 
 - For as I have argued, that those who maintain the 
 infallibility of the present Church, do contradict them- 
 selves, whensoever they have recourse either to the Scrip- 
 ture or to any words of the Church, to evidence the sense 
 of the Scripture in that, which otherwise they protess 
 the authority of the Church alone infallibly to determine: 
 so, those who will have the Scripture alone to determine 
 all controversies of faith, and yet take the pains to bring 
 evidence of the meaning thereof, from that which had 
 been received in the Church, may very well be said to 
 contradict themselves." 
 
 With the same moderation is the subject of the 
 " Apocrypha" touched upon ; and as the Author 
 has since stated, it has been one source of the 
 imputation of vagueness cast upon the Tract, that 
 he did not wish to press his own conclusions, but 
 only negatively to secure a fair liberty for those 
 for whom he wrote, against un-Catholic inter- 
 pretations, which a popular system would identify 
 with the Articles. 
 
 It is needless to say to you how deeply some 
 persons, mostly but little acquainted with the 
 Apocrypha, condenm it, how they offend foreign
 
 Authority of the Church. 17 
 
 Churches by translating and circulating the Bible 
 without it, how they would gladly displace it from 
 the order of our Lessons, how they have in i'act 
 succeeded in removing it from the Bible in ordinary 
 circulation among us. In opposition to this, the 
 Tract states, p. 6. 
 
 " that the books vvhicii are commonly called Apo- 
 crypha, 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, spe- 
 cially in this respect, viz. that they are not adducible in 
 proof of doctrine. ' The other books (as Hieronie saith) 
 the Church doth read for example of life and instruction 
 of manners, and yet doth not apply them to establish any 
 doctrine.'" 
 
 It might have said much more; and our Church, 
 in this as in other instances, by taking up the 
 position of the early Church, takes away the 
 vantage-ground of Romish Controversialists. For 
 these, in opposition to such as deny the Apocrypha 
 any value, or look upon it as a mere human book, 
 can easily appeal to its being read in Churches 
 together with the Canonical Scriptures, or to pas- 
 sages of the fathers, in which they cite from it, 
 under the title of " Scripture, Divine Scripture," 
 and the like. The subject is far too wide to adduce 
 the proof thus incidentally ; yet I may mention as 
 the result of a long and careful investigation, that I 
 found full evidence that no other Canon of the Old 
 Testament as possessing plenary Inspiration, was 
 
 c
 
 18 A/f. \\. and XK. Holy Scripture, ^-c. 
 
 ever received in any Church, than that of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures ; and yet, that the same fathers, 
 who were fully aware of this, did, in every Church, 
 without scruple, cite the Apocryphal books of the 
 Old Testament, as being in a sense inspired beyond 
 the writings of any men after the Apostolic age. 
 They do indeed use the word " Inspiration" in a 
 wide sense, from the plenary and infallible inspira- 
 tion of Holy Scripture, down to the " holy inspira- 
 tion whereby we think those things that be good ;" 
 they pray that in searching out the meaning of 
 Holy Scripture, God would " inspire" them with 
 the same Spirit, whereby that Scripture was 
 written ; but they do not use the terms " Scrip- 
 ture," &c. of any other books not in the primary 
 Canon, except the Apocrypha of the Old Testa- 
 ment. One or two add some of the writings of the 
 corresponding period in the New Testament, the 
 Apostolic age, but the designation of the Apocrypha 
 as Scripture is universal. And herein their practice 
 remarkably corresponds with that of our own 
 Church ; the mode in which our Homilies cite the 
 Apocrypha is inexact accordance with, and illustrates 
 the language of the Ancient Church ; both knew 
 that they were not, in the same sense. Scripture, as 
 the authoritative Hebrew Canon ; yet, as by both 
 they were publicly read in their worship, so both 
 cite them at limes indiscriminately with the higher 
 Scriptures, and under the same titles ; believing 
 apparently that, even after the Spirit of prophecy
 
 Art. xix. T/ie Visible CImrch. 19 
 
 was suspended in its fulness and authoritativeness, 
 during the intervening period before It again 
 descended in Its fulness on our Lord, It still 
 continued to guide the thoughts of some in a more 
 authoritative way than was permitted to any after 
 our Lord came, not as an independent revelation, 
 but commenting on, developing, and applying, the 
 meaning of the earlier, until the Sun of righteous- 
 ness arose. 
 
 Article xix. 
 
 " The visible Church of Christ is a congreoation of 
 faithful men (ccetus fidelium), in the which the pure word 
 of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministered, 
 according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of 
 necessity are requisite for the same. 
 
 This Article seems to have been treated of, 
 rather for completeness and for truth's sake, than 
 for any immediate subject of controversy. For few 
 would not now shrink from holding that all the 
 Churches under the obedience and in the Com- 
 munion of Rome were not in such sense true 
 Churches, as to be a portion of the one Visible 
 Church. Words nearly corresponding in the Con- 
 fession of Augsburg are indeed in their " Apology 
 for the Confession" so interpreted as to seem to 
 deny to the Roman Churches the title of a Church ; 
 for, while admitting that a society which holds the 
 foundation, remains a Church, although it build 
 
 c 2
 
 •20 Art. xix. T/ie Visible Church. 
 
 thereon hay, straw, stubble, it goes on to say% 
 •' Most of those things which our adversaries 
 mention overthrow the faith, as that they condemn 
 the article of remission of sins, in which we say 
 that remission of sins is received by faith." Such, 
 however, (though the Uke sentiments may have 
 been and are still held by some in our Church,) 
 is not the current opinion of the Divines of our 
 Church ; nor though our reformers borrowed, with 
 some modifications, the language of the Confession 
 of Augsburg, can we be any way tied to Lutheran 
 expositions of it, which would be to acknowledge 
 them as authoritative documents in our Church. 
 
 With regard then to the Church of Rome, to 
 take such as rather lean to the opposite side, Bp. 
 Hallb adopts the 
 
 " charitable profession of the zealous Luther, ' We 
 profess that under the Papacy there is much Christian 
 good, yea, all, &c. I say, moreover, that under the Pa- 
 pacy is true Christianity, yea the very kernel of Chris- 
 tianity, &c.' and that, on the very ground, that it held 
 the fundamental truth in the Creeds, ' Neither do we 
 censure that Church for what it hath not, but for what 
 it hath ; fundamental truth is like that Maronean wine, 
 which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water, 
 holds its strength ; the sepulchre of Christ was over- 
 whelmed by the Pagans with earth and rubbish, — yet still, 
 there was the sej)ulchre of Christ ; and it is a ruled case 
 of Pa|)inian, that a sacred jilace loseth not the holiness 
 with the demolished walls; no more doth the Roman lose 
 
 « Apol. 1.. 117. od. Tu(m. 
 li The f )1<1 Heli'^'ioii, c. 1.
 
 Art. xix. The Visible Church. 21 
 
 the claim of a true visible Church by her manifold and 
 deplorable corruptions ; her unsoundness is not less ap- 
 parent than her being ; if she were once the spouse of 
 Christ and her adulteries are known, yet the divorce is 
 not sued out." 
 
 And Bp. Davenant', almost commenting on the 
 notes of a Church mentioned in the Article, alleges 
 both sufficiently to exist in the Romish Church ; 
 
 ** For the being of a Church does principally stand upon 
 the gracious action of God, calling men out of darkness 
 and death, unto the participation of light and life in Christ 
 Jesus. So long as God continues this calling unto any 
 people, though they (as much as in them lies) darken this 
 light, and corrupt the means which should bring them to 
 life and salvation in Christ; yet where God calls men unto 
 the participation of life in Christ, by the word and by the 
 Sacraments, there is the true being of a Christian Church, 
 let men be never so false in their expositions of God's 
 word, or never so untrusty in mingling their own traditions 
 with God's ordinances. Thus the Church of the Jews 
 lost not her being of a Church when she became an 
 idolatrous Church. And thus under the government of 
 the Scribes and Pharisees, who voided the commandments 
 of God by their own traditions, there was yet standing a 
 true Church, in which Zacharias, Elizabeth, the Virgin 
 Mary, and our Saviour Himself was born, who were mem- 
 bers of that Church, and yet participated not in the 
 corruptions thereof. Thus to grant that the Roman was 
 and is a true visible Church, (though in doctrine a false, 
 and in practice an idolatrous Church,) is a true assertion, 
 and of greater use and necessity in our controversy with 
 Papists about the perpetuity of the Christian Church, 
 than is understood by those that gainsay it." 
 
 » Letter to Bp. Hall appended to the Old Religion, t. ii. p. 77.
 
 •2-> Art. xix. The Visible Church. 
 
 Amid this strong language as to the actual state 
 of the Romish Church, Bp. Davenant holds that to 
 be a " true Church," in which men may be saved, 
 the " pure word of God" being, as Bp. Hall says, 
 those ** fundamentals of the faith," the doctrines of 
 the Creed, into which we are baptized. It is indeed 
 to be feared that the Romish Communion, as a 
 whole, has, in the loss of the Cup, sustained a griev- 
 ous privation ; but they who against the Churches 
 in the Communion ol' Rome would on this ground 
 press the words " duly ministered according to 
 Christ's ordinance in all those things that of neces- 
 sity are requisite to the same," should shew how (sad 
 as the loss is) it is more essential, than the absence 
 of consecration by a Minister, who through the 
 Apostles has derived his commission from Christ. 
 
 The latter part of the Article (the omission of 
 which has been animadverted on) states only, what 
 all in our Church lament, that " the Church of Rome 
 has erred in matters of faith" also ; it does not 
 affirm it to have erred in such articles of faith as 
 endanger salvation. Nor, again, has it appeared 
 clear that our Article means more than to affirm 
 that the Church of Rome, having erred, is conse- 
 quently not infallible. It says not, in the present, 
 " errs iu matters of faith," but speaks in the past, 
 '* hath erred," just in the same way as it says 
 of " the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and 
 Anlioch," that thev " have erred," which was in 
 lime paht.
 
 Art. xxi. General Coimcils — distinct from (Ecitmenical. 23 
 
 A recent writer'' says on this Article, 
 
 *' The Article only affirms that the Roman Church has 
 erred in matters of faith, e. g. in the case of Liberius and 
 Honorius ; there is no assertion, that it does now err in 
 faith. The object is to deny the infalhbility of the parti- 
 cular Church of Rome." 
 
 At all events, it should ever be borne in mind, 
 that the Church of Rome has, amid her corruptions, 
 continued to be a faithful witness to the saving 
 truths as to the Blessed Trinity, which were denied 
 by the heretics of the early centuries, and which 
 our Church, by retaining the Apostles' Creed as 
 her summary of faith in her Baptismal Service and 
 the Visitation of the Sick, acknowledges to be the 
 substance of saving Faith. 
 
 Article xxi. 
 
 " 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 as- 
 sembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the 
 Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have 
 erred, in things pertaining to God." 
 
 This being the only remaining Article on the 
 Church considered in the Tract, we may as well 
 take it now, although it relates only to a " private 
 opinion" which the Author wishes to be regarded 
 as admissible. It is, that there are certain Coun- 
 
 ■' Palmer on the Churcl), p. i. c. xi. §. 8. t. i. p. 316.
 
 •24 All. xxi. General Councils — distinct from(Ecumenicah: 
 
 cils, viz. CEcumenical, which are not liable to 
 err, and that the Article meant to take the term 
 " General" in a popular sense, not denoting Coun-JB 
 cils strictly CEcumenical, but, as it is commonly 
 used, Councils composed of Bishops from different, 
 Provinces, as opposed to " Provincial" or " Na- 
 tional." And this last is plainly the meaning of 
 the Article ; for in that it says, not only that 
 '* General Councils may err," but that they 
 " sometimes have erred," it does not mean to 
 include CEcumenical Councils, since our Church 
 receives the six CEcumenical Councils', and our 
 best Divines speak of there having been six'' or 
 i'our" (Ecumenical Councils only, according as they 
 include the fifth and sixth in the third or fourth to 
 which they were supplementary, or no. 
 
 1 Sec AiUliorities, " l.otfer to the Bp. of Oxford," p. 44. 
 
 '" 'i'lio Homilies speak of " those ' six Councils, which were 
 allowed and received by all men," and of the last of the " four 
 first General Councils^" as giving instruction even for matter of 
 practice. 
 
 " Hooker, v. liv. 10. od. Keh. Hammond on Heresie, sect. vii. 
 and ix. expressly including the fifth and sixth. (In sect. 15. he 
 says, " the first four or, if you will, six, or indeed any of the 
 OM-unif-niral Councils truly so called.") Bp. Andrews defends 
 K. .I.imos naming four (ad Card. Bell. resp. c. i. p. 20. c. vii. p. 
 H)0, 1.) in the latter place he accepts the sixth when it agrees 
 with the four first, [i.e. excluding thu spurious Acta,] but tliinks 
 tiic fifth and sixth vunj have been inferior. 
 
 ' AyainHt Peril of Idoliitry, Pint II. ).. l!)f). .d. d.xr. 1^22. 
 ' On Famiiij;, P.irt I. ].. 262.
 
 Art. xxi. General Coiinci Is — distinct from (Ecumenical. 25 
 
 Thus Field": ^^ HOfc , ,dh 
 
 " Concerning the General Councils of this sort, that 
 hitherto have been holden, we confess that in respect of 
 the matter about which they were called, so nearly and 
 essentially concerning the life and soul of the Christian 
 Faith, and in respect of the manner and form of their 
 proceeding, and the evidence of proof brought in them, 
 they are, and ever were, expressly to be believed by all 
 such as perfectly understand the meaning of their deter- 
 mination. And that therefore it is not to be marvelled at, 
 if Gregory profess, that he ' honoureth the first four 
 Councils as the four Gospels ;' and that whosoever be- 
 lieveth them not, though he seem to be ' a stone elect and 
 precious,' yet he lieth beside the foundation and out of 
 the building. Of this sort there are only six ; the first 
 defining the Son of God to be co-essential, co-eternal, and 
 co-equal with the Father. The second defining that the 
 Holy Ghost is truly God, co-essential, co-eternal, and co- 
 equal with the Father and the Son. The third, the Unity 
 of Christ's Person. The fourth, the distinction and 
 diversity of His Natures, in and after the Personal Union. 
 The fifth, condemning some remains of Nestorianism ; 
 more fully explaining things stumbled at in the Council 
 of Chalcedon, and accusing the heresy of Origen and his 
 followers touching the temporal punishments of Devils 
 and wicked cast-aways ; and the sixth, defining and 
 clearing the distinction of Operations, Actions, Powers, 
 and Wills in Christ according to the diversity of His 
 Natures. These were all the lawful General Councils 
 (lawful I say both in their beginning, and proceeding, and 
 continuance) that were ever holden in the Christian 
 Church, touching matters of faith." 
 
 CEcunienical Councils then are very limited in 
 number, and difi'ercnt in kind from mere General 
 
 " Of the Church, V. 51.
 
 •2() Art. xxi. General Councils — distinct fromCEcumenical. 
 
 Councils; they are Councils of the whole Church, 
 which have been subsequently received by the whole 
 Church ; and of these there are but six ; the seventh 
 General Council which is received by the Greeks, 
 (the Deutero-Nicene Council.) was formally re- 
 jected at the time in the Western Church''; the 
 several General Councils received by the Churches of 
 the Roman obedience, are not received by the Greek 
 Church, or by ourselves. Romanist theologians, on 
 the contrary, as Bellarmine (whose definition of a 
 General Council is " one's in which the Bishops 
 of the whole Church may and ought to be present, 
 unless they be lawfully hindered, and in which no 
 one rightly presides except the Pope or one in his 
 name," and who holds it to be " matter of faith 
 that General Councils, confirmed by the Pope, 
 cannot err either in faith or morals %") count, in 
 
 ^ The second Council of Nice was not at first recognized 
 universally even in those Churches in which it was received, the 
 Eastern and Home. Only six General Councils are spoken 
 of in the East, nearly GOO years after; (A.D. 1339,) by 
 Pope Nicolas, a century after it, (A. D. 859,) and by Pope 
 Adrian. (A.D. 871.) It was rejected by 300 Bishops of Gaul, 
 Aquitain, Germany, and Italy, at the Council of Frank- 
 fort, {i\. D. 794.) and called " a pseudo-synod" by Gallican 
 and German writers from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. 
 Its degree of recejjtion was owing to its being interpolated in the 
 Liber Diurnus l>y Gratian, and then inserted in the Canon law; 
 but the Council of Frankfort which rejected it, was never re- 
 scinded. See further, and authorities, in Palmer on the Church, 
 p. iv. c. 10. sect. iv. add Perceval on ilie Roman Schism, p. 73 sqq. 
 
 '' I)e Conr. i. 4. 
 
 ' lb. ii. I.
 
 Art. xxi. General Cmmcils — distinct from (Ecumenical. 27 
 
 all, eighteen such; "other Romanist theologians 
 contend for nine or ten, others for various larger 
 numbers ; those who follow Bossuet agree in prin- 
 ciple with ourselves, that the subsequent accept- 
 ance of a General Council by the universal Church 
 alone makes it (Ecumenical'." 
 
 Thus then there is ample scope for our Article in 
 asserting, that " General Councils may err, and 
 sometimes have erred," without touching upon 
 CEcumenical^ The framers of our Articles were 
 not here concerned with abstract propositions, but 
 with matters of fact ; it was not their object to 
 settle whether there were or were not certain 
 Councils, which God might hereafter protect from 
 error, as He had hitherto ; — such, namely, as have 
 been received by the Church universal — but, both 
 in defence and warning, to maintain that " General 
 Councils" had in themselves no binding authority, 
 nor were infallible. Were they so, our Church 
 would of course be in error, in that she has pro- 
 nounced contrary to Councils which the Roman 
 Church counts general; the Article was also a pro- 
 
 • Palmer on the Church, iv. 7. 
 
 ' " The Article speakelii of General Councils indefinitely, 
 without precisely determining which are General, which not^ 
 what is a General Council, what not; and so may and doth 
 include reputed or pretended General Councils, univoce general, 
 though not exactly and truly indeed, (such as was the Council 
 of Ariniinum,) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak, 
 my speech heing limited with true and lawful, of which sort 
 arc not many to he found." Bp. Montague, Appeal, p. 125.
 
 28 Art. xxi. General Coumils — distinct from (Ecumenical. 
 
 test beforehand against any thing which might be 
 enacted against the truth she maintained, by any 
 Council such as could then be brought together, 
 and claiming to itself the title of " General," as did 
 the Council of Trent : it remains a valuable warn- 
 ing to all Councils beforehand, before God has set 
 His seal upon them. As in the case of individuals, 
 so it mav be with the Church. We know that 
 there are individuals, who will finally persevere ; 
 but who they are is not known even by themselves, 
 unless God specially reveal it to them ; and this 
 knowledge when He vouchsafes. He has probably 
 always given, as to Daniel and St. Paul, towards 
 the close of life. Earlier, He gives hopes, earnests, 
 dim intimations, to His faithful ones, and to most, 
 probably, according to their faithl'ulness ; but it 
 seems from His dealings, as though the certain 
 assurance that any one would be saved, were too 
 much for an individual during " the burthen and 
 heat of the day." In like way, it might be in- 
 jurious for any number of individuals, such even as 
 a General Council, to know beforehand that they 
 would be infallibly guided into truth ; it might 
 lead to presumption, might weaken that sense of 
 dependence, humility, the diligent preparation and 
 watchfulness, and the earnestness of the prayers, 
 upon which tli ir inerrancy de[)ends ; and yet as 
 there arc some such Councils which God has 
 preserved from error, so there may be a certain 
 class, which it h;;R been ever His puipose, secret to
 
 Art. xxi. General Councils — distinctfromCEcumenicaL 29 
 
 themselves, so to preserve ; and we may hope that 
 should He allow any Council hereafter, like the six 
 CEcumenical, to receive the sanction of the Uni- 
 versal Church, He will preserve this also from 
 error. Certainly, this case is not liable to the risk 
 of presumption which attends the theory of infalli- 
 bihty prevalent in the Romish Church, since, 
 whether the Council is Oecumenical or no, is 
 known by the event, depending upon its subsequent 
 reception by the universal Church". And again, 
 since our Lord's promise is to the whole Church, 
 but no General Council hitherto has, or probably 
 could, in itself", at the time of its assembling, fully 
 represent the Universal Church, but would pro- 
 bably consist of the minority of her Bishops, who 
 might be misled, and might be disowned by the 
 a 
 
 " Hammond on Heresy, sect. xiv. rests the " inerrableness of 
 General Councils." chiefly on their " finding approbation and 
 reception among all those Bishops and Doctors of the Church 
 diffused^ which were out of the Council," since this makes it the 
 act of the whole Church. In this the more moderate Theolo- 
 gians in the Romish Communion agree with him. (Palmer on 
 the Church, p. iv. c. 7. p. 151.) 
 
 " Hammond, ib. seel. vi. §. 7. 8. 15. " For that any Council 
 of Bishops, the most numerous that ever was in the world, (much 
 less a but major part of those few, that be there present,) is not 
 yet really the Universality of Christians, is too evident to be 
 doubted of. It can only then be pretended, that it is the 
 Universal Representative, or such an assembly, wherein is con- 
 tained the virtues and influences of the whole Universal Church. 
 And thus indeed I suppose it to be, as often as the doctrines 
 there established by universal consent (founded in Scripture and 
 tradition), have either been before discussed and resolved in each 
 provincial Council, which have sent their delegates thither from
 
 30 Art. xxi. General Cowicils — distinctfromCEminenical. 
 
 Churches which they professed to represent, it 
 would follow that no General Council could claim 
 to itself the guiding Presence of its Lord, with the 
 same confidence as we may trust that it is pledged 
 to the Church Universal. Certainly, there would 
 be something so shocking in the thought that the 
 whole Church should accept an erroneous decision 
 in a matter of the Faith, that one should think it 
 would be a relief to any one, not to think himself 
 obliged to aver, (as a thing certainly determined,) 
 that Councils, in such sort CEcumenical, " may 
 err." But, in truth, I feel convinced that, as such 
 Councils were not in the minds of the framers of 
 the Articles, so neither were they contemplated by 
 such as objected to the interpretation given, and 
 that this objection will be readily dismissed. 
 Hammond certainly sets it down, without ofTence, 
 as a pious opinion, that CEcumenical Councils 
 would not err ' . 
 
 all the parts of the world, or else have Post-factum, after the 
 promulgation, been accepted by them and acknowledged to agree 
 with that faith which they had originally received. When a 
 doctrine isconciliarly agreed on, it is then promulgated to all, and 
 the Universal, though hut tacit, approbation and reception 
 thereof, the no considerable contradiction given to it in the 
 Church, is a rompctpnt evidence, that this is the judgment and 
 concordant tradition of the whole Church, though no such reso- 
 lution of provincial Synods have preceded." 
 
 ' Of lleresie, sect. ix. " Of such [Councils truly General] 
 none yet ever erred, that ever I yet read or observed, in points 
 fundamental, and therefore I saw and see no cause but a man 
 may say, such a Council shall never err in fundamentals." Bp. 
 Montiigue. Appeal, p. 12.'^. add, more at length, sect. N.
 
 Art. xxi. General Coimcils — distinct from (Ecumenical . 31 
 
 " Though I make it no matter of faith, because deli- 
 vered neither by Scripture nor ApostoHcal tradition, yet I 
 shall number it among the * Pie credibilia,' that no General 
 Council, truly such, 1. duly assembled, 2. freely celebrated, 
 and 5. universally received, either hath erred, or ever 
 shall err, in matters of faith." 
 
 I raav add in illustration, that some of our own 
 Divines'^ instance the Council of Ariminum as a 
 General Council which erred, although in the end 
 confirmed by the Pope Liberius, but not universally 
 received. And herein some of the Divines in the 
 Romish Communion agree. 
 
 " Thus'' AValdensis expressly affirmeth, that ' General 
 Councils have erred and may err, and confidently deli- 
 vcreth, that it is no particular Church that hath assurance 
 of holdino- the truth and not errino- from the faith, neither 
 that of Africa, which Donatus vso much admired, nor the 
 particular Church of Rome, but the Universal Church ; 
 nor that Universal Chui'ch which is gathered together in a 
 General Council, which we have found to have erred 
 sometimes, (as that at Ariminum under Taurus the 
 Governor, and that at Constantinople under Justinian 
 the younger in the time of Sergius the Pope, according to 
 Bede and certain others,) but that Catholic Church of 
 Christ, which hath been dispersed throughout the whole 
 world, by the ministry of the Apostles, and others their 
 successors, ever since the Baptism of Christ, and continued 
 unto these times, which undoubtedly keepeth the true 
 faith and the faithful testimony of Christ, teaching babes 
 heavenly wisdom, and retaining the truth constantly in the 
 midst of all extremities of errors.' " 
 
 " e. g. Field, v. 51. p. 664. 
 
 '' Field, 1. c. p. 663. see other opinions, ibid.
 
 •32 Art. xxi. General Councils — distinct fromCRcumenieal. 
 
 And in this, it should be observed, that there is 
 a drawing near of Divines in the Romish Com- 
 munion to the principles of our Church, not of ours 
 to theirs ; and on the ground which these take in 
 common witli ourselves, they might, if God here- 
 after should give them repentance, rescind the Coun- 
 cil of Trent, as not being a Council truly General 
 or CEcumenical, being neither free, nor adequately 
 representing the whole Church, (but being rather 
 an Italian Council,) nor having been subsequently 
 received by the Church Catholic. But they ap- 
 proach to us, by abandoning what is Romish, and 
 adhering to what is Catholic in their Church, 
 and we maintain what is Catholic and approach 
 not to what is Romish. For it is not the holding 
 CEcumenical Councils not to have erred, or 
 trusting assuredly that they never will err, which 
 approximates to Romanism, but holding that 
 General Councils (be the Bishops present ex- 
 ceeding few, as the non-Italian Bishops at the 
 Council of Trent) are CEcumenical and authori- 
 tative, if confirmed by the Pope. Rather the Ro- 
 manists, in so far as they are such, disparage even 
 CEcumenical C'ouncils, in order to make room for 
 the authority of the Pope. As Field says % 
 
 '* And therefore liowsoever wc dare not pronounce that 
 lawful Cieneral Councils are far from danger of erring, (as 
 some aniong our adversaries do,) yet do we more honour 
 and esteem and more fully admit all the Cieneral Councils, 
 
 ' I.e. \\\.^A. fin.
 
 A/t. XXV. Nnnihcr of Sacra Dients. 'J-'i 
 
 that ever hitherto have been holden, than they do, who 
 fear not to charge some of the chiefest of them witli 
 error, as both the second and the fourth for equalling the 
 Bishop of Constantinople with the Bishop of Rome, which 
 T think they suppose to have lieen an error of faith." 
 
 And this then may serve as an instance how an 
 approximation between us and certain Divines 
 of the Romish Communion does not necessarily 
 imply any advances on our part to Romanism, and 
 may open a prospect (however faint and distant 
 it may now^ be) how, without the sacrifice of any 
 truth, the Church may, on the principles of our 
 own, again, if God vouchsafe, become one. 
 
 Article xxv. 
 
 " These five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to 
 say. Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, Extreme 
 Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gos- 
 pel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt fol- 
 lowing (prava imitatione) of the Apostles, partly from 
 states of life allowed in the Scriptui-es ; but yet have not 
 like nature of sacraments (sacramentorum eandem ratio- 
 nem) with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they 
 have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained by God." 
 
 ft' On the same ground, that our Church did not 
 contradict itself, it is plain that the exposition 
 given of this Article in the Tract is the correct 
 one, that 
 
 «!})" this Article does not deny the five rites in question to 
 be [in some sense] sacraments, but to be Sacraments in 
 the sense in which Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
 Sacraments ; (Sacraments of the Gospel) sacraments with 
 an outward sign ordained of God." 
 
 D
 
 34 Art. XXV. Nvmher of Sacraments. 
 
 For since the Homilies call marriage a " Sacra- 
 ment''," it follows that the Articles do not reject 
 the five rites as being in any sense " Sacraments." 
 They neither restrain " Sacramental rites" to these 
 tive, nor deny that these five may in some larger 
 sense be Sacraments. There is also a remarkable 
 correspondence between the Articles and the Ho- 
 milies, in that both use qualifying and guarded 
 expressions in speaking of the title of these rites 
 to be called " Sacraments." Our Articles do not 
 introduce words at random. It has then some 
 meaning when our Articles say, they " are not 
 to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel," that 
 they " have not like nature of Sacraments j" or the 
 Homilies " that in the exact signification of a Sacra- 
 ment there be but two," or that " Absolution is no 
 .such Sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's Supper 
 are," or that " neither it nor any other Sacrament 
 else be such Sacraments as Baptism and the Com- 
 munion are," or that " the ancient writers in giving 
 the name not only to these five, but also to divers 
 other ceremonies, did not mean to repute them as 
 Sacraments in the same signification as the two ;" or 
 that " S. Augustine, in the exact meaning of the 
 word, makes mention expressly of two." And 
 with this coincides the definition of our Catechism, 
 that there are " two only, generally [i. e. univer- 
 sally] necessary to salvation," the others so entitled, 
 not being of universal obligation, but relating to 
 
 '' Sermon on Swearing, Part I.
 
 Art. XXV. Number of Sacraments. 35 
 
 certain conditions and circumstances of life only. 
 Certainly persons, who denied these rites to be 
 in any way Sacraments, (according to those larger 
 definitions of S. Augustine, '* a sacred sign'" or 
 '* a sign'' applied to things of God,'' or of the 
 Schoolmen' " a sign of a sacred thing,") would 
 have said so at once, and not have so uniformly 
 and guardedly said on each occasion, that they 
 were not such, in the " exact'' or " the same 
 signification," the " exact meaning," " such'' " of 
 the like nature ;" nor, of one which they regarded 
 as in no sense a Sacrament, would they have said 
 ** neither it, nor any other Sacrament else." 
 
 Nor is this, as I have elsewhere'" pointed out, 
 any approximation to the Romish view of the seven 
 Sacraments ; since 1) (which is of most moment) 
 the Romanists studiously confound the difference 
 between the two great Sacraments, which derive 
 into us the very life of our Lord, and the other 
 rites, which may be, and some certainly are, (if 
 faithfully received) means of grace, " but are not, 
 (to use our friend's words" of the two great Sacra- 
 ments) '''■justifying rites, or instruments of com- 
 municating the Atonement, which is the one thing 
 
 * De Civ. D. X. 33. 
 
 '' De Doctr. Christ, iii. 6. quoted by Bp. Jewel, Answ. to 
 Hard. p. 82. 
 
 ' P. Lombard, 1. iv. dist. 1. ib. 
 
 '" Letter to the Bp. of Oxford, p. 106 sqq. 
 
 " Newman on Justification, lect. 6. v. fin. 
 
 D 2
 
 3() Art. XXV. Number of Sacraments. 
 
 necessary to us;" 2) our Church does not, as he 
 also observes, " strictly determine the number." 
 
 This view of tlie relation of these five rites to 
 the tv^o great Sacraments, was clearly stated, 
 without offence, by the sound and judicious Thorn- 
 dike". 
 
 " That which remaineth for this place is, the consider- 
 ation of the nature and number of the Sacraments, which 
 beintr essentially ceremonies of God's service, the right 
 resolution of the controversy concerning it must needs 
 consist in distinguishing the grounds upon which, and the 
 intents to which they are instituted ; the difference 
 whereof must make some properly Sacraments, the rest, 
 either no Sacraments at all, or in a several sense and so to 
 a several purpose. And truly, of all the controversies 
 which (he Reformation hath occasioned, I see not less 
 reason for cither side to stand upon their terms, than in 
 this ; which stands upon the term of a Sacrament, being 
 not found in the Scriptures attributed either to seven or to 
 two. For being taken up by the Church, that is to say, 
 by those writers whom the Church alloweth and ho- 
 noureth, what reason can deny the Church liberty to 
 attribute it to any thing, which the power given the 
 Church enableth it to appoint and to use, for the ob- 
 taining God's blessing upon Christians .'' Why should not 
 any action appointed by the Church to obtain God''s 
 sanctifying grace, by virtue of any promise which the 
 Gospel containeth, be counted a Sacrament .'' At least, 
 supposing it to consist in a ceremony, fit to signify the 
 blessing which it pretendi th to procure. For it is manifest, 
 that liaptism also, and the Eucharist, arc ceremonies 
 bignifying visil)ly that invisible grace, wherewith God 
 uanctificth Christians. Hut then> will be therefore no 
 
 " Epilogue, bcok iii. p. 342.
 
 Art. XXV. Number of Sacraments. 37 
 
 consequence, that Baptism and the Eucharist should be 
 counted Sacraments for the same reason and in the same 
 nature and kind, for which any thing el=e is or can be 
 counted a Sacrament. No, not though they may all in 
 their proper sense be truly called Sacraments of the 
 Church, because the dispensing of them all is trusted with 
 the Church. — These two Sacraments have the promise of 
 grace absolutely so called, that is, of all the grace which 
 the Gospel promiseth ; which it is to be acknowledged and 
 maintained, that no other of those actions, that are or may 
 be called Sacraments of the Church, doth or can do, upon 
 the like terms as they do." 
 
 The distinction which he lays down between 
 the two great Sacraments and the five rites is, 
 that 
 
 "These'' two immediately bring forth God's grace, 
 as instruments of His promise, by His appointment ; the 
 rest must obtain it by the means of God's Church, and the 
 blessing annexed to communion with it." 
 
 '* Upon these terms/' he proceeds to shew that 
 all the other five rites may, in their right use, 
 " very well be counted Sacraments of the Church," 
 and thus sums up'', 
 
 " In fine, the name and notion of a Sacrament, as it 
 hath been duly used by the Church and writers allowed 
 by the Church, extendeth to all holy actions, done by 
 virtue of the office which God hath trusted His Church 
 with in hope of obtaining the grace which He promiseth. 
 Baptism and the Eucharist are actions appointed by God, 
 in certain ci-eatures, utterly impertinent to the effect of 
 
 i' ib. p. 344. '■ ib. p. 349.-
 
 38 Art. XXV. Nvniber of Sacraments. 
 
 grace, setting aside His appointment; but apt to signify all 
 the grace which the Gospel promiseth, by virtue of that 
 correspondence which holds between things visible and 
 sensible, and things intelligible and invisible : both, 
 antecedent for their institution to the foundation of the 
 Church ; the society whereof subscribeth, upon condition 
 of the first, and for communion in the second. The rest 
 are actions appointed to be solemnized in the Church by 
 the Apostles, not always every where precisely with the 
 same ceremonies, but such as always may reasonably serve 
 to signify the graces, which it prays for, on the behalf of 
 them who receive them ; the hope of that Grace being 
 grounded upon God's general promise of hearing the 
 prayers of His Church which the constitution thereof 
 involveth. Nor am I solicitous to make that construction, 
 which may satisfy the decrees of the Councils of Florence 
 and Trent, who have first taken upon them to decree 
 under Anathema, the conceits of the school in reducing 
 them to the number of seven ; but seeing the particulars 
 so qualified by ancient writers in the Church, and the 
 number agreed upon b}' the Greek Church as well as the 
 Latin ; I have acknowledged that sense of their sayings, 
 which the primitive order of the Catholic Church en- 
 forceth. For though Icount it a great abuse to maintain 
 simple Christians in an opinion, that the outward works 
 of them, not supposing the ground upon which, the intent 
 to which, the disposition with which, they are done, 
 secures the salvation of them to whom they are ministered, 
 which opinion the formal ministering of them seemeth to 
 maintain, yet is it a far greater abuse, to place the reform- 
 ation of the Church in abolishing the solemnities rather 
 than in reducing the right understanding of the ground 
 and intent of those offices, which they serve to solenuiize. 
 
 You will well know that neither in this, nor 
 in any thing else which I may allei^e, do I wibli to
 
 Art. XXV. Number qf Sacraments. 39 
 
 assimilate our language to that of the Church of 
 Rome, or even to use that of our HomiUes, when 
 they call Marriage a " Sacrament:" it would be 
 unnatural and affected and worse ; I would (since 
 in these days one must speak of self, and may 
 more naturally in writing to a friend) rather use 
 the language of the fathers as to other things than 
 to these, lest I should seem to be speaking not 
 in a Catholic but in a Romish sense ; yet one need 
 do neither; on the contrary, since the word " Sa- 
 crament" has been misused to place the five rites 
 on a level with the two great Sacraments, and 
 there is no necessity for retaining it, it were wrong 
 and cruel to risk perplexing person's minds by 
 reviving it ; the truth which our Homilies imply 
 may also be conveyed in other ways': but in truth 
 it is not our language, but our feelings towards 
 holy rites, which we need to have altered ; and 
 I feel assured that a more reverend estimation and 
 a more hallowed use of these gifts of the Church, 
 as means whereby grace is bestowed, or enlarged, 
 or restored, so far from placing them on a level 
 with the two high Sacraments, would the rather 
 raise men's veneration for these, as being so far 
 above them. Men's real objection to considering 
 these rites as in any degree " Sacramental," arises, 
 it is to be feared, partly in their low estimate of 
 
 ' e. g. Mysteries, sacramentals, see Hooker, E. P. iv. 1. 2. ed. 
 Keble. Beza calls the impositiou of hands, " this as it were 
 sacrament." lb.
 
 40 Art. XXV. Number of Sacrantents. 
 
 God's gifts thereby, or of the sanctity required of 
 the confirmed, the married, the Priesthood, or of 
 the grievous hindrance which sin interposes to the 
 shining in of Christ's hght and grace upon the soul, 
 which Absolution tends to remove, but partly also 
 in their inadequate thought of the two great Sacra- 
 ments. When these, instead of being instruments 
 of knitting the soul to Christ, are regarded, in the 
 ordinary sense, as " means of grace" only, i. e. 
 aids to spiritual improvement, there is no room 
 for inferior sacramental actions. But if we regard 
 these as instruments of conveying grace, and yet 
 the two Sacraments as so removed above them, as 
 to be instruments of a different kind, then will these 
 the rather take the place which our Lord gave 
 them in the Christian life, as the appointed chan- 
 nels for applying the Atonement to the soul, the 
 communication of Himself and His life. On the 
 other hand, it would tend indefinitely to raise the 
 whole tone of our life and conversation, were we, 
 after the manner of the fathers, to look on holv 
 actions as having in them something sacramental, 
 as being, although inferior to the great Sacraments, 
 employed, in a mysterious way, to convey His 
 grace to us, and so as being mysteries ; if we 
 habitually regarded institutions, some of which 
 are even now accounted " means of grace," as being 
 such, in that (whereby alone they could be such) God 
 gives them power, which of themselves they could 
 pot have, and endows tlieni with hcavenlv virtue;
 
 Art. XXV. Number of Sacraments. 41 
 
 if we looked on God's part in them rather than 
 our own; if we regarded " preaching" such, be- 
 cause He puts His words into our mouths, and 
 " sends His blessing, that His word spoken by our 
 mouths, may have such success that it be not 
 spoken in vain';" or, with those of old, accounted 
 " fasting" sacramental^ because, as our Homily" 
 says, " fasting used with prayer is of great efficacy 
 and weigheth much with God," and " obtaineth 
 notable things at His hand ;" and our Lord says, 
 *' This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fast- 
 ing";" or the " Creed^" because its recital is not 
 only a confession of our faith and a praise of God, 
 but because He makes it a means of deepening in 
 us the faith which we profess; or " prayer %" because 
 it is the voice of God within us to Himself ; or our 
 '* Lord's prayer," because it hath " such wealth of 
 
 • Prayer in Ordination of Priests. 
 
 ' Sacramentum Esuritionis, S. Hilary, ap. Jewel Defence of 
 the Apology, p. '215. 
 
 « On Fasting, Part II. p. 272. 
 
 " Matt. xvii. 21. quoted ib. in proof of the eiRcacy of fasting. 
 
 y " Receiving the Sacrament of the Gospel Creed, inspired by 
 the Lord, instituted by the Apostles, of which the words are few, 
 the mysteries great," Liturgy of Gelasius ap. Ass. cod. lit. i. 11. 
 so also the old Gothic and Galilean (ib. 30 ) speaks of " the 
 Sacrament (or mysterious meaning) of the whole Creed." In 
 the Old Galilean (ib. 41.) the Creed is called " the seal of the 
 Catholic Faith, the Sacrament of eternal life." Much of the 
 language is from S. Augustine, who also (Serm. 228 fin.) speaks 
 of the " Sacrament of the Creed, which they ought to believe, 
 the Sacrament of the Lord's prayer, how they ought to ask.*' 
 
 * S. Hilarv in S. Matt. c. 5.
 
 -12 Art. XXV. Nimiber of Sacraments. 
 
 spiritual virtue," we " offer to God of His own, 
 and the Father recognizes the Son's own words';" 
 or " Holy Scripture''," because it has a Divine 
 power placed within it, as the word emanating 
 from the Word ; or " Martyrdom'," because it 
 is a renewal of Baptism, being a sharing of the 
 Baptism, wherewith our Lord was baptized. 
 
 And, while this would be beneficial to ourselves 
 and no approximation to any error, it could not fail 
 to attract the respect of our brethren in the Romish 
 Communion, when they saw that we denied to these 
 rites the name and character of true Sacraments 
 of Christ, not as undervaluing them as His gifts 
 through His Church, nor from an irreverent habit 
 of mind, but rather from exceeding reverence for 
 those two, — one of which. Holy Baptism, it is the 
 tendency of their own system to lower, but — which 
 are the special witnesses of His Presence in the 
 Church, the pledges of His love, engrafting and 
 cementing the members of His Church into Him- 
 self, and deriving His life into them; those two 
 which issued from His pierced Side, in the hour 
 when our Redemi)tion was completed. 
 
 Article xxviii. 
 
 " Transuhstantiation, or the chanfrc of the substance 
 of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be 
 
 * S. Cyprian de Oiat. Doiii, §. 5. and 1. he speaks §. 6. of the 
 " Sacraments of the Lord's prayer." See also S. Aug. note y. 
 '' S. Hil. ap. Jewel, 1. c. 
 ' S. Jerome Ep. 69. ad Ocean, quoted ib.
 
 Art. xxviii. Transubstantiation. 43 
 
 proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain 
 words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacra- 
 ment, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." 
 
 A right notion of what is meant by Transub- 
 stantiation is of the more importance to us, because 
 there is no more common hindrance to the re- 
 ception of the true doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, 
 than the confused ideas prevalent about it. No- 
 thing is more common than for any high statements 
 of that doctrine to be attacked under the name of 
 Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation. Persons 
 acknowledge in act, (there is reason to trust,) what 
 they dare not reahze in words. They rightly 
 dread the gross and carnal doctrine, rejected by our 
 Church as Transubstantiation ; they rightly shrink 
 from that of Consubstantiation, as being an ap- 
 proach to it; and more justly might they reject both 
 doctrines as novel, unauthorized, and rationaliz- 
 ing ways of explaining the mode of Divine mys- 
 teries ; " how these things can be." But not 
 having any clear notions what is meant by these 
 statements, they dread to acknowledge any spiritual 
 unseen presence of that blessed Body and Blood, 
 and thus incur the risk of losing much of the 
 awe with which those holy Mysteries should be 
 approached and received, the belief of the actual- 
 ness of their own union with Christ, the realitv of 
 their being temples of the Holy Ghost, and their 
 own consequent consecration, and the comforts 
 which they might also have in the belief of this 
 union of earth and Heaven, of their real incorpo-
 
 44 Art. xx\ iii, Tr(W substantia it on. 
 
 ration in the mystical Body of their Lord, and 
 their receiving in themselves the pledge of their 
 Resurrection, the earnest of their acceptance at 
 the Day of Judgment. Not knowing what Pre- 
 sence it is which is implied in the doctrine of 
 Transubstanliation, as defined in the Roman 
 schools, and popularly received, they shrink from 
 holding any actual Presence at all, other than in 
 the believer's soul, which they dimly apprehend ; 
 not knowing what change is implied by Transub- 
 stantiation, they dread to avow that there is any 
 change at all, but look on the consecrated elements, 
 as remaining simply what they were before, and 
 what to sight they seem. This is a very serious 
 practical evil ; and I have stated but the least 
 portion of it ; for it is doubtless one concurrent 
 cause why many, it is to be feared, think of the 
 Holy Eucharist solely as a commemorative rite, 
 approach it and depart from it carelessly, or are 
 lukewarm about it, and neglect it altogether. The 
 infre(|uency of our Comnmnions has been abated, 
 the devoutness of Communicants (as vou will 
 yourself have observed in this place among others) 
 has much increased, in proportion as the higher 
 doctrines have been received. 
 
 In opi)osition then to these vague aj)j)rehensions, 
 our IViend has stated what the doctrine of Transub- 
 stanliation oj)posed in the Articles is ; 
 
 " 'I'lic ^hockin;^ doelriiif, lIiHt ' the Body of Christ,' as 
 ili( Aiiulc g«KP f)n to express it, is not ' p,ivcii, taken, and
 
 Arl. xxviii. TrdXsubsUijtlialiou. 45 
 
 eaten after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is 
 carnally pressed with the teeth ;"" that it is a body or sub- 
 stance of a certain extension and bulk in space, and a 
 certain figure and the due disposition of parts, whereas we 
 hold that the only substance such, is the bread which we 
 see." 
 
 And a little afterwards'', in summing up, 
 
 " 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 ' niutatio panis et vini,' 
 is denying every kind of change, but opposes itself to 
 a certain plain and unambiguous statement, not of this 
 or tliat 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 or- 
 ganized "^ body, extended in size, distinct in its parts, 
 which is thei'e 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,* 
 ' accidents,' or the like, seem, more or less, questions of 
 words, and inadequate expressions of the great offence 
 which we find in the received Roman views of this sacred 
 doctrme. 
 
 " p. 5 1. 
 ,.:^ * 6. g. Bonaventura in answer to the question, *• Whether the 
 Body of Christ is on the Altar in its own natural dimensions" 
 (quantitas) argues, " The Body of Christ is living; and if living, 
 organic ; and if organic, hath dimensions (si organicum, quantum), 
 therefore if on the Altar it be not detached from life, neither is it 
 from dimensions," also " The Body of Christ or Christ sees 
 them and hears, although It speaks not, lest It be discovered, 
 but the outfvard senses presuppose dimensions; therefore it is 
 there in dimension." L. iv. dist. 10. art. i. q. 2.
 
 46 Art. xxviii, Trcmsiibstantiation. 
 
 One may add, that the same appears from the 
 very words of the Article itself, for it is this carnal 
 doctrine alone which " is repugnant to the plain 
 words of Scripture," (in that S. Paul speaks of 
 that received bv Communicants as " bread,'* 
 1 Cor. X. 17. xi. 27, 28.) it also " overthroweth 
 the nature of a Sacrament, *' as beipg " an out- 
 ward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace," 
 whereas on this theory of Transubstantiation what 
 we see would not be a sign but the reality. 
 
 The same view^ of the Article, that it is " not 
 any change which is meant,'* is given by Bishop 
 Jewel ; 
 
 " We affirm that the bread and wine are the lioly and 
 heavenly mysteries of the IJody and Blood of Christ, and 
 that by them Christ Himself, being the true Bread of 
 eternal life, is so presently given unto us, as that by faith 
 we verily received His Body and Blood. Yet say we not 
 this so as though we thought, that the nature and sub- 
 stance of the bread and wine is clearly changed and goeth 
 to nothing." 
 
 Or to take the statement of a modern Ro- 
 manist '', commenting on the articles of Trent, 
 
 " The bread and wine after consecration are in the eyes 
 of faith nothing else than the Body and Blood of Jesus 
 Christ, not that the bread and wine are annihilated, but 
 l)ccause faith thenceforth contemplates there nothing but 
 ihe Presence of Jesus Christ. This is the sense in which 
 the ancients spoke of a cliange, but this is not that of the 
 
 *• Ci)nrayer on 1'. Sarpi Hist, du Cone, du Trente, 1. iv. t. i. 
 p. 623.
 
 Art. xxviii. Transubstantiation. 47 
 
 Council, which teaches that the whole substance of bread 
 and wine is annihilated^ and that there remains nothing 
 but the accidents and appearances. This was then the 
 received doctrine of the Roman schools, although even to 
 the present day many of their theologians give this 
 opinion only as one simply probable." 
 
 The more common statement among the School- 
 men, and in Bellarmine% differs in words only, 
 
 '* The bread is in truth not annihilated, although 
 nothing remains of it after the consecration" 
 
 It is intended only to convey the same doc- 
 trine with more philosophical accuracy, inasmuch 
 as "annihilation" implies "not merely '' that 
 nothing remains of a thing, but that it passeth 
 into nothing," " but the elements are not supposed 
 to be reduced to nothing, but to be changed as 
 to their entire substance," " into a better sub- 
 stance," i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 The other mode of speaking, however, also oc- 
 curred ^. 
 
 This, and no other, is the doctrine of Transub- 
 stantiation opposed by our Articles and our great 
 writers ; they confess fully the reality of Christ's 
 Presence in the Sacrament, they only do not 
 define the mode of His Presence ; they will not so 
 tie down the Omnipotence of Almighty God that 
 the Bread and Wine should not also be the Body 
 
 " De Euch. iii. 18. 
 
 •' Bonav. 1. iv, (list. xi. q. 3. " What is changed into any 
 thing is not annihilated." Thom. Aq. 1. iv. Hist. xi. q. 1. art. 2. 
 e It is mentioned by P. Lombard, 1. iv. dist. xi. art. 2.
 
 48 Art. xx\iii. Tfanmibatanliation. 
 
 and Blood of Christ ; they agree with Catholic 
 antiquity that there is a change, but only not such 
 a change, whereby (in Bishop Jewel's words) 
 " the nature and substance of bread and wine 
 goeth to nothing." This is the received doctrine 
 in the Romish Church, though happily (one must 
 in candour add) not so defined in the Council 
 of Trent. 
 
 I need not, for your information, set down any of 
 these passages ; this contrast runs through all our 
 writers ; a real change, as I said, they gladly 
 accept ; a true, real, substantial. Sacramental, 
 Presence of our Lord and His Flesh, the Very 
 Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary, and 
 is now glorified at God's right hand, they reverently 
 confess ; they only confess not, that carnal, 
 scholastic theory which would explain away the 
 Mystery, that the Elements, although the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, are also Bread and Wine. 
 They confess the truth ; the mode of its being they 
 leave, like the mystery of the Incarnation whence 
 it is derived, undefined because incomprehensible 
 by man. 
 
 Thus, to take some, for the most part already 
 collected to our hands. 
 
 Bishop Ridley ^ 
 
 " Both you and I a<rree in this; that in the Sacrament 
 is ihe very, true, and natural, Body and Blood of Christ; 
 
 • Fox, Acts and Mon. p. 159B, quoted by Laud against 
 Kibher, §. 35-
 
 Art. xxviii. Trcmsubstantiation. 49 
 
 even that which was born of tlie Virgin Mary ; which 
 ascended into heaven ; which sits on the right hand of God 
 the Father; which shall come from thence to judge the 
 quick and the dead; only we differ in jjiodo, in the way 
 and manner of being. We confess all one thing to be in 
 the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of being there. 
 I confess Christ's natural Body to be in the Sacrament by 
 spirit and grace, &c. You make a grosser kind of being, 
 inclosing a natural Body under the shape and form of Bread 
 and Wine." 
 
 And Bishop Andrews ^ 
 
 " The Cardinal is not, unless ' willingly, ignorant,' that 
 Christ hath said, ' This is My Body,' not ' This is not 
 My Body in this vtode.' Now about the object we are 
 both agreed ; all the controvers}' is about the w«o(/e. The 
 * This is,' we firmly believe ; that ' it is in this mode' (the 
 bread, namely, being transubstantiated into the Body), 
 or of the mode whereby it is wrought that ' it is,' whether 
 in, or with, or under, or transubstantiated, there is not a 
 word in the Gospel. And because not a word is there, 
 we rightly detach it from being a matter of faith ; we may 
 place it amongst the decrees of the schools, not among the 
 articles of faith. What Durandus is reported to have 
 said of old, (Neand. Synop. Chron. p. 203.) we approve 
 of. ' We hear the word, feel the effect, know not the 
 manner, believe the Presence.' The Presence, I say, 
 we believe, and that no less true than yourselves. Of the 
 mode of the Presence, we define nothing rashly, nor, I 
 add, do we curiously enquire ; no more than how the 
 Blood of Christ cleanseth us in our Baptism ; no more 
 than how in the Incarnation of Christ the human nature 
 is united into the same Person with the Divine. We rank 
 it among Mysteries, (and indeed the Eucharist itself is a 
 
 ' Answer to Bellarmine, c. i. p. II. 
 E
 
 dO Art. xxviii. Tratuubstantiation. 
 
 mystery,) * that which remaineth, ought to be burnt with 
 fire,' (Ex. xii. 13.) that is, as the Fathers elegantly ex- 
 press it, to be adored by faith, not examined by reason." 
 
 And Bishop Montague ^, (alleging Bishop Bil- 
 Bon,) 
 
 " The disagreement is only in de modo praesentiae, the 
 thing is yielded to on either side, that there is in the holy 
 Eucharist a real Presence. ' God forbid,'' saith Bishop 
 Bilson, ' we should deny that the Flesh and Blood of 
 Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful 
 at the Lord's table. It is the doctrine that we teach 
 others, and comfort ourselves withal." (p. 779 of the sub- 
 ject.) 
 
 And again '\ 
 
 '* Be contented with, that it is " The Body of Christ," 
 and do not seek and define how it is so, and we shall not 
 contest nor contend, which God forbid the Church of 
 England should maintain, said Bishop Bilson." 
 
 Bishop Forbes '. 
 
 ♦' The doctrine of those Protestants and others seems 
 most safe and true, who are of opinion, nay, most firmly 
 believe, that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly, really^ 
 and substantially present in the Eucharist, and received, 
 but in a manner incomprehensible in respect of human 
 reason and ineffable, known to God alone, and not re- 
 vealed to us in the Scriptures, not corporal, yet neither in 
 the mind alone, or tiirougli faith alone, but in another 
 way, known, as was said, to God alone, and to be left to 
 His Omnipotence." 
 
 < Appeal, c. .'^0. init. p. 289. 
 
 h ib. fin. p. 297. 
 
 ' CoDsid. Modestae, De Euchar. 1. i. c. i. §. 7.
 
 Aft. xxviii. T/onsubstantiaHon. J^\ 
 
 Archbishop Laud ^. 
 
 '♦ His Altar, as the greatest place of God's residence 
 upon earth, (I say the greatest,) yea, greater than the 
 pulpit. For there 'tis ' Hoc est Corpus Meum,' ' This is 
 My Body.' But in the pulpit 'tis at most, ' Hoc est 
 verbum Meum,' ' This is My word.' And a greater 
 reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body than to the word 
 of our Lord. And so in relation, answerably to the 
 throne, where His Body is usually present, than to the 
 seat where His word useth to be proclaimed." 
 
 Bp. Taylor again fully admits, that the terms 
 " real," " substantial," and even " corporeal," 
 Presence might have a sound sense, if this last 
 be understood as opposed to " figurative" or " in 
 type ;" and that the very words of the article of 
 Trent, " the Saviour is sacramentally present with 
 us in His Substance," 
 
 ** if they might be understood in the sense, in which 
 the Protestants use them, that is, really, truly, without 
 fiction or the help of fancy, but " in rei veritate" so as 
 Philo calls spiritual things, avayxaioTaraj oixrlui, ' most 
 necessary, useful, and material substances,' might become 
 an instrument of united confession." 
 
 Nor does he hesitate to acknowledge what some, 
 accustomed to the modern generalizing way of 
 speaking, would at once identify with Transubstan- 
 tiation, that by the " real Presence" is meant the 
 
 k 
 
 Speech in the Star Chamber [637, p. 47. 
 • Of the Keal Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrament init. 
 
 E 2
 
 52 Art. xxviii. Transuhstantiation. 
 
 Presence of that very Body which our Blessed 
 Saviour took of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 " It is 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 
 Mary,' 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 ; but he that says, 
 that Body is glorified, which was crucified, says, it is the 
 same Body, but not after the same manner : and so it is 
 in the Sacrament, We eat and drink the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, that was broken and poured forth : for there 
 is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ : but though 
 it is the same we eat and drink, yet it is in another 
 manner. 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 St. Hierom, as Clemens 
 Alcxandrinus expressly affirm, the meaning is easy; they 
 intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense." 
 
 1 would add one more extract on the Presence 
 of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, both as containing 
 in itself several other testimonies, and as occurring 
 in a Charge", animadverting upon some of the 
 language used on other subjects in our Tracts. 
 
 " When any of us speak of this great mystery in terms 
 best suited to its spiritual nature ; when, for instance, we 
 speak of the real l^resencc of Christ's Body and Blood 
 in the Holy Eucharist, there is raised a cry, as if we were 
 symbolizing with the Church of Rome, and as if this 
 
 "^ V. ib. i 8. 
 
 " Bishop of Exelei'.s (Charge, p. 69 — 71.
 
 Art. xxviii. Transubstantiation. 53 
 
 Presence, because it is real, can be nothing else than the 
 gross, carnal, corporeal, presence indicated in Transubstan- 
 tiation. Now here, as with respect to Baptism, I will not 
 argue the point, but will merely refer to the language of 
 our Church in those authorized declarations of its doctrine 
 to which we have assented, and in those formularies which 
 we have both expressly approved and solemnly engaged 
 to use. 
 
 " It is very true, that none of these declarations or 
 formularies use the phrase ' real Presence ;' and there- 
 fore, if any should attempt to impose the use of that 
 phrase as necessary, he would be justly open to censure 
 for requiring what the Church does not require. But, 
 on the other hand, if we adopt the phrase, as not only 
 aptly expressing the doctrine of the Church, but also as 
 commended to our use by the practice of the soundest 
 Divines of the Church of England, in an age more dis- 
 tinguished for depth, as well as soundness, of T'heology 
 than the present — such as Abp. Bramhall°, SliarpP, and 
 Wake', (all of whom do not only express their own 
 judgment, but also are witnesses of the general judgment 
 of the Church in, and before, their days ; ' No genuine 
 son of the Church of England,' says Bramhall, * did ever 
 deny a true real Presence;') if, I say, we adopt the phrase, 
 used by such men as these, and even by some of those, 
 who at the Reformation sealed with their blood their tes- 
 timony to the Truth against the doctrine of Rome, (1 
 allude especially to Bishops Ridley and Latimer' — and 
 even to Cranmer, who, when he avoided the phrase so 
 abused by the Romanists, did yet employ equivalent 
 
 " Works, i. p. 15. 
 
 '' Sermons, vol. vii. p. 368. 
 
 ' Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, c, 2, •' Of the real Pre- 
 sence acknowledged by the Church of England. ' 
 
 • Ridley in Fox, p. 61. Latimer ib. p. 65. Cranmer, Preface to 
 book against Gardiner, &c.
 
 w4 Art. xxviii. Transubstantiation. 
 
 words,) it will be sufficient for the justification both of 
 them and of us to shew, tliat the languase of the Church 
 itself does in fact express the same thing though in dif- 
 ferent terms. Still, I fully admit, that Christian discre- 
 tion would bid us forbear from the use of the phrase, if 
 the objection to it were founded on a sincere apprehension 
 of giving offence to tender consciences ; and not, as there 
 is too much reason to believe, on an aversion to the great 
 truth which it is employed to express." 
 
 Again, Thorndike* thus speaks of the change 
 made by Consecration, only denying it to be such 
 a change as involves the abolition of the Elements. 
 
 •' Upon these premises, I am content to go to issue as 
 concerning the sense of the Catholic Church in this point. 
 If it can any where be shewed, that the Church did ever 
 pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead 
 of the elements, under the accidents of them, then I am 
 content, that this be counted henceforth the Sacramental 
 presence of them in the Eucharist. But if the Church 
 only prav that the Spirit of Cxod, coming down upon the 
 elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ, 
 so that they which received them niay be filled with the 
 grace of ITis Spirit ; then is it not the sense of the 
 Catholic Church, that can oblige any man to believe the 
 abolishing of the elements, in their bodily substance; 
 because, supposing that they remain, they may neverthe- 
 less become the instrument of God"'s Spirit to convey the 
 operation tliereof to them that are disposed to receive it, 
 no otherwise than His Flesh and Blood conveyed the 
 efficacy thereof upon earth. And that I suppose is 
 reason enough, to call it the Body and Blood of Christ 
 Sacramentally, that is to say, as in the Sacrament of the 
 F,ucharist. It i? not here to be denied, that all Ecclesias- 
 
 ' Kpilogue iii. 4. p. 30.
 
 Art. xxviii. Transuhstantiation. 56 
 
 tical writers do, with one mouth, bear witness to the 
 Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucha- 
 rist. 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. And upon this account, when 
 they speak of the elements, supposing the consecration to 
 have passed upon them, they always call them by the 
 name not of their bodily substance, but of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ which they are become." 
 
 And, after having shewn this in detail, he thus 
 sums up the evidence" of the Fathers, in contradis- 
 tinction to the modern view which w^ould make the 
 only Presence of Christ in the behever's soul, and 
 that as resulting, not from the consecrating words, 
 but from the believer's faith. 
 
 " I will go no further in rehearsing the texts of the 
 Fathers, which are to be foimd in all books of contro- 
 versies concerning this, for the examination of them 
 requires a volume on purpose. It shall be enough, that 
 they all acknowledge the elements to be changed, trans- 
 lated, 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." 
 
 He then establishes " on the other side'' that 
 this change is to be understood with that abate- 
 ment, which the nature and substance of the 
 elements requires, supposing it to remain the same 
 as it was," shewing from the same authors'", and from 
 
 • p. 31. "p. 32, 3. y p. 33, 4.
 
 56 Art. xxviii. Tj'ansuhstantiation. 
 
 the Canon of the Mass, that they imply that " the 
 heavenly grace hinders not, nor destroys the earthly 
 nature," and thus concludes : 
 
 " And upon these premises, I conclude, that, as it is 
 by no means to be denied that the elements are really 
 changed, translated, turned, and converted into the Body 
 and Blood of Christ ; (so that whoso receiveth them with 
 a living faith, is spiritually nourished by the same, he 
 that with a dead faith, is guilty of crucifying Christ ;) yet 
 is not this change destructive of the bodily substance of 
 the elements, but cumulative of them, with the spiritual 
 grace of Christ's Body and Blood ; so that the Body and 
 Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, turns to the nourish- 
 ment of the body, whether the Body and Blood in the 
 truth, turn to the nourishment and damnation of the 
 soul." 
 
 Again, such writers as Bp. Cosins and the holy 
 Bp. Ken, think it no contradiction to the words 
 of our rubric that " the natural Body and Blood of 
 our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here," 
 to aflfirm that " Christ's Flesh comes to us to be 
 our food," that " Christ Who is in heaven, is also 
 on the Altar," i. e. that He is there really, though 
 not in a carnal manner. 
 
 Bp. Cosins^ 
 
 " Wc confess with the Fathers, that the ' mode' 
 is incfTable and unsearchable, that is, not to be enquired 
 and searched into by reason, but to be believed by faith 
 alone. For although it seems incrcdil)lc, that in so great a 
 tlistance of place, Christ's Flesh should come to us, to be 
 
 '^ Hist. Trans, c. 3. 5:. 3.
 
 Art. xxviii, Transubstantiation. 67 
 
 pur food; yet we must remember, how much the power of 
 the Holy Spirit is above our understanding, and how 
 foolish it is to measure His immensity by our capacity. 
 But what our understanding comprehends not, let faith 
 conceive." 
 
 Bp. Ken*. 
 
 " O God Incarnate, how Thou canst give us Thy 
 Flesh to eat and Thy Blood to drink ; how Tiiy 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 omnipotence, to make good Thy 
 word, though the manner of doing it I cannot compre- 
 hend." 
 
 Of course, great care and wisdom must be used 
 by any in reclaiming a term, which, like that of the 
 " real Presence," has acquired a sense very different 
 from its original, lest they seem to be using it in a 
 Romish, rather than in a Catholic, sense ; and 
 indeed, on this whole subject, great reverence is 
 needed, that none take a sort of pleasure in re- 
 claiming words, because the use of them is now 
 unwonted ; for myself, I have preferred keeping 
 to the words of our formularies ; they are so full of 
 doctrine that one seems to need no more, and they 
 come with authority ; yet other turns of expres- 
 sion, such as are sanctioned by some of the great 
 writers above quoted, that * the Body and Blood 
 of Christ are really present,' might often be adopted 
 without offence, when the words ' real Presence' 
 
 * Exposition of Church Catechism, licensed 1685.
 
 68 Art. xxviii. T ransubstantiation. 
 
 would, from long use, rather suggest to the mind 
 the Romish mode of defining that Presence. But, 
 whether any use the term or no in ordinary in- 
 struction, it is very important to vindicate it in 
 the abstract, and shew that our Church in excepting 
 against Transubstantiation, objects only to the 
 scholastic mode of explaining the great doctrine 
 which she holds, — a true, ' real Presence.' 
 
 It will be familiar to you, that scarcely any 
 argument is now more common among Romanist 
 controversialists than one founded on the wrong 
 use of this term ; they prove, at once, from 
 Scripture, the doctrine of the " Real Presence," 
 and then infer (as though involved in it) that of 
 Transubstantiation% i. e. they affirm the truth, and 
 then infer from it their own mode of defining that 
 truth ; and whereas our writers above quoted affirm 
 that the question between us relates not to the 
 Presence, but to the mode of the Presence, these, 
 having proved the Sacred Presence, assume the 
 only point at issue, the mode of the Presence. And 
 this is, on their part, not unnatural, as having, 
 
 ' Dr. Wiseman, Lectures 183(i, Lect. 14 — 16, entitled on 
 " Transubstantiation." In the Advertisement to vol. 2. it is 
 fcaid, " the tenth lecture was upon the Ileal Presence or Tran- 
 substantiation," as thougii they were altogether the same. So 
 also Dr. Butler's" Truths of the Catholic ileligion," Lect 1 — 5. 
 Bcliarniine treats the two doctrines (as they are) as distinct; 
 the " Real Presence," de sacr. i'.uch. 1. i. ii. Transubstantiation 
 or •' the mode of the existence of the Body of the Lord in the 
 F.ucharint." 1. iii.
 
 Art. xxxi. Sacrijices 0/ Masseg. 5d 
 
 out of our Church, to do with those who deny 
 any peculiar Presence of Christ in the Sacrament ; 
 yet, on the other hand, will it tend to draw^ away 
 from our Church those of affectionate minds and 
 childlike belief, who, seeking a real, substantial, 
 union with their Redeemer, — to be, by the com- 
 munication of His Body and Blood " verily and 
 indeed'^ to their souls, knit in one to Him, " be 
 one with Him and He with them,'^ — are, through 
 inadequate statements of the reality of this holy 
 Mystery, taught to seek in the Romish Communion, 
 what is stored up for them in our own. Such minds 
 enter not into any of the difficulties of the Roman 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation ; they acknowledge 
 it, not in the sense of ihe Roman schools, but as 
 implying the same real change which our own 
 authors assert ; they acquiesce in it as a name, 
 but believe, under that name, that doctrine only, 
 for whose sake they received it, the real true 
 unfigurative Presence of their Redeeming Lord. 
 
 Article xxxi. 
 
 *' The sacrifices (sacrificia) of Masses in which it was 
 commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the 
 quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, 
 were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits (perni- 
 ciosae imposturae). 
 
 In explanation of this Article, our friend con-
 
 60 jirt. xxxi. Sacrifices of Masses. 
 
 tends, that by the " sacrifices of masses" is not 
 meant " the sacrifice of the Mass ;" much less then 
 the Primitive practice of commemorating the 
 faithful departed at the Holy Eucharist, or the 
 belief that they derived benefit thereby. He 
 says, 
 
 " Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in 
 which the special question of doctrine would be in- 
 troduced ; but the sacrifice of Masses, certain observances 
 for the most part private and solitary, which the writers 
 of the Articles saw before their eyes and knew to have 
 been In force in time past, and which involved certain 
 opinions and a certain teaching."" 
 
 And this, one should think, was sufficiently 
 clear, 1) from the language of the Article itself, for 
 why should it be supposed that " the sacrifice*' 
 of Masses" meant " the sacrifice in the Mass?" 
 
 2) from the language of writers of the time, who 
 by " Masses" always mean " private Masses'"." 
 
 3) They were the " private Masses" alone, which 
 were said for the sake of gain, or were a source of 
 
 » e. g. In Sir T. More's, Supplication of souls, they say, " we 
 have been eased and liolpen and relieved both by the priests' 
 prayers, of good virtuous people, and especially by the daily 
 masses and other ghostly suflrages of priests, religious, and folk 
 of Holy Church;" (quoted at length, Tract 81. p. 9.) add 
 Cranmer, Defence of the Catholic Doctrine v. 16. (quoted ib. 
 p. 1 I .) where he contrasts the " many masses every day," " the 
 daily private masses," " the selling masses," with " the one 
 common mass in a day," still existing in the Greek Church.
 
 Art. XX xi. Sacrifices of 3Iasses. 61 
 
 gain, which our Article condemns as " perniciosee 
 imposturae." This he has sufficiently illustrated 
 out of the Homilies, Bishop Bull, Burnet, and even 
 the Council of Trent, or to add one passage only 
 out of Bishop Jewel ''. 
 
 " Then ye began to tell the simple that it was suffi- 
 cient for them to sit by ; that your mass was a propitiatory 
 sacrifice for their sins; that it was available unto them, 
 ex opere operato, although they understood not what 
 it meant : that you had power to apply it to quick and 
 dead, and to whom ye listed ; and that the very hearing 
 thereof, of itself was meritorious. Upon this foundation 
 ye erected up your Chanteries, your Monasteries, your 
 pardons, your supererogations, and I know not what. 
 Thus was the Holy Communion quite forgotten. Thus 
 were your Masses multiplied above number. Thus ye 
 came by that ye would have called your old gold." 
 
 The very point objected to by Bp. Jewel through- 
 out this Article is " the plurality of masses;" the 
 very form of Legacy was, that " masses" might 
 be said for the soul of the departed, and these were 
 private, special, masses (not the public service of 
 the Mass) applied, as our Article says, to " quick 
 and dead," or, as Bp. Jewel, " to whom ye listed." 
 It was held in the Schools, that particular masses 
 were more profitable to the souls in Purgatory than 
 the mass. Bonaventura" says, 
 
 " Suffrages are to release from pain or guilt; but it is 
 
 ^ Answer to Harding, Art. 13. Plurality of Masses, Dis. 3. 
 " L. iv. ol. 45. art. "2. q. 3.
 
 62 Art. xxxi. Sacrifices of Masses. 
 
 more to make satisfaction for the debt of many than of 
 one, and satisfaction is made more easily for the debt of 
 one than of many ; therefore two need more suffrages 
 than one ; therefore, if they are divided between them, 
 each has less ; therefore, it does not seem that it extends 
 equally to all." 
 
 It was also held, that whereas the " suffrages'' of 
 the Church in common benefitted most, cseteris 
 paribus, those who most deserved to be benefitted, 
 those offered specially, benefitted those most for 
 whom they were performed ;" and this they must 
 hold, since, if their special masses did not most 
 benefit those for whom they were offered, " the 
 Church'' which offered them did absurdly." 
 
 Of course, as far as the ordinary oblation of the 
 mass was considered as relating to the same ends, 
 the Romish doctrine would be condemned in it 
 also; but there is this difference, that the erroneous 
 doctrine was the sole foundation and groundwork 
 of the particular masses, it was their whole sub- 
 stance ; as Bonaventura says, they had no other 
 object or ground, than the belief, that the masses 
 said specially for departed souls, benefitted them, 
 (in the words of the Article,) " to have remission 
 of pain or guilt ;" whereas, as no such end is 
 expressed in the Canon of the Mass, so it is also 
 an appendage only to its doctrine, engrafted in 
 later times upon it. Thus, the special masses drew 
 men's thoughts entirely to themselves ; what was 
 
 " lb.
 
 Art, xxxi. Saciijices of Masses. <J3 
 
 supposed to be effected by the public sacrifice of 
 the mass for the relief of souls in Purgatory was 
 general only ; no one could feel assured what share 
 in the benefit his own friends had ; it would be 
 (in the doctrine of the Schools) " according to his 
 deserts:" the special " masses," on the contrary, 
 afforded a definite relief; they had no other end 
 in view than that of applying to the relief of the 
 individuals the infinite merits of Christ ; they con- 
 centrated the benefits of the Meritorious Sacrifice 
 of the Cross, which they were thought to renew, 
 upon the " remission of pain and guilt" of a 
 single soul. I cannot then but think that the 
 writers of the Article had, as our friend says, the 
 " private, special, masses" mainly in view, although 
 including the " public mass" as far as in doctrine 
 it agreed with them. 
 
 And this doctrine it is important for people 
 to view distinctly, lest, taking the words in a 
 vague way, they should involve Cathohc truth in 
 the Romish error against which our Article is 
 directed. In this Article, then, the popular Romish 
 doctrine is described as a whole, that in *' the sacri- 
 fices of masses" as " was commonly said," " the 
 priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have 
 remission of pain and guilt." This is condemned as 
 a whole, and it is obviously no legitimate interpre- 
 tation to omit a portion of this doctrine, and infer 
 that the writers of the Article would have con- 
 demned the rest without it. The errors it pre-
 
 (14 Art. xxxi. Sacrifices of Masses. 
 
 supposes are the Romish doctrines of Transubstan- 
 tiation and Purgatory, which are condemned 
 elsewhere separately, to which it here adds the 
 " common" statement of the doctrine of the " sa- 
 crifices of masses," which readily follows upon 
 Transubstantiation, the " repetition of the sacrifice 
 of Christ." It presupposes that the departed for 
 whom it was offered, were held to be in a state of 
 " pain and guilt," to obtain remission of them by 
 that oflfering, and that, not an oblation or sacrifice 
 commemorative of the One Sacrifice, and thereby 
 acceptable to God, but of Christ Himself. " Then 
 if the Priest do offer the Sacrament, he doth 
 offer indeed Christ Himself'." Any doctrine 
 which does not involve these statements is not 
 the doctrine condemned by the Articles. This 
 Bishop Ridley himself might alone shew, for he 
 states his objection to the Romish doctrine of the 
 Sacrifice to be founded on the error of Tran- 
 substantiation. " Transubstantiation is the very 
 foundation, whereon all their erroneous doctrine 
 doth stand ;" and " This kind of oblation [the 
 Romish] standeth upon Transubstantiation his 
 cousin-german, and they do both grow upon the 
 same ground." And the celebrated dictum of 
 Bishoj) Andrewes', which has j)assed almost into 
 a proverbial statement of the principles of our 
 
 "' Respons. ad Card. Bell. c. 8. 
 
 * Brief Declaration of ilie Lord's Supper, p. G. 17. 16. quoted 
 more at length, Tract 81. ]>. 10.
 
 AfL xxxi. Sacrifices of Masses. (ji> 
 
 Church, is but a following out of this of Bishop 
 Ridley, " Do ye take away from the mass your 
 Transubstanliation, and we shall not long have 
 any question about the Sacrifice." Bp. Jewel 
 also in like words', states this to be the only point 
 at issue. " S. Cyprian saith, ' we offer our Lord's 
 cup mixed with wine/ But he saith not as you 
 say, * we offer up the Son of God substantially 
 and really unto the Father.' Take away only 
 this blasphemy wherewith you have deceived the 
 world, and then talk of mingling the cup, and 
 of the Sacrifice whilst ye list." They are not 
 the words then, " offer Christ," which are in them- 
 selves condemned, but the doctrine of a real sacrifice 
 of Christ Himself, distinct from the sacrifice of 
 the Cross; the words may be found in Christian 
 Antiquity, but not in this meaning, whereas in 
 those later times it certainly was again and again 
 stated, that there was in the Holy Eucharist not 
 only a sacramental oblation of His sacrifice, 
 pleading Its merits, and so obtaining mercy from 
 God, but " a real and true sacrifice of the Son 
 of God''," by virtue of Transubstantiation ; "a 
 sacrifice," in the words of a recent apologist % 
 " truly real, because Jesus Christ is really therein 
 
 •^ Defence of Apology, p. 2, c. 5. v. fin, p. 140. 
 
 •^ See Courayer's comment on Bishop Jewel's objections to 
 Harding's statements of the doctrine, Defense de la Diss, sur la 
 validity des Ordin. Angl. iv. 6. quoted Tract 81, p. 44 — 46. 
 
 ^ Dr. Butler, lect. 8. p. 228. 
 
 F
 
 (jt) -4y7. xxxi. Sac rijices of Masses. 
 
 contained, and really in it, under the symbols 
 of His Passion, offered up to His Eternal Father :" 
 and it is used as an argument ^ of the infinite 
 value of that Sacrifice, that " the thing offered is 
 of infinite dignity, inasmuch as whole Christ is 
 offered." It is the corporeal offering of the Son of 
 God which alone is objected to. Again, the words 
 " to have remission of pain and guilt" restrain the 
 condemnation in the Article to the application of 
 Masses to souls in Purgatory ; "■ the Sacrifice ^ 
 benefits also very much the faithful departed who 
 are being purged in Purgatory, to the mitigation 
 and payment of punishments. This is to be held 
 as matter of faith, as is clear from the Council of 
 Trent, cap. 22. can. 3." 
 
 It is only questioned in the Roman schools 
 whether it confers this benefit by the very act of 
 offering (ex opere operate) or by way of impetration ; 
 
 '* It benefits'' in both ways, some deny that it doth 
 by the mere act of offering, as Melch. Canus, Dom. 
 Soto, for they say that this sacrifice has not an infallible 
 effect, but ' if God so will.'' Whence it appears, that 
 it docs not benefit ex opcre operato, since the fruit 
 of this is altogether infalhble in one capable of it, who 
 does not place an}' bar ; but the contrary is more pro- 
 bable, as held by Ricardus, art. 6. P. Soto. Lect. 7. 
 de Euch. 1). Thoni. P. iv. D. 45. q. 2. n. 3. ad 3." "It 
 
 ' Less, do l*urg. art. i. diil). 10. 
 « Less. W). dub. 9. 
 " II).
 
 A/L x\x\. ISiicriJices of Masses. tJ7 
 
 confers' benefit ex opera operato, which mode all Doctors 
 and the more recent who write ag-ainst heresies admit." 
 " It confers '' ex opere operato remission of temporal 
 punishment." 
 
 The very words " pain or guilt" (pcense vel culpse) 
 which the Article uses, are those employed by the 
 Schoolmen, who lay down, that " the punishment 
 of Purgatory can cleanse us from the guilt (culpa) 
 of venial, and from the punishment (poena) of 
 mortal sin'." And this it is which even Cranmer 
 objects to, the " propitiatory sacrifice of the priests 
 in their masses, whereby they may remit sin and 
 redeem souls out of purgatory ™." 
 
 Such then being the limitations which the 
 Article itself furnishes, — that the doctrine which it 
 condemns is one which implies Transubstantiation, 
 a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and 
 the deliverance of souls from pain and guilt in 
 Purgatory, it follows that no other doctrine of the 
 Eucharistic sacrifice is contemplated by it. That 
 solemn doctrine has been maintained by the chief 
 Divines and Bishops of our Church ever since the Re- 
 formation as before it, only separate from the errors 
 
 i lb. dub. 7. 
 
 i^ lb. dub. 8. 
 
 1 See Bonav. L. iv. dist. 21. q. 2. p. 1. art. 2, who quotes also 
 Alex. Alen. 4. p. q. 13. memb. 3. art. 3. §. 5. Richard. 4. Sent, 
 d. 21. art. 2. q. 1. Steph. Brulef. 4. Sent. d. 21. q. 3. Pet. de 
 Tarent. ib. q. 1. 
 
 " Answer to Gardiner, b. v. f. 3. p. 544. see Tract 8 1 , p. 48, 
 49. 
 
 F 2
 
 68 A/f. xxxi. Sacrijices of Masses. 
 
 formerly blended with it; the language in which they 
 have expressed it, has varied, as they have feared 
 that the one or the other expression might coun- 
 tenance errors held in the Church of Rome ; but it 
 is clear, from the first, that what Cranmer and 
 Ridley meant to object to were the Romish errors, 
 not the truth ; and as our position became more 
 defined, and there was less apprehension that such 
 errors should find place among our people, that 
 truth came to be more definitely and systematically 
 enounced. Both these points have been recently 
 treated of, and the statements of our Divines given 
 at such length ", that it is not necessary here to 
 speak further on the subject. I will therefore 
 only select two specimens, one shewing that the 
 very words " propitiatory" and impetratory,^' as 
 applied to the Eucharistic Sacrifice in a sound 
 
 " Tract 81, "Testimony of writers of the later English 
 Church to the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice," and its 
 Preface. 
 
 " Propitiatory'' is, as Thorndike explains it, that which 
 "doth render God propitious;" it is thus used by a modern 
 Romanist also, " we say, the Mass" [the Holy Eucharist] *' is a 
 propitiatory sacrifice, that is to say, a sacrifice that renders God 
 propitiatory to men." Dr, Butler's Lect. 8, p. 22(). Bp. Overall 
 adopts the word as occurring in the fathers. Tract 81, p. 73. and 
 others also. In the same sense, Nelson prays " that I may so im- 
 portunately plead the merit of it" [the full perfect oblation on the 
 Cros.s] " in this commemoration of that Sacrifice, as to rewrfer Thee 
 gracious and propitious to me, a miserable sinner." ib. p. 303. 
 'I'hose who with lip. .Jewel (ib. p. 61.) and Bp. Hall, (ib. p. 
 107.) take " propitiatory" in the sense of" being" or " making 
 a propitiation," must reject it.
 
 Ait. xxxi. Sacrijices of Masses. 69 
 
 sense, are not objected to by approved Divines in 
 our Cliurch ; the other as a distinct and clear 
 enunciation of the doctrine from one of her present 
 Bishops. 
 The first are words of the learned Thorndike p. 
 
 " After the consecration is past, having shewed you, 
 that St. Paul hath appointed, that, at the celebration of 
 the Eucharist, prayers, supplications, and intercessions 
 be made for all estates of the world and of the Church ; 
 and that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist, (ac- 
 corduig to the Epistle to the Hebrews,) because, though 
 Eucharistical, yet it is of that kind, the Blood whereof is 
 offered to God within the veil, with prayers for all estates 
 of the world, as Philo and Joscphus inform us ; seeing the 
 Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment 
 of that fio-ure, in the offerino; of the Sacrifice of Christ 
 upon the Cross to the Father in the highest heavens, to 
 obtain the benefits of His Passion for us; and that the 
 Eucharist is nothing else but the representation here upon 
 earth, of what is done there ; these things, I say, con- 
 sidered, necessarily it follows, that whoso believes, the 
 prayers of the Church, made in our Lord's Name, do 
 render God propitious to them for whom they are made, 
 and obtain for them the benefits of Christ's Death, (which 
 he that believes not is no Christian,) cannot question that 
 those which are made by St. Paul's appointment, at the 
 celebration of the Eucharist, offering up unto God the 
 merits and sufferings of Christ there represented, must be 
 peculiarly and especially effectual to the same purposes. 
 And that the Eucharist may very properly be accounted 
 a sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both, in this 
 regard ; because the offering of it up to God, with and by 
 the same prayers, doth render God propitious, and obtain 
 
 t' Epilogue iii. .O. p. 42. quoted Tract 81, p. 169.
 
 70 Art. xxii. Rvinish Doctrine of Fuiyatory, Sfc. 
 
 at His hands the benefits of Christ's Death which it re- 
 present eth ; there can be no cause to refuse, being 
 no more than the simpHcity of plain Christianity en- 
 forceth." 
 
 I add the other statement the rather, as being so 
 concise and yet so full an exposition of the doc- 
 trine, withdrawing nothing of the truth, and yet 
 so conveying it, that none can think that it goes 
 beyond it. 
 
 " Not'"* only is the entrance into the Church by a visible 
 sign, but that body is visible also in the appointed means 
 of sustaining the new life, especially in that most sacred 
 and sublime mystery of our religion, the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper, the commemorative Sacrifice of the Body 
 and Blood of Christ ; in which the action and suffering of 
 our great High Priest are represented and offered to God 
 on earth, as they are continually by the same High 
 Priest Himself in heaven ; the Church on earth doing, 
 after its manner, the same thing as its Head in heaven ; 
 Christ in heaven presenting the Sacrifice and applying it 
 to its purposed end^ properly and gloriously ; the Church 
 on earth commemoratively and humbly, yet really and 
 effectually, by praying to God (with thanksgiving) in the 
 virtue and merit of that Sacrifice which it thus exhibits." 
 
 Article xxii. 
 
 " The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons 
 (dc indulgcntiis), worshipj)ing (de veneratione) and ado- 
 ration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation 
 of Saints, is a fond thing (res est futilis) vainly (inaniter) 
 invcnte<l, and gioiiiidi'd upon no warranty of Scripture, 
 but ratiui- npugnant (contradicit) to the word of God." 
 '■ Charge of the Bisliop ol l"',xetcr, 1836, p. 43, 44.
 
 Introductory Remarks. 71 
 
 In speaking of this Article, it is necessary to 
 bear in mind, as our friend lias said, that the 
 question is, not what is allowable to be taught, 
 not what it is expedient to practise, but what 
 private opinions a person may or may not hold, 
 consistently with the tenor of the Articles. We 
 received our commission to teach in this our 
 Church, wherein we were made members of Christ, 
 through her Bishops ; as then we have ample 
 scope for teaching, in what she holds and delivers 
 out of or agreeable to Holy Scripture, so we have 
 no commission to teach opinions, which she prac- 
 tically excludes. Even as to practices, which are 
 Catholic'', as prayers for departed saints, a Minister 
 of our Church would, I think, do wrong to inculcate 
 in his sermons, any thing for which his Church gives 
 no countenance. Much more as to points, which, 
 not being Catholic, have no authority from the 
 Church, as the interpreter of Holy Scripture, any 
 more than from the direct teaching of Scripture 
 itself. Still more, again, as to any such points, wdiich, 
 not being Catholic, have also once degenerated into 
 dangerous errors; their introduction would too pro- 
 
 1 By " Catholic practices," I mean such as were universally 
 received in the Church ; " the Catholic Faith" is that Faith 
 ivhich the Church taught universally out of the Holy Scripture, 
 and which is embodied in the Creeds. The Catholic Faith is ne- 
 cessary to salvation, and nothing of it may be parted with; Ca- 
 tholic practice may be laid aside, (as in this case by our Church,) 
 if there be any constraining cause ; though, of course, with 
 reverence and circumspection.
 
 7-2 Art. xxii. Bomiah Doctrine of Purgatory, Sj-c. 
 
 bably favour the bringing back of those errors, 
 which were once derived from them, and which vet 
 exist. The likehhood oi' any purgatorial process after 
 this life cannot be safely taught even by any vvho 
 holds it, while the Romish doctrine of purgatory 
 still exists ; apostrophes to saints to pray for us, if 
 they hear us, which — detached as they were from 
 regular devotion and sparingly as they occurred — 
 we find without apprehension of injury in the 
 mouths of holy men at the close of the fourth 
 ccnturv, would countenance idolatry in this. It 
 would be trifling with the deposit of a pure faith 
 which God has committed to our keeping, and tam- 
 j)ering with the souls of our people whom we might 
 be leading into sin, were any one to teach such 
 points as these. Much more strongly may one say, 
 should any in this place abstain from inculcating 
 upon the minds of the young, what, as being 
 young, they might probably exaggerate, and give 
 an undue j)rorrnnence to in their own minds. But 
 of this, 1 may safely say, there has been no 
 instance, nor is there any tendency to it. People 
 in this place are far too nmch impressed with their 
 own responsibility, and feel too deeply how much is 
 at issue at this great crisis, to lead the minds en- 
 trusU'd lo llicm olf to any such questions as these, 
 so far removed, in any case, from the centre of 
 Christian life and doctrine. Hut even apart from 
 conscfjucnces, our ollice, as wo have often repeated, 
 i'^ within ()\ir C'liurch , to dcvclopc, bring out, incul-
 
 Litroductonj Remarks. 73 
 
 cate her teaching, not add to her of our own minds 
 what we have not received. 
 
 But, assuming this, the question which our 
 friend had in view was, as I said, not what a 
 Minister might do, but what is the meaning of the 
 Article, And, here, it seems to me equally plain, 
 and it is almost a truism to state, that since the 
 Article definitely speaks of the " Romish doctrine'* 
 on these points, it does not mean to condemn any 
 other. What opinion any of the framers of the 
 Articles may have had as to any doctrine on these 
 points, not Romish, or whether they had formed to 
 themselves any definite view, is altogether beside 
 the question ; they were not drawing up a system 
 of faith, which should comprehend the whole com- 
 pass of the subject on which they spoke, but 
 setting definite marks against certain corruptions 
 existing and maintained in their own times, and 
 before their eyes ; they were practically providing 
 against a certain existing practical evil ; they were 
 not concerned to trace the origin of existing cor- 
 ruptions, but to warn against them as they existed ; 
 every thing else lay beyond their horizon, and 
 they were not contemplating it ; it was not their 
 concern, whether such or such a doctrine, approxi- 
 mating in whatever degree to the Romish, were 
 found here and there in the early Church ; rather, 
 with their practical veneration for the first aires 
 of the Gospel, the writers of those times, when 
 they do touch upon any such points, point out
 
 71 Ar L xxii. Rumish Doctrine qf Purgatory, SfC. 
 
 the difference sooner than the resemblance, rather 
 shew that what is found in primitive Antiquity is 
 not Romish, than seek to identify it with the form, 
 into which, (if it were so,) it, in later ages, 
 passed. 
 
 The very wording of the Article " Romish 
 doctrine/' or, as it before stood, " doctrine of the 
 Schoolmen," shews what was in the mind of the 
 writers ; had they meant to condemn every doctrine 
 of " purgatory" or " invocation of saints," they 
 would obviously not have restrained their censure 
 by the insertion of the word ** Romish/' No one 
 could seriously contend, that while they spoke 
 against the " Romish" doctrine of purgatory, they 
 meant to include any views held by the " Greeks," 
 or the belief in any purgatorial process, distinct 
 from the Romish, whether supposed to take place 
 at the entrance of Paradise or at the Day of Judg- 
 ment. So to interpret the articles would mani- 
 festly be a mere inference, founded on the supposed 
 opinions of the writers, which, since they did not 
 choose to ex})ress, we have no right to intrude 
 upon their words. It were an arbitrary stretch of 
 their meaning, opening the way to any other com- 
 ments. And yet it would probably be found that the 
 popular system of interpretation, which our friend 
 opposed, did this; and not only in points, in which 
 no direct evil consequences would result, but where 
 true doctrine would he affected. 
 
 1 am not herein speaking of any thing in this
 
 Introductory Bemarks. 7o 
 
 place, where a tone of more accurate thought pre- 
 vails, (as neither was our friend's Tract written for 
 persons here,) but of the vague way in which the 
 doctrines censured in this Article are popularly 
 misunderstood, and the injury to sound doctrine or 
 to habits of mind thence ensuing. Thus, one cannot 
 but know, that together with the " Romish doctrine 
 of pardons," persons are taught to shrink from the 
 whole subjectof primitive discipline, as something in- 
 terfering between the soul and its Redeemer, instead 
 of being beneficial to it ; that they would regard 
 the recommendation of confession,— not as an essen- 
 tial to absolution, but as expedient and healthful, 
 yet with the view not merely of" obtaining ghostly 
 advice and comfort/' but of taking shame before 
 men, — as something Popish; or again they would at 
 once condemn all thought of penance and self-chas- 
 tisement for specific sins, as connected with the 
 Romish doctrine of " satisfaction ;" or they look 
 with suspicion on any statement, that the Abso- 
 lution solemnly pronounced in Christ's Name, 
 " by His authority committed unto us," is not 
 merely a comfortable *' declaration" of His mercies, 
 but may alter the state of the soul in God's sight ; 
 that it is not merely a relaxation of " ecclesiastical 
 censures," which we have not, but may tend to 
 *' loose the bands of those sins, which by our frailty 
 we have committed," and remove the obstructions 
 which sin presents to the shining in of the grace 
 of Christ upon the soul. There is, as you are
 
 76 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine qf Purgatory, ^c. 
 
 aware, a large negative theory on these subjects 
 afloat, too little informed, to know what it appre- 
 hends, and so apprehending every thing; morbidly 
 sensitive of any thing which it thinks may unduly 
 exalt the Priestly office, but careless as to securing 
 our individual humility and self-discipline ; con- 
 demning under names whose real meaning people 
 know not, doctrines and holy practices, whose 
 efficacy they have never tried ; anxious to secure 
 our irresponsibility to man, our freedom from 
 external control, the non-interference of man 
 between the soul and its Maker, but not anxious 
 how to secure our sense of responsibility to God, 
 our exemption from lawlessness, our attainment 
 of all those blessings, which God intended for us, 
 as ministered through man ; jealous against super- 
 stition, not against irreverence. Thus, together 
 with the " Romish doctrine of pardons," the whole 
 subject of Absolution is often discarded ; with 
 Purgatory, the intermediate state ; with invocation 
 of Saints, the feeling of communion with them in 
 the one Church, of which they are the perfected 
 members ; with the veneration of relics, the feeling 
 that " precious in the sight of the Lord is the death 
 of His saints," and the belief in the miracles, which, 
 in some cases at least in the early Church, He 
 certainly wrou,u;Iit through them ; thus admitting in 
 fact the very principles of infidelity, and rejecting on 
 a j)ri()ri notions what were after all the " mighty 
 works" of (lod's hand ; or together with the un-Ca-
 
 Introductory Remarks. 11 
 
 tholic veneration of images, people reject as super- 
 stitious all outward reverence for holy things and 
 places; they regard the Altar, whence the holy 
 Mysteries of our Redemption are distributed, as no 
 ways distinguished above the rest of God's House, 
 nor that House itself as sanctified by the presence 
 of Angels and the unseen coming of our Lord. 
 The mere Protestant walks up and down with his 
 hat on, " on holy ground/' listening to the solemn 
 tones of the organ at Haarlem. 
 
 It is then, practically also, of moment to distin- 
 guish what our Article does condemn as Romish, 
 lest we involve under it feelings, and doctrines, and 
 practices, which are primitive. It is of moment to 
 us practically, since it cannot be concealed that 
 many are deterred from practices, which, though 
 not essential, might still be a great safe-guard to 
 them, and are countenanced or (under certain cir- 
 cumstances) recommended by our Church, by the 
 fear of approximating to something corrupt in the 
 Romish system. Thus, one cannot doubt, that 
 the more frequent use of Confession to God's 
 Ministers, (which our Church recommends in cer- 
 tain cases as a preparation for the Holy Com- 
 munion or for death,) would be a great relief to 
 persons' consciences, a great protection against the 
 corruptions which gradually steal over and steal 
 away the young, a great promoter of conscientious- 
 ness. One cannot doubt again, that the restora- 
 tion " fourfold" of what has been wrongly gotten,
 
 78 Alt. xxii. Romish Ductrine of Pitrgutory, <^c. 
 
 or liberal distribution to the poor, in token of 
 sorrow for sin and love to Him Who we trust 
 will remit it, (which our Church recommends by 
 the example of Zaccheeus,) or the acts of humilia- 
 tion of which she speaks with regret in her service 
 for Ash- Wednesday, would be very healthful to per- 
 sons' souls, and not any way approximate to the 
 abuses of the Romish Confessional or their system 
 of penances. And for our Church generally, it is 
 notorious that this indiscriminate condemnation of 
 what may be a means of holiness, together with 
 what is unholy in the practical system of Rome, 
 is one of the most dangerous allurements to per- 
 sons to seek in the Romish Communion, what they 
 might have found, without its corruptions, in our 
 own. 
 
 But, beyond this, it is of course right, without 
 any view to consequences at all, to adhere to the 
 truth ; and so not to extend any condemnation in 
 our Articles to points not contemplated in them, 
 even though unauthorized, or, as the result may 
 have shewn, dangerous. We may uot forfeit truth 
 for expediency; if then our Articles be not so rigid, 
 as some on a cursory view might imagine, and so 
 do not exclude things unadvisable, which some 
 might wish had been peremptorily excluded, we 
 must not seek protection against their introduction 
 by extending the meaning of our Articles, but in 
 some other way, and trust in God's good Provi- 
 dence for our safety, not look for it by maintaining
 
 Introchu'tory Eeinarks. 79 
 
 an interpretation which, though convenient, is un- 
 true. It does not follow, then, that because any 
 may maintain a certain doctrine or practice not to 
 be condemned by our Articles, he therefore thinks 
 that it would not be very inexpedient or, under the 
 circumstances, unlawful; the use of the " ora pro 
 nobis" (of which I shall have to speak presently) 
 would probably in almost, if not all, cases, be so; 
 still, if the terms of our Articles do not pronounce 
 upon it, we must be content to think that it is best 
 thus, and seek for a remedy against any contingent 
 risk in some other wav. 
 
 To enter then a little into the details, which our 
 friend, (as he has since stated,) omitted in the first 
 instance to consider, lest he should seem to imply 
 any definite practices to be allowable, which he only 
 shewed our Articles not to disallow, the framers not 
 seeing any necessity to pronounce upon them. 
 
 1. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 The chief characteristics of the Romish doctrine 
 of Purgatory, seem to me, that it is 1) a state of 
 suffering, 2) of punishment. 
 
 Thus to take the statement of two authors living 
 among us, one^ says, 
 
 " Catholics hold there is a Purgatory, that is to say, 
 a place or state where souls departing this life with remis- 
 sion of their sins, as to the guilt or eternal pain, hut yet 
 liable to some temporal punishment (of which I have just 
 
 P Dr. Butler, lect. 6. on Purgatory.
 
 HO Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 spoken) still remaining due, or not perfectly freed from 
 the blemish of some defects, which we call venial sins, are 
 purged before their admittance into Heaven, where nothing- 
 that is defiled can enter," 
 
 Dr. Wiseman'', 
 
 " From this subject of satisfaction, I naturally proceed 
 to the consideration of another topic, intimately connected 
 with it, the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. The Catholic 
 doctrine of satisfaction would be incomplete without it. 
 The idea that God requires satisfaction, and will punisii 
 sin, would not go to its furthest and necessary conse- 
 quence, if we did not believe that the sinner may be 
 so punished in another world, as not to be wholly and 
 eternally cast away from God." 
 
 In like way Bellarmine'' says, the '* true Ca- 
 tholic opinion" is that " Purgatory is only for those 
 who die with venial faults, (1 Cor. iii.) — and again, 
 for those who depart this life with punishment due 
 (cum reatu pcense) their faults being already re- 
 mitted." 
 
 These two statements seem to me its leading pe- 
 culiarities; and, taken together, at once distinguish 
 it from any thing found in the early Church. If 
 any of the Fathers definitely hold that there will be 
 suffering after this life, for some who shall be saved, 
 it is not an abiding state of suffering ; and again it is 
 spoken of, solely with respect to the future, the puri- 
 fying for the Presence of the All-holy God, not as a 
 
 ' !.(;< t. II. on Salisfactiou and i'lirgalory, p. •'J'i. 
 ' Ue Purg. ii. I.
 
 Art. xxu. Romish Doctrine of Pnrrjatory. bl 
 
 " satisfaction" for past sin, which " God requires." 
 These two combined points, then, sufficiently dis- 
 tinguish the Romish doctrine : add to this, that the 
 three Fathers of the African Church, who may be 
 thought most to approximate to the Romish doc- 
 trine, speak doubtingly; in the Romish Church it is 
 an article of Faith, so that Cardinal Bellarmine says% 
 that " whoso believeth not Purgatory, shall never 
 arrive thither, but be tormented with everlasting 
 burning in Hell." 
 
 It is, I should add, to me very questionable, 
 whether these very Fathers do hold a doctrine 
 bearing upon that of Rome: Tertullian ^ is 
 speaking of sufferings of the soul without the body 
 before the Day of Judgment, but has no hint that 
 they who so suffer, will then be saved ; rather he 
 implies that a portion of the sufferings is paid then, 
 without forestalling the full suffering, which is to 
 follow, of " soul and body in hell ;" and so the 
 text (Matt. V. 25. Luke xii. 58.) is understood by 
 S. Augustine in the same Church and by most 
 fathers ", of being " cast into a prison" from which 
 
 ' iv. dist. 21. quoted also by Bonaventura, &c. 
 
 » De Purg. i. II.' 
 
 * " la short, seeing we understand that prison, which the 
 Gospel points to, to be the ' place below' (inferos), and explain 
 the last farthing, of every slight sin for which, in the interval 
 before the resurrection, punishment is to be paid (luendum), no 
 one will doubt that the soul pays somewhat in the place below, 
 without forestalling the fulness of the resurrection tlirough the 
 flesh also." de anim. fin. 
 
 " S. Ambrose in Luc. S, Hil. in Matt. S. Aug. de Serni. 
 
 G
 
 b'2 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 they should never come forth ; as indeed who of 
 men could " pay the very last farthing'' due to 
 God? (comp. Matt, xviii. 25, 34.) Again, even 
 Romanist Theologians have thought that S. 
 Cyprian " is speaking of sufferings in this life, 
 and this, from the context, appears to me most 
 probable. S. Augustine has distinct and opposite 
 conjectures, evincing that he had not a definite 
 opinion upon this subject ; and even when 5', in op* 
 posing those who thought that all sins, however 
 grievous, of baptized Christians who remained in 
 the unity of the Church, would be remitted through 
 temporal fire, he admits it to be a question, 
 whether there be not such a fire, whereby lighter 
 sins would be cleansed, the whole context leads one 
 to think that he is speaking of privation of bliss 
 and mental pain not of corporeal sufl^ering. For 
 he had, before, been speaking of the pains which 
 they endured through temporal losses, who, holding 
 
 Dom. in Monte, 1. i. %. 30. Theoph. ad Luc. S. Jerome in 
 Matt, implies the same. Stapleton Antid. Ev. says, that few 
 Cniholics interpret it of Purgatory. 
 
 " " It is one thing to stand for pardon, another to arrive safe 
 at glory; one to be sent to prison, there to remain till the last 
 fartlii.Tg be paid; another to receive at once the reward of faith 
 and virtue ; one tiling to be tormented for sin in long pain and so 
 to be cleansed, and to be purged a long while in the fire, another 
 to have washed away all sin in martyrdom ; one thing, in short, 
 to wait for the Lord's sentence in the day of judgment, another at 
 once to be crowned by Him." Ep. 65. ad Antonian. 
 
 ' Li!j. ad Dulcit. q. i. \. 6 — 13. see the context more fully. 
 Tract 79. p. 41. where his other conjectures are also given.
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 83 
 
 '* the foundation," " built thereon wood, hay. 
 stubble," i. e. temporal enjoyments, which yet they 
 did not prefer to the " foundation," Christ ; and 
 that " through this pain of having to forego them 
 they were saved as by fire." When then he goes 
 on to say, 
 
 *' Something of this sort, it is not iticredible^ may take 
 place after this life also, and whether it be so, may be en- 
 quired, (whether it can be discovered or no ;) that some 
 believers, through a certain purgatorial fire, as they have 
 more or less loved perishing goods, shall more slowly or 
 speedily attain salvation ;" 
 
 it seems to me certain, that he had in view a 
 " poena damni" only, corresponding to the suf- 
 ferings from privation in this life of which he had 
 just spoken ; as his very words too, " shall more 
 slowly or speedily attain salvation," seem to indi- 
 cate what that privation was, viz. of the bliss 
 of the Beatific Vision, such as, in the intermediate 
 state, is vouchsafed to the saved. 
 
 To return, however, to the " Romish Doctrine." 
 The points, which I have selected as charac- 
 teristic of it, would, — nakedly as I have stated 
 them, — give a very inadequate notion of the doctrine 
 of Purgatory, as it was taught at the time of our 
 Reformation. To fill up this outline, we must go 
 back to the "doctrine of the Schoolmen ^" to 
 which our Articles originally referred. 
 
 ' It seems strange that Dr. Wiseman, in his Letter to Mr. 
 Newmao, should not have known what Mr. N. meant by a 
 
 g2
 
 84 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 P. Lombard then changes into certainty the 
 conjecture* of S. Augustine ; and then he applies 
 to the Roman state of suffering, words in which 
 S. Augustine is speaking, according to the Greek 
 view, of a fire at the Day of Judgment '. How- 
 ever, on the supposed authority of S. Augustine, 
 it became a received maxim in the Schools, 
 that the " fire" of purgatory " is more grievous 
 than any thing that a man can suffer in this 
 
 term used commonly among Romanist writers also, the " doc- 
 trine of the Schools," namely, the Schoolmen, whose sayings 
 formed " the received doctrine of the day." Dr. Wiseman's 
 answer, appealing to what himself and other Divines now teach, 
 is wholly beside the mark; the whole Letter consequently but 
 leads away from the point at issue. One does not like to say 
 what seems personal, but who will guarantee that Dr. Wise- 
 man's teaching was accounted sound, or sufficiently " Roman 1" 
 Report certainly said otherwise, and spoke of doubts and mis- 
 givings felt in the highest quarters. 
 
 • In Ps. 37. §. 3. S. Aug. here as elsewhere, begins by owning 
 that what he is going to say is but conjecture, " Et forte," 
 " And perhaps." 
 
 • See Tract 79, p. 40. Bp. Montague (Answer to the late 
 Gagger of Protestants, p. 288, 9.) points out the differences 
 between S. Aug.'s view and the Roman; 1) S. Aug. calls it an 
 " amending fire," (emendatorius). Romanists hold Purgatory 
 to be penal only. 2) He places it at the Day of Judgment, when 
 the Romish purgatory ceases. 3) Bp. M. quotes the " ordinary 
 Gloss" as understanding S. Aug. of the Day of Judgment. It 
 may be added that S. Aug. expresses the Greek view, in a passage 
 corresponding to this, in the same work on the Psalms, (in Ps. vi. 
 %. 3.) as also in another, (in Ps. 103. Serm. 3. §. 5. see Tract 79, 
 p. 40,41 .) whereas in this work he no where even conjectures that 
 the Purgatorial fire will be lasting.
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 85 
 
 life;" Aquinas", from Gregory the Great, af- 
 firms, tliat " the fire of purgatory and hell are 
 the same," and also, from himself, as the only 
 difference, " that the ^ damned, as being lower 
 in merit, are to be ranked lower in place ;" 
 that " the' punishment is two-fold, one, of the loss 
 of the Divine Vision (poena damni), the other of 
 suffering (poena sensus), in that they will be 
 punished with corporeal fire, and in either, the 
 least punishment of purgatory is greater than 
 the greatest of this life." Bonaventura says, " the 
 doctors of our time commonly hold*," (as he does 
 himself,) " that the purgatorial fire is corporeal or 
 material,'' and " though S. Augustine seemed to 
 doubt herein, other doctors remove all doubt from 
 us," and he argues, at length, against the notion 
 of a spiritual purgatory. 
 
 In any case, the pains were held to differ only in 
 
 " ib. ii. 3. Praet. 
 
 » ib. V. ad 2. 
 
 * ib. i. ad 3. 
 
 ' This is affirmed also by Alex. Mens. iv. P. q. 15. art. 2. §. 2. 
 Agazel. lib. phys. v. 4. ap. Rich, de Med. Vill. " since the fire 
 which afRicteth souls in purgatory is more active than our fire, 
 which yet is most afflictive of all elements," add Rich, himself iv. 
 dist. 20. art. 2. q. 1. In Bonav. there are further quoted, Brulefer 
 ib. q. 4. and Pet. de Tarantas. (afterwards Pope Innocent V.) ib. q. 
 3. Thorn. Arg. ib. q. I . art. 3. Less (in Thom. de Purg. c. i. dub. 
 2.) says, " It is certain that in Purgatory there is punishment of 
 suffering [not of privation only] ; that the punishment is by ma- 
 terial fire is the common opinion of the Doctors, yet not matter 
 of Faith."
 
 86 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 duration from those of hell, (with regard to which 
 the same question was raised whether the fire was 
 material,) and hence it was argued that the tire was 
 the same. 
 
 " Because'' those souls suffer the same punishment as 
 the damned, namely, the punishment of privation [of God's 
 Presence] and suffering, and this differs only in that it is not 
 eternal, as is the punishment of the damned, therefore 
 it agreeth hereto, that they should suffer in the same place 
 and hy the same fire." 
 
 Bonaventura says further that souls remain 
 there longer or shorter, as they remained longer 
 or shorter in sin^ and that 
 
 " The manifold authority of the saints estahlishes, that 
 fiome, namely venial, sins may he remitted not in this 
 world only, hut also in purgatory, and since there is no 
 room there for deserts or for sacraments, such punitive or 
 purgatorial fire is called in aid, so called hecause the soul 
 is purged from the dross of sin, and from venial faults, if 
 it depart with them ''." 
 
 Further, this state was considered capable of alle- 
 
 '' Less. 1. c. 
 
 ' .So also Alex. Alen. 1. c. q. 3. In Bonaventura there are also 
 quoted Richard. I. c. q '2. Brulei". 1. c. q. 5. 
 
 *' " ' Final grace effaces venial sin in the act ot" the dis- 
 solution of soul and body,' &c. This was said by those of old, 
 but iKtu it is commonly held that venial sin, being taken hence 
 by many, is purged in purgatory as to the guilt also." Albert. 
 M. comp. Theol. verit. iii. 13. quoted by Abp. Ussher, " of pur- 
 gatory :" add also Alex. Alens. 1. 3. memb. 3. art. 3. §, 5. In 
 Bonav. are also quoted Rich. I. c. (\. I . Brulef. 1. c. q. 3. Pet. de 
 Tarantas. 1. r. q. I .
 
 Art xxiii Bomish Doctrine qf Purgatory. 87 
 
 viation through indulgences ; of which more pre- 
 sently. It is stated also as a probable opinion*, that 
 individuals remained in purgatory during centuries. 
 Yet more, in order fully to realize what the writers 
 of our Articles had in view, in condemning the 
 ** Roman doctrine" of purgatory, we ought to take 
 into account the popular tales and representations 
 circulated at. that time, the pictures in which it was 
 exhibited, the vivid descriptions given of it, the de- 
 tailed visions in which it was said to have been re- 
 vealed ; the lengthened period of thousands of years, 
 during which it must be supposed to last, since the 
 indulgences remitted thousands of years of suffering. 
 And on this ground alone, it must practically have 
 effaced the thought of Hell in the minds of the 
 people, since so long temporal punishment will in 
 itself fill the mind, and leave no room for the thought 
 of any thing beyond it. 
 
 The above abstract statements, however, though 
 they give no idea of the practical character of the 
 doctrine, suffice to explain what the Article means 
 by the " Romish doctrine of Purgatory ;" according 
 to which it was " a lengthened state of actual suf- 
 fering, as well as of privation of the Divine Vision, 
 without rest day or night ^ through real fire, and 
 
 * Less ad S. Thomam de Purg. c. 2. dub. 4. " pains, which 
 else [i. e. unless daily masses were purchased], will hold them 
 here with us in fire and torments intolerable, only God knoweth 
 how long." Sir Thos. More, Supplication of Souls, Works, 
 p. 316. 
 
 f «« We — not yet importunately bereave you of your rest, with
 
 88 .J>7. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 
 
 that the fire of" Hell, not only purifying the soul for 
 the Divine Presence, but also satisfying the Divine 
 Justice, exacting the punishment of sin, which, 
 at departure from this life, remained unpaid, yet 
 capable of mitigation through the treasure of merits 
 at the disposal of the Pope.'' 
 
 Such then being the " Roman doctrine," it fol- 
 lows, of course, that a doctrine differing in kind 
 from this, is not the doctrine contemplated, one 
 way or other, in the Articles. The supposition of 
 a poena damni, that those who were not " pure in 
 heart" might not for a long period be admitted to 
 " see God," and that this privation might itself be 
 purifying ; that the whole period between the de- 
 parture from the body and the Resurrection may be 
 one of painless purifying of the soul, in order that it 
 may be capable (in S. Irenaeus' words) to " receive 
 God ;" that persons may, by some sorts of sin, 
 forfeit the fulness of the Presence of Christ in 
 the intermediate state ; that, though with a cheer- 
 ing hope, they may not be certain of their salva- 
 tion, any more than in this life they are ; and that 
 under any of these circumstances, it may please 
 God to give to such souls a larger portion of com- 
 fort and joy, through the prayers and oblations 
 of the Church, — any of these suppositions are 
 (juite distinct from the Roman doctrine, which 
 maintains " a tcmi)orary period of actual suffering." 
 
 crying at your cars, at unscasouable liiucs, when ye would 
 (which UT flo never) repose yourselves and take ease." Sir Tlios. 
 More, I. <•• p. 2R8. Sec, at lengtli, Tract 8 1 , p. 9.
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Purgatory. 89 
 
 On the other hand, the view found in Origen, 
 S. Ambrose, S. Hilary, S. Jerome, S. Paulinus 
 of Nola, S. Basil, and S. Gregory of Nazianziim, 
 that " fors all but the highest saints in whom 
 love dissolved all remaining dross whatsoever, some 
 transient suffering, more or less in duration, was in 
 store at the Day of Judgment," though it has 
 the notion of" suffering,'' differs from the Romish, 
 as to the time when it takes place, and that it is 
 not a state of suffering ; nor again does it stand 
 in any relation to the prayers of the Church. 
 This view is accordingly condemned by Romanist 
 writers as inadequate or erroneous'', who thus 
 again confirm the view, (if any such confirmation 
 were needed,) that such is not the doctrine con- 
 demned by our Articles as the " Roman doctrine." 
 
 Our Article does not then condemn all notion of 
 a purifying process after this life, but one distinct 
 system ; and our Church has evidently taken the 
 more humble line, not presuming to affirm or deny 
 what has not been revealed, but denying the only 
 view of Purgatory contrary to Holy Scripture, 
 which for our consolation declares our departed 
 to be at " rest," whereas this exhibits them in 
 intense suffering. If any collect from the impres- 
 sion of Antiquity, a general awe of what may pass 
 between death and Judgment, it may be that he 
 will acquire more reverent thoughts of the exceed- 
 
 ^ Tract 79 on Purgatory, p. 35, 
 
 '' Bellarin. de Purg. ii. 1. quoted Tract 79, p. 26.
 
 PO Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine qf Pardons. 
 
 ing holiness of God's Presence, and reflect more 
 earnestly as to the fruits of actions or courses of 
 action, and learn to speak less peremptorily, one 
 way or the other, when Holy Scripture is silent ; 
 but our Article leaves him free, so long as he 
 maintain not that one doctrine which is ** repugnant 
 to the word of God." 
 
 In conclusion, since people are disposed to 
 believe all things, which are said hardly of what 
 they dislike, I may just observe, that neither in my 
 own writings, nor in those of any of my friends, 
 is there any trace of a tenet, which it has lately 
 been affirmed ^ that we are ** zealous in teaching," 
 " that there is a Purgatory for the purification of 
 the saints,'^ nor do I hold it. Our friend, as you 
 know, has put it prominently forward as one of the 
 chief points of our controversy with Rome ^. 
 
 2. Romish Doctrine of Pardons. 
 
 Our Article joins on the " Romish doctrine of 
 Pardons" or " Indulgences" [indulgentiis] imme- 
 diately to that of" Purgatory," thereby the more 
 shewing what it was which it meant to condemn, 
 the assumed power, namely, of the Pope to lessen 
 by Indulgences the period of Purgatorial suffering. 
 
 » Edinburgh Review, No. 147. p, 272. 
 ■ Tract 79, and Lectures on Romanism.
 
 Art. -^xn. Romish Due trine of Pardons. 91 
 
 This is illustrated by the citations of Bp. Jewel', 
 shewing that " Pardons sprung out of Purgatory." 
 
 " RofFensis saith (contr. Lutherum. Polydor. de Inventor. 
 1. 8. c. 1.) ' Thus Jansene: It cannot well appear from 
 whom Pardons first began. Among the old Doctors 
 and Fathers of the Church, there was either no talk at all, 
 or very little talk of Purgatory. But as long as Purgatory 
 was not cared for, there was no man that sought for Par- 
 dons. For the whole price of Pardons hangeth of Purga- 
 tory. Take away Purgatory, and what shall we need of 
 Pardons .? Pardons began, when folk were a little feared 
 with the pains of Purgatory." 
 
 " Johannes Major saith (in 4. Sent. Dist. 20. Quaest. 
 2.): ' Of Pardons little may be said of certainty : for the 
 Scripture expressly saith nothing of them. Touching that 
 Christ saith unto Peter, Unto thee will I give the keys, &c. 
 we must understand this authority with a corn of salt,' 
 (otherwise it may be unsavory.) ' Therefore certain' of 
 the Pope's ' Pardons that promise twenty thousand years 
 are foolish and superstitious ^' 
 
 « Defence of Apol, c. 7, dis. 1. p. 486. 
 
 ^ The authenticity of these pardons has been disputed in 
 modern times ; Bouvier, however, defends the principle on which 
 they rest ; " it may happen that such indulgences would not be 
 "equal to a Plenary Indulgence. For let us suppose a sinner who 
 [sin which] merited 10 years of Canonical penance; let us 
 also suppose a man who lived 20 or 30 years in the habit of 
 frequently committing sin by thought, by desire, and by action, 
 which is not uncommon ; in the language of the Prophet, he 
 will have multiplied his sins beyond the hairs of his head; each 
 in particular will not merit less punishment than if it had been 
 committed only once ; how great therefore would be the time of 
 Canonical penance which this sinner should perform in order to 
 comply with the Church discipline ? It is incalculable ; and 
 even, in this case, it is probable it would be far from satisfying
 
 l>-2 Art. xxii. Romiah Doctrine of Pardons. 
 
 " Your School Doctors themselves (Veselus) are wont 
 sometime to say, ' The devising of Pardons is a godly 
 guile, and a hurtless deceit; to the intent that by a devout 
 kind of error the people may be drawne to godliness.' 
 
 " Here Mr. Harding, you see the Antiquitie, Authoritie, 
 and best countenance of your Pardons ; that they flowed 
 first out of the sinks of your Purgatory, as one vanity 
 floweth out of another : you see that your Pardons some- 
 times may be ' superstitious,' and full of ' folly :"" you see 
 that the sale of your Pardons is ' a godly guile,' and 
 a devout kinde of error to lead the people." — 
 
 *' Alphonsus de Castro saith (Lib. 8. Tndulgentiae) : 
 ' There is nothing that the Scriptures have less opened, or 
 whereof the old learned Fathers have less written, than of 
 Pardons. Of Pardons (in the Scriptures and Doctors) 
 there is no mention. 
 
 1 >i 
 
 God's justice, since we are ignorant of the proportion between 
 the Canonical penance, and the diminution of the pains of the 
 next life. However, we hold that a Plenary Indulgence, per- 
 fectly gained, would cancel this immense debt in all its extent ! 
 Therefore we ought not to condemn Partial Indulgences for 
 being too long, provided they are well authenticated ; otherwise 
 we should condemn Plenary Indulgences '." In fact, also, the 
 manifold Indulgences given to the members of religious frater- 
 nities in the Romish Church would soon make up this sum. 
 Thus to the members of the " pious sodality of the most sacred 
 heart" of our Lord, indulgences are given annually of above 1600 
 years [1(5 Hi years and as many ([uarantines or periods of 40 
 days] besides '29 Plenary Indulgences; to which are added 12 
 more, Plenary, for the daily recitation of the Rosary, besides other 
 lesser ones, as .300 days for every contrite repetition of the 
 Hosary, and W days for every good work devoutly performed. 
 (" TIk.' pious sfdality, &C. 8tli edit, with the approbation of the 
 most Rev. Ur. Murray, &c.") 
 
 ' Takt-n from " A dof^matical iind prHftical treatise on IridutpcnceH," 
 Mhridgt-H from nouvier'ii Work, Uublin, 1839.
 
 ^r^ xxii. Bomish Doctrine of Pardons. 93 
 
 Cardinal Fisher also says ', 
 
 " It weighs perhaps with many, that we lay such stress 
 upon Indulgences, which are apparently of but recent 
 usage in the Church, not being found among Christians, 
 till a very late date." 
 
 It is clear, then, from this, that nothing which 
 existed in the Primitive Church was contemplated 
 by our Articles, as of course the doctrine of 
 Absolution could not be, which, in its strongest 
 form, our Church recognizes in the " Order for the 
 Visitation of the sick." It condemns a doctrine, 
 consequent upon the " Romish doctrine of Purga- 
 tory," and therefore, as well as that doctrine, 
 unknown to the early centuries. The " godly 
 discipline" of the Primitive Church, our own, in her 
 yearly humiliation, professes her desire to restore, 
 though as yet unable. But indeed the very term 
 *' pardons" or " indulgences" is notoriously a tech- 
 nical term for one specific doctrine connected with 
 absolution, and does not relate to absolution itself, 
 from which it is separated, as treated of by the 
 Schoolmen. Thus Thomas Aquinas gives us a sum- 
 mary of P. Lombard's teaching on this head""; 
 
 " After the ' master** had laid down as to penance and the 
 power of the ministry, to whom the dispensation of this 
 sacrament belongs, he here lays down some things, which 
 follow upon penance, in two parts. In the first he lays 
 
 ' Assert. Luth. conf. 18, quoted Tract 79, p. 50. 
 " In P. 4. dist. 20.
 
 64 Art. -Rxn. Roniish Doctrine of Par dona. 
 
 down the time of penance; in the second some things which 
 relate to the defect of penance. The first falls into two 
 heads; it shews I) that the time of penance is to the end 
 of life; -2) how they are to be dealt with, who repent at the 
 end ; and this is two-fold. He shews 1) how they who 
 repent at the end of life, obtain remission of sins, although 
 they are still debtors as to the temporal punishment, 
 which they will endure in purgatory after death ; 2) that 
 the same punishment is owing to those, who in whatever 
 way do not complete worthy satisfaction in this life, 
 &c.' 
 
 Aquinas himself proposes his questions under 
 the following heads' ; 
 
 " 1) whether any one can by repentance at the end of 
 his life obtain pardon of sins; 2) whether the temporal 
 punishment, the charge whereof remains after penitence, be 
 estimated according to the amount of the fault; 3) whether 
 any of the punishment, whereby satisfaction is made, can 
 be remitted by indulgences; 4) whether any parochial 
 priest can give an indulgence ; 5) whether an indulgence 
 avail to one in mortal sin.'* 
 
 " Indulgence" itself is thus defined"'; " remissioQ 
 of temporal punishment, due to God for actual sin, 
 given by the authority of the Church, exterior to 
 the Sacrament, by the application of those satis- 
 factions, which are laid up in the common treasure 
 of the Church." 
 
 And the " temporal punishment" so spoken of 
 not only includes the sufferings of Purgatory, but 
 
 ' ib. q. 1. art. 1 — 5. 
 
 "" I^si. ad Thorn. Aq. de indulgent.
 
 ArL xxii. Romish Doctrine of Pardons. 95 
 
 the chief character of Indulgences must necessarily 
 be derived from it. The doctrine of Purgatory 
 alone gives these their interest and importance. 
 So long indeed as the shortening of the term of 
 penance brought with it restoration to the com- 
 munion of the Church, and in it to the participation 
 of that Body and Blood, whereby we are cemented 
 into the mystical Body of Christ, it was of course 
 a great privilege ; such it w'as in the practice of the 
 early Church on which Romanists profess their 
 " indulgences" to be founded " ; the intercession of 
 the martyrs, (although even it was abused ° to " heal 
 slightly" a grievous " wound, '^) in obtaining for 
 the lapsed re-admission to the Holy Communion, 
 did obtain for them inestimable privileges ; again, 
 an earlier reconciliation in the case of the dying 
 was indeed a mercy, when in their extremities 
 
 " Dr. Wiseman, Lect. 12. on Indulgences, t, ii. p. 79. " The 
 chief ground of indulgence or mitigation, and the one which most 
 exactly includes all the principles of a modern indulgence, was 
 the earliest, perhaps, admitted in the Church. When the mar- 
 tyrs, or those who were on the point of receiving the crown and 
 had already attested their love of Christ by suflfering, were con- 
 6ned in prison, those unfortunate Christians who had fallen [i.e. 
 had abjured Christ under Heathen tortures] and were con- 
 demned to penance, had recourse to their mediation ; and upon 
 returning to the pastors of the Church with a written recommend- 
 ation to mercy from one of those chosen servants of God and 
 witnesses of Christ, were received at once to reconciliation, and 
 absolved from the remainder of their penance." 
 
 S. Cyprian complains of the practice in most of his letters on 
 " the lapsed."
 
 9tJ Art. XX ii. Burnish Doctrine of Pardons. 
 
 and last conflict it obtained for them the restoration 
 of the " pledges of" their Saviour's " love,'* 
 and placed them in Communion with Him : or, 
 again, when in the prospect of persecution, they 
 who had once denied the faith, w^ere restored to 
 Communion, in the hope that they might overcome 
 wherein they had been overcome, this also was a 
 great privilege that they were not left to such a 
 conflict " unarmed, but were fortified with the pro- 
 tection of the Blood and the Body of Christ p." But 
 when Communion came to be previously restored, 
 and Indulgences were only " relaxations of temporal 
 punishment," what great worth would they have, 
 if confined to this life ? Were they, as modern 
 Romanists exhibit them'', only a mitigation of 
 penance enjoined by the Church, what great 
 interest would they have? The wounded spirit 
 would rather dread them than long for them ; the 
 true penitent would rather dread to be released 
 entirely from the discipline and chastening, which 
 are the correction and remedy of his former sins ; 
 he takes cheerfully the chastenings of God's own 
 hand ; he accepts gladly the austerities or priva- 
 
 '' S. Cyprian, Ep. 57. (Fell) mentions both these cases : Dr. 
 Wiseman, 1. c. gives these as instances of early " indulgences." 
 
 't Thus Dr. Wiseman, 1. c. drops all allusion to Purgatory. 
 Dr. liutler only alludes to any thing, not in this life, thus slightly ; 
 " this atonement, if considered in this life, consists either in the 
 penitential works prescribed in the canons, or imposed by the 
 confpsRor." Lect. 5. " Objections against the several parts of 
 the Sacrament of Penance."
 
 Art. xxii. Rotnish Doctrine of Pardons. 97 
 
 tions or self-denials, which may tend to deepen his 
 repentance and approve its sincerity. To what 
 end to be free from a wholesome though bitter 
 medicine? The history of ascetics of all times 
 shews, that earnest repentance craves no " in- 
 dulgences ;" men's own experience will tell them, 
 that a discipline in conformity with their sin is 
 joyous as well as healthful. But when the doctrine 
 of " satisfaction," instead of being the expression 
 and means of contrition, became the discharge of 
 a definite debt to Almighty God, and this debt, if 
 not discharged or released in this life, was thought 
 to be still due after death, and paid by the suffer- 
 ings of purging fire, and that, the fire of hell, 
 though for a time only, then indeed any relaxation 
 of the " temporal punishment" did acquire an 
 exceeding value, not for the sake of any thing in 
 this life, but to shorten those extreme and un- 
 known sufferings, which were believed to be greater 
 than any thing in this life ; which were intense as 
 Hell ; from which there was no rest day nor night ; 
 and to whose duration there was no certain limit, but 
 the Day of Judgment. Any limitation of canonical 
 penance shrinks into absolute insignificance, if not 
 rather to be deprecated than to be purchased. 
 
 It is indeed remarkable, that Romanists admit 
 that " Indulgences" do not supersede " penance," 
 thereby shewing that " canonical penance," which 
 they state to have been the object of that " miti- 
 gation which most exactly includes all the principles 
 
 H
 
 98 Art. \xu. Romish Doc tri?ie 0/ Pardons. 
 
 of a modern indulgence"" is not the object of their 
 " indulgences;" and they urge the continuance of 
 " penance," even after obtaining " indulgences/' 
 on the very ground that the real end of both is 
 not any thing in this life, but so to compensate 
 to Divine Justice that the penitents be not after 
 this life cast into Purgatory *", Purgatory then is 
 the real end of the modern system of " indul- 
 gences" and " penance:" of " penance," in the 
 Ancient Church, the end was, to escape Hell 
 by furthering such repentance as made the sinner 
 capable of God's mercies in Christ ; the relaxa- 
 tions which Romanists parallel with their " indulg- 
 ences," were restoration to the communion of the 
 Church. 
 
 '' Dr. ^Visenlan, see p. 95. n. n. " Indulgences of a hundred 
 years or more, if there are such, may be insuflBcient to compensate 
 the whole temporal punishment which a sinner is bound to pay . . 
 Hence, thirdly, sinners truly converted ought to endeavour daily 
 by good works [satisfactions] and indulgences, whether partial 
 or plenary, to diminish the debts which they owe to Divine 
 Justice and to compensate for them entirely in this life, lest 
 they be sent to the prisons of purgatory, and do not come out 
 thence till they have paid the last farthing." Bouvier de Poenit. 
 p. .'301, quoted by Mr. Palmer, 3rd Letter to Dr. Wisen)an, p 7. 
 " W'e do not believe an indulgence to imply any exemption from 
 
 repentance nor from the works of penance or other good 
 
 works, because our Church leaches, that * the life of a Christian 
 ought to be a perpetual penance.' (Cone. Trid. de extr. Unct.) 
 No one can ever be sure that he has gained the entire benefit of 
 an indulvjonco, though he has performed all the conditions ap- 
 pointed for this end." Dr. Milner F.nd of Controversy, [,ett. 42, 
 p. 304. 306. quoted ib.
 
 ArL xxii. Romish Doctrine of Pardons. 91) 
 
 " Pardons" then are altogether distinct from 
 " pardon" through the power of the keys, because 
 absolution relates to guilt, " pardons" to punish- 
 ment ; absolution is spiritual, '* pardons" outward 
 only ; absolution, in whatever degree, alters a 
 sinner's state towards God, " pardons" remit only 
 a penalty due after restoration to God's favour ; 
 absolution restores to Communion, and opens the 
 soul to the grace of the Sacrament, " pardons" 
 follow upon restoration ; absolution applies the 
 power of the keys by virtue of Christ's authority 
 committed to His ministers, " pardons," a certain 
 treasure made up of the merits of Christ and of 
 works of supererogation of His saints, supposed to 
 be committed to the keeping of the Church ; 
 absolution applies God's mercy through the Satis- 
 faction of His Son, " pardons" relate to a " satis- 
 faction" still due from man to God ; " pardons" 
 are applied directly to the state of the soul after 
 death, absolution only relates to it, in as far as it 
 changes that state in this life ; " pardons" presup- 
 pose absolution, absolution does not involve any 
 doctrine of " pardons." Their provinces, offices, 
 ends, comforts, value, are not less distinct than their 
 scripturalness and primitiveness, absolution being 
 derived from the distinct promise of our Lord, as 
 understood by the Primitive and Catholic Church, 
 " pardons'' are founded on a precarious extension of 
 the fact, of which Scripture also gives instances, 
 that God does not always, with the guilt, remit the 
 
 H 2
 
 100 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Pardons. 
 
 punishment of sin, but which it neither declares to 
 be His uniform rule, nor did His Church in her 
 purer days believe that she had received from Him 
 any influence in its suspension. Rather, the inflic- 
 tion or continuance of punishment, even after aggra- 
 vated sin has been repented of, seems to have so 
 important a place in the Divine government, and 
 (it may be) to be so connected with the Divine 
 Attributes, as not to admit of any interference. We 
 see continually instances of it ; in many cases, it is 
 annexed by a regular law, so that sin, persisted in 
 to a certain point, entails punishment by a natural 
 consequence, i. e. by certain effects resulting from 
 the sin according to a fixed rule and brought about 
 by it ; we do not see that when so annexed, it is 
 ever remitted. The very Intercession of our Lord, 
 which obtains the restoration of the offender to 
 God's favour, is not, as far as we see, applied to 
 it. It may be required, as I said, by the Moral 
 Government of God or His Attributes, in some 
 way we know not, that one who has sinned to 
 a certain point, should remain under punishment 
 in this life ; it may he, that it is essential to such 
 continued penitence as may be necessary for him ; 
 beyond this, we know nothing ; it is a fact which 
 we see and know in God's dealings with men, not 
 a truth of Revelation, The Romanists have erred 
 in assuming, 1) that it is uniform, 2) that it is a 
 " satisfaction" to God's justice, 3) that it is a 
 definite debt, which must be paid, and so if not
 
 Art. TLxii. Romish Doctrine of Pardons. 101 
 
 paid in this life, is to be paid in Purgatory, 4) that 
 the Church can interfere with it. 
 
 This, however, is the sole province of " Indul- 
 gences." They take up the offender, where abso- 
 lution leaves him, and are a supplement to it. 
 Absolution frees him from guilt, leaves him (ac- 
 cording to Romanists) with a debt upon him to 
 Almighty God. This debt it is the office of Indul- 
 gences to abate or extinguish. 
 
 The Schoolmen, accordingly, rightly deny that 
 Indulgences are a mere relaxation of Ecclesiastical 
 penance", — or that they depend " simply on the 
 power of the keys, (in which case they could have 
 been given by Priests,) whereas they require, over 
 and above, jurisdiction and the power of dispensing 
 the Church's treasure, which ordinarily belongs to 
 Bishops alone, as being the husbands of the Church, 
 and so having the disposal of that dowry which she 
 had from her betrothing to Christ i'." Again, it is 
 distinctly stated'', that they " release not from guilt 
 (which is the power of the keys), but from punish- 
 ment." 
 
 The connection of " Indulgences" with Purgatory, 
 w^hich Romanists among ourselves now suppress, is 
 thus asserted by the Schoolmen. 
 
 " It' is most truly assumed, that the treasure of the 
 
 " Bonav. iv. Dist. 20. q. 2. 
 
 P ib. q. 3. 
 
 "» ib. q. 4. 
 
 ' Alex. Alens. 4. q. 24. Memb. 5. add Bonavent. iv. Dist. 20.
 
 102 Art. xxii. Roniish Ductrine of Pardons. 
 
 Church is in the power of the Pope, and that he can com- 
 municate its benefits to them, (since on account of the 
 cliarity wherein they departed they are fit objects to receive 
 the benefits of the Church,) and thus he can grant them 
 indulgences and relaxations." 
 
 "As by God- eternal punishment is changed into purga- 
 torial, so by the priests purgatorial punishment into tem- 
 poral." 
 
 "That' Indulgences profit the departed, who are de- 
 tained in Purgatory, if applied to them by the Church, 
 is certain, and the contrary is a heresy, or most close upon 
 a heresy." 
 
 Oi]Iy the mode of application differs, it being 
 generally ruled, that since the departed are removed 
 out of the jurisdiction of the Church into that of 
 God, the Pope can no longer bestow these Indul- 
 gences as a judicial act, but only in the way of 
 obtaining the relaxation from God. 
 
 ** The relaxation" may take place by the way of suffrage 
 or impctration, and not by that of judicial absolution or 
 commutation." 
 
 " Those" who arc in Purgatory, Indulgences profit not 
 directly, yet indirectly they do profit them." 
 
 Even this, however, is matter of doubt among 
 them. Ricardus de Media Villa, in citing a form of 
 
 c, 5. who fjuotes also S. Thom. Sup))l. S. p. q. 27- art. 1. 
 Brulef. iv. Dist. '20. (j. 8. Pet. tie Tjirantas. ib. q. 22. Ric. de 
 Med. \illa, ib. art. .'i. q. 3. 
 
 * Al. Alen.s. ib. niemb. 3. 
 
 ' Less, in .S. Thoniani de Inrliiljnr. c. .5, 
 
 " Alex. Alens. 1. c. 
 
 ■ Kic. de Med. Vill. 1. c.
 
 Arf. xxu. Ttomish Doctrine of Pardons. 103 
 
 indulgence given for one departed, says, that this is 
 the opinion of " some" only. 
 
 " Whoever^ shall do this or that for himself or for his 
 departed father, or for any other person, being in Purgatory, 
 we give so many days' indulgence, but so, according to 
 some, they do not profit them, except in the way of 
 
 sufFrase." 
 
 " It is the common opinion*, that Indulgences are only 
 bestowed by the way of compensation or of suifrage." 
 
 The extent to which they were carried is singu- 
 larly illustrated by the question, discussed by the 
 Schoolmen generally, " whether Indulgences avail 
 as much as they promise" — so large were they, that 
 it was argued, that " since merits were now so few, 
 that a person could scarcely suffice for himself, the 
 Church's treasure must have been long exhausted";" 
 so vaguCj that they promised for the same act, 
 (whether it cost much to the individual or no,) the 
 same relaxation, as of " the third part of his 
 penance''," whether it were ten or thirty years. 
 Their moral effect is illustrated by the question, 
 " whether if one in the prospect of the plenary 
 remission of a jubilee committed more grievous 
 
 y 1. c. 
 
 * Less. 1. c. 
 
 " Bonav. iv. Dist. 20. q. 6. where there are quoted Alex. Mens, 
 iv. p, q. 23. Memb. 2. 8. Tho. in suppl. 3. p. q. 25. art. 1. 
 Richard, iv. Sent, dist, 20. art. 3. q. 2. Brulef. ib. q. 9. Pet. de 
 Tarant. ib. q. 22. 
 
 '' Bonav. ib.
 
 104 Art.yixn. Rouiisk Doctrine qf Invocation of Saints. 
 
 sin, (reserved cases) he would derive the benefits 
 of it?" This is affirmed to be the most pro- 
 bable \ 
 
 There is then ample proof that the doctrine and 
 practice condemned in the Article is (as our friend 
 stated) " not every doctrine about pardons, but a 
 certain doctrine, the Romish doctrine, as indeed 
 the plural form itself shews," and this as he further 
 states, " 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^.'' 
 
 3. Invocation of Saints. 
 
 The distinctions between the " Romish doctrine 
 of Invocation of Saints" and any practice which 
 may be found in the early Church, (although itself 
 also not primitive or Catholic, but rather the 
 vent of individual feeling,) have been so clearly and 
 fully pointed out by an unsuspected authority, 
 Archbishop Ussher, that one need but have referred 
 to his work. It is one thing, however, to acknow- 
 ledge a thing, another to have it vividlv before our 
 
 ' [.f'ss ad Arj cap. t\<' Indiilj;. liii. 
 
 •' This in IZd. 1. stood, "large and reckless indulgences from 
 the penalties of sin obtained on money payments." In either 
 rase, the distinctive character of the doctrine was pointed out, 
 an HPsnined release from the penalties of sin.
 
 Art. Tixii. Rmnish Doctrine of Invocation of Saiiits. 105 
 
 eyes ; and it is of so much moment to us on all 
 sides, as well as to the Roman Church, to have a 
 distinct perception of the difference between the 
 early and the later practice, that I will set down the 
 heads of Archbishop Ussher's contrasts, and at 
 length subjoin the specimens which he gives 
 of the later practice ; painful as is the exhibition 
 of so much that is shocking in the devotions 
 of a Christian Church. The differences then 
 noted by Archbishop Ussher are these : I) that 
 in the Ancient Church, mental addresses were 
 confined to God, as knowing the thoughts; in 
 the Romish, are made to the saints also. 2) 
 In the Ancient Church, they spoke doubtfully, 
 whether the Saints know the details of our wants ; 
 in the Romish, it is held as a point of faith 
 that they hear men's prayers. 3) In the Ancient, 
 the Saints were applied to only in the same w^ay as 
 the living; in the Romish, " formal and absolute 
 prayers are tendered to them." 4) In the Ancient, 
 they are addressed only as joint petitioners ; in the 
 Romish, as advocates and mediators by virtue of 
 their own merits also. 5) In the Ancient, the 
 seeking the prayers of the Saints interfered not 
 with our " boldness to approach the throne of 
 grace ;" in the Romish, the Saints are held out 
 as an easier and more acceptable way for a sinner 
 to approach to God. 6) In the Ancient, persons 
 were taught chiefly to look to their own prayers ; 
 in the Romish, to the intercession of Saints.
 
 loo ArL xxii. Roj/mh Doctrine of Invocation qf Saints. 
 
 7) " And principally," in the Ancient Church, the 
 prayers of the Saints were requested as fellow- 
 servants; in the Romish, " invocation is attributed 
 as a part of the worship due to them, in Bellarmine's 
 words ' an eminent kind of adoration/ " 
 
 These are mostly so many several ways of ex- 
 hibiting how the ancient compellations of the Saints 
 had no tendency to efface the thought of the " One 
 God and the One Mediator between God and man," 
 or to stop short in them ; which is miserably the 
 tendency of much, encouraged by the Roman prac- 
 tice. In the /incient Church, no service was asked 
 of them, which might not be also rendered con- 
 jointly by our brethren on earth, nothing asked 
 different in kind, nothing said which could even 
 seem to centre in them ; they are not avenues of 
 approaching to God, but, as part of the Church, 
 joint intercessors with the members who are in the 
 flesh ; nor, in asking their prayers, is any office 
 or service to them contemplated. In forms, on 
 the contrary, used in the Church of Rome, the 
 Saints are (as far as the words go) asked ab- 
 solutely to render offices, which are in the power 
 of God only ; if these prayers can be explained 
 in any other sense, this is not their obvious mean- 
 ing ; the words do not lead up to God, but in 
 themselves rather lead away from Him, by resting 
 lu the creature ; they ask of St. Mary and of the 
 Saints to " loose, iieal, give life, &c." and do not 
 suggest that tlicy cannot do tiiis by any power
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Invocation qf Saints. 107 
 
 entrusted to them, much less by any virtue of 
 their own ; the Saints are proposed for the time as 
 the objects in which devotion is to centre ; and, if 
 it be possible that some can use such prayers in 
 a sound sense, still their tendency, and their actual 
 effect upon the multitude, is to bind them down 
 to the Saints, in whom the language terminates ; 
 and this the more, since devotion to the Saints 
 is on principle encouraged. 
 
 This last point, which Archbishop Ussher gives 
 as a " principal" difference between the prayers of 
 the Ancient and Romish Church, is of the more 
 moment practically, because the same act will have 
 a very different character, according to the frame 
 of mind in which it is performed. Could Romanists 
 shew ever so much (which they can not) that 
 the direct forms " help me, heal me,") much less 
 " do thou give heaven, remit sin,") were used in the 
 Ancient Church, in insulated cases % this would 
 
 *■ To take the only case iu Antiquity of any account, (for the 
 rest alleged by Dr. Wiseman in his recent " Remarks" are either 
 spurious or nothing to the purpose,) the virgin Justina mentioned 
 by S. Gregory. All which can be collected from it is, that 
 having prayed at much length to The Father and our Lord, she 
 in some way " besought the Virgin Mary to aid a virgin in 
 danger :" we have not the words she used ; those of S. Gregory 
 from the very antithesis are evidently oratorical ; they do not 
 imply that she said in the modern Roman way " help me." 
 She may only have asktd her prayers; this quite satisfies the 
 language, aud since we do not find the other form iu those 
 times, it is probable that she did no more. S. Gregory's relation 
 is; " Abandoning all other hope, she flees to God for refuge.
 
 108 Art. xxii. Rotnish Doctrine of Invocation qf Saints. 
 
 not bear out the modern Romish practice, in which 
 they are systematically a part of devotion. An 
 address to a saint, as the result of a momentary 
 feeling, is very different from habitual prayers to 
 ihem, as devotion. The one tends to substitute 
 them in the place of God, the other does not. The 
 one proposes them as an object of" worship, adora- 
 tion," or whatever it may be called ; the other does 
 not. It matters not whether in the abstract it be 
 called latreia or douleia ; that which makes the 
 modern prayers to the Saints so sore an evil, is 
 that these prayers are recommended as devotion ; 
 the mind of the worshipper is directed to the Saints; 
 the prayers offered to them, in their obvious sense 
 terminate in them ; it must require a strong effort 
 of mind and much fixedness on God, to supply 
 another sense than what is the obvious meaning 
 of the words ; and few who have observed their 
 own habits of mind in prayer will think that such 
 forms as "do thou give heaven, do thou loose, 
 do thou heal, do thou remit sin, lead, conduct 
 thou to glory, preserve thou, help thou, take away 
 [sin], give life," addressed to a creature, are not 
 
 and takes as htr defender, against that accursed passion, Him 
 to Whom she was hetrotlied." Then having given specimens of 
 her prayers to our Lord, he adds, " Having uttered these things, 
 and much beside, and beseeching the Virgin Mary to aid a 
 virpin in danger," &c. (t*h' Ttx^dnot M«g/«» UiTivtvo^cc /36ri6>ie-Mi 
 irM^9irv Ki3avnvov<ryi.) S. Greg. Naz, Oral. 24. §. 10. 11. How 
 different this in tone from llie sad extracts in Archbishop Ussher. 
 On other authorities quoted by [{omanisls, see below, p. 115. note.
 
 Art. xxii. Rofuish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. 109 
 
 a grievous snare, that they do not tempt people 
 to idolatry, and must not, too probably, for the 
 most part, end in it. 
 
 It is not our office to judge the Church of Rome, 
 though it is an act of charity to her to warn her 
 what a grievous scandal these things are, even in 
 our eyes as men, and to remind her of the woe 
 denounced on those " who offend one of these little 
 ones who believe in" Christ, if so be she may have 
 grace given her at last, herself formally to condemn 
 what, although she has never formally sanctioned, 
 yet still she has encouraged. Meanwhile for our 
 immediate purpose, it appears from this, that there 
 is a " Romish doctrine of Invocation of Saints" 
 wholly distinct from any thing in the Church of the 
 4th Century, holding them out as mediators prefer- 
 able to our Lord, commending devotion to them as 
 a rehgious act, asking them not merely to " pray for 
 us," but to give us what we pray for. There is then, 
 on this ground, no reason to think that our Article 
 in condemning " the Romish doctrine,^' or " the 
 doctrine of the Schoolmen," on this point, had any 
 reference to any thing found in the early Church, 
 being wholly distinct from it. The painful evidence 
 given by Archbishop Ussher of this sad declension 
 of the Roman Church, is so detailed and so long, 
 that it must be kept for another place '^. 
 
 This same distinction between the Romish Invo- 
 cation of Saints and the earlier occasional addresses 
 
 ^ Note A. at the end.
 
 1 lU Art. xxli. Romish Doctrine of Invocation qf Saints. 
 
 to them is also thus clearly drawn out in a vahmble 
 and full statement by Thorndike'. 
 
 " I will distinguish three sorts of prayers to Saints, 
 whether taught or allowed to be taught in the Church of 
 Rome. The first is of those that are made to God, but to 
 desire His blessings by and throuo^h the merits and inter- 
 cession of His Saints. I cannot give so fit an example, as 
 out of the Canon of the Mass, which all the Western 
 Churches of that Communion do now use. There it is 
 said, ' Communicating in and reverencing the memory of 
 such and such of all Thy Saints, by whose merit and 
 prayer grant that in all things we may be guarded by Thy 
 protection and help,' There is also a short prayer for the 
 Priest to say, when he comes to the altar, as he finds op- 
 portunity, ' We pray Thee, Lord, by the merits of the 
 Saints, whose reliques arc here, and all Saints; that thou 
 wouldest vouchsafe to release me all my sins.' And on 
 the first Sunday in Advent mentioning the Blessed Vir- 
 gin, they pray, ' That we who believe her truly the 
 Mother of God, may be helped by her intercession with 
 hee. 
 
 *' The second is that which their Litanies contain. — 
 The form of them is manifest, that whereas you have in 
 them sometimes, ' Lord, have mercy upon us,' ' Christ, 
 have mercy upon us,' ' Holy Trinity, One God, have 
 mercy upon us;' you have much oftener the Blessed 
 \'irgin icpeated again and agaui, under a number of her 
 attributes; you have ahjo all the Saints and Angels, or 
 !su(-h as the present occasion pretends for the object of the 
 devotion which a man tenders, named and spoken to, 
 witii, ' Ora jiro nobis,' i. c. Fray for us. The Blessed 
 Virgin some say with ' Te rogamusaudi nos,' We beseech 
 thee to hear us. One thing I must not forget to observe, 
 that the prayers, which follf)w these Litanies, are almost 
 
 * I'lpilogiiP, li. iii. p. .?56 sqq.
 
 A/L xxii. Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. Ill 
 
 all of the first kind ; that is to say, addressed directly to 
 God, but nientioninj^ the intercession of Saints or Angels 
 for the means to obtain our prayers at His hands. 
 
 " The third is when they desire immediately of them 
 the same blessings, spiritual and temporal, which all Chris- 
 tians desire of God. There is a Psalter to be seen, with 
 the name of God changed every where into the name of 
 the Blessed Viro-in. There is a book of devotion in 
 French with this title ; ' Moyen de bien servir, prier, ct 
 adorer la Vierge Marie,' The way well to serve, pray to, 
 and adore the Blessed Virgin. There are divers forms of 
 prayer as well as private speeches, concerning her espe- 
 cially and other Saints, quoted in the Answer to the 
 Jesuit's Challenge, p. :303— 345. Of those then, the first 
 kind seem to me utterly agreeable with Christianity, im- 
 porting only the exercise of that Communion which all 
 members of God's Church hold with all members of it, 
 ordained by God, for the means to obtain for one another 
 the grace which the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ 
 hath purchased for us without difference, whether dead or 
 alive ; because, we stand assured that they have the same 
 affection for us, dead or alive ; so far as they know us and 
 our estate, and are obliged to desire and esteem their prayers 
 for us, as for all the members of Christ's mystical body. 
 Neither is it in reason conceivable that all Christians from 
 the beginning should make them the occasion of their 
 devotions as I said, out of any consideration but this. 
 For, as concerning the term * merit' perpetually frequent 
 in those prayers, it hath been always maintained by those of 
 the Reformation that it is not used by the Latin Fathers, 
 in any other sense than that which they allow. Therefore 
 the Canon of the Mass and probably other prayers which 
 are still in use, being more ancient than the greatest part 
 of the Latin Fathers, there is no reason to make any diffi- 
 culty of admitting it in that sense, the ground whereof I 
 have maintained in the second book.
 
 11 '2 A/i. x\\i. Homisfi Boctrine of Invocaium of Sttinis. 
 
 " The third, taking them at the foot of the letter, and 
 valuing the intent of those that \ise them by nothing but 
 the words of them, are mere idolatries; as desiring of the 
 creature that which God only gives, which is the worship 
 of the creature for the Creator, ' God blessed for ever- 
 more/ And, were we bound to make the acts of them that 
 teach these prayers the acts of the Church, because it tole- 
 rates them and maintains them in it, instead of casting them 
 out, it would be hard to free that Church from idolatry ; 
 which whoso admitteth, can by no means grant it to be a 
 Church, the being whereof supposeth the worship of One 
 God, exclusive to any thing else. But the words of them 
 are capable of the same limitation that I gave to the words 
 of our Lord when I said, that they whom Christians do 
 good to here, may be said to receive them into everlasting 
 habitations, because God does it in consideration of them, 
 and of the good done them. And so when Irenajus calls 
 the Virgin Mary the advocate of Eve, (v. 19-) he that 
 considers his words there and iii. 33. shall find that he 
 saith it, not because she prayed for him, but because she 
 believed the Angel's message, and submitted to God's will, 
 and so became the means of saving all, though by our 
 Lord Christ, Who pleadeth even for her as well as Eve. 
 Ground enough there is for such a construction ; even 
 the belief of One God alone, that stands at the head of 
 our Creed, which we have no reason to think the Church 
 allows them secretly to renounce, whom she alloweth to 
 make these prayers. And therefore no ground to con- 
 strue them so, as if the Church, by allowing them, did re- 
 nounce the ground of all her Christianity. But not ground 
 cuoutih to sfitisO/ a reasnnnblf man, that nil that make 
 them do hold that infinite distance between God and His 
 Saints and Angels, of whom they demand the same eJfcctSy 
 whirh if they hold not, they are idolaters aft the Heathen 
 were : who being convinced of one Godhead, as the 
 Fathers challenge to their faces, divided it into one prin-
 
 Art. xxii. Boinish Doctrine of Invocation (jf Saints. 113 
 
 fipal, and divers that by His gift are such. How hIioU I 
 presume, that simple C/iristians, in the devotions of their 
 hearts, understand that distance of God froni His crea- 
 tures which their uords signify not ? which the wisest of 
 their teachers will be much troubled to say, by what 
 figure of speech they can allow it ? Especially if it be con- 
 sidered how little reason or interest in religion there can 
 be to advance this reverence of Christian people towards 
 the Saints or Angels so far above the reason and ground, 
 which ought to be the spring-head of it. For so far 
 are we from any tradition of the Catholic Church for this, 
 that the admonition of Epiphanius to the Collyridians 
 takes hold of it. — So doth the admonition of S. Ambrose* (in 
 Rom. i.) to them who reserve nothing to God, that they 
 give not to His servants. So doth that of S. Augustine, (de 
 Vera Rel. cap. Iv.) that our religion is not to consist in 
 worshipping the dead ; and that an Angel forbad S. John 
 to worship him, but only God; Whose fellow-servants they 
 were. So doth the argument of S. Gregory Nyssene, 
 (contra Eunom. iv.) and A thanasius, (contra Arian.iii.) con- 
 cluding our Lord to be God, because He is worshipped, 
 which Cornelius was forbid by S. Peter, S. John by the 
 the Angel, to do to them, saith Athanasius. 
 
 *' In fine, so dangerous is the case, that whoso communi- 
 cateth in it, is no way reasonably assured that he commu- 
 nicateth not in the worship of Idols. Only the Church of 
 England having acknowledged the Church of Rome 
 a true Church, though corrupt, ever since the Reforma- 
 tion, I am obliged so to interpret the prayers thereof, as 
 to acknowledge the corruption so great, that the prayers 
 which it alloweth, may be idolatries, if they be made in that 
 sense which they may properly signify : but not that they 
 are necessarily idolatries. For if they were necessarily 
 idolatries, then were the Church of Rome necessarily no 
 Church ; the being of Christianity presupposing the wor- 
 
 '* Auibrosiaster.
 
 il4 Alt. xxii. liuiiiiah Doc I r ine uf Invocation of Saints 
 
 ship of One true God. And though, to confute the 
 Heretics, the style of modern devotions leaves nothing 
 to God, which is not attributed to and desired of His 
 Saints ; yet it cannot be denied they may be the words of 
 them who believe that God alone can give that which they 
 desire. 
 
 " The second sort, it is confessed, had the beginning in 
 the flourishinfj times of the Church after Constantine "'. 
 The lights of the Greek and Latin Church, Basil, Nazi- 
 anzen, Nyssen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, 
 Cyrils both, Thcodoret, Fulgentius, Gregory the Great, 
 Leo, more or rather all after that time, have all of them 
 spoken to the Saints departed, and desired their assistance. 
 Rut neither is this enough to make a tradition of the 
 Church. For the Church had been three hundred years 
 before it began. IrenjEUs is mistaken, when he is 
 alleged for it, as I said even now. Card. Bellarmine 
 alleges out of Eu.sebius de Preparat. xiii. 10. ' We 
 make our prayers to them.' But the Greek bears only, 
 ' We make our prayers to God at their monuments.*' 
 Athanasius de Sanctissima Deipara, whom he quotes, is 
 certainly of a later date than Athanasius". Out of S. 
 
 " Dr. Butler, (Lect. 12. p. 307.) alleging this passage, omits 
 Thorndike's statement that this practice began in the times of 
 Constantiuf, and (juotes ilie rest thus, " It is confessed, adds the 
 learned and impartial 'Ihorndike, that all the Fathers both of the 
 (jreek and Latin Cliurches, &c." to " assistance." 
 
 " Still quoted by Dr. Wiseman thus, " S. Athanasius, the 
 most zealous and strenuous supporter, that the Church ever 
 possessed, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and consequently of His 
 infinite 8uperiorily over all the saints, thus enthusiastically 
 addresats His ever-blessed Mother," (Lect. 13. p. 108.) yet the 
 very edition from which he professes to quote, the Benedictine, 
 pronounces the work spurious. It is quoted also by Dr. Butler, 
 Lect. 3. " The singular devotion of the Catholic Church to the 
 nipssed Virgin Mary justified." p. 103. On the same subject
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Invomtion of Saints. 1 15 
 
 Hilary I see nothing brought nor remember any thing to 
 be brought to that purpose. In fine, after Constantine, 
 when the Festivals of the Saints, being publicly celebrated, 
 occasioned the confluence of Gentiles as well as Christians, 
 and innumerable things were done, which seemed miracles 
 done by God, to attest the honour done them, and the 
 truth of Christianity which it supposed, I acknowledge 
 those great lights did think fit to address themselves to 
 them as petitioners ; but so at the first, as those that were 
 no ways assured by our common Christianity, that their 
 petitions arrived at their knowledge. You have seen 
 S. Augustine acknowledge that they must come by such 
 means, as God is no way tied to furnish. Greg. Nazianz. 
 speaks to Gorgonia in his oration upon her, and to Con- 
 stantius, in his first oration against Julian, but under a 
 doubtful condition, if they were sensible of what he spake. 
 Enough to distinguish praying to God, from any address 
 to a creature, though religion be the ground of it. And 
 
 Mr. Phillips in a solitary quotation from the Fathers, alleges in 
 justification of the shocking Psalter, called St. Bonaventure's, 
 " the great S. Augustine;" yet the Benedictines again call the 
 homily, (which is given to S. Augustine in the Breviary,) " tlie 
 work of some unskilful patchwork-maker." (on Serm. 194. App. 
 al. de Sanctis 18.) Again, Dr. Wiseman in his recent Letter to 
 Mr. Palmer, quotes confidently on the same subject, as words of 
 S. Ephraem, certain prayers found mostly in a solitary Greek 
 MS. of which Cave (Hist. Lit. s. tit.) says, " Beyond question 
 not Ephraem's ; sequiorum sseculorum deliratnentum," and as 
 S. Gregory of Nazianzum's, some from the Christus Patiens, 
 which both the Benedictines and the recent editor pronounce 
 not to be his, and the Benedictines say of the words, that " they 
 savour at least of the age of Damascene, or even one much later 
 than the 8th or 9th." Romanist citations of the fathers always 
 require to be sifted ; their system not being really founded on 
 .Antiquity, but on the authority of the existing Church, they are 
 careless how they quote. 
 
 1 2
 
 116 Art. xxii. liuniish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. 
 
 wlieii the apparitions about their monuments were held 
 unquestionable, yet it was questioned, whether the same 
 soul would be present at once in places of so much distance, 
 or Angels appear like them, as you may see in the answer 
 aforesaid, p. 391. <394. Nay, Hugo de S. Victore in 
 Cassander, Epist. xix. hath enabled him to hold, that the 
 Litanies do not suppose that the Saints hear them, and 
 therefore are expounded by some to signify conditional 
 desires, if God grant them to come to their knowledge. 
 But of that I speak not yet, only as it enables me, to con- 
 clude, that this kind of prayer is not idolatry. This 
 necessarily follows from the premises; because a man 
 cannot take that Saint or Angel for God, whose prayers he 
 desires; — but manifestly shews that his desire is grounded 
 upon the relation which he thinks he hath to him, by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ and by His Church. Nevertheless, 
 though it be not idolatry, the consequence and production 
 of it not being distinguishable from idolatry, the Church 
 must needs stand obliged to give it those bounds that may 
 prevent such mischief as that which shall make it no 
 Church."— 
 
 It were well if the Romish Church, which so 
 gladly pleads in her behalf the charitable allowances 
 made by Thorndike, that he need not necessarily 
 pronounce her idolatrous, although she tolerates 
 what leads to idolatry, would also consider his 
 warning against her sanctioning practices, which 
 naturally lead to it, and his strong conviction that 
 the existence of such practices, unforbidden by 
 authority, must be " one of the most considerable 
 titles," as for our original " reformation without 
 consent of the whole/' so also for continued
 
 Art. xxii. Roinish Doctrine qf Invocation of Saints. 1 1 7 
 
 separation. It is sad to see a serious person " thus 
 defend the Invocation, " deliver us, holy Virgin 
 Mary ;' 
 
 >> 
 
 *' Why do not such persons compile a ' dictionary' or a 
 * speaker's assistant;** in which we may find words to 
 express fully and adequately our thoughts, and the dif- 
 ferent tempers and motives of our minds?" 
 
 Such language, and that cited by Archbishop 
 Ussher, is not only liable to be taken in an unsound 
 sense, but the unsound is its obvious meaning. 
 
 Thorndike then thus proceeds ; 
 
 " Suppose a simple soul can distinguish between Ora pro 
 nobis, and Domine miserere ; between ' Pray for us,' and 
 ' Lord have mercy upon us ;' how shall I be assured, that 
 it distinguishes between the honour that Pagans gave the 
 less gods, under Jupiter the Father of Gods, and that 
 which himself gives the Saints, under the God of those 
 Saints? And is it enough, that the Church enjoins not nor 
 teaches idolatry ? Is it not further bound to secure us 
 against it ? I know not whether it can be said that 
 Processions and Litanies are voluntary devotions, which the 
 people are not answerable for, if they neglect. They were 
 first brought in, and since frequented at the instance of 
 Prelates, and their Clergy ; and if they be amiss, the 
 people are snared by their means : that is, by the Church, 
 if the Church bear them out in it. And by these three 
 sorts of Prayers, it appears that without giving bounds to 
 private conceits, there is [no] means to stop men's course 
 from that extremity, which whether it be real idolatry or 
 not, nothing can assure us. Upon these terms I stand. I 
 have heard those relations, upon credit not to he ques- 
 
 '■ Dr. Butler, Lect. 12. p. 360,
 
 118 Art. xxii. Romish Ductrine C)f Invocation of Saints. 
 
 tioncd, uhicl) make their dtvotions to Saints hardly 
 distin;iiijsha!)le from the idolatries of Pagans. That they 
 who preferred them could not, or did not, distinguish, I 
 say not. In fine, they demonstrate manifold more affection 
 for the IJlessed Virgin, or some particular Saints, than for 
 our Lord. That they call not upon Saints to pray for 
 them, hut to help them ; that they neither express nor can 
 be presumed to mean by praying for, but bv granting their 
 prayers; in fine, that they demonstrate imvard subjection 
 of the heart ivherein idolatry consists ; I cannot disbelieve 
 those who relate what they see done. What mav be the 
 reason, why to them rather than to God ?" 
 
 " I grant it no Idolatry, that is, not necessarily any 
 Idolatry, to pray to Saints to pray for us. The very 
 matter implies an equivocation in the word ' praying,' 
 which nothint; hinders the heart to distinguish. But 
 is it fit for the Church to maintain it, because it is 
 necessarily no Idolatry 'f I grant, ' Ora pro nobis' in the 
 Litanies might be taken for the ejaculation of a desire, 
 which a man knows not whether it is heard or not; (as 
 .some instance in a letter, which a man would write, though 
 uncertain whether it shall come to hand or not;) and I 
 could wish that the people were taught so much by the 
 form, as a powerful means to preserve the distance be- 
 tween (iod and His creature alive in their esteem. I 
 coiMit it not fit for a ])rivate person to say, what might 
 be condescended to, for the re-union of the Church, 
 stopf)ing the way upon those mischiefs, which the flourish- 
 ing times of the Church have not prevented. While all 
 bounds arc refused, all extremities maintained, I allege 
 it for one of the most considerable titles for reformation 
 without the consent of the whole." 
 
 iMiough will now have been said to vindicate 
 tiic distinction between the occasional addresses, 
 which occur in the fourth cenlury, recjucsting the
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Iiiwcation of Saints. 119 
 
 prayers of the Saints, and the systematic devotions 
 prevalent in the Romish Church, requesting their 
 aid absolutely, and preferring them, upon system, 
 to immediate application to our Lord. Since this 
 distinction is so broad, and appeared so to such 
 writers as Archbishops Ussher and Bramhall ", Bp. 
 Andrews'', and Thorndike, there is clearly no ground, 
 why we should suppose that our Article, in con- 
 demning the " Romish doctrine of Invocation of 
 Saints," had any reference to these addresses of 
 the fourth century. At the same time, persons 
 cannot be too strongly warned against the risk to 
 their own souls, in resuming, even in its lightest 
 form, a practice, which does not come recom- 
 mended to us by the Primitive Church, and which 
 Scripture, to say the least, in principle, dis- 
 courages ; which, as a systematic practice, does 
 not seem to be countenanced even by the age 
 -in which it was introduced, the addresses in the 
 fourth century being rather apostrophes to the 
 blessed Saints who were at the moment before 
 'the minds of those who used them, than systematic 
 'requests for their intercession. And yet even this 
 ^ alone would obviouslv make a great difference in 
 >i~the religious influence of such addresses ; the 
 systematic application for their intercessions has 
 
 " Works, p. 418, quoted in Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, 
 p. 14. 
 
 ^ Answer lo c. 20, of Cartl. Perron's Reply, p. 57:^^2. 
 quot«jd Tract, 90, R- 41, 2,
 
 1-20 Ait. XX ii. Roniia/i Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. 
 
 maiiilestly a tendency, which such occasional apo- 
 strophes as we find in the fourth century at all 
 events have not, to give them a place in our 
 thonglits which should be occupied only by the One 
 Intercessor. Systematic addresses to them con- 
 stitute them, so far, direct objects of our devo- 
 tions, which having, as our friend observes, " less 
 of awe and severity," may be gradually resorted 
 to in preference, in order to " save men the 
 necessity of lifting up their minds to their Sancti- 
 rter and their Judge." It is to be considered, 
 whether habitual addresses to the Saints do not, 
 in the mildest form, imply that they are themselves, 
 in some degree, objects of devotion. In the case of 
 friends on earth, with which these addresses are 
 paralleled, we are content to ask their interces- 
 sions once for all, or as an emergency occurs; 
 we do not habitually ask them to " pray for us;" 
 we take it for granted that they do ; the continual 
 use then of these supplications to the Saints, (who 
 as being purified, must love us better, and be more 
 ready to pray for us than our friends on earth,) 
 seems in itself to imply that some other feeling 
 has crept in, beyond the wish to secure their 
 intercessions ; that people apply to them, as a 
 vent to their feelings ; that they have uncon- 
 sciously made them ends and objects of devotion, 
 and are thereby associating othci' objects in their 
 devotional feelings with their One lawful Object, 
 n\\\ Milker, Kcdeemer, Sanctifier ; are learning to
 
 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of Invocation of Saints. 121 
 
 have recourse to them, together with Him and in 
 His place. There is also in itself so much risk in 
 addressing prayers to one unseen, who is not God ; 
 it is, on the one hand, so much an act of devotion, 
 and on the other, our devotions to God are at best 
 so imperfect, so little elevated, that there is on 
 this ground alone much risk, lest the acts of 
 devotion to the creature and to the Creator should 
 be of the same kind, and so those to the creature 
 idolatrous. The very fact that we find these ap- 
 peals first in very holy men, may be (as our friend 
 observes) a ground to discourage such as we are, 
 not to encourage us ; the less like them we are, 
 the less should we imitate them in this one point. 
 " It '^ is nothing to the purpose to urge the example 
 of such men as S. Bernard, in defence of such 
 invocations. The holier the man, the less likelv 
 they are to be injurious to him ; but it is another 
 matter entirely when ordinary persons do the 
 same." There would be also an especial risk in 
 such practices in our own Church, beyond what 
 there is even in the Romish ; they do not come 
 recommended to us by our immediate Mother, any 
 more than by the Church Catholic ; one who should 
 adopt them, would do so on doubtful precedents, and 
 on his own '* private judgment ;" he would do it 
 altogether on his own responsibility, as his own act, 
 contrary to what his Church deems advisable for 
 
 ^ Mr. Newiuan's l.ellei to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 19. The 
 whole j>agc is a vt-ry valuable warning.
 
 12-2 A//, xxii. Rvmi6/i Due trine uf Invocation of Saints . 
 
 her children generally, and as 1 said, having no 
 sanction (as in the case of prayers for the Saints at 
 rest) from the Church Catholic ; he ought also to have 
 fears lest he be actuated herein by mixed motives, 
 such as imagination, excitement, novelty, and so to 
 doubt the lawfulness of the action in himself, over 
 and above its abstract questionableness : he can, or 
 ought, hardly to feel absolutely assured of its pro- 
 priety, and ought then well to consider, why he 
 does not come under the Apostle's rule, " He that 
 doubteth is damned if he eat, for whatsoever is not 
 of faith is sin." Lastly, if any ever so much desire 
 to have the intercession of those, who see their 
 Redeemer face to face, it is so safe to ask Him to 
 put in their minds to pray Him for them, so unsafe 
 to apply to them directly, that they must, surely, 
 feel that they are exposing themselves very gra- 
 tuitously to risk in adopting a practice to which 
 there are so many grave objections, when the 
 object they have at heart can be obtained more 
 surely, because sought for more humbly, without 
 
 it. 
 
 I need only, in conclusion, express the earnest 
 hope, in which you will so strongly join, that any 
 one, who after the example of our friend, finds 
 himself called upon to give an opinion that " the 
 ora pro nobis is not necessarily included in the 
 Invocation of Saints, which the Article condemns," 
 will follow him also in expressing his " great appre- 
 hension concerning the use even of such modified
 
 Art.xs.u. Romish Doctrine of Veneration of Images. 123 
 
 invocations'^." And altogether, the less such a 
 subject is discussed, obviously the better ; the 
 very mention of it may prove a snare to some 
 minds, who are not trained in those feelings of 
 reverence, which happily prevail in this place ; 
 it is not and ought not to be a practical question 
 to us ; but the abstract discussion of questions 
 involving great practical consequences, yet unfelt 
 by those discussing them, is too likely to divest 
 the mind of those feelings of solemn responsibility 
 without which no religious question can be dis- 
 cussed without injury. 
 
 4, 5. Veneration and ivorshippiny of Images and 
 
 Relics. 
 
 The less need be said on this, the remaining 
 subject of this Article, because, although the feel- 
 ing of the Ancient Church with regard to relics 
 was very different from that common now, there 
 was no view in any part of it which any way 
 approximated to the Romish doctrine or practice. 
 On the contrary, the primitive doctrine and prac- 
 
 ;>/: '' Meanwhile, it is very comforting to see younger men also 
 alive to this especial danger, " Through the course which Mr. 
 N. has now been obliged to take, the * ora pro nobis' may have 
 been brought before persons, who would otherwise never have 
 thought of it, and who may take it up from the mere affectation 
 of singularity or what may be called a restless love of neAvly seen 
 and ilimly apprehended truth." A Few More Words in Support 
 of No. 90, &c. by Rev. W. G. Ward.
 
 1-24 Art. xxii. Romish Doctrine of 
 
 tice, on the subject of images, was so strict, that 
 the difficulty would rather be to reconcile the 
 " having" images at all, with it; of worship or 
 outward reverence there was no trace. I will not 
 here repeat what I hope shortly to give at length ; 
 I will only then mention to you the result of a 
 careful examination, in which I sifted every thing 
 alleged about images in the early centuries. This 
 1 have thus summed up"; 
 
 ** 1. In the three first centuries it is positively stated that 
 the Christians had no ima2;es. 2. Private individuals had 
 pictures, but it was discouraged. (Auf^.) 3. The Cross, 
 not the Crucifix, was used; the first mention of the Cross 
 in a Church is in the time of Constantine. 4. The first 
 mention of pictures in Churches (except to forbid them) 
 is at the end of the fourth century ; and these, historical 
 pictures from the O. T. or of martyrdoms, not of indi- 
 viduals. 5. No account of any picture of our Lord being 
 publicly used occurs in the six first centuries, (the first is 
 in Leontius Neap. 1. v. Apol. pro Christian. A. D. 600.) 
 (). Outward reverence to pictures is condemned." [And 
 tliis as late as Gregory M., who speaks in his genuine 
 works very decisivelv a<;ainst outward reverence to images, 
 the passage apologizing for it bein^ spurious.] 
 
 One cannot again imagine any thing more 
 strikingly oi)posed to the Romish apologies for 
 their worship before images, or a more valuable 
 warning against their peril, than the following 
 |)assagc of S. Augustine^; 
 
 • Library of tlip I'alhers ; 'I'ertullian. Note B. on Apology, 
 |,. 1 18. 
 
 ' In W. 1 iJ. Serin, l. ^. 5.
 
 Veiieration of Tmayes and Relics. 125 
 
 " \^'ho worships or prays, looking upon an image, and 
 does not become so affected as to think that he is heard by 
 it, as to hope that what he longs for will be granted him 
 by it? — Against this feeling, whereby human and carnal 
 infirmity may easily be ensnared, the Scripture of God 
 utters things well known, whereby it reminds and rouses 
 as it were the minds of men, slumbering in the accustomed 
 things of the body ; ' The images of the heathen,' it says, 
 ' are silver and gold.* " He then (§. 6.) meets the ob- 
 jection, that the Christians too had vessels of silver and 
 gold, the works of men's hands, for the service of the 
 Sacraments. " But," he asks, " have they mouths, and 
 speak not..'' have they eyes, and see not.'* do we pray to 
 them, in that, through them, we pray to God ? This is 
 the chief cause of that frantic ungodliness, that a form, 
 like one living, has more power over the feelings of the 
 unhappy beings, causing itself to be worshipped, than the 
 plain fact that it is not living, so that it ought to be 
 despised by the living. For images are of more avail to 
 bow down the unhappy mind (in that they have mouth, 
 have eyes, have ears, have nostrils, have hands, have feet,) 
 than it hath to correct it that they speak not, see not, 
 hear not, smell not, touch not, walk not." 
 
 With regard to " relics" on the other hand, the 
 later corruptions have given a turn to our feelings, 
 at variance with those of the early Church, though 
 their practice did not differ from our's. The 
 Roman practice condemned, appears, from the 
 Homilies, to have been the " offering incense''" 
 to the reliques ; and of this or of any other outward 
 veneration to them, no traces are pretended to be 
 
 '' Homily on Good Works, T. 2. p. 54. On Peril of hlolatry, 
 P. 3. p. 220, 249.
 
 126 Art. XX ii. Rnnnsft Ductrine of 
 
 found in the Ancient Church. Those who love the 
 early Church have to regret a tone of mind, which 
 seems estranged from her's ; yet was there nothing 
 in her practice which modern notions could include 
 under the censure of " veneration of relics." There 
 is no question then as to the interpretation of the 
 Article ; only as to the tone of mind of those who 
 expound them, lest they speak slightingly of sacred 
 feelings, and, as 1 said, foster the principle of 
 rejecting the evidence of miracles, like the Jews or 
 modern Deists, on a priori grounds. The feeling 
 about relics, too common among us, is sadly 
 natural. Who would not of himself love, as they of 
 old did, the ashes of the " noble army of martyrs?" 
 or whose eyes would not gush out with tears at 
 sight of a fragment of the true Cross ? who would 
 not (in St. Jerome's' words) " worship prostrate 
 before it, as though he saw the Lord hanging 
 thereon ?" who can even realize to himself the 
 awful reality of what he should feel? and yet, in 
 proportion as he would love them, if he had 
 ground to believe them real, he must grieve over 
 the avarice of men, which so multiplied them, that 
 our later Church knows not where she has them. 
 Nor is it strange that the lying miracles of later 
 days, connected with supposed relics, should create 
 a repugnance to believe true miracles, wrought by 
 God in connection with the true. Yet to persist, 
 against evidence, to deny earlier miracles, were to act 
 
 ' In vii. Paulae Ep. 108. §. 9.
 
 Veneration of Images and Relics. V>1 
 
 upon passion, not on the love of the truth. Rather, 
 since God did work miracles by them in those 
 days, one should, on that ground, adhere the more 
 closely to that Faith, which He attested by miracles, 
 and the more look with reverence and longing to 
 those holy days, when God vouchsafed to form 
 saints whom He crowned with martyrdom, and 
 copy the practices whereby they were so formed, 
 and seek by a holy life the indwelling of that Holy 
 Spirit, which so hallowed even the " dry bones" of 
 those who had been so eminently His temple, that 
 they still " lived," and " being dead, yet spake," 
 and becaine to others the source of earthly, and 
 thereby also of spiritual, life and healing. 
 
 The several instances of the respect paid by 
 the Ancient Church to " relics" are embodied in 
 the following vindication by Thorndike' ; in which 
 no one of our Church, (whatever vague impressions 
 he may have had,) will probably find any thing 
 which he would wish to gainsay. 
 
 " He that could wish, that the memories of the 
 Martyrs, and other Saints who lived so as to assure 
 the Church they would have been Martyrs had they 
 been called to it, had not been honoured, as it is plain 
 they were honoured by Christians, must find in his heart 
 by consequence to wish that Christianity had not prevailed. 
 For, this honour, depending on nothing but assurance of 
 their happiness, in them that remained alive, was that 
 which moved unbelievers to bethink themselves of the 
 
 ' Epilogue iii. 30. p. 3o4.
 
 128 Arf. \\\\\. Ct^tibanj of the Clergy. 
 
 reason they had to be Christians. What were then those 
 honours ? Reverence in preserving the remains of their 
 bodies and burying them, celebrating the remembrance of 
 their agonies every year, assembling themselves at their 
 monuments, making the days of their death festivals, the 
 place of burial Churches, building and consecrating 
 Churches to the service of God in remembrance of them, 
 I will add further, (for the custom seemeth to come from 
 undefiled Christianity,) burying the remains of their 
 bodies under the stones upon which the Eucharist was 
 celebrated. What was there in all this but Christianity? 
 That the circumstances of God's service, which no law of 
 God had limited, the time, the place, the occasion of 
 assembling for the service of God (always acceptable to 
 God) should be determined by such glorious accidents for 
 Christianity, as the departure of those, who had thus 
 concluded their race. What can be so properly counted 
 the reign of the Saints and Martyrs with Christ, which 
 St. John foretelleth, Apoc. xx. as this honour, when it 
 came to trample Paganism under feet, after the conversion 
 of Constantine? Certainly, nothing can be named, so 
 correspondent to that honour which is prophesied for 
 them that suffered for God's law, under Antiochus 
 Ej)iphanes. Dan. xii. Is not all this honour properly 
 derivative from the honour of God and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and relative to His service.' For, that is the work 
 for which Christians assemble, and for those assemblies 
 the Church stands, as I have often said ; the honour of 
 the Saints, but the occasion, circumstance, or furniture 
 f..r it."
 
 Art. xxxii. Celibiwy uf l/te Clenjy. 129 
 
 Art. xxxii. 
 
 " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by 
 God's law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to 
 abstain from marriage." 
 
 " There is," as our friend said^ " no subject for 
 controversy in these words, since even the most 
 determined advocates of the celibacy of the clergy 
 admit their truth/' Not only S. Jerome, whom 
 he quotes, but even modern Romanists rest clerical 
 celibacy on ecclesiastical rule, not on " God's law." 
 On the other hand, it should be observed, that the 
 tone of the Article is contrary to men's modern prac- 
 tice; it does not take it for granted, as a matter of 
 course, that clergymen will marry, as soon as they 
 can provide for a family ; as if this were obviously 
 the best both for themselves and those committed 
 to them ; but it implies, as does the Marriage 
 Service for all, that it is a matter of Christian 
 prudence and wisdom to decide, in which estate, 
 married or single, they may best serve the Lord, 
 and that they will decide, not with a view to 
 earthly joy, but " as they shall judge the same to 
 serve better to godliness." 
 
 A contemporary document imphes the feeling 
 of those times to have been in favour of the celi- 
 bacy of the Clergy ; our Marriage Service goes 
 further, and, in the midst of its touching com- 
 mendation of the " honourable estate" of matri- 
 mony, implies a holy celibacy to be for those to 
 
 K
 
 130 Art. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy. 
 
 whom it is given, a higher state. For in that 
 it speaks of " continency" as a " gift," it must 
 imply that it is an especial favour of God to those 
 to whom it is given. 
 
 " Although" it were not only hetter for the estimation of 
 Priests, and other Ministers in the Church of God, to live 
 chaste, sole, and separate from the company of women and 
 the bond of marriage, but also thereby they might the 
 better attend to the administration of the Gospel, and be 
 less intricated and troubled with the charge of household, 
 being free and unburdened from the care and cost of 
 finding wife and children, and that it were most to be 
 wished, that they would willingly and of themselves 
 endeavour themselves to a perpetual chastity and absti- 
 nence from the use of women." 
 
 In the Lord's vineyard, however, there js ample 
 room for those of both classes ; our Universities 
 still furnish an instance before our eyes, of institu- 
 tions requiring a temporary celibate, and that 
 during the most trying period of life, and often for 
 the greater part of its probable term : and, as this 
 shews that it is not foreign to the genius of our 
 Church, so the conviction is continually growing, 
 that if the degraded masses condensed in our over- 
 grown towns, inaccessible to any means now exist- 
 ing, festering within themselves, yet shunning every 
 thing unlike themselves, may yet be reclaimed, it will 
 be, when God raises up among us men of self-denying 
 habits, who, under the direction of our Bishops, shall 
 gather round them others like-minded, and form 
 
 " Stat. An. 2 and 3 Edw. VI. c. 21.
 
 Art. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy. 131 
 
 corresponding institutions for those who have " for- 
 saken all" to " follow" their Lord, to seek out His 
 scattered sheep even in these appalling wildernesses, 
 and preach repentance from dead works, Judgment 
 to come, and the vanity of this fleeting world, having 
 themselves, like the self-denying Baptist, visibly no 
 portion in it. 
 
 It is, again, felt continually more, that besides 
 the domestic charities so lovelily set forth by the 
 daughters of our land, there is room for institutions, 
 in which such as have no sacred duties at home, may 
 devote their whole lives to visit their Lord in His 
 sick, poor, imprisoned, naked, hungry, thirsty mem- 
 bers". Such institutions do shed a lustre upon any 
 
 ■ Since the above was written, the following remarkable con- 
 firmation has occurred in a Preface written to controvert what the 
 Author supposes to be the peculiar views of Mr, Newman and his 
 friends. Amid grave difference of opinion, the tone of the whole 
 Preface seems to betoken a drawing together of men's minds, 
 even when they must still oppose each other, and deprecate any 
 extension of that which is peculiar to the other. The whole 
 passage is very illustrative of what Mr. Newman has said of the 
 moving " of the religious mind of our Church to something better 
 and truer than satisfied the last century." 
 
 " No wise man doubts that the Reformation was imperfect, or 
 that in the Romish system there were many good institutions, 
 and practices, and feelings, which it would be most desirable to 
 restore amongst ourselves. Daily church services, frequent com- 
 munions, memorials of our Christian calling continually presented 
 to our notice, in crosses and way-side oratories ; commemorations 
 of holy men, of all times and countries, the doctrine of the com- 
 munion of saints practically taught, religious orders, especially of 
 women, of different kinds, and under different rules, delivered 
 oTaly from the snare and sin of perpetual vows ; all these, most of 
 
 k2
 
 IS'S .-i//. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy. 
 
 Church ; they are evidences of self-denying holiness 
 fostered within it; the " soeurs de la charite" 
 not only create a rightful sympathy towards the 
 Churches wherein they exist, but they are one of 
 the most powerful attractions to withdraw feeling 
 but undisciplined minds from the communion of 
 our own ; they would be a grace to us, if we had 
 them ; the lack of them exposes us to loss. On 
 this account alone, then, people should beware how 
 they lightly speak against the celibate as a whole. 
 Yet probably the objection arises from confusing 
 compulsory with voluntary celibacy ; the high feel- 
 ings of devotedness which would with joy realize 
 such a calling do exist among us ; and it 
 need, I think, but be known that there are (as 
 there are) means provided for exercising such a 
 calling under protection, and we too shall have 
 our " sisters of charity." Parents willingly part 
 with a daughter for an earthly bridal ; some will be 
 
 which are of some efficacy for good, even in a corrupt church, 
 belong no less to the true Church, and would be purely bene- 
 ficial." (Preface to Dr. Arnold's Sermons on the Christian Life, 
 p. Ivi. V.) 
 
 There is no need of" perpetual vows;" in France vows are 
 allowed by the State to be taken only for five years ; any vow 
 should, of course, be taken with much humility and circumspection, 
 and after trial and acquired knowledge of a person's own strength 
 and weakness; only it does not appear why, when " perpetual 
 vows" are permitted and encouraged in the Old Testament, and 
 that even by parents in behalf of their children, (as in the case of 
 Samuel, not to speak of Samson,) they should, under the New, in 
 wliich greater strength is given, be accounted as necessarily 
 •* a sin."
 
 Art. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy. 133 
 
 found to spare them to be " brides of Christ," 
 ministers to Him in His sick. 
 
 On the other hand, our Reformation stands clear 
 from that sad and inexpHcable act of foreign 
 Reformers, (which Romanists so willingly impute 
 to all°,) when they deliberately sanctioned a Prince's 
 polygamy'' as a remedy against a grosser adultery: 
 our Reformers were bound by no vows to celibacy'', 
 so that Cranmer who married, broke none ; others 
 voluntarily abstained from that, which they wished 
 to be left free to each, as they should "judge the 
 same to serve better to godliness," thereby shewing 
 that they advocated its legality, not as a skreen for 
 themselves, but as thinking compulsory celibacy 
 inexpedient and dangerous. In our Church no 
 nun"" was tempted to break her vows. 
 
 On this whole subject, it were well if before 
 people allow themselves to use or to listen to the 
 hard speeches which have of late years been uttered 
 against the notion of celibacy as a religious act, or 
 the view of it in the Ancient Church, they would 
 consider how they escape therein speaking against 
 their Lord. Certainly, the principle of religious celi- 
 
 " e. g. Dr. Butler, Lect. 5. p. 250. 267. 
 
 P The dispensation given by Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, and 
 four others, to the Landgrave of Hesse, to marry a second wife, 
 in the lifetime of the first, 
 
 ■^ " The vow of chastity, which existed in the Ordination-service 
 of the foreign Churches, formed no part of that used in England." 
 vShort, Hist, of Eng. Ch. §. 311. 
 
 ' Dr. Butler, 1. c. p. 267. Exactly the same things were 
 brought forward before him by Dr. Milner, F.nd of Controversy.
 
 134 Art. xxxii. Celibacy of the Clergy. 
 
 bacy is so plainly set down by Himself, that it seems 
 to imply a strange ignorance or sad neglect of His 
 word, to dare to call that principle in question. And 
 His word is not like S. Paul's limited, by "the present 
 distress*," but, like Himself, eternal. Our Church, 
 as 1 said, recognises that principle in her Marriage 
 Service. I will now but set down those His 
 words, and, with Thorndike's '' comment on them, 
 so leave the subject. 
 
 " Matt. xix. 11, VZ. All are not capable of this word 
 (of not marryin<T). ' For there are eunuchs which were so 
 born from their mother's womb ; and there are eunuchs 
 which were made eunuchs by men : and there are eunuchs 
 that have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of 
 Heaven. He that is capable let him hold this."* Here it is 
 said that God hath made some men of such constitution of 
 nature, that they are able to contain themselves from mar- 
 riage, and that this is the gift of continence, which whoso 
 hath, falls under a command of not marrying ; whoso hath 
 not, of marrying. But when our Lord exhorts those that 
 are able to contain themselves from marriage to strive for 
 that grace, certainly He makes not that a gift of nature, 
 wjiich He would have a man endeavour to attain. He 
 that is exhorted to make himself an eunuch is not so made 
 by God, but from God he hath the grace to prefer the 
 kingdom of Heaven before even that content which God 
 alloweth him here ; and if he betray not that grace, by 
 preferrin;^ that content before the clearest and securest 
 means of attainmg it, he will not fail of grace to perform 
 tliat which he resolves for God's sake. And truly it were 
 >trange that the Gospel should make that f^iace which 
 
 • 1 ("(.r. vii. 
 
 lipilogur, p. ii. r. .'i.K p. '2!>6.
 
 Art. xxxvii. Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 135 
 
 conducts to the height of Christianity, to consist in an 
 endowment of nature." 
 
 Article xxxvii. 
 
 " The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm 
 of England." 
 
 I only set this Article down, that I may not seem 
 to omit any thing, yet there is no question to be 
 raised upon it. It relates to temporals, not to spi- 
 rituals. The "jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome" 
 stands contrasted with " the chief power of the 
 King's Majesty," and this is, in the Article itself, 
 limited to things temporal. The Article is entitled, 
 " Of the Civil Magistrates." It begins by claiming 
 the " chief power or government of all estates of 
 this realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, 
 in all causes" to the " King's Majesty," and denies 
 that it " ought to be subject to any foreign juris- 
 diction." It then explains the " chief Government" 
 claimed for the King, negatively, not to be " the 
 ministering either of God's word or of the Sacra- 
 ments," and positively to be only, " that they should 
 rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge 
 by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, 
 and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and 
 evil-doers." Accordingly, its chief object is to 
 deny the right of appeal to Rome in the case of 
 ecclesiastical persons or causes. Then it subjoins 
 the words prefixed above. Clearly, then, from the
 
 136 ^/7. xxxvii. Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 whole tenor of the Article, the " jurisdiction" 
 denied is a " temporal jurisdiction as to spiritual 
 causes or persons." And this is illustrated by the 
 oath of supremacy. " No foreign prince, person, 
 prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have 
 any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, 
 or authority within this realm." Both deny to the 
 Bishop of Rome, what and what only they claim to 
 the King. The (^th of supremacy is a negative 
 oath of allegiance. It rejects all allegiance which 
 may interfere with the allegiance to the King. 
 The very terms of the oath of supremacy, (in that 
 it puts together " prelate, state, potentate,") imply 
 that what it contemplates is any such '•' juris- 
 diction," as shall interfere with the authoritv of the 
 sovereign. Tlius Archbishop Bramhall''; 
 
 " Whatsoever power our Laws did divest the Pope of, 
 they invested the King with it : but they never invested 
 the King with any Spiritual power or jurisdiction; witness 
 the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth ; witness the puhlic 
 Articles of the Cliurcii ; witness the professions of King 
 James; witness all our Statutes themselves, wherein all 
 the parts of Papal ])owcr are enumerated which are taken 
 away ; his Encroachments, his Usurpations, his Oaths, his 
 Collations, Provisions, Pensions, Tenths, First-fruits, Re- 
 servations, I'alls, Unions Commendam, Exen)ptions, Dis- 
 pensations of all kinds, Confirmations, Licenses, Faculties, 
 Suspensions, Appeals, and G(jd knoweth how many 
 pecuniary artifices more: hut of them all, there is not 
 
 ' Schism guarded, sect. i. c. 9. Works, p. .'.i40. refericd to in 
 Palmer on llie (Imrrh, [i. ii. c. 2.
 
 ^//. xxxvii. Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 137 
 
 one that concerneth Jurisdiction purely Spiritual, or which 
 is an Essential right of the power of the Keys ; they are 
 all Branches of the External Regiment of the Church, the 
 greater part of them usurped from the Crown, sundry of 
 them from the Bishops, and some found out by the Popes 
 themselves, as the payment for Palls, which was nothing 
 in St. Gregory's time, but a free gift or liberality or 
 bounty, free from imposition and exaction. 
 
 " Lastly, consider the grounds of all our grievances 
 expressed frequently in our Laws, and in other writers, 
 the disinheriting of the Prince and Peers, the destruction 
 and annuUation of the Laws and the prerogative Royal, 
 the vexation of the King"'s l^iege People, the impoverishing 
 of the Subjects, the draining the Kingdom of its Treasure, 
 the decay of Hospitality, the disservice of God, and filling 
 the Churches of England with Foreigners, the excluding 
 Temporal Kings and Princes out of their Dominions, the 
 Subjecting of the Realm to spoil and ravine, gross Simoni- 
 acal Contracts, Sacrilege, grievous and intolerable oppres- 
 sions and extortions. Jurisdiction purely Spiritual doth 
 neither disinherit the Prince nor the Peers, nor destroy 
 and annul the Laws and Prerogative Royal, nor vex the 
 King's Liege People, nor impoverish the Subject, nor drain 
 the Kingdom of its Treasures, nor fill the Churches with 
 Foreigners, nor exclude Temporal Kings out of their 
 Dominions, nor subject the Realm to spoil and ravine. 
 Authority purely Spiritual is not guilty of the Decay of 
 Hospitality or disservice of Almighty God, or Simony, or 
 Sacrilege, or oppressions and extortions. No, no, it is 
 the external Regiment of the Church, by new Roman 
 Laws and Mandates, by new Roman Sentences and Judg- 
 ments, by new Roman Pardons and Dispensations, by new 
 Roman Synods and Oaths of Fidelity, by new Roman 
 Bishops and Clerks. It is your new Roman Tenths and 
 First-fruits and Provisions and Reservations and Pardons 
 and Indulgences, and the rest of those horrible mischiefs
 
 138 Art. xxxvii. Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 and damnable customs, that are apparently guilty of all 
 these evils. These Papal Innovations we have taken away 
 indeed, and deservedly, Imving shewed the express time, 
 an.l place, and person, when and where, and by whom 
 every one of them was first introduced into England. 
 
 And again'', 
 
 " We have only cast out seven or eight branches of 
 Papal jurisdiction in the exterior court; which Christ or 
 His A))ostles never challenged, never exercised, never 
 meddled with ; which the Church never granted, never 
 disposed. He might still for us enjoy his Protopatriarchate, 
 and the dignity of an Apostolical Bishop, and his primacy 
 of order, so long as the Church thought fit to continue it 
 to that See, if this would content him." 
 
 Or again, to take the words of a recent author, 
 following Abp. Bramhally. 
 
 " The learned primate Bramhall has observed, that 
 these acts were not intended to deprive the Roman Pontiff 
 of any really spiritual power; they only cast out some 
 branches of his exterior jurisdiction which were not insti- 
 tuted by Christ, nor by the Catholic Church. They did 
 not deny the precedency of the Bishop of Rome in the 
 Universal Church, nor his right (in conjunction with 
 Christian princes) of summoning and presiding in General 
 Councils, nor his power of defining questions of faith in 
 conjunction with the Catlujlic Church, nor his right to 
 exhort all Bishops to observe the Canons, nor his being the 
 centre of (,'atholic unity, when he is in communion with all 
 the Catholic Church. None of these things (the chief 
 privileges of the Roman ))riinacy according to Romanists) 
 
 ^ il). sect. fj. 
 y I'almer, 1. c.
 
 ArL xxxvii. Jvrhdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 139 
 
 were affected by the Acts of Parliament for abolishing the 
 usurped jurisdiction of the Roman Bishop in England ; 
 and therefore it is vain to impute schism or heresy to the 
 Church of England on this account, even on the sup- 
 position that the primacy of the Roman See is of divine 
 institution." 
 
 1 do not mean, of course, to imply by this, that 
 the Bishop of Rome has any lawful claims to 
 " spiritual supremacy" over us; our very acknow- 
 ledgment of our Articles implies our sense of a 
 right committed to us, to regulate the affairs of 
 our Church (whenever this should be necessary) 
 by and i'or ourselves. I only mean, as a matter 
 of fact, that any discussions as to any spiritual 
 authority of the Bishop of Rome, — supposing that 
 he was in communion with the whole Church, or 
 that he would acknowledge its authority to be 
 superior to his own, — -is foreign to this Article, 
 which relates to things temporal only. Meanwhile, 
 it may be said that a primacy of order, and the 
 claim that no Council should be considered CEcu- 
 menical and authoritative which lacked the con- 
 currence of so eminent a See, as they will abundantly 
 satisfy both the concessions of any of the early 
 fathers, and the claims of the earlier Popes, so may 
 they be obviouslv conceded without anv risk to 
 the safety of our Provincial Church. 
 
 On the same ground, lest I should appear to gloss 
 over any thing, 1 would just advert to three other
 
 140 Art. xi. Justification by Faith nnly. 
 
 Articles not relating to questions in which we are 
 at issue with the Romish system, and apparently 
 not contemplated by those, vvho condemned the prin- 
 ciples of the Tract. So much has been written 
 on them lately, that I may be the more brief 
 here. 
 
 Article xi. 
 
 " That we are justified by Faith only, is a most whole- 
 some doctrine.^*' 
 
 On Article xi. our friend contends, that "Justifi- 
 cation by faith only," as the instrument through 
 which we receive it, does not exclude " Baptism'* 
 from being the instrument through which God con- 
 veys it ; and this is indeed so palpable from the 
 Article itself, which is contrasting only " the 
 merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," 
 received " through faith," with " our own works 
 or deservings," that it seems strange how any 
 should have thought that the doctrine of Baptism 
 entered at all into the subject of this Article. The 
 Article simply contrasts " the merits of our Lord 
 and Saviour" and '* our works," and says we are 
 justified for tiic sake of the one, not of the other ; it 
 is employed in laying down one principle, not in 
 stating the whole compass of divinity ; the doc- 
 trine of the Sacraments comes in elsewhere ; the 
 Article coiitrasts, as the source or meritorious
 
 Art. xii. xiii. Works before and after Jastijication. 141 
 
 causes of Justification, " the Merits of our Lord" 
 and " our own merits ;" and these would naturally 
 exclude each other; but " our Lord's merit'* as the 
 " sole source of our justification" does not exclude 
 '* Baptism'' as the " sole channel" through which 
 He conveys it, any more than it does faith as the 
 sole instrument through which we receive it. The 
 whole is concisely worded thus^ ; 
 
 " We are justified by Christ alone, in that He has pur- 
 chased the gift ; by Faith alone, in that Faith asks for it; 
 b}' Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it ; and by 
 newness of heart alone, for newness of heart is the life 
 of it." 
 
 Articles xii. and xiii. 
 
 '^ Works done before the grace of Christ and the 
 inspiration of His Spirit [' before justification,' title of ihe 
 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 judg- 
 ment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable (grata et ac- 
 cepta) to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a 
 true and lively faith." 
 
 As, in Article xi. *' the merits of our Lord" are 
 
 * Tract 90, p. 13,
 
 \4'2 Art. xii. xiii. Works before and after Jmlijicution. 
 
 contrasted with " our own," so in Articles xii. and 
 xiii. our own works before and after justification 
 are broadly contrasted W'ith each other ; and one 
 chief object of the two Articles plainly is, to carry 
 out the contrast of Article xi., and to declare that 
 our works are no w^ays the meritorious cause of our 
 acceptableness with God; — not those before justifi- 
 cation, because " they are not done as God hath 
 willed and commanded them to be done," and so 
 " have the nature of sin ;" nor those after, because 
 1) they " cannot put away our sins," nor 2) even 
 in themselves " endure the severity of God's judg- 
 ment ;" — and therefore we must on both grounds 
 have recourse to the merits of our Lord to efface 
 our sins, and obtain a merciful judgment for our 
 good works. We are, then, thus contemplated in 
 these Articles, as in two conditions, " justified" 
 and " unjustified," and our works are declared 
 broadly and on the whole, in our unjustified state 
 to have " the nature of sin ;" good works, in our 
 justified state, are said to be " pleasing and ac- 
 ceptable to God in Christ." But although, to 
 use our friend's strong words in another place'', of 
 our state by nature, 
 
 " all that we do, whether from better principles or 
 from worse, whether of an IndiflTerent nature or directly 
 moral, whether spontaneously, or habitually, or accident- 
 ally, all is pervaded with a quality of evil so odious to 
 
 " Ou Justification, p. 97.
 
 Art. xii. xiii. Works before and aj'ler Justification. 143 
 
 Almighty God, as to convert even our best services into 
 profanations ; or, in the expressive words of St. Paul, 
 * They that are in the flesh cannot please God ;'"" 
 
 it does not follow, of course, that all works 
 " before justification" have equally " the nature of 
 sin." Each of these states, — ^justification, or being 
 unj ustified , — admits of infinite variations and degrees, 
 from theirs who are all but angels to theirs who are 
 all but devils. As being justified or no, they may 
 be considered as two states ; but the individuals 
 included under them may be in an infinite variety 
 of relations to Almighty God. Taken as two 
 states, the " justified" must include all, from those 
 who have all but attained to perfection, to those in 
 whom " the things which remain" "are ready to die," 
 and themselves are all but out of their justified state: 
 on the other hand, of those not justified, some may 
 be almost Christians, others *' past feeling," or 
 without any trace of the life of God in them or of 
 His image. But since there can be no good thing 
 in any one, except through the Spirit of God and 
 the grace of Christ, they who are " almost Chris- 
 tians" can not have become such except through 
 His grace and inspiration ; they are being " drawn 
 by the Father" and so are in some way acceptable 
 to Him, although, in that they are being drawn, and 
 not actually " come" to the Son, they are not 
 yet justified : still they and their actions are in an 
 intermediate state ; they are not justified, nor their 
 good actions like the " good works" of the Jus-
 
 144 Art. xii. xiii. Works before and after Justification. 
 
 titled ; and yet neither are they nor their actions 
 like those whose heart the Holy Spirit has not 
 moved nor influenced their actions. Cornehus was 
 in a degree " accepted with God ;" his " right- 
 eousness, worked" through the Divine aid, his 
 " prayers" and his " alms" had " gone up for a 
 memorial hefore God ;" still he was not yet justi- 
 fied ; for the angel, who tells him " thy prayer is 
 heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in 
 the sight of God," bade him also send for St. Peter, 
 '* who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all 
 thy house shall be saved." Again, as Bishop Bull 
 points out, since repentance and faith are required 
 of those who come to be baptized, and repentance 
 is not a simple feeling, but one issuing in various 
 actions, there must be, in all cases, before justifica- 
 tion, actions in their degree accepted by God, yet 
 accepted not as man's own, but His, Whose gift 
 repentance and the works of repentance are. To 
 hear Bishop Bull " : 
 
 " Proceed we to the second class of testimonies, those 
 namely in which some special works are prescribed as 
 altogether necessary to salvation. Hereto belong passages 
 which require repentance, as an antecedent condition, 
 without which no tme obtains forgiveness of sins from 
 God. Such occur every where in the New Testament ; 
 to take then one or two only ; Acts ii. 38. ' Kepcnt, and 
 be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ 
 f(jr the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost;' and Acts iv. 10. 'Repent therefore, 
 
 ' Harm. Apost. c. 2. \. 6, 7.
 
 ^//. xii. xiii. Works before and after Justification. 145 
 
 and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, 
 when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence 
 of the Lord.' In these places, any one must see that 
 besides faith, repentance from sin also, and turning to 
 God, are required of necessity for the remission of sins or 
 justification." 
 
 " It is further to be observed, that repentance is not 
 one or a single vv^ork, but the complex, as it were, of 
 many other works. For it comprehends within its com- 
 pass the following works, which are neither few nor of 
 slight account. 1) Sorrow for sins, (-2 Cor. vii. 10.) 
 2) Humiliation under the hand of God, whereby a person 
 humbly acknowledges that he deserves the Divine wrath, 
 (Jas. iv. 10.) .3) Hatred and detestation of sins, (Ezek. vi. 
 9. XX. 43. xxxvi. 31.) 4) Confession of sins, (1 Joh. i. 9.) 
 5) Earnest and lowly entreaty of the Divine mercy, (Acts 
 viii. 2.) 6) The love of God, (Ex. xx. 6.) 7) Ceasing 
 from sin, (Prov. xxviii. 13. Is. i. 16.) 8) A firm purpose 
 of new obedience, (Acts xi, 23.) 9) Restitution of things 
 ill-gotten, (Ex. xxxiii. 14, 15. Lev. vi. 1 — 7. Luke xix. 
 8, 9.)— -10) Forgiveness of things which our neighbours 
 have committed against us, — (Matt. vi. 14, 15) 11) Works 
 of mercy or alms. Which how much they avail to obtain 
 remission of sins from God, is sufficiently clear from that 
 well-known passage, Dan. iv. 27. where the holy prophet 
 suggests this wholesome counsel to king Nebuchadnezzar, 
 as yet sticking fast in his sins, ' Redeem thy sins by 
 almsgiving and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the 
 poor.' — Herewith agreeth in the New Testament what 
 St. James teacheth in this same 2d chapter, v. 13. ' Judg- 
 ment without mercy to him, who hath shewed no mercy.* 
 But what ' mercy' he means, is clear from what follows, 
 v. 15, 16. See Luke xi. 41. (and Grotius on the place, 
 Is. i. 17. Luke xvi. 9. 1 Tim. vi. 17, &c. 1 Pet. iv. 8. 
 Heb. xiii. 16. so that Chrysostome truly said (in the 
 Sermon on repentance), ' Repentance without almsgiving 
 
 L
 
 146 Art. xii. xiii. Works be/ore and after Justification. 
 
 is dead and hath no wings.' And hence (to note this by 
 the way) arose that practice observed in the ancient 
 Church, whereby, of such as through very grave offences 
 had fallen under the censure of tlie Church, there was 
 required, to make them capable of absolution, not only 
 confession of sins and amendment of their past life, but 
 also works of mercy, by them called uya^ozqylcti, good 
 works. You see how widely works of repentance extend; 
 you see that they are all laid down by the Holy Spirit as 
 altogether necessary to obtain forgiveness of sins." 
 
 Since, then, repentance is a work or, as Bp. Bull 
 says, " a complex of good works," and yet ante- 
 cedent to justification, it follows that there are 
 works, in their degree acceptable to God, by Whose 
 aid and the inspiration of Whose good Spirit they 
 are wrought, antecedent to a man's complete 
 justification ; whereas Bp. Bull's opponent, that 
 he might escape admitting that works had any 
 connection with justification, consistently main- 
 tained, that " repentance or true contrition for sin, 
 was no ways necessary to obtain the first justifica- 
 tion." Bp. Bull, in support of his doctrine, 
 appeals to the Homilies, our Liturgy, and Catechism, 
 that repentance (including the fruits of repentance), 
 as well as faith, is requisite to justification ; and 
 Field", whom he quotes, declares in the name of 
 the Protestants generally ; 
 
 " They teach no such thing [as they were charged with 
 by Stapleton, ' that they make our justification to consist 
 in the sole remission of sins by faitii, that the sacraments
 
 Art. xii. xiii. Works be/are and after Jmtification. 147 
 
 confer nothing to our justification]' but that Baptism and 
 repentance are necessarily required in them that are to be 
 first justified." 
 
 It is clear, then, that the object of our Articles 
 was, to secure broadly the great principles, that 
 we are accounted righteous before God, for the 
 merits of our Redeemer, received through faith, 
 not for our own ; that even when justified, our 
 works, through the remains of corruption in us, 
 cannot be the grounds of our final acceptance, as 
 neither were those before justification, of our 
 justification ; in few words, that we were chosen 
 beforehand, of God's free grace, not on account of 
 any thing in us, to be made members of His Son ; 
 and when in Him, are finally accepted, for His 
 sake, in Whom we are. The doctrine, which it 
 would exclude by Art. xiii., is a form of Pelagi- 
 anism, that the works in themselves " make men 
 meet to receive grace," that God chooses men to 
 the privileges of the Gospel with regard to what 
 they, by their natural powers, became : the state- 
 ment, of course, does not mean to exclude the 
 truth, that "grace used attracts more grace;" 
 that " to him that hath, shall be given ;" that 
 obedience to God's fainter and indistincter calls is 
 rewarded by Him by clearer and distincter, until 
 " whom He hath called, them He also justifieth." 
 
 " Dr. Th. Tull quoted in the Apol. pro Harm. sect. 7. §. 2. 
 " App. to B. 3. on the Church, p. 298. 
 
 L 2
 
 1 48 Condemnation of Tract 90 precipitate. 
 
 Our friend's words then seem to rae fully borne 
 out ; 
 
 *' They° [the Articles] say that works before grace and 
 justification are worthless and worse, and that works after 
 grace and justification are acceptable, but they do not 
 speak at all of works with God's aid before justification." 
 
 I have now gone through the several Articles, 
 of which explanations were given in our friend's 
 Tract ; I examined these explanations carefully, 
 with a view to ascertain whether they did contain 
 any relaxation of the Articles (as I myself under- 
 stood them) or no ; had it appeared to me so, there 
 was yet the further question, to what extent the 
 Articles were meant to include persons, who did 
 not go so far from doctrine existing in the Church 
 of Rome as their Authors ; it is certain from Bp. 
 Burnet's statement, quoted by our friend p, that this 
 was the object of a change in the 28th Article, 
 when the 39 Articles were, in Q. Elizabeth^s reign, 
 formed out of the 42 ; to me, however, there 
 seemed no occasion to go to this point ; I have 
 felt no doubt, carefully and conscientiously ex- 
 amining both editions of the Tract, that the mean- 
 ing in which our friend would have them con- 
 strued, in conformity and subordination to the 
 teaching of the Church Catholic, is not only 
 an admissible, but the most legitimate, inter- 
 
 - Tract 90. p. fil. p Tract 90, p. 82.
 
 Condemnation of Tract 90 precipitate. 149 
 
 pretation of them ; it appears to me as clear, 
 that they are not directed against any thing 
 occurring, here and there, in the early Church, 
 even though not Catholic, but against the existing 
 system in the Church of Rome. This appears to 
 me so plain, that I cannot but think that any who 
 persist in those imputations of " Jesuitism, dis- 
 honesty, &c." must be actuated by some " spirit, 
 they know not of." Nor need 1 conceal my deep 
 regret, that a body, for whom we both feel much 
 respect and regard, should, in this instance, have 
 departed from its wonted caution and tenderness of 
 proceeding, and condemned precipitately, unex- 
 plained and unheard, the principles of the Tract, 
 which, so suddenly brought before them, they but 
 imperfectly understood. On a former occasion 
 when you were away from us, they suspended, 
 for a whole Term, the proposed condemnation of 
 a publication, in order to give time for the Author 
 to explain his views, and for that explanation to be 
 weighed; on the present, they thought it better 
 not to wait even two days. They admitted that they 
 had no precedent upon which to proceed ; but they 
 preferred, in all this haste, to establish a new one. 
 I do not mean to impute any personal unkindness 
 to them ; quite the contrary ; some of them (de- 
 ceiving themselves, I must think) thought that 
 they were doing what was kindest towards our 
 friend, by precipitating the condemnation of the 
 Tract, while he was yet induced by the wishes
 
 1 50 Condemnation of Tract 90 precipitate. 
 
 of friends to withhold liis name ; I only mean 
 to express what is generally felt, that they acted 
 under panic and excitement, produced by mis- 
 conception and misrepresentation. They could 
 not, I think, have judged as they did, had they 
 allowed the first alarm and excitement to pass by, 
 had they heard (as they were requested from more 
 than one quarter, and from one which they ought 
 most to have regarded) the explanation which was 
 all but on the point of being laid before them, and 
 " given the accused license to answer for himself 
 concerning the crime laid against him." It is 
 grievous certainly that the Heads of Houses should, 
 on so imperfect a view of the case, have en- 
 couraged by their authority, all the imputations 
 of dishonesty so freely cast upon us, because we 
 understand our Church and her system in a way 
 different from one, of late popular among persons, 
 who, we must think, have very little studied either 
 her, her character, or her formularies. Not less em- 
 barrassing is the very vagueness and comprehensive- 
 ness of their condemnation ; " interpretations, such 
 as are suggested in the Tract;" — all such are con- 
 demned ; yet what they are, is left for each to gather 
 for himself as best he may; one will claim the autho- 
 rity of the Board ^ for one thing, one for another, 
 
 " Even such a wiiter as Dr. Miller, gives circulation to the 
 ffport, that the " Board of the University" had " actually 
 instituted the appeal [to the Church] which he [Dr. M.] had 
 resolved to preitr, in tlic traIl^^mission of a most obnoxious Tract
 
 Condemnation of Tract QO precipitate. 151 
 
 as each may be disposed ; while 1 myself, and 
 those who look on the Tract as I do, can only 
 think that they condemned " modes of interpre- 
 tation," which they inferred to be contained in it, 
 but which never had any real existence. I should 
 be sorry needlessly to say any thing which might 
 pain a body, whom I much value, and from whom 
 I hope much ; yet I cannot but think that they 
 have put themselves in a false position, condemn- 
 ing unheard the Tract of one, over whom they had 
 no authority, and that in terms so vague as readily 
 to admit of being stretched to what I am convinced 
 they did not intend, the " mode of interpretation^' 
 really contemplated in the Tract, the Catholic 
 interpretation of the Articles and the Catholic 
 scheme of doctrine. I may as well speak out 
 what is commonly felt ; I cannot but think that, 
 along with any anxiety about the danger of" modes 
 of interpretation" of the Tract, which I have ground 
 to think had been inculcated very earnestly upon 
 them, they were under an unconscious bias, that 
 they wished to relieve the University of the onus 
 of the Tracts, as much as to condemn any " modes 
 of interpretation j'^ and that the preamble " the 
 
 of which Mr. N. had acknowledged himself the writer, to the 
 several Bishops of the English Church." (Letter to Prof. 
 Sewell, Irish Eccl. Journ. No. 10.) A private individual did 
 send the Tract, on his own responsibility, to the Bishops of 
 England and Ireland, and this is made the act of the Board 
 of Heads of Houses, and that Board the " Board of the Uni- 
 versity."
 
 152 Cotidemnation uf Tract 90 precipitate. 
 
 Tracts for the Times, a series of anonymous pub- 
 lications purporting to be written by Members of 
 the University, hut which are in no way sanctioned 
 by the University itself,'' was as important in their 
 eyes, as the resolution which it ushered in. Cer- 
 tainly, unless this had been a prominent object 
 with them, there was no occasion for so designating 
 the Tracts at all, and it is difficult to imagine in 
 what way the University could have been supposed 
 to have " sanctioned" Tracts, over which it had no 
 control, which were not even printed within it, did 
 not bear its " Imprimatur," did not any way fall 
 under its statutes or its cognizance. On the other 
 hand, while they condemned this Tract on the 
 ground of a statute, enjoining " that every student 
 shall be instructed and examined in the 39 Articles 
 and shall subscribe to thera ;" they left uncon- 
 demned a " History of Christianity'^ by one also 
 a member and once a Professor in the University, 
 which in a very distressing way explains away 
 miracles of our Blessed Lord ; and yet, that same 
 statute enjoins, that every student be instructed and 
 examined in the "Evidences of religion :^' they had 
 recently listened very patiently to a sermon denying 
 na])tismal regeneration. I do not question their 
 right to disconnect the University from the Tracts 
 in question, although it was done rather by a side- 
 wind ; we never sought to compromise the Univer- 
 hity, nor to gain its sanction ; we are but what we 
 are, private individuals in it, formed by her teach-
 
 't 
 
 Cotidemnatiun of Tract 20 precipitate. 163 
 
 ing, by the spirit which she breathes, by the moral 
 tone which her discipline imparts ; her sons, and 
 the sons of those who transmitted these doctrines 
 to us. But now that they have formally dis- 
 claimed " any way sanctioning the Tracts" and 
 have relieved the University of this odium, and 
 disembarrassed her defence by her " friends with- 
 out/' I own I think it would be but befitting 
 their candour, to reconsider the whole subject, 
 qualify (if on mature thought they see occasion) 
 the sentence which they lately passed, and state 
 more definitely what they object to, what they 
 do not. This they are called upon to do by 
 others % in an opposite direction, and to make 
 their condemnation more stringent. T fear nothing 
 from the real expression of their opinion, such as it 
 would now be formed, after the interval of peace 
 and calm which the Holy Season, lately past, 
 brought with it. 
 
 I would now, only, in conclusion, say a few 
 words on two subjects incidentally connected with 
 the Tract ; — the acknowledged tendency of certain 
 individuals in our Church to Romanism, and the 
 position of our own Church. 
 
 ' The Edinburgh Review^ No. 147^ p. 293. which very con- 
 sistently urges as a ground, that on the supposed principles of 
 Tract 90, Dissenters would be admissible to the University ; 
 which, of course, it must much deprecate !
 
 154 Tendency q/ individuals to Bomanism. 
 
 Of the extent of the tendency to Romanism, 
 which our friend acknowledges to exist in de- 
 tached cases, I have no means of forming any 
 estimate; but, whatever it be, it is surely a 
 very short-sighted view to make the Tracts or 
 their authors responsible for it. Was not the 
 Church warned sixteen years ago, (when we 
 were being taught, not teaching,) by that teacher 
 whose memory we together cherish and revere, 
 " with very solemn seriousness," to " buckle on 
 her armour and prepare herself to defend her very 
 citadel and the palladium of her faith ?" Were 
 there no secessions to Romanism before the 
 Tracts began ? none, and not rather in large 
 numbers, and those wholly persons whose Church- 
 views were most opposed to our's ? In Edin- 
 burgh alone, the annual converts to Romanism 
 were calculated at 100; but from the Kirk, 
 not from our Church. No! Rome has many 
 sympathies whereby to draw persons to herself. 
 To those who would lean, she offers undoubting 
 guidance ; for those who would have certainty, 
 she offers infallibility ; for the devout, she has her 
 Churches ever open and her frequent public ser- 
 vices, her retreats for devotion and contemplation ; 
 for the affectionate, she has the memory of the 
 saints of old ; for the imaginative, she has a 
 nominal reverence for Antiquity and a visible 
 Unity of Communion, spread over the whole 
 
 • British Critic, No. I. 1825.
 
 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 155 
 
 world, and every where professing to teach the 
 same truth. Her theory of Unity (to speak of this 
 first) at once fills the imagination and contents the 
 intellect. It is indeed a saltus mortalis ; but 
 those who can shut their eyes and take it, it places 
 beyond further difficulty. The visible unity of 
 the Church falls short of what it should be and 
 what we should have hoped ; Rome cuts the knot 
 by maintaining that her one Communion is the one 
 Church. Her's is indeed a fearful theory, cut- 
 ting off at one stroke 90 millions of the Greek 
 Orthodox Church, as well as our own Communion. 
 Yet, if any shrink not from this, or know not that 
 there is a Church as large almost as that of Rome, 
 which she cuts off from the Church " out of which 
 there is no salvation," in order to make way for 
 her scheme, it is a simple theory: it removes all the 
 difficulties which these sad and long rents of the 
 Church present to other theories of her Unity, to 
 say boldly with Rome, that the Church is visibly 
 one still ; that intercommunion is essential to the 
 one visible Church ; that Rome and Churches not 
 in communion with her cannot form one Church ; 
 that the Churches in communion with Rome, as 
 being the majority of Christendom, are the Church; 
 and that therefore Churches, not in communion 
 with her, are no Churches. In this way, any 
 strong statement of the claims and the unity of 
 the Church may be made a ground for joining 
 the Romish communion, and I myself know a
 
 156 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 
 
 case, in which this effect was produced by some 
 tracts of the Christian Knowledge Society. 
 
 Again, to take another class of minds, long 
 residence at Rome, now so common with our coun- 
 trymen, cannot be a thing indifferent ; what is 
 Catholic and un-Catholic is so strangely blended 
 together in the Roman system, that if what is 
 un-Catholic repels not, what is Catholic must win ; 
 the German artists have continually been drawn 
 to her through their studies ; among our own 
 people, it is well known that the associations with 
 the bright early days of the Faith, with Apostles 
 and Martyrs, the richness of her worship, her 
 solemn and primitive music, her paintings, her 
 ceremonies, have again and again created a sym- 
 pathy with her whole system, evil as well as good ; 
 it is idle then for persons to bring their families 
 within the sphere of all which is fascinating to 
 the senses in the Romish system, to take them 
 to the ceremonies, with which, unless very well 
 regulated or else profane, they will unduly sym- 
 pathize, and then attribute to any publications 
 in England the tendency to Romanism. Persons 
 who had returned to this country, with a strong 
 bias towards Rome, have been recovered by our 
 teaching ; their bias came not from us, but from 
 the thoughtlessness which familiarized them with 
 its mingled beauties and corruptions. 
 
 Again, another class is predisposed to Rome 
 by the harsh language used towards her, and by
 
 Tendency of indiciduals to Bomanism. 157 
 
 careless imputations, which they discover to be 
 unfounded ^ : another by the conflicting opinions 
 among ourselves, which it sees to be unnatural and 
 a defect in the state of a Church, and which it hopes 
 to escape by giving itself up implicitly to one, who 
 undertakes to guide it ". Another is attracted by 
 her order and discipline ; another by the self- 
 devotion of some of her members ^ ; another by find- 
 ing in her, amid her corruptions, (which in this 
 country are removed from sight,) Catholic truths 
 and practices which they have never been taught to 
 see, where they are, in their own Church. These hear, 
 for the first time, in her, of the high doctrine of the 
 
 ^ " I can say for myself, and I think every one who advances 
 from Protestantism towards Catholicity can say with me, that as 
 light breaks upon our minds we do not doubt of Rome, our doubts 
 lie the other way; for we say Rome is right so far; we have 
 been deceived ; and being wrong in these points, there is reason 
 to fear that we are wrong in others, We doubt Protestantism as 
 a whole, and suspect that Rome is right." '• Rev. Mr. Mason, a 
 distinguished convert," quoted in Rev. J, Rathborne's[a Romanist] 
 Letter on the Oxford Movement, p. 1 8. A person's bias ought to be 
 to trust the Communion in which he was made a member of Christ ; 
 but this writer, discovering himself to have been in error in some 
 points as to another Communion, mistrusted his Church, and trusted 
 Rome. In like way, the only person who went over to Rome, pro- 
 fessing previously to have valued some of our writings, went over in 
 about three weeks; setting aside all other circumstances, what must 
 be thought of that person's sense of responsibility, who, in three 
 weeks after his first impression in favour of a foreign Communion, 
 could decide on forsaking that in which God had placed him? 
 
 * e. g. the authoress of the two first vols, of Geraldine. 
 
 y The sight of the soRurs de la charite has had this effect.
 
 158 Tendency of individuals to Rumanism. 
 
 Holy Eucharist, while that of Transubstantiation 
 is glossed over ; and they think that in her alone, 
 is the Holy Eucharist more than a sign or comme- 
 moration. They witness, in her, weekly fastings 
 or daily prayers, and know not that their own 
 Church enjoins the one, and provides the other ; 
 that the negligence of the laity in coming, alone 
 hinders the daily service being realized as our 
 Church desires. They hear, in her, that alms- 
 deeds are good for the soul, and have not been 
 taught the comforts of almsgiving, which our Com- 
 munion Service sets forth in the words of Holy 
 Scripture, and our HomiUes from its leaching, in 
 connection with the fathers. They hear of the 
 value of habitual confession of sins before God's 
 ministers, as a means of self-discipline, and of the 
 benefits of Absolution, and know not that our 
 Church suggests it for such as need it, and leaves 
 them at liberty to choose for their Confessor 
 whom they wilP. In these and in other ways, 
 it has continually happened that persons have 
 sought in the Communion of Rome, what was 
 laid up for them in their own, more fully and 
 without corruption, had they but known it ; and 
 this valuable class will, of course, be the more 
 secured from wandering, the more the high Catholic 
 
 • " Let him come unto me, or to some other discreet and 
 learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the 
 ministry of God's holy Word, he may receive tlie benefit of abso- 
 lution," &c. First Exhort, in Communion Service.
 
 Tendency of individuals to Roniani.s?n. 159 
 
 doctrines of our Church are developed, and her 
 principles acted on. Instances have recently oc- 
 curred, in which by these means persons, for many 
 years estranged from her communion, have been 
 restored to it from that of Rome which they had 
 joined. Again, the more people cast themselves 
 back into Antiquity, and sympathize with the 
 Fathers and the Saints of old, and feel themselves 
 one Church with the Church of primitive times, 
 the more will that painful void be filled up, which 
 is caused by her present state of isolation. We 
 have a communion of Saints, a fellowship of doc- 
 trine, a oneness by descent, with the Church in 
 Apostolic days, even if those who are now in the 
 flesh acknowledge us not. 
 
 The character also in which Rome exhibits 
 herself in England, much aggravates our present 
 difficulties ; her policy is a corruption of the 
 Apostolic wisdom, to " become all things to all, 
 that by all means, it may" gain some; " it falleth 
 down and humbleth itself, that the congregations 
 of the poor may fall into the hands of its strong 
 ones." Her principle, that there is no salvation 
 out of Communion with herself, makes it her first 
 object to draw people any how into her Com- 
 munion. The extent too of her Communion is the 
 tangible proof she puts forward of her being the 
 Catholic Church. This is a sore temptation to her 
 to bend, relax, fall in with unholy ways and usages, 
 which promote this her first end. She would
 
 1 60 Tendency of individuals to Romauistn. 
 
 further holiness as much as she can ; but she 
 cannot afford to do what is right, if it would 
 cause the unholy to part from her. She is 
 obliged to temporize, to lure, to condescend, 
 when she cannot control. In some countries, she 
 is suffering the penalty of former sins, having 
 to support the credit of false miracles, which she 
 cannot disavow, without owning the past to have 
 been a fraud ; while in all, over which she has 
 dominion, she will tolerate and profit by what she 
 dares not approve ; will sit by in silence while men 
 tell falsehood or use violence in her behalf; will suffer 
 visions and miracles which she does not believe, to 
 be believed by her people and to bring gain to her 
 clergy; and even in her own guarded province of the 
 faith will permit unauthorized doctrines (such as that 
 of the immaculate Conception) to creep in and 
 take the public honours of truth *", wherever men 
 are disposed to receive them. It is painful to think 
 and speak of these things in another member of the 
 mystical Body of Christ, who once was the bulwark 
 of the Faith and a pattern of zeal, and who still has 
 holy practices and institutions, which we might 
 gladly imitate ; but Rome forces it upon us by 
 sending amongst us to steal away the hearts of the 
 children of our Church, boldly denying whatever 
 corruptions our people have not before their eyes ; 
 since these things were swept away by the 
 Reformation, and she has been able to begin anew 
 
 ^ Festivals and Churclies in honour of it.
 
 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. IGl 
 
 in a spirit more congenial to that of religious 
 minds here, and more approximating to early 
 Christianity. Thus for the more " enthusiastic 
 feelings of foreign hearts'," where the presence of 
 a Reformed Church furnishes no check, she has 
 wonder-working images of the Blessed Virgin 
 curiously decked out, through the offerings of 
 those taught to seek relief from them''; rival 
 images, which for some time contended for superi- 
 ority through the cures which they were alleged 
 to perform, until at last popular favour having 
 turned towards the one', it receives all the of- 
 ferings, the other remains neglected and in disgrace ; 
 pictures of saints which are said, by being carried 
 
 ' Dr. Wiseman, Letter to Mr. Newman, p. 25. These feel- 
 ings, I am assured, meet with but partial sympathy, and some- 
 times with wonder and doubt, amongst Romanists of our own 
 country who are sojourners abroad. 
 
 1' It is but following the example of Dr. Wiseman (p. 26.) to 
 give the following recent dialogue between an earnest-minded 
 English Catholic traveller and the person who shewed the 
 Church ; " In a Church at Venice (I am as sure as I can be it 
 was the del Camine) I saw a Madonna gorgeously dressed, 
 and asked why it was so unusually decorated. The Sagrestano 
 said. It was ' a very rich Madonna/ and that the people brought 
 every year great offerings of oil, wax, and money. I asked 
 why ? He said, ' it had done many miracles.' I said, ' I know 
 God could do miracles, but did not understand how an image 
 should do miracles.' He said, ' The Madonna prays for us in 
 Heaven.' I said, ' Supposing that to be so, I see no connection 
 between her intercession, and this image of wood and silk.' 
 He said, ' The faith teaches us so.' " 
 
 ' That in the Augustinian Church, in Rome ; the other is in 
 the Pantheon. 
 
 M
 
 16*2 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 
 
 in procession, to have stopped the plague and 
 to have averted the Cholera ; at Rome, the image 
 of a " Holy Child" is brought forth to bless 
 the people, and much benefit looked for by the 
 populace from its blessing and the honour paid to 
 it'"; at Naples the blood of S. Januarius is still 
 yearly liquefied", and the people are encouraged to 
 look upon the imposture as the sign of the favour 
 of the Almighty" ; in another Church is a waxen 
 figure of our Lord as an infant, to which the king 
 and the Court make an annual procession at 
 Christmas, the king carrying scissors to cut the 
 hair of the image, which, it is asserted, grows 
 miraculously every year''; at Rome is an image of the 
 Virgin which on one day in the year nods her head 
 
 " It is kept in the Church of the Ara Cceli in the Capitol. 
 Popular stories are told of its return to the Church, after it had 
 been sent for to work a cure, and another been exchanged for it, 
 too painfully ludicrous to set down, considering Whom the 
 image represents. 
 
 " A corresponding imposture and the mode of its being 
 wrought at Hales in Gloucestershire, is related by Bp. Burnet, 
 Hist, Ref. b. iii. t. i. p. 441, 
 
 ° " The scenes said often to take place on the Festival of S. 
 Januarius almost exceed belief; if the blood liquefies quickly, all 
 the people praise the Saint and promise him ofteringsj if not, 
 they abuse him in most unmeasured terms, (son>e of which were 
 repeated to me,) and threaten not to send him any more gifts, 
 or to take any more notice of him." Statement of a traveller. 
 It has been an habitual practice to delay the apparent liquefying 
 of the blood and ascribe it to the presence of " heretics" 
 (Knglish persons). 
 
 '' Stiitomonf ftf a traveller.
 
 Tendency (jf indimduals to Romanism. U)3 
 
 when she grants prayers "i; the Church is thronged 
 to see it ; indulgences are still granted for visiting 
 favourite shrines*^; in Italy, the prayers which 
 
 *> Burnet has a similar account, Hist. Ref. b. iii. t. i. p. 440, 
 1, " For their images, some of them were brought to London, 
 and were there, at St. Paul's Cross, in the sight of all the people, 
 broken ; that they might be fully convinced of the juggling 
 impostures of the monks. And in particular, the crucifix of 
 Boxley in Kent, commonly called the rood of grace ; to which 
 many pilgrimages had been made, because it was observed 
 sometimes to bow, and to lift itself up ; to shake, and to stir 
 head, hands, and feet; to roll the eyes, move the lips, and bend 
 the brows: all which were looked on by the abused multitude as the 
 efifects of a divine power. These were now publicly discovered to 
 have been cheats : for the springs were showed, by which all 
 these motions were made. Upon which John Hilsey, then 
 Bishop of Rochester, made a sermon, and broke the rood in 
 pieces." A similar story of " a wooden image of the Virgin, 
 held in very great veneration, bowing its head in acknow- 
 ledgment of salutations, and stretching forth a finger, which 
 before was doubled," together with a miraculous voice, is gravely 
 told in a short " treatise on the most famous confraternity of the 
 Scapular." Dublin. 
 
 ■■ The following copies of Indulgences are furnished by the 
 travellei" alluded to, note k. 
 
 1. In the Church of S. Cosrao e Damiano in the Forum at 
 Rome, 
 
 Indulgence. 
 " The image (picture) of the most holy Mary which is at 
 the great altar spoke to the Pope St. Gregory, and said to him, 
 ' Why dost thou not salute me in passing as thou wert wont .'"' 
 The Saint asked pardon, and granted to those that should 
 celebrate mass at that altar, the liberation of a soul from 
 Pui'gatory, that is, of that soul for which the mass is 
 celebrated." 
 
 2. In the Church of S. Maria Sopra Minerva^ Rome, under 
 
 M 2
 
 1(J4 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 
 
 occur ill the middle of tlie sermon, seem often 
 studiously directed to tlie Blessed Virgin ; in the 
 South of France, the Jesuits are now anew directing 
 the devotions of the poorer people to the Blessed 
 Virgin; in Ireland, it is taught that the wearing 
 of the Scapular of the Virgin, which may be lined 
 with silk, saves from Helh, and that on performance 
 
 the short exercise in honour of the afflicted heart of the most 
 holy Mary. 
 
 Sacra Indulgenza. 
 " His Holiness our Lord Pope Pius VH. fel, req. vouchsafed 
 to grant for ever the indulgence of 300 days, applicable to the 
 holy souls in Purgatory, to all the faithful every time they 
 shall recite the above prayers, according to the Rescript dated 
 January 3, 1825." 
 
 .3. Also over the entrance to the Chapel of Santa Maria della 
 Salute. 
 
 " His Holiness our Lord Pope Gregory XVL by a brief 
 dated September 17, 1836, accorded a plenary indulgence 
 to whomsoever, after confessing and communicating, shall 
 devoutly visit this holy image of the blessed Virgin under the 
 title of Consolatrice degli afflitti, on the second Sunday in July 
 and its octave in every year. He conceded also the partial 
 indulgence of 200 days to whomsoever, at least contrite, shall 
 visit the same holy image on any day of the year. The above 
 indulgences are moreover applicable to the good of the souls 
 in Purgatory. 
 
 February 11, 1839. 
 
 4. In the Medici Chapel at San Lorenzo, Florence. 
 
 Paul us V^ Pont. Max. cuique Sacerdoti qui ad hoc altare pro 
 defiinctis litaverit, animam suprcmis pcenis liberare perpetuo, 
 AN. MDCX. concessit." 
 
 See further on Indulgences Mr. Palmer's First Letter to 
 Dr. Wiseman, p. 16—19, 31, 2. 4.3. and above, p. 91. note k. 
 
 I " If our blessed Lady had bid us do some great thing, we 
 ought to do it ; how much rather then when slic .saith. Wear
 
 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 165 
 
 of some easy conditions, she delivers those of the 
 Confraternity from Purgatory on the first Saturday 
 after their decease ^ ; at Rome the month of 
 May is annually devoted to her service and 
 called by her name ; her medal or picture is 
 solemnly placed on the breasts of children ; the 
 declaration of her power and compassion is held, 
 in spiritual exercises, to be etficacious, even with 
 sinners who have listened unmoved to argu- 
 ments from the justice and mercy of God ; her 
 name seems often to displace that of the Third 
 Person of the Blessed Trinity ; she is still held 
 
 my livery and you shall not suffer eternal fire ! If she had 
 enjoined us to make a great abstinence ; to undergo some 
 rigorous mortification ; or to undertake a long and tedious 
 pilgrimage, with this condition, that we should be freed from 
 eternal damnation ; from the torments of purgatory, and from 
 the many dangerous events which easily do befal us in this 
 life ; right reason would dictate to us, that we ought to 
 attempt any thing for the obtaining of so great good : how 
 much more then, when she had annexed these and many more 
 extraordinary graces to the reception only, and devout wearing 
 the holy habit of the Scapular, with a final confidence in her 
 powerful protection ; but you will, perhaps, with Naaman, 
 object, what can such a weak thing avail us, as the Scapular 
 is? To this I answer with the apostle, (l Corinth, i. 27.) The 
 weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he might con- 
 found the strong. He that made choice of the weak element 
 of water to wash us from the original sin, which is deeply 
 indicated in us by the prevarication of our first father Adam, 
 hath made use of the weak habit of the Scapular to pi'oduce 
 those excellent effects which are mentioned in the chapter 
 following. 
 
 ' Treatise on the Scapular, c. 9- (Dublin.)
 
 1 (it) Tendency of individuah to Rumanisni. 
 
 out virtually as a preferable mediatrix to our Lord 
 Himself', and popular feeling flows so directly 
 towards adoration of her, that even Rome herself 
 has at least on one occasion been forced to pause 
 and has denied to her image, what it is shocking 
 should ever have been asked for itS — honours 
 hitherto reserved for those mysteries in which Rome 
 acknowledges the presence of God incarnate. In 
 the new school of art in Munich, on the con- 
 trary, where religion is in a purer form, the 
 Mother, as in the oldest school", has again become 
 a subordinate object, and although enthroned, is 
 worshipping her Son. In Ireland, Romanism 
 becomes political and is subservient to dema- 
 gogues ; in the United States, she boasts that she 
 is Republican ; on the continent of Europe she 
 courts absolute sovereigns ; among ourselves, she 
 drops, as far as possible, every thing distinctive, 
 and assimilates herself, as much as may be, to the 
 Anglican Church ; " Transubstantiation" is repre- 
 sented as the doctrine of the " Real Presence;*' 
 pictures of Purgatory, and Purgatorial societies 
 have no place, and persons are allowed to believe 
 Purgatory itself to be only the loss of the Divine 
 
 • See Postscript. 
 
 ' viz. the use of the canopy in processions. 
 
 " In the ohlest paintings, the Madonna is introduced, medi- 
 tating on (tr prayinff to, or proposinpf for contemplation her 
 Infant Son; in the scliool of Rapliael, &c. she is only shewing 
 n mother's care, and, as the mother, is the chief object.
 
 Tendency of individuals to jRontanistn. 1<)7 
 
 Presence (poena damni), not any sensible suffering 
 (poena sensus),and so to differ little from the doctrine 
 of the intermediate state"; (while in Ireland persons 
 are incited to religious acts in memory of The 
 Passion of our Lord by the grant of indulgences, 
 many plenary, others for many hundred years>, 
 " applicable to suffering souls in Purgatory.") 
 Invocations of Saints, in which they are called upon 
 themselves to aid us, are withdrawn, and the 
 practice is represented as identical with requests 
 to friends on earth ^ ; Indulgences are limited 
 
 ^ OnC;, who had gone over to Romanism, stated to the 
 Author that he had never met with any other doctrine as to 
 Purgatory, among Romanists, though he had spoken with very 
 many. The pain, according to him, consisted in an intense 
 longing for the Divine Presence; so that, instead of being a 
 state of " greater suffering than any thing in this life," (see 
 above, p. 84 — 87j) it would be a state of higher joy than is 
 vouchsafed to most Christians, corresponding to that spoken of 
 in the Canticles. 
 
 y " The pious sodality," &c. p. 30, see above, p. 92. note k. 
 In Bouvier, the word " suffering" does not occur. Again in 
 the treatise on the Scapular, c. 7- " The excellency and 
 greatness of this privilege []the speedy release of the souls of 
 the confraternity through S. Mary^ will easily appear, if we 
 consider how horrible the broiling torments of jiurgatory are ; 
 (the angelical doctor S. Thomas saith) that they do exceed the 
 pains, which Jesus Christ suffered in His holy Passion. — From 
 these fearful torments the devouts of the holy Scapular are 
 exempted, &c." 
 
 * Dr. Wiseman admits, " Without wishing to cast censure 
 upon any one, I have observed with pain, that occasionally in 
 controversy regarding the Saints and their Queen, there is a 
 temptation to lower the consideration in which we hold them,
 
 168 Tendency C)/' individuals to Romanis^m. 
 
 to the remission of punishment on this earth ; 
 ** images and pictures" are become again only 
 *' instruments of teaching," or reminiscences of 
 absent friends. " These things," said Romanist 
 ecclesiastics from our country in the presence of 
 one of the favourite images at Rome, " seem 
 strange to us." " They carry the worship of 
 the Blessed Virgin and of the Saints too far 
 here ; it interferes with the worship of God." 
 In Italy, miracles are alleged on authority, in 
 support of doctrine, which, in this country are 
 withdrawn '^ from the narrative, as suspicious or 
 unbefitting. Among us, as (in the main) a 
 
 to dim their glory, and perhaps to save ourselves some re- 
 proaches, at the expense of our Catholic brethren abroad." 
 Remarks on Mr. Palmer's Letter, end. Dr. W. perhaps does 
 not know, as we do, that in our countrymen of his Communion, 
 these feelings of disparagement of their brethren abroad are 
 not assumed only in controversy, but are often seriously enter- 
 tained. 
 
 ' " I read it Qhe original of Liguori's " Glories of Marj'," 
 approved of by the Convocation of Rites, with the sanction of 
 Pius VII. 1S03.] most carefully, and was surprised to find 
 that the main ])ro()fs for this unscriptural worship was a series 
 of visions and sujjposed miracles said to be wrought by images, 
 &c. almost Jill of them childish beyond conception, and some of 
 them ludicrous in the extreme. On comparing the translation 
 with the original, I found that the translator had prudently sup- 
 pressed the most silly." Rev. F. Nixon, Address to the Roman 
 Catliolic Fnli,il)itants of ( astlctowii, 1840. The author, who 
 writes only in self-vindication, abstains from translating these 
 htories, because " I do not like triHing upon any religious sub- 
 ject, and it would be impossible to read those fables with a 
 grave countenance."
 
 Tendency of individuals to Romanism. 1 69 
 
 moral earnest people, Confession is used as a 
 check to sin; in Italy the obligation to it is 
 made consistent with a state of society generally 
 and openly charged with the grossest profligacy, 
 tempting to it, and in itself almost implying the 
 commission of " adultery in the heart ;" if com- 
 mon opinion be but partially grounded in truth, we 
 must believe that adulterers and adulteresses receive 
 absolution from the Priest, and " return to their 
 vomit" which they never purposed to quit : while 
 in Rome which calls itself *' Mater Orbis" the 
 first Bishop of the West presides over a govern- 
 ment chiefly composed of Ecclesiastics, and yet so 
 corrupt that it has passed into a proverb that the 
 sight of Rome is incompatible with faith, " Roma 
 veduta, fede perduta." In this country, fasting 
 is dispensed with on account of sickness only ; 
 in Spain dispensations from fasting, except on 
 Friday, are sold, as a matter of course, to any 
 one, or to whole families habitually, who prefer 
 not to fast ; in Rome, the very Day of our 
 Lord's Passion (and that, during the very hours 
 when He was nailed to the Cross for us) 
 is uniformly, amid some outward distinctions 
 of meats, made by Cardinals a day of official 
 entertainment and a feast". " When I go to 
 
 b " On Good Friday Cardinal received all the 
 
 Cardinals at dinner at two in the attcrnoon with many English- 
 men in uniform. The dinner consisted of soup, fish, cutlets, 
 and every variety of dish all made of fish, but indistinguisliable
 
 1 70 Tendency uf mdividuals to Romanism. 
 
 mass in my own country," said a pious German 
 nobleman lately, "it is to pray; but here [at 
 Rome] prayer seems the last object for which 
 people assemble ; the fashionable Churches are 
 mere conversaziones." And while among us cor- 
 ruptions are withdrawn, Rome adopts studiously 
 " evangelical" language''; exhibits beautiful pic- 
 tures of monastic life to attract the enthusiastic 
 among us ; introduces " orders of mercy" such 
 as we might have ourselves, which we too need, 
 and which are most calculated to win a kind- 
 hearted nation. In this way, she has gained some, 
 and is too likely to gain more ; whether in the end 
 she will not have to repay with usury those whom by 
 such means she has gained, we cannot yet see; such 
 converts are Anglicans at heart ; at least are far 
 nearer to our Communion, than (in its present 
 state) to that to which they have joined themselves; 
 this, as our Church realizes her position, they may, 
 we trust, more and more see ; their sympathies are 
 with us, not with the corruptions in the Roman 
 Church ; we have resigned them, we trust, in 
 chastisement only, to receive them again after 
 a while, bringing back with them, (if it may be,) 
 
 from the richness of the sauces from any other dinner. This 
 was antiual." MS. Journal. 
 
 ' Such was the inij)ression u])on the author, on reading the 
 .Sd vol. of Geraldinc ; attributed to an able controversialist- 
 The very vehicle, beinp^ unreal, (a story,) perhaps gave the 
 more temptition to use unreal language ; yet the same has 
 been observed by another, who would " think no evil."
 
 Tendency qf individuals to Homanistn. 171 
 
 the rest of that estranged Communion to our 
 ancient British Church ; we may hope that it is 
 but like the Eastern fable, that the darkness 
 greedily swallowed the light, but was itself over- 
 come by that which it absorbed into itself. But 
 though we may hope this in the end, they who 
 join the Romish Communion in this country on 
 the ground of its purity from what is peculiarly 
 Romish, have no security that they may not at any 
 time be entangled in the whole system ; what has 
 been, may again be ; and one may unhesitatingly 
 say, that it is the presence of our Church alone, which 
 makes Romanism in this country so different from 
 what it was, and, in Italy especially, now is. 
 Whoever joins it from our Communion does what 
 in him lies to bring back that darkness, by 
 weakening the Church which mainly keeps it in 
 check ; and, since their Communion is one, he 
 makes himself responsible for the corruption else- 
 where prevailing ; he countenances in others, what 
 in his own person he avoids. 
 
 But, besides these difficulties from without, there 
 will be, it must be added, others from within; a 
 system, practical and reverent, as is the true 
 Catholic system in our Church, tends more than 
 any other, by God's grace, to produce a sense of 
 responsibility in those who embrace it ; still no 
 scheme of doctrine will in itself protect those 
 who hold it : in any extensive revival of doctrine, 
 truths will be very unequally received, and will
 
 172 Tendency qf individuals to Bomanisni. 
 
 be perverted by those who do not receive them 
 in *' an honest and true heart ;" some will take 
 them up as a beautiful theory, as matter of 
 imagination, and these " having no root in them- 
 selves," will '* in time of temptation fall away ;" 
 others will embrace them with ardour and affection, 
 but without self-discipline and humility, and these 
 too, it is to be feared, secure that they are stand- 
 ing, and not "taking heed,'^ will fall. There are 
 many forms of unreality ; many ways in which 
 those who are unreal, may deceive themselves, and 
 seem to themselves wheat when they are but chaff; 
 and, as being such, will be carried away out of the 
 barn-floor by the sifting wind of temptation, when- 
 ever it is permitted to blow upon them. This the 
 writers of the Tracts cannot help; they may lament 
 to hear of persons allowing themselves in the habit 
 of speaking indignantly of sins committed at the 
 time of or in the English Reformation, instead 
 of humbling themselves for " their own sins and 
 the sins of their forefathers," and acknowledging that 
 what we have is more than we deserve, more than 
 we realize, is what is best fltted for us' ; it is sad 
 to see or hear ol" persons, talking and not acting ; 
 fasting, as has been said, in theory and in their 
 studies'" : it is sad to sec people apparently prizing 
 
 ' Tract 86. " liulications of a siiperintendinj;- I'lovidence in 
 the preservation ol ilie Piaycr Ijook, and in the changes which it 
 has undergone;." 
 
 '" (lerahline.
 
 Tendency of hnlivichmls to Romanism. 173 
 
 what is Catholic for its novelty not for its holiness; 
 or tempting God, by approximating as near as 
 they may to Romanism, and thinking that they 
 shall not fall into it ; but surely it is responsibility 
 enough, not directly to encourage any evil ten- 
 dencies. Since men " wrest Scripture to their 
 own damnation," how much more must the words 
 of frail man be liable to abuse. 
 
 Those, also, who have been God's chief in- 
 struments in the great work of restoring half- 
 forgotten doctrine, — I mean our friend himself, and 
 the Author of the Christian Year, — have again and 
 again repeated, that the change which is going on 
 around us is " not" satisfactorily accounted for by 
 any particular movement of individuals on a parti- 
 cular spot." They have declined the praise; let 
 them not unduly bear the blame. In part, we 
 must all bear it ; no one can doubt that if the 
 system of our Church were fully carried out, her 
 doctrine fully taught, her holy precepts acted up 
 to, her devotions offered " in spirit and in truth," 
 her Communions frequent and frequented as she 
 desires, her self-denying training followed, — in a 
 word, if all the means of grace, of which she is 
 made the channel, were realized as they ought, 
 God's blessing would so rest upon us, that we 
 should have nothing to fear for our Vine ; " they 
 who pass by," would not then "pluck off her 
 
 " Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27. British Critic 
 No. 50. " State of religious Parties."
 
 174 Condition and hopes (if our Church. 
 
 grapes ;" she would then have such marks of 
 hohness, that they who now " gather themselves 
 together against her would fall unto her ;" her 
 children, of whom she has been bereaved, would be 
 restored unto her; nay, she herself might be carried 
 to a yet higher condition ; the discipline, whose 
 loss she laments, be restored ; she might, besides 
 the hidden saints formed by her holy training, have 
 those also who should visibly be saints, tokens, 
 even to the world, of God's sanctifying Presence in 
 her, like those of old, who were termed " Apostles 
 of the nations." In whatever degree she is not 
 such, we have all, more or less, our share of guilt ; 
 our sins, our negligences, the coldness of our inter- 
 cessions, our listlessness or untamed energy, our 
 want of holiness — each of us may know the plague 
 of his own heart — have all contributed to deprive 
 her of God's intended blessing, and to keep her 
 where she is. Let us not then seek to excuse our- 
 selves or cast the blame upon others ; it is not 
 to excuse my friends — much less myself who am 
 least and last — that I have said even thus much, 
 but lest " the truth" should be " evil spoken of;" 
 let us not care where the blame lies in man's sight, 
 but rather let us all seek, more and more, to 
 " humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, 
 that He may exalt us in due time.^' 
 
 Such seems to mc the position which one should 
 wish for our whole Ciiurch ; this does not seem to 
 me to have been enough realized ; the sensitiveness
 
 Condition and hopes of our Church. 175 
 
 at some of our friend's strong language" on the 
 actual condition of the Church implies this ; we 
 have been for some time on the defensive ; we have 
 been maintaining her character, as a pure and 
 Apostolic Church, against the calumnies of men, 
 rather than confessing before God, " for our sins, 
 and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and 
 Thy people are become a reproach to all that are 
 about us," and praying Him, "cause Thy Face to 
 shine upon the sanctuary that is desolate, for the 
 Lord's sake." To joy is more congenial than to 
 weep ; our natural love and piety towards her, as 
 it makes us hope all good for her, and think all 
 good of her, indisposes us to admit that there is 
 any thing lacking to her ; we think of her more, as 
 God's Providence has formed her, than as by the 
 remissness of our forefathers and our own, she has 
 become ; more of what she is in the abstract and in 
 theory, than what she is, as a living, moving, acting, 
 holy. Power, the depository of Divine graces and 
 powers, destined not to struggle only with the 
 world (as she is more and more) but to overcome 
 it ; not to have store of food only for such of her 
 children as will receive it, but to bring them up, 
 guide, restrain them ; we think of the beautiful 
 organization which her Lord has given her, that 
 He has provided her with every thing needful for 
 
 " " Till her members are stirred up to this religious course, let 
 the Church sit still ; let her be content to be in bondage ; let her 
 work in chains ;" &c. Tract, 90. p. 4.
 
 1 76 Comlition (uul hopea of our Church. 
 
 all the functions of His body, and forget that 
 through our sins she is in a state of powerlessness, 
 His instrument still, yet not adequately performing 
 the high destinies for which He formed, has again 
 and again delivered, and yet preserves her. 
 
 Our true position seems to be, to acknowledge 
 that we have fallen and that God is raising us up ; 
 amid much which is humbling, there are many, 
 cheering signs that the hand of God is with our 
 Church ; by looking exclusively on either side of 
 the picture, we should risk forming a tone of mind, 
 other than what is intended for us ; we might be 
 unduly elated, and forget our humility, or unduly 
 depressed, and forget God's mercy. Our vine has 
 been "burnt with tire and cut down," but "its 
 branch is" again " tender and putting forth leaves," 
 and giving signs of an approaching summer. Our 
 Heathen populations ; the extent of schism among 
 us ; fresh and fresh divisions, drawing away some 
 of our more earnest members; our internal disunion, 
 paralyzing our efforts, and wasting our energies ; 
 the fewness of those who share in works of piety or 
 charity ; our greediness of gain in order to minister 
 to our luxuries ; the indifference about holy things 
 openly professed ; the absence of any high standard 
 or dislike to it ; the appalling strides of a lawless 
 infidelity ; these and much besides are saddening 
 proofs of a past and present winter ; but the source 
 of our hopes is not in ourselves ; we seem ice- 
 bound, but " He blowetli with His Spirit, and the 
 
 .';
 
 Condition and hopes of our Church. 1 77 
 
 waters flow;" the clods of our valleys seem yet 
 hard, but " He maketh it soft with the drops of 
 rain, and blesseth the increase of it ;" our hope is 
 not in ourselves nor in men ; but that the Lord of 
 the Vineyard is " looking down" graciously " from 
 heaven, beholding, and visiting this Vine, and the 
 vineyard which His right hand planted, and the 
 branch which He made strong for Himself,' and 
 that it is He Who is " sending out her boughs unto 
 the sea, and her branches unto the river." A high 
 destinv seems to be yet in store for our Church ; it 
 is for her sake, we may hope, that her and our 
 people are being carried into every corner of the 
 world : certainlv, to contrast her state, as she was 
 towards the close of last century, without a single 
 Bishop, out of these Islands, and as she now is 
 every where in possession of her complete Apo- 
 stolic constitution, though not in the degree she 
 needs it, yet as centres from which she may spread, 
 one has ground to hope that the " multiplying of 
 the people'' is to " increase her joy ;" her Bishops 
 shortly will be in every continent as well as in the 
 isles afar off; her Episcopate (notwithstanding the 
 sore blow which cut ofFher Irish Bishoprics) is already 
 more than doubled ; she is not dwindling, as sects 
 after a time do, but growing ; in the United States 
 she has been quadrupled, while the population has 
 doubled ; she is there recognized even by those with- 
 out her, as the only principle of stability in their land; 
 hearts are turned unto her ; some she has gathered 
 
 N
 
 178 Comlitiua and Aojjes of our Church. 
 
 in ; and it seems only a question of time, when the 
 severed bodies shall be gathered into her, and it shall 
 be seen, when she shall have enfolded the rest 
 within her, which is indeed Moses' rod and given by 
 God, which the formation of man; every step is 
 an earnest of the final issue \ it seems already to be 
 felt extensively among them, that she alone is the 
 bulwark against Romish errors, and they seem to 
 be preparing to take refuge under her shadow. 
 
 And with this outward extension, she is every 
 where giving signs of life ; life in different forms, 
 some regular, some irregular, more or less imper- 
 fect, yet still life; every where her members seem 
 more alive to her true character, and so, we may 
 trust, will more act up to it; and zeal, which has 
 hitherto so often sought a vent without her, will be 
 concentrated within her, and devote itself, in some 
 allowed way, to remedy the great wants of our 
 people ; her prayers and (.'ommunions are again 
 becoming more frequent ; in some places, her two 
 days of humiliation, her Litany days ; elsewhere 
 daily ; her Communions are weekly in some places 
 where they were monthly, and monthly Commu- 
 nions are becoming the ordinary provision even 
 fur her village Congregations ; and with increased 
 Communions, thev who partake of them are in- 
 creased also, and tliere is increased faith and 
 sense of their value, and so, we may trust again, 
 fresh life poured into tlie Church from the Foun- 
 tain of life ; her Lents and weekly fasts are more
 
 Condition and hopes of our Chnrch. 179 
 
 observed, " self-denial (fasting) and almsgiving, 
 the wings of prayer," are growing ; her care for 
 Christ's lambs, her thought of Christ's poor, 
 (deficient as it yet is,) are increasing ; there is 
 (as you will have witnessed in this place) a more 
 devout, an humbler spirit than heretofore, even at 
 that most trying period of human life ; the deposit 
 of our Faith is more reverenced ; there is a yearn- 
 ing after the holy days of the Church's " first" 
 virgin " love;" our very divisions, we may hope, 
 are marks of earnestness ; persons whom I cannot 
 but think to be partially in error, are in reality 
 contending not for the error but for the truth, 
 which is in their minds bound up with it, not against 
 truth, but against some error which they have 
 identified with others' statement of the truth. 
 What God is preparing us for, for doing or for 
 suffering. He only knoweth ; yet one cannot but 
 hope that He is preparing us for something ; 
 Romanists and Protestants alike have their eyes 
 upon our Church ; who knows but that for us 
 may be reserved the office of " turning the hearts 
 of the fathers to the children, and of the children 
 to the fathers?" A thoughtful Romanist, lately, 
 even when speaking against foreign Protestants, 
 anticipated that if the Church were ever to be 
 again one, it must be through our's, " which being 
 both Catholic and Reformed, had her hands upon 
 both." Only 'it is not for" us " to know the 
 times or the seasons which The Father hath put 
 
 n2
 
 180 Condi tiuit and hopes q/' our Church. 
 
 in His own power ;'' much less to anticipate them. 
 
 Enough that we " see our signs ;" and that " the 
 
 way in which we should go" is " made plain before 
 
 our face." " A thousand years is with the Lord 
 
 as one day," and He can make one dav do the 
 
 work of a thousand years. We have our office 
 
 plainly marked out for us, (as has been often said,) 
 
 to labour to act up to the principles of our Church, 
 
 and to lead otiiers to do the same ; so shall we be 
 
 formed, and aid (under the Divine grace) to form 
 
 others in the mould, of " godliness, righteousness, 
 
 and soberness of life," provided in her ; we have 
 
 but to seek to form ourselves and others in His 
 
 holy Faith and the keeping of His commandments, 
 
 and commit our Church and ourselves to Him, to 
 
 deal with us, as in His Infinite Mercy He may 
 
 vouchsafe. I cannot but hope, that they too, 
 
 whose minds have been, from whatever cause, 
 
 unsettled and tending to Romanism, will yet be 
 
 stayed, and seeing the hand of God with our 
 
 Church, " abide, wherein they have been called, 
 
 with God," and forsake not the Church in which 
 
 they were baptized, but await the end. Change 
 
 from any Church is an act of solemn responsibility; 
 
 nnich more would it be jrom one, to which, as 
 
 our friend has developed, God has given the notes 
 
 of " possession, freedom from party-titles, life, 
 
 ancient descent, unbroken continuarice, agreement 
 
 in doctrine with the ancient Church* ;" much more 
 
 • British Critic, No. 5.}. Catholicity of the English Church.
 
 Condition and hopes of our Church. 181 
 
 still, when God's hand is visibly with her. To 
 leave her at such a time might be a very wilful and 
 presumptuous act, going, as far as man's wilfulness 
 can, to oppose the Divine counsels and defeat His 
 good purposes; it may he, perhaps, again true, 
 " except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be 
 saved." One must fear too, lest such, voluntarily 
 foregoing the full use of the Holy Eucharist, as it 
 is vouchsafed to them in their own Church, might 
 provoke God to lessen His grace, as rejecting His 
 Gifts. But, as I said, let us act up to the 
 principles of our Church, and these brethren, who, 
 from whatever excuse, have been allowed thus to 
 be tempted of Satan to forsake the Church wherein 
 God placed them, will be in less risk of being 
 led into sin ; their mother will not have to lament 
 the loss of those whom she has nourished up and 
 who may be valuable children to her. 
 
 It may be long ere the issue comes ; at present, 
 the course pointed out to the several Churches 
 seems to be to amend themselves, to become again 
 what they once were, even though imperfect ; to 
 *• return to their first deeds ;" so may they, 
 through repentance and amendment of life, and 
 keeping the commandments, be led to further 
 knowledge of the truth, and in the end be restored 
 to unity, if this blessing be yet in store for the 
 Church. At least such seems the course which 
 things, under God's guidance, are taking. Thus 
 even the Greek Church is again become pro-
 
 I H-2 ( 'oiuUtion and hopes qf our Vhiirch. 
 
 Sfclytizing ; the Gallicaii Church is sending out 
 Missionaries and praying tor our conversion, shew- 
 ing lier new lite, in part, in seeking to extend her 
 own Communion ; in Prussia, rehgion is reviving 
 in connection with Lutiieran doctrine ; we are 
 being guided back to the principles of our 
 Church ; Nve seem thus to be taught, as our 
 iriend concisely said, that " we are to go back, 
 not to go over ;" repentance and zeal must come 
 first, union afterwards ; union is to be looked for, 
 as God's gift, to be prayed for, not compassed by 
 man's device ; " it is God that maketh men to be of 
 one mind in a house :" our duties then lie not now 
 towards Rome; our present path and duties are 
 plain ; — with ourselves ; to tit ourselves to be His in- 
 strument: how we may be employed, when fitted, we 
 cannot foresee and so should not forestall ; it may be 
 that our first office will be, not with Rome, but with 
 those bodies which were separated from Rome at 
 the same time as ourselves, but were not so signally 
 blessed and preserved ; it may be, that through us 
 what is lacking in them to the full gifts of a 
 Church is to be supplied ; it may be, that " our 
 light shining before men," they are thus to be 
 led to " glorify our Father which is in Heaven;" 
 and thus we may be reunited with the rest of 
 Christendom, not alone nor selfishly, but decked 
 with the rich jewelry of them whom we have won 
 back to Priuiitive Faith and Discipline. It may be 
 too the very way, in which it may please God, that
 
 Condition and hopes of our Chvrch. 183 
 
 the rest of the Church Catholic should be brought to 
 love and respect, and seek to be one Avith, us, that 
 we have aided to restore to Catholicity those who 
 have gone away from it. Our office then is with 
 ourselves and within ourselves, ready to do acts of 
 charity to those severed from us, as far as we may 
 without compromise, but not seeking untimely 
 union. Such schemes have been baffled before, 
 when things seemed most favourable, and so, a 
 mark set upon them. As unity is perhaps a means 
 to the greater holiness of the whole Church, so also 
 holiness may be a condition of the restoration of 
 unity. Let us act up to the principles of our 
 Church, and reahze her worship, her fastings, her 
 repentance, her humiliations, her praise, her inter- 
 cessions, her high standard of holy life, her exalted 
 charity ; live up to what is evidently Catholic in 
 her ; develope, as occasion requires, those Catholic 
 points, which, though she has them, do not lie upon 
 the surface ; in a word, be raised to what our Church 
 should be ; and who knows but that He Who 
 raises us up, may purify Rome too, and St. Peter 
 be the type of the Church of St. Peter, and her 
 Lord yet cast His gracious look upon her, and she 
 weep bitterly her fall, and she, being " converted, 
 strengthen" her " brethren," and deserve to be 
 restored to the preeminence, which while she 
 deserved, she had ; and the Western Church 
 be reunited, not on any plan of human wisdom, 
 of compromise or concession, but in holiness
 
 1 84 OmditioH and hopes of our Church, 
 
 and Primitive Faith? Who knows, again, whe- 
 ther it may not be His gracious will to re- 
 unite His whole Church at once, and why should 
 we then direct our eyes to tlie Western Church 
 alone, which, even if united in itself, would yet 
 remain sadly maimed, and sadly short of the One- 
 ness she had in her best days, if she continued 
 severed from the Eastern ■ After a long separation, 
 in which we have not been known by name to the 
 Eastern Church, much less our real character, God 
 seems again to be opening to us ways of kindly 
 intercourse with some portions of her, which must 
 mcrease love, which will also, under God's blessing, 
 hel[) lier to restore the holiness and knowledge of her 
 early years, and therewith, make her wish to under- 
 stand us better, and be united to us. All union of our 
 distracted Christendom " is impossible with man ; 
 with God" it is as " possible," (and one may add 
 it may be as likely to be His will,) to unite His 
 whole Church in one, at once, whenever His time 
 may be, as any single portions of it. We pray 
 that God would " have mercy upon all Jews, 
 Turks, Inhdels, and Heretics, and fetch them home 
 to His flock, that they may be saved among the 
 reuiuant of the true Israelites, and be made one 
 fold under One Shepherd ." why not hope, as we 
 ulso contiimally pray, that the whole Church also 
 may visibly beconje such a fold ? that God would 
 "• inspire His universal Church with the spirit of 
 irulli, unity, and concord?" Such longings, (ac-
 
 Condition and hopes of our Church. 185 
 
 cording to the heads of gdocl*' Bishop Andrews' 
 daily intercession,) tor the good estate of the 
 " Church Catliolic; Eastern; Western; our own," 
 as they set before us a nobler end, so are they 
 more accordant with our Church's feehngs as 
 expressed in her Liturgy, and they are safer. The 
 Church Catholic can only be re-united on Catholic 
 principles ; the very thought and longing carries 
 us back to her pure days and her CEcumenical 
 Councils, and primitive faith and hohness ; it 
 awakens our sympathies only for an object upon 
 which thev may rest without risk. On the other 
 hand, longing for re-union with any branch of the 
 Church, as the Roman, naturally tends to make 
 man gloss over the difficulties, and shut their eyes 
 to the actual corruptions, which we should now be 
 called upon to recognise or to sanction ; it creates 
 sympathies not for her, as she once was, a *' pure 
 
 "Virgin," but for her very defilements: the very fact, 
 that it seems more within the compass of human 
 means, tends to make men impatient of hindrances, 
 which it seems as though God had placed, and desirous 
 
 •to remove them or set them aside in an unholy way. 
 Let us long, not for what may be brought about by 
 a mere blending of our own practical unholiness 
 and short-comings with the corruptions of another 
 Church, thereby to aggravate in the sight of God 
 the very offensiveness cf what is severally amiss in 
 
 ■us ; but ralher let us long for what, being evidently 
 beyond the leach ol' man's device, leads us at once
 
 186 Condition and hopes of our C/ivn-h. 
 
 to the throne of God, thence to expect it from the 
 Great Head of the Church as He would give it, in 
 holiness and hoi)' love. We know not what may 
 be, and so our duty is the easier, not to act as 
 though we knew it ; rather to " do with all our 
 might what our hand" now " findeth to do," not 
 to run before, but to follow after ; not to plan or 
 devise for ourselves, but to act where God leads. 
 Be we zealous, earnest, patient, humble; "He 
 Who cometh will come, and will not tarry;" and 
 it may be, " His kingdom" will sooner '' come," 
 if we in our Church follow His gracious guidance. 
 
 May God give us grace, in these difficult days, 
 more and more *' perfectly to know His Son Jesus 
 Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that 
 following the steps of His holy Apostles — we may 
 stedfastly walk in the way that leadeth to eternal 
 life, through the same His Son Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." 
 
 Ever your very affectiouale Friend, 
 
 E. B. PUSEV. 
 
 Christ Cliurcli, 
 Feast of S. liiilij} (hkI S. James, 
 1H41.
 
 APPENDI X 
 
 Note A, page 109. 
 
 Archbishop Ussher oa the difference between ancient and 
 modern Invocation of Saints, from his Answer to a 
 Jesuit's Challenge, p. -^45 sqq. 
 
 " — That we may the better understand, and more distinctly 
 apprehend, how far the recommending of men's selves unto the 
 prayers of the Saints, which began to be used in the latter end 
 of the fourth age after Christ, came short of that invocation of 
 Saints, which is at this day practised in the Church of Rome : 
 these special differences may be observed betwixt the one and 
 the other. 
 
 " First, in those elder times, he that prayed silently was 
 thought to honour God in a singular manner; as one that 
 'brought'' faith with him, and confessed that God was the 
 searcher of the heart and reins and heard his prayer, before 
 it was poured out of his mouth ;' the understanding of the 
 present secrets of the heart, by the general judgment of the 
 Fathers, being'' no more communicated by Him unto the 
 creatures, than the knowledge of things to come ; for before 
 the Day wherein the secrets of the heart shall be manifested, 
 * Almighty ■-■ God alone doth behold the hidden things,' saith 8t. 
 Hierome, alleging for proof of this, the text Matt. 6, 4. ' Thy 
 Father That seeth in secret;' Psalm 7, 9. ' God searcheth the 
 hearts and reins;' and 1 Kings 8,39. ' Thou only knowest the 
 hearts of all the children of men;' but now in the Church 
 of Rome mental prayers are presented to the Saints as well 
 as vocal, and they are believed to receive both the one and 
 the other. 
 
 " Secondly, in the former times •* it was a great question, whe- 
 ther at all, or how far, or after what manner, the spirits of the 
 dead did knov the things that concerned us here : and con- 
 
 » Amb. de Sacr. vi. 4. 
 
 •> Qufpstt. ad Antioch. ap. Ath. t. 2. p. 303. 
 
 "^ Hier. 1. 5, in Ezech. e. 16. 1. 4. in Ezech. c. 14. 1. 4. in Jerein. c. 20. 
 1. 1. in Matt. c. 9. Chrys. in Matt. Horn. 29. Gennad. de Eccl. dogm. c. 81. 
 Cass. Collat. 7. c. 13. Sedul. in Rom. 2. Paschas. de Sp, S. ii. 1; et alios 
 passim. 
 
 ^ Aug. in Ps. 108. enarr. 1.
 
 188 Abp. Usaher on the difference between 
 
 sequently, wlietlier they pray for ns only ' in" general,' and for the 
 particulars C>od answereth us according to our several necessities, 
 where, wh^n, and after what manner He pleaseth. Anselmus 
 Laudunensis, in his interlineal gloss upon that text, ' Abraham 
 is ignorant of us and Israel knowetli us not,' (Is. 63, 16.) notelh 
 that Augustine saiih, that ' the dead, even the Saints, do not 
 know what the living do, no not their own sons.' And indeed 
 St. Augustine in his book of the care for the dead*, maketh this 
 inference upon that place of Scripture. ' If such great Patriarchs 
 as these were ignorant, what was done to the people that de- 
 scended from them, unto whom (believing God) the people itself 
 was promised to come from their stock ; how do the dead inter- 
 pose themselves in knowing and furthering the things and acts 
 of the living?' and afterwards draweth these conclusions from 
 thence, which Hugo? de Sancto Victore, borrowing from him, 
 hath inserted into his book De spiritu et anima, cap. 29. ' The'' 
 spirits of the dead he there, where they do neitiier see nor hear 
 the things that are done or fall out to men in this life'.' ' Yet 
 Iiave they such a care of the living, although tliey know not at 
 all what they do, as we have care of the dead, although we 
 know not what they do.' ' The^ dead indeed do not know what 
 is done here while it is here in doing: but afterward they may 
 hear it by such as die and go unto them from hence ; yet not 
 altogether, but as much as is permitted to the one to tell, fit 
 for the other to hear. They may know it also by the angels, 
 which be here present with us and carry our souls unto them, 
 they may knou- also by the revelation of God's Sj)irit such of 
 the things done here which is necessary for them to know.'— ^' 
 
 >dJ 
 
 And tl)cn having further shewn that Gratian (Deer, 
 p. 2. cans. 3. qii. 2. c. 29.) hohls that the saints do not 
 Know what is done here; that P. Lombard holds it not 
 incredible that thoy (h), and that " our petitions are made 
 known to then) in the Word of God which they contem- 
 plate, (h iv. dibt. 45.) that Scotus (ib. cj. 4.) and Gab. 
 
 * Auk. de Cur. pro Mort. c. K!. " That the Saints in general are concerned 
 fur the rhnrrh, and ran pray, and do in fact jiray for it, is fonfesisfd by 
 Melancihoii, li.\m\', A\\\i. art. de Invoc. San<t.) Dreiitius, (Conf. Wirtemb. 
 c. de Inv. ^anct.) ('luiuiiili (Kxani. Couc. Trid. c 3). Calvin also (Inpt. 3. 
 '20, 21, and 21) is not opposed to tliis opinion." iJellar. de Missk, ii. 8. , 
 
 S Lib. d<' Sp. et An. t. .T. Op. Aiip. (|iii id. eft cum 1. 2. de Anim. inter. 
 Op. Hnp. Vi(t. 
 
 1 In df Cur. [iro Mort. c. l.'i. |tlif boid; is later than both, ooiitaininp; 
 fxtrartN Ironi both, see Auj;. <^)jip. t. vi. Api>. p. ."<!). (d. lien. Tlio passagt«s 
 alleged by Abp. IJ.Mshrr arr- from a genuine work.] 
 
 I Ib. c. 11. 
 
 J Ib. .-. I.-..
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 189 
 
 Biel. (in Can. Miss. lect. !2i.) hold \C probable that God 
 specially reveals to them prayers made to them, he thus 
 contrasts the positiveness of later writers. 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmine "^ supposetb , that ' if the Saints should have 
 need tlms of a new revelation, die Church would not so boldly 
 say unto all the Saints, ' Pray for us,' but would sometime 
 entreat of God i, that he would reveal our prayers unto them.' 
 Yet because ' it seemeth unto him superfluous to desire ordinarily 
 of them that they should pray for us, which cannot ordinarily 
 understand what we do in particular, but know only in general 
 that we are exposed to many dangers;' he resolveth, that, 
 ' although"" tliere may be some doubt, in what manner the Saints 
 may know things that be absent, and which are sometimes 
 delivered by the affection of the heart alone; yet it is certain 
 that they do know them.' ' And you must note,' says Dr. 
 Pesantius", ' that this is to be held for a point of faith, that the 
 Saints do know the prayers, which we pour unto them, because 
 otherwise they should be made in vain.' So tliat to make good 
 the Popish manner of praying unto Saints, that which was at 
 the first but probable and problematical, must now be held to be 
 dejide and an undoubted axiom of divinity. 
 
 " Thirdly, in the Popish invocation, formal and absolute prayers 
 are tendered to the Saints, Ijut the compellations of them used 
 at first, were commonly either wishes only or requests of the 
 same nature with those which are in this kind usually made 
 unto the living; where the requester is oftentimes superior to 
 him whose prayers he desiretii, (which standeth not well with 
 the condition of prayer properly so called,) and they that are 
 requested, be evermore accounted in the number of those that 
 pray for us, but none of those that are prayed unto by us. Of 
 this you may hear, if you please, what one of the more moderate 
 Romanists writeth. ' lf° it were lawful for the Prophet to call to 
 the Angels and the whole host of Heaven, and to exhort them 
 that they would praise God, which notwithstanding they do 
 continually without any one admonishing them, whereby nothing . 
 else but a certain abundance of desire of the amplifying of God's 
 glory is declared : why may it not be lawful also out of a certain 
 abundance of godly desire to call upon those blessed spirits 
 which by the society of the same body are conjoined with us ; 
 and to exhort ihem, that they should do that, which we believe 
 they otherwise do of themselves ?' That to say, < All ye 
 
 S.I mi/O i^9 -fjf lUf) .311A ..7O ,P, 7 n.A 7« .,;!> c,{ f4. J- g 
 
 k De Eccl. Triumph. 1. 1. c. 20. 4*^ 
 
 ' Id. de Purg. 2. 15. 
 
 "> 1. 1. c. 20. ut sup. 
 
 " In 1. pt. Thorn. Quaest. 12. art. 10. Disp. 7. Cone. 6. 
 
 o G. Cassand. Schol. in Hymn. Eccl. Op. p. 224.
 
 1 t>(J Abp. Ussher on the difference between 
 
 Saints, pray unto God for me ;' should import as much, as 
 if it were said, ' Would to God, that all the Saints did pray 
 unto God for me !' 'I wish earnestly that all the Saints 
 should pray to God for me.' Thus writeth Cassander, in his 
 notes upon the ancient ecclesiastical hymns, published by him 
 in the year 1556, who being challenged for this by some others 
 of that side, added this further to give them better satisfaction, 
 ' When'' I did see that it was not necessary that we should hold 
 that the Saints do understand our prayers ; I thought it was 
 sufficient to put back the calumnies of some, if we should say 
 that these interpellations might be expounded by way of wishing 
 or desiring : which hath less absurdity in it, and is agreeable 
 to the examples of the holy Scriptures. But if any man would 
 have such compellations as these to be taken also for an inti- 
 mation of the desire, and a direct speaking unto them, I do 
 not gainsay it. Notwithstanding I would think that a tacit 
 condition ought to be understood in such an intimation: such 
 as Gregory Nazianzen doth express in the formal oration of his 
 sister Gorgonia when he saith, if thou hast any care at all of 
 our speeches, and holy souls receive this honour from God, that 
 they have notice of such things as these, do thou accept this 
 oration of ours,' 
 
 Then, haviiifr shewn that even " in the very darkest 
 tunes of the Papacy" " some famous men" were related 
 to liave thought such prayers superfluous, " many"" that 
 they were only prayers to God " that the merits of the 
 Saints may help us," not properly to themselves, he adds a 
 
 " Fourth difference betwixt the Popish prayers and the 
 interpellations used in the ancient time. For by the doctrine 
 and practice of the Church of Rome, the Saints in Heaven are 
 not only made joint petitioners with us, (as the Saints are upon 
 earth,) but also our attorneys and advocates ; who carry the suit 
 for us, not by tlie pleading of Christ's merits alone, but by bring- 
 ing in their own merits likewise, upon the consideration of the 
 dignity or condignity whereof it is believed, that God yieldeth 
 to the- motions they make unio llim on our behalf. ' Wei pray 
 unto the Saints (saith the Master of the Sentences) that they 
 may intercede for us, that is to say, that their merits may help 
 us, and that they may will our good; for they willing it, God 
 doth will it, and so it will be eftVcted.' ' We ought to intreat the 
 Apostles and the other Saints (saith Hugo' de Frato) in all our 
 necessities ; because they are our advocates and the means 
 
 1' 1(1. i:(.. 19. a.l Molin. [I. lioit. 
 
 1 I'l-tr. Lfiinhiinl. Sent. 1, 4. Dist. 45. and Jacob, de Vitriac. in Lit. maj. 
 
 ' .SiTui. .'15.
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 191 
 
 betwixt us and God, by whom God liath ordained to bestow ail 
 things upon us.' ' Because it is a thing fitting,' (saith Scotus',) 
 ' that he that is in bliss should be a coadjutor with God in 
 procuring the salvation of the elect according to such manner as 
 this may agree unto him ; and to this it is requisite that our 
 prayers, which are offered unto him, should especially be revealed 
 unto him, because they lean especially upon the merits of him 
 as of a mediator bringing us to the salvation which is sought 
 for; therefore it is probable that God doth specially reveal unto 
 him that is in bliss such of our prayers as are offered unto him 
 or unto God in his name,' But this is an open derogation to 
 the high prerogative of our Saviour's meritorious intercession, 
 and a manifest encroachment upon the great office of mediation, 
 which the most religious and learned among those Fathers, who 
 desired to be recommended unto the prayers of the Saints, were 
 so careful to preserve entire unto Him. ' For what is so proper 
 to Christ,' saith S. Ambrose S * as to stand by God the Father for 
 an Advocate of the people?' ' He is the Priest,' saith S. Augustin", 
 ' who being now entered within the veil, Alone there of them that 
 have been partakers of the flesh, doth make intercession for us.' — 
 " Fifthly, the recommendation of men's selves unto the prayers 
 of the Saints deceased, which was at first admitted in the 
 ancient Church, did no way impeach the confidence and boldness 
 which we have gotten in Christ, to make our immediate approach 
 to the throne of Grace ; which by the invocation of Saints, now 
 taught in the Church of Rome, is very much impaired. For to 
 induce men to the practice of this, the great Majesty of God 
 and the severity of His justice is propounded unto poor sinners 
 on the one hand, and the consideration of their own baseness 
 and unworihiness on the other. Wjiereupon it is inferred, that 
 as well for the manifesting their reverence for God's Majesty, 
 as the testifying of their submissness and humility, they should 
 seek to God by the mediation of His Saints ; like as men do 
 seek unto the king by the mediation of his servants. Which 
 motives can have no more force to encourage men to the invo- 
 cation of Saints, than they have to discharge them from the 
 immediate invocation of God and His Christ. So among the 
 causes alleged by Alexander of Hales", why we ought to pray 
 unto the Saints ; one is ' in respect of our want in contemplating, 
 that we who are not able to behold the highest Light in Itself, 
 may contemplate it in His Saints ;' another ' in respect of our 
 ' want in loving : because we miserable men (miserable men 
 indeed tliat do so) or some of us, at least, are more affected 
 
 ' In 4. Sent. Dist. 45. Qucpst. 4. 
 
 ' In Ps. 39. 
 
 u In Ps. 64. 
 
 * Suinm, pt. 4. Qutest. 26. meuib. '.i. art. 5.
 
 192 Abp. Usahor on the differeixce behveen 
 
 sometimes unto some Saint, than unto our Lord Hinisell"; and 
 therefore God. liaving compassion on our misery, is pleased that 
 we should pray unto His Saints;' and a third ' in respect of the 
 reverence of Cjod ; that a sinner who Iiath offended God, because 
 he dareth not to come unto Him in his own person, may have 
 recourse unto the Saints by imploring their patronage.' The 
 like we read in Gabriel Biel^ liandling the same argument. 
 * This is a .singular consolation (saith he) to sinners, who have 
 oftentimes more mind to the interpellation of the Saints than of 
 the Judge: whose defect of holiness also, other men's goodness 
 is able to supply :' and it maketh^ ' for the reverence of God, that a 
 sinner who hath offended God, as it were, not daring for the 
 dross of his sin to appear in his proper person, before the most 
 high and dreadful Majesty, should have recourse unto the 
 Saints, who are most pure and grateful to God: who may 
 present the sinner's prayers unto the Most High, and by adjoin- 
 ing their merits and prayers thereunto, might make the same 
 more fit for the audience, more pleasing and more grateful.' 
 Therefore, Salmeron ', the Jesuit, sticketh not to deliver his opinion 
 plainly; that the praying unto God by the Saints seemeth to 
 him better than the praying unto Him immediately, as for other 
 reasons, ' so because the Church, which hath the Spirit of Christ ; 
 (though St. Augustine surely would have judged such a Church 
 to have been led by the spirit of Antichrist rather than of 
 Christ ;) ' most frequently hath recourse unto God by the Saints, 
 but Cometh more rarely unto God by itself;' and also because 
 the praying of God by the invocation of Saints doth argue 
 greater humility; as may be seen in the Centurion, (Luke 7, 6. 7,)' 
 whereunto he applieth also the saying of David, ' He hath had 
 a respect to the prayer of the humble, and did not despise their 
 prayers'";' and of Judith, ' The prayer of the humble and meek 
 hatii always pleased Thee.' 
 
 " 'ihus in the days of the .Apostles themselves, under the 
 pretence of humility '^, some laboured to bring into the Church 
 ' the worshipping of Angels,' which carried with it ' a shew of 
 wisdom,' (as St. F'aul speaketh of it,) and such a shew as was 
 not far unlike unto that wherewith our Homish l^octors do 
 cozen simple people nowadays. ' For this' (saith Theodoret'') 
 ' did they counsel should be done,' (namely, that n\en should pray 
 unto .Angels,) ' pretending huuiilitv, and saying that the God of 
 all things was invisible and inaccessible and incomprehensible, 
 
 y Tn Canon. Miss. Lect. .30. 
 ' I.ipt. 31. 
 
 * In 1 'I"im. 2. Disp. 7. sect. ult. 
 •• Ph. 102, 17. Judith 9, 16. 
 
 • ColoM. 2, 18. 2.1. 
 J In Col. 2.
 
 am-ient and modern Invocation of Saints. 193 
 
 and that it was fit we should procure God's favour by the means 
 of angels,' whereas St. Chrysostom ", treating of Christian humi- 
 lity, sheweth that the faithful who are furnished with that grace, 
 do notwithstanding ' ascend beyond the highest tops of heaven, 
 and passing by the Angels present themselves before the regal 
 throne itself. — 
 
 " Sixthly, The Romanists repose such confidence in the inter- 
 cession of the saints, that they look to receive far greater benefit 
 by them, than by their own prayers. Which conceit how dis- 
 tasteful it was to the ancient Doctors, St. Chrysostom*^ may be a 
 sufficient witness, who laboured exceedingly to root out this 
 erroneous opinion, when it first began to shew itself in his time. 
 And therefore he is bold to affirm, not only that we have no such 
 needs of others, that we may entreat by them, but also that 
 God then doth most, when we do not use the entreaties of 
 others. — 
 
 " Seventhly and principally it is to be considered, that invocation 
 is attributed to Saints in the Church of Rome as a part of the 
 worship due unto them : yea as eximium adorationis genus, (for 
 so doth Cardinal Bellarminef pronounce it to be,) * an eminent 
 kind of adoration.' For ' we do not honour the Saints' (saith 
 Azorius'' the Jesuit) ' with that worship only wherewith we do 
 men that excel in virtue, wisdom, power, or any other dignity, 
 but also with Divine worship and honour which is an act of 
 Religion. For that worship which is given to men of excellency, 
 is an act and office not of Religion, but of another inferior virtue, 
 which is called observance.' And whereas it is as clear as the noon- 
 day, that the giving of divine honour and worship unto any creature 
 is flat idolatry, the poor man weeneth that he and his fellows 
 may be excused from being idolaters, because they do not give 
 divine worship and honour unto the Saints for themselves, but 
 for God Who hath made them Saints: as if God, Who cannot 
 endure that His glory should be given unto another, would be 
 mocked with such toys as these. Indeed they were wont 
 heretofore to delude men commonly with an idle distinction of 
 Dulia and Latria-, but now, * it** is the opinion of the most and the 
 wisest of them, that it is one and the selfsame virtue of Religion 
 which containeth both l^atria and Dulia.' Whereas it hath been 
 the constant doctrine of the ancient Church, that all religious 
 worship (whereof prayer by the judgment of all men, as well 
 
 Hqathen as Christian, hath been always esteemed to be an 
 .»iOi«n'9fj3iqrnooni nn«? ■^ivitaaaooBni hnjs ekiiexvns &£■» ajiaidj (je 
 
 - In Matt. Horn. 65. 
 f In Act. 16. Horn, 36. 
 S Prtef. in Controv. de Eccl. Triumph. 
 '' Instt. IMor. t. 1. 1. ix. c. 10. 
 ' They are used as equivalent, Constt. Ap. iii, 7 . 
 •< Nic! Serarius Litaneut. 2. q. 27. fin. ' "■ 
 
 O
 
 194 Abp. Vssher on the difference between 
 
 especial part) is so properly due to God Alone, that without 
 committing of idolatry it cannot be communicated to any creature. 
 For ' in the Catholic Church it is divinely and singularly delivered, 
 that no creature is to be worshipped by the soul, but He only 
 Who is the Creator of all things,' saith St. Augustine''. And 
 therefore the ancient Doctors, who thought it not amiss that men 
 should recommend themselves unto the prayers of the Saints 
 departed, held it a thing intolerable notwithstanding, to impart 
 unto any man or angel the worship of invocation. For to request 
 the help of the prayers of our fellow servants is one thing, and to 
 worship them with the service of invocation is another; as may 
 be seen in the case of our brethren here on earth, who may not 
 refuse the former without the violation of charity, nor accept the 
 latter at our hands without an open breach of piety. 
 
 " Now that the Fathers judged nootherwise of prayer than hath 
 been said, this may be one good argument; that when they 
 define it, they do it with express reference to God and no other, 
 as may be seen in those five several definitions thereof which 
 Bellarmine himself repeateth out of them. 
 
 Then, having set these down, and having shewn that the 
 Council of Laodicea anathematized such as invocated 
 Angels', and produced sayings from the Fathers to the 
 effect that God only is to be invocated, and " condemning 
 the worship of Angels or any other creature whatsoever," 
 he gives the following sad details from the later ages, and 
 these the more melancholy, since they are not obscure 
 individuals, but men great in their day, who so speak, 
 evidencing how deeply seated these corruptions were in 
 the later Church ; 
 
 ' There" wanted not such as would interpret that speech of the 
 Angel unto the holy Virgin, ' Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with 
 thee:' of the equality of her empire with her Sou's; as if it had been 
 said, ' Even as He, so thou also dost enjoy the same most excel- 
 lent dignity of ruling. In" the redundance and effusion of grace 
 upon the creatures, the Lord's power and will are so accommo- 
 datod unto thine, that thou mightest seem to be the first in that 
 both diadem and tribunal. The Lord is with thee: not so 
 much thou with the Lord, as the Lord is with thee, in that 
 function.' Then it was taught for good Divinity, that ' from" 
 the time wherein the Virgin-mother did conceive in her womb 
 
 •t De quant, anim. r. ,'J4. add dc mor. Eccl. Cath. c. 30. 
 ' The Latin Cannnists sulistituted " anpulo.s" for angclos." 
 "> Eman. de Vallc de Moiira S.T.P. ac InquJHit. Deputatus, OpuBC. 1. d© 
 Inraiitat. I. luiHalmiK, h. 1. c. 1. n. 4G. 
 » lb. 
 ' ncrii. .Sen. Senn. 61 . art. 1 . c, 8.
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 195 
 
 the Word of God, she hath obtained such a kind of jurisdiction 
 (so to speak) or authority in all the temporal procession of the 
 Holy Ghost, that no creature hath obtained any grace or 
 virtue from God, but according to the dispensation of His 
 holy Mother;" that " becauseP she is the Mother of the Son of 
 God Who doth produce the Holy Ghost, therefore all the 
 gifts, virtues and graces of the Holy Ghost are by her hands 
 administered to whom she pleaseth, how she pleaseth, and as 
 much as she pleaseth." That shei hath singularly obtained of God 
 this office from eternity ; as herself doth testify, Prov. viii. 23. 
 ' I was ordained from everlasting,' namely, a dispenser of 
 celestial graces; and that in' this respect, Cant. vii. 4. it is said 
 of her, ' Thy neck is a tower of ivory,' because that as by the 
 neck the vital spirits do descend from the head into the body ; 
 so by the Virgin the vital graces are transmitted from Christ 
 the Head into His mystical body, the fulness of grace being in 
 Him, as in the head from whence the influence cometh, and iii 
 her as in the neck through which it is transfused unto us; so 
 that take away the patronage of the Virgin, you stop as it were 
 the sinner's breath that he is not able to live any longer. 
 
 " Then men stuck not to teach, that unto her " all' power 
 was given in heaven and in earth." So that for " heaven" when 
 our Saviour ascended thither, this might be assigned for one 
 reason (among others) why He left His mother behind Him, 
 " lest" perhaps the Court of Heaven might have been in a 
 doubt whom they should rather go to meet, their Lord or their 
 Lady;" and for " earth" she" might rightly apply unto herself 
 that in the first of Ezra " all the kingdoms of the earth hath 
 the Lord given unto me." And we may say unto her again 
 that in Tobit xiii. " Thy kingdom endureth for all ages." 
 And in the cxliv. or cxlv. Psalm, " Thy kingdom is a king- 
 dom of all ages." That howsoever she was " the'' noblest 
 person that was or ever should be in the World, and of so great 
 perfection, that although she had not been the Mother of God, 
 she ought nevertheless to have been the Lady of the world; 
 yet according to the laws whereby the world is governed, by the 
 right of inheritance she did deserve the principality and king- 
 
 P Id. ib. 
 
 1 Id. ib. art. 3. c. 3. 
 
 ' Id. ib. art. 1. c. 8. art. 2. c. 10. ex Pseudo-Hieron. Serm. de Assumpt. 
 Mariae. Jo. Herolt. in Serm. Di.scip. de Temp. Serin. 163. Bias. Viegas in 
 Apoc. c. 12. Comm. 2. s. 10. n. 1. 2. 
 
 * Viegas, ib. s. 2. n. 6. 
 
 t P. Damian. Serm. 1. de Nat. B. Mariie. t. .5. Surii Sept. 8. 
 
 " Anselm de Excell. B. Virg. e. 7. and following him, Bern, de Bust, in 
 Maviali, p. 11. Serm. 1. p. 3. and Seb. Barrad. Jesui'. Conc.jEvang. vi. 11. 
 
 " Bern, de Bust. 1 c. pt. 12. Serm. 1. pt. 1. 
 
 y Bern. Sen. Serm. 61. art. 1. c. 1 . 
 
 o2
 
 HJG Ahjj. Usa/ier on the difference hetween 
 
 dom of this world." That " Christ™ never made any legacy of 
 His Monarchy : because that could not be done without the 
 prejudice of His Mother ; and He knew besides that the Mother 
 could make void the Testament of the Son, if it were made 
 unto her prejudice. And therefore that by all this it appeareth 
 most evidently, that Mary the Mother of Jesus by right of 
 inheritance hath the regal dominion over all that be under 
 God." That " as" many creatures do serve the glorious Virgin 
 Mary, as serve the Trinity. Namely, all creatures, whatsoever 
 degree they hold among the things created (whether they be 
 spiritual as angels, or rational as men, or corporal as the 
 heavenly bodies or the elements) and all things that are in 
 heaven or in earth, whether they be the damned or the 
 blessed ; all which being brought under the government of 
 God, are subject likewise unto the glorious Virgin, forasmuch 
 as He Who is the Son of God and of the blessed Virgin, being 
 willing as it were to equal in some sort His Mother's sovereignty 
 unto the sovereignty of His Father, even He Who was God did 
 serve His Mother upon earth. Whence T.uke ii. 51. it is 
 written of the Virgin and glorious Joseph : ' He was subject 
 unto them,' that as the proposition is true. All things are subject 
 to God's command, even the Virgin herself: so this again is 
 true also, All things are subject to the command of the Virgin, 
 even God Himself." That " considering" the blessed Virgin 
 is the iNIother of God and God is her Son, and every son is 
 naturally inferior to l.is mother, and subject unto her, and the 
 mother hath preeminence and is superior to her son ; it there- 
 fore followeth that the blessed Virgin is superior to God, and 
 God Himself is subject unto her in respect of the Manhood 
 which He assumed from her," that " howsoeveri' she be subject 
 unto God inasmuch as she is a creature : yet is she said to be 
 superior and preferred before Mim, inasmuch as she is Mis 
 Mother." 
 
 " Then men were put in mind that " by"* sinning after Bap- 
 tism they seemed to contemn and despise the Passion of Christ : 
 and so that no sinner doth deserve that Christ should any more 
 make intercession for him to the Father : witiiout whose inter- 
 cession none can be delivered either from the eternal punishment 
 or the temporal, nor from the faidt which he hath voluntarily 
 committed. And therefore that it was necessary that Christ 
 should constitute \\\% well-beloved Mother a Mediatrix betwixt 
 us and llim," " and' so in this our pilgrimage there is no other 
 
 "> Id. ib. 
 
 " M. ib. f. fi. 
 
 " I^ffn. flf! Rust. Mariiii. p. 0. Serin. 2. 
 
 P M. p. 2. Scrm. 2. 
 
 1 Jao. He Valent. F.pifc f'hristopol. in expos. Cant. V. MarisR Maj^nificat. 
 
 ' Id. ib.
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 107 
 
 refuge left unto us in our tribulations and adversities but to 
 iiave recourse unto the Virgin Mary our Mediatrix ; that she 
 would appease the wrath of her Son." That "as' He is 
 ascended into heaven to appear in the sight of God for men ; 
 (Heb. ix. 24.) so she ought to ascend thither to appear in the 
 sight of her Son for sinners; that so mankind might have 
 always before the face of God, a help like unto Christ for the 
 procuring of his salvation." That " this ' Empress is of so 
 great authority in the palace of Heaven^ that it is lawful to 
 appeal unto her from any grievance, all other intermedial 
 Saints omitted." — " That" she is a Chancellor in the court of 
 heaven, and giveth letters of mercy only in this present life; 
 but for the souls that depart from hence, unto some letters of 
 pure grace, unto others of simple justice, and unto some mixed 
 of justice and grace. For some (say they) were much devoted 
 unto her: and unto them she giveth letters of pure grace, 
 whereby she commandeth glory to be given them, without any 
 pain of Purgatory. Others were miserable sinners and not 
 devoted to her; and unto them she giveth letters of simple 
 justice, whereby she commandeth that condign punishment be 
 taken of them. Others were lukewarm and remiss in devotion ; 
 and to them she giveth letters of justice and grace together: 
 whereby she commandeth that both favour be done unto them, 
 and yet some pain of Purgatory be inflicted upon them for their 
 negligence and sluggishness." And these things they say '• are 
 signified in Queen Esther; who wrote letters that the .lews 
 should be saved, and the enemies should be killed, and to the 
 poor small gifts should be given." Yea further also, where* 
 King Ahasuerus did proffer unto the said Esther even the half 
 of his kingdom, (Esther v. 3.) thereby (they say) was signified 
 that God bestowed half of His Kingdom upon the blessed Virgin. 
 '* That having justice and mercy as the chiefest goods of His 
 Kingdom, He retained Justice unto Himself, and granted 
 Mercy unto her :" and " therefore^ that if a man do find 
 himself aggrieved in the Court of God's Justice, he may 
 appeal to the Court of Mercy of His Mother," she being that 
 * throne of grace' whereof the Apostle speaketh (Heb. iv. 16.), 
 ' Let us go boldly unto the throne^ of Grace, that we may 
 receive Mercy, and find Grace to help in time of need.' They 
 tell us that" it is for the ornament of an earthly Kingdom, that 
 
 * Bern, de Bust. Marial. p. 11. Serm. 2. memb. 1. 
 t Id. p. 3. Serm. 3. in Excell. 4. 
 
 » Id. p. 12. Serm. 2. memb. 1. in. Excell. 22. 
 
 " Gabr. Biel. in Can. MissiE. lect. 80. vid. Job. Gerson. tract 4. sup. 
 Magnificat, 
 y Bern, de Bust. Marial. p. 3. Serm. 3. in Excell. 4. 
 
 • Id. ib. Exc. 5. and p. 5. Serm. 7. in fin. 
 a Id. p. 9. Serm. 2.
 
 1 98 AOp. Ussher on the difference between 
 
 it should liave botl) a King and a Queen, and therefore when 
 any king hath not a wife, his subjects often do request him to 
 take one. Hereupon they say, that the eternal King and omni- 
 potent Emperor, minding to adorn the kingdom of Heaven above, 
 did frame this blessed Virgin, to tlie end He might make her the 
 lady and Empress of His kingdom and empire; that the prophecy 
 of David might be verified, saying unto her in the Psalm: 
 ' Upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen in clothing of 
 gold.' That " sheb is an Empress because she is the spouse of 
 the eternal Emperor : of Whom it is said, (John iii. 29.) He that 
 hath the Bride is the Bridegroom, and that when God did 
 deliver unto her the empire of the world and all the things con- 
 tained therein, He said unto her that which we read in the first 
 of the yEneids : 
 
 His ego nee metas renim nee tempora pono ; 
 Imperium sine fine dcdi. 
 
 " That she is " the Empress ^ also of heaven and earth, because 
 she did bear the heavenly Emperor ; and therefore that she can 
 a^k of Him what. she will, and obtain it. That this was figured 
 in the liistory of the Kings, w!;ere the mother of Solomon said 
 unto him : • I desire one petition of thee, do not confound my 
 face:' for then should He confound her face if He did deny that 
 which she requested;" and that " if in respect of her maternal 
 jurisdiction she hath command of her Son \A ho was subject unto 
 her: (as we read, Luke ii. 51.) then much more hath she 
 command over all the creatures that are subject to her Son." 
 That " this'' mighty God did (as far as He might) make 
 His Mother partner of His Divine Majesty and power; 
 giving unto her of old the sovereignty both of celestial things 
 and mortal; ordering at her pleasure (as the patronage of 
 men did require) the earth, the seas; Heaven and Nature; 
 at her liking, and by her, bestowing on mortal men His 
 Divine treasures and heavenly gifts. So as all might understand 
 that whatsoever doth flow into the earth from that eternal and 
 glorious fountain of good things, doth flow by Mary." Tiiat 
 " she' is constituted over every creature; and whosoever boweth 
 his knee unto Jesus, doth fall down also and supplicate unto His 
 Mother ; so that the glory of the Son may be judged, not so much 
 to be common with the Mother as to be the very same." Tliat 
 
 >• H. P. .». ^^erlll. ;J. Kxcfll. 4. 
 = T<1. lb. 
 
 •> Horaf. 'liirselin. Jesuit, iiiiil in Ej". Dedic. Hist. Lauret. ad Laid. 
 Aldoliriiniliniim. 
 " Arnold. Carnot. Tract, do Laud. Virg,
 
 aticient and modern Invocation of Saints. 199 
 
 " so' great is her glory that she exceedeth the nature of Angels 
 and men joined together, as far in glory, as the circumference of 
 the firmament exceedeth his centre in magnitude, when sheunder- 
 standeth herself in her Son to be, as His other self, clothed with 
 the Deity." That she being " the Mother s of God doth assume 
 unto iierself of the omnipotency of her Son (upon which she leau- 
 eth) as much as she pleaseth." And that she " doth'' come 
 before the golden altar of human reconciliation not intreating 
 only but commanding; a Mistress, not a Maid." They tell us 
 that the blessed Virgin herself appeared once unto Thomas 
 Becket and used this speech unto liim, " Rejoice' and be glad 
 and be joyful with me: because my glory dolh excel the dignity 
 and joy of all the Saints and all the blessed spirits ; and I alone 
 have greater glory than all the Angels and Saints together. 
 Rejoice, because that as the Sun doth enlighten the day and tiie 
 world, so my brightness doth enlighten the whole celestial world. 
 Rejoice, because the whole host of Heaven obeyeth me, reverenceth 
 and honoureth me. Rejoice, because my Son is always obedient 
 unto me and my will, and all my prayers He always heareth." 
 (Or as others'* do relate it, " The will of the Blessed Trinity and 
 mine is one and the same; and whatsoeverdoth please me the whole 
 Trinity with unspeakable favour doth give consent unto.") " Re- 
 joice, because God doth always at my pleasure reward my servitors 
 in this world, and in the world to come. Rejoice, because I sit 
 next to the holy Trinity, and am clothed with my body glorified. 
 Rejoice, because I am certain and sure that these my joys shall always 
 stand, and never be finished or fail. And whosoever by rejoicing 
 with these spiritual joys shall worship me in this world, at the 
 time of the departure of his soul out of the body, he shall obtain 
 my presence; and T will deliver his soul from the malignant 
 enemies, and present it in the sight of my Son, that it may 
 possess joys with me." They tell us that " many (many 
 whores' for example, that would not sin on Saturday for the 
 reverence of the Virgin, whatsoever they did on the Lord's day) 
 seem to have the blessed Virgin in greater veneration than 
 Christ her Son ; moved thereunto out of simplicity more than 
 out of knowledge. Yet that the Son of God doth bear with the 
 simplicity of these men and women, because He is not ignorant 
 that the honour of the Mother doth redound to the Child." (Prov. 
 xvii. 6.) They argue further that "if"" a Cardinal have this 
 
 f Bern, de Bust. Marial. P. 12. Serm. 2. Excell. 21. 
 *: Id. P. 12. Serm. 2. Excell. 28. 
 •> P. Uamian. Serm. 1. de Nat. B. Marise. 
 ' Bern, de Bust. Marial. P. 20. Serm. 2. sect. ult. 
 
 ^ Promptuar. Discipuli de Miraculis B. Marite, Exempl. 14. p. 8. ed. 
 Mognnt. 1612. 
 
 1 Bern, de Bust. P. 6. Serin. 2. Memb. 3. 
 «' Id. P. 12. Serm. 1. Memb. 8.
 
 •i'OO Abjj. Utisher on (he difference between 
 
 privilege, that if he put his cap upon the head of one that is led 
 unto justice, he is freed tliereby : then by an argument drawn 
 frumthe stronger, the cloak of the blessed Virgin is able to deliver 
 us from ail evil, her mercy being so large, that if she should 
 see any man who did devoutly make her crown (that is 
 to say, repeat the rosary or chaplet of prayers made for 
 her worship) to be drawn unto punishment in the midst 
 of a thousand devils ; she would presently rescue him, and 
 not permit that any one should have an evil end, who did 
 study reverently to make her crown." They add more- 
 over, that " for ' every of these crowns a man shall obtain 
 273758 days of indulgence: and that Pope Sixtus the Fourth 
 granted an indulgence of 12,000 years for every time that a 
 man in the state of grace should repeat this short orizon 
 or salutation of the Virgin, which by many is inserted into her 
 crowns ' Hail, most holy Mary, the mother of God, the queen 
 of Heaven, ihe gate of Paradise, the Lady of the world. Thou 
 art a singular and pure Virgin : thou didst conceive Christ 
 without sin : thou didst bear the Creator and Saviour of the 
 world, in Whom 1 do not doubt. Deliver me from all evil, and 
 pray for my sins. Amen.'" In the crowns composed by Bona- 
 venture, this is one of the orizons that is prescribed to be 
 said, ' O'' Empress, and our most kind Lady, by the authority 
 of a mother command tliy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that He would vouchsafe to lift up our minds from the 
 love of earthly unto heavenly desires;' which is suitable to that 
 versicle, which we lead in the 35th Psalm of this Lady's Psalter; 
 ' Incline ' the countenance of God upon us, compel Him to have 
 mercy upon sinners,' the harshness whereof our Romanists have 
 a little qualified in some of their editions, reading thus, 
 " Incline'" the countenance of thy Son upon us, compel Him by 
 thy prayers to have mercy upon us sinners." 7 he Psalms of this 
 I'saltcr do all of them begin as David's do, but with this main 
 difiorcnce, that whore the Prophet in the one aimeth at the 
 advancement ol the honour of our Lord, the Friar in the other 
 appliith all to the magnifying of the power and goodness of our 
 Lady. So in the first Psalm: Blessed is the man (quoth 
 Bouavcnture) that loveth thy n.ime, O Virgin Mary, thy grace 
 siiall comfort his soul ; and in the others following; Lady", how 
 are thoy multiplied that trouble me? with thy tempest shall 
 thou pt-isecute and scatter them. Lady", suffer me not to he 
 rebuked in the fury of (iod, nor to be judged in His wrath. My 
 Lady I*, in thee have I put my trust: deliver me from my enemies. 
 
 'III. It Uoiiavcntuia Corona B. M. V. 0pp. t. 6. Roma-, 15S8. 
 
 • Pnall. \\. M. V. it). •" Psalt. Bonuventura- seorsim editte. Paris. 
 
 Jftyfi, iu f'aiiHito Dojiiinicic 2. " Ph. 3. o Ps. 6. P Pg. 7,
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 201 
 
 O Lady. In our Lady p put I my trust; for the sweetness of the 
 mercy of her name. How'i long wilt thou forget me, O Lady, 
 and not deliver me in the day of tribulation? Preserve' me, O 
 Lady, for in thee have I put my trust : and impart unto me the 
 drops of thy grace. I ' will love thee, O Lady of heaven and 
 earth, and 1 will call upon thy name among the nations. * The 
 heavens' declare thy glory: and the fragrance of thine oint- 
 ments is spread among the nations.' Hear" us, Lady, in 
 the day of trouble; and turn thy merciful face unto our 
 prayers. Unto thee", O Lady, have 1 lifted up my soul : in 
 the judgment of God, by thy prayers, I shall not be ashamed. 
 Judge mey, Lady, for I have departed from my innocency, but 
 because I will trust in thee, I shall not be weakened. In thee% 
 O Lady, have I put my trust, let me never be confounded: in 
 thy favour receive me. Blessed'* are they whose hearts do love 
 thee, O Virgin Mary; their sins by thee shall mercifully be 
 washed away. Lady*", judge those that hurt me: and rise up 
 against them and plead my cause. Waitings have I waited for 
 thy grace ; and thou hast done unto me according to the multi- 
 tude of the mercy of thy name. Lady'', thou art our refuge 
 in all our necessities ; and the powerful strength treading down 
 the enemy. Have mercy « upon me, O Lady, who art called 
 the mother of mercy, and according to the bowels of thy mercies, 
 cleanse me from all mine iniquities. Save me^, Lady, by thy 
 name and deliver me from mine unrighteousness. Have mercy ^ 
 upon me, O Lady, have mercy upon me : because my heart is 
 prepared to search out thy will, and in the shadow of thy wings 
 will 1 rest. Let'' Mary arise; andlether enemies be scattered: let 
 them all be trodden down under her feet. In thee', O Lady, have I 
 put my trust, let me never be put to confusion : deliver me in 
 thy mercVt and cause me to escape. Give" the King thy judg- 
 ment, O God, and thy mercy to the Queen His Mother. Lady', 
 the Gentiles are come into the inheritance of God, whom thou by 
 thy merits hast confederated unto Christ. Thy mercies", O Lady, 
 will I sing for ever. God" is the Lord of revenges, but thou the 
 mother of mercy dost bow Him to take pity. O come" let us sing 
 unto our Lady; let us make a joyful noise to Mary, our Queen, 
 that brings salvation. O sing'' unto our Lady a new song, for she 
 hath done marvellous things. Oi give thanks unto the Lord, for 
 He is good : give thanks unto His Mother, for her mercy endureth 
 for ever. Lady', despise not my praise : and vouchsafe to accept 
 
 P Ps. 10. 
 
 q Ps. 13. 
 
 ■■ Ps. 16. 
 
 
 » Ps. 18. 
 
 
 ' Ps. 19. 
 
 " Ps. 20. 
 
 " Ps. 25. 
 
 y Ps. 26. 
 
 
 ^ Ps. 31. 
 
 
 a Ps. 32. 
 
 ^ Pf. 35. 
 
 <: Ps. 40. 
 
 " Ps. 46. 
 
 
 e Ps. 51. 
 
 
 f Ps. 54. 
 
 g Ps. 57. 
 
 h Ps. 68. 
 
 i Ps. 71. 
 
 
 >< P.<!. 72. 
 
 
 I Ps. 79. 
 
 "" P.s. 89. 
 
 " Ps. 94. 
 
 Ps. 96. P 
 
 Ps. 
 
 98. q ff . 
 
 lo; 
 
 " and 118. 
 
 r Ps. 109. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 202 Abp. Unsher on the difference between 
 
 this Psaller which is dedicated unto thee. The' Lord said unto 
 our Lady, Sit thou. My mother, at My right hand. They' that 
 trust in thee, O mother of God, shall not fear from the face of 
 the enemy. Except" our Lady build the house of our heart, 
 the building thereof will not continue. Blessed" are all they 
 who fear our Lady, and blessed are all they who know to do thy 
 will and thy good pleasure. Oat* of the deep have I cried unto 
 thee, O Lady : Lady, hear my voice. Lady ^, remember David, 
 and all that call upon thy name. O^ give thanks unto the Lord, 
 because He is good : because by His most sweet Mother the 
 Virgin Mary is His mercy given. Blessed be thou", O Lady, 
 which teachest tliy servants to war, and strengthenest them 
 against the enemy. And so the last Psalm is begun with. Praise 
 our Lady in her Saints, praise her in her virtues and miracles ; 
 and ended accordingly, with, Omnis spiritus laudet Dominam 
 nostram ; Let every spirit (or every thing that hath breath) 
 praise our Lady." 
 
 To this we may adjoin the Psalter'^ of the salutations of the 
 Virgin, framed by John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 which is not yet printed. His preface he beginneth thus : ' I 
 purpose to write tiie praises of the Holy Virgin; who delivers 
 us from prison through her Son, quickening our whole race 
 by a work wondrous in efficacy :' and endeth with a prayer to 
 tlie Blessed Virgin, ' that she would release the sins of all 
 those for whom he prayed, and cause both his own name 
 and theirs to be written in the book of life.' Then followeth 
 his first Psalm ; wherein he prayeth, that • she would make 
 us to meditate often (Jod's law,' and, afterwards ' to be made 
 blessed in the glory of God's kingdom.' His other 149 Psalms 
 (which are fraught with the same kind of stufif) I pass over. 
 But Bcinardiniis de Senis*", his boldness may not be forgotten; 
 who tliinketh that " God will give him leave to maintain, that 
 the Virgin Mary did more unto Him, or at least as much, as He 
 Himself did unto all mankind, and that we may say for our 
 comfort, (forsooth) that in respect of the blessed V'irgin (whom 
 God Himself did make notwithstanding), God after a sort is more 
 bound unto us, than we are unto Him." With which absurd and 
 wretched speculation, liernardinus de Busti * after him was so 
 well pleased, that he dureth to revive again this odious com- 
 parison. — " But O most grateful Virgin, didst not thou some- 
 thing to (Jod. Didst not thou make Him any recompence? 
 Truly, (if it ho lawfid to speak it) thou in some respect didst 
 
 • 1'h. 110. t Ph. 125. " Ph. 127. > Ps. 128. v Ps. 130. 
 » Ph. \M. » Ph. \m. •> Ph. 144. 
 
 •• riillrd l.y .1. Pit.K, de III. Angl. Sfript. p. .S80. P.salter. Medit. B. Marix. 
 ^ S«rin. (li. art. 1 . f. 11. 
 
 • M .'trial, ji. H. S»'rin. 2. ineiid). .'i.
 
 ancient and modern Invocation of Saints. 203 
 
 greater things to God, than God Himself did to thee and to all 
 mankind. I will therefore speak that, which thou out of thy 
 humility hast past in silence. For thou only didst sing, ' He 
 that is mighty hath done to me great things,' but I do sing and 
 say, that ' thou hast done greater things to Him that is mighty.' " 
 Neither is that vision much better, which the same author f 
 reciteth as shewed to St. Francis, or (as others'"' would have it) 
 to his companion Friar Lion; touching the two ladders that 
 reached from earth to heaven ; the one red, upon which Christ 
 leaned, from whence many fell backward and could not ascend ; 
 the other white, upon which the holy Virgin leaned : the help 
 Avhereof such as used, were by her received with a cheerful 
 countenance, and so with facility ascended into Heaven. 
 Neither yet that sentence, which came first from Anselm'', and 
 was after him used by Ludolphus Saxo' the Carthusian, and 
 Chrysostomus a Visitatione'' the Cistercian Monk: that " more 
 present relief is sometimes found by commemorating the name 
 of Mary, than by calling upon the Name of our Lord Jesus her 
 only Son." Which one of our Jesuits ' is so far from being 
 ashamed to defend, that he dareth to extend it further to the 
 mediation of other Saints also; telling us very peremptorily, that 
 " as our Lord Jesus worketh greater miracles by His Saints than 
 by Himself (John xiv. 12.) so, often He shew-eth the force of their 
 intercession more than of His own." 
 "^ All which I do lay down thus largely'", not because I take any 
 delight in rehearsing those things, which deserve rather to be 
 
 ^ lb. p. 9. Serm. 2. assim. 2. 
 
 5 Spec. vit. Fransisci et socior. ej. p. 2. c. 45. Spec, exempl. dist. 7. 
 ■exempl. 41. 
 
 h de Exeell. B. Virg. c. 6. 
 
 i de Vita Christi, p. 2. c. 60. 
 
 ^ de Verb. Dominse, t. 2. 1. 2. c. 2. 
 
 I H. Fitz-Simon of the Mass, 1. 2. p. 2. c. 3. 
 
 n> Melancholy as all this, it is only a specimen of what might be produced; 
 thus Whitater (adv. Camp. Rat. 9. p. 44.) quotes from the Prosa Missse de 
 Concept. " Thou art the sure hope of the miserable, truly the mother of the 
 parentless, thou art the relief of the oppressed, the medicine of the weak, thou 
 art all things to all;" and from a book of " hours" entitled the Hist. sec. 
 chorum August, de Coram. Beatiss. Virg. Mariae (0pp. p. 219.) framed, 
 (which is the more shocking) on the Magnificat, which it corrects, " Rejoice, 
 heavenly Lady, exalt and magnify God thy Saviour, Who made thee alone of 
 thy kind ; thou willedst to call thyself the ' handmaiden' of Jesus Christ, but 
 as the Divine law teaches, thou art Mistress over Him (tu ipsius es Domina) 
 for right and reason have it, that the mother should be set over (prseesse) the 
 son ; therefore pray suppliantly and direct with authority (prsecipe sublimiter) 
 that in the eventide of the world He lead iis to the kingdoms above;" and 
 " Thou alone peerless whom the Lord chose to be mediatrix between God and 
 man, &c." and in " the Office to her, reformed by Pius V." " Marj^ mother of 
 grace, mother of mercy, do thou protect us from the enemy, and receive us at 
 the hour of death.''
 
 204 Illmtiatiuns qf Bunt is A doctrine qf Invocation 
 
 buried in everlasting oblivion ; but first, that the world may take 
 notice, wliat kind of monster is nourished in the Papacy under 
 that stran'^e name of Hyperdulia : the bare discovery whereof, 
 I am persuaded, will prevail as much with a mind that is 
 touched with any zeal of God's honour, as all other arguments 
 and authorities whatsoever. Secondly, that such unstable souls 
 as look back upon Sodom and have a lust to return unto Egypt 
 again, may be advised to look a little into this sink, and consider 
 with themselves, whether the steam that ariseth from thence be 
 not so noisome, that it is not to be endured by one that hath 
 any sense left in him of piety. And thirdly, that such as be 
 established in the present truth, may be thankful to God for this 
 great mercy vouchsafed unto them. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since the above has bjen in type, I have been furnished 
 with a melancholy confirmation of the truth of Mr. New- 
 man's words, that the " received doctrine of the Roman 
 schools of that day" is " unhappily that of this day too;" 
 that 
 
 " The present authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome, 
 to judge by what we see of it in public, goes very far indeed 
 to substitute another Gospel for the true one. Instead of 
 setting before the soul the Holy Trinity — it does seem to 
 me as a popular system to preach the Blessed Virgin and the 
 Saints." 
 
 It woidd probably be a first impression on reading tiiese 
 extracts from Abp. Ussher, that lie had with much 
 learning brought together a mass of objectionable lan- 
 , guage, which il might be hoped was now done away ; that 
 all these were the exaggerations of individual minds, and 
 that it was not fair to charge them as teaching now received 
 in the Roman Church. This was my own hope; I rc- 
 nrinted them in illustration of tlie meaning of the Article, 
 luit certainly, little thinking of imputing them to Rome at 
 the pnscnt day. The contrary, however, of all this is 
 sadly (hf case. The .same extracts which Abp. Ussher 
 adduces as illustrating the diH'erence between "the Roinish 
 dottrinc of the invocation of Saints" and ancient addresses
 
 still existing, from LiffuorVs Glories of Mary. -205 
 
 to them, are, in " the Glories of Mary Mother of God by 
 Saint Alphonsus Liguori, and carefully revised by a Ca- 
 tholic Priest," (third ed. Dublin, 1837,) adduced as au- 
 thoritative teaching. The subjects of the early chapters, 
 which they are adduced to establish, are " how great should 
 be our confidence in Mary, Queen of Mercy," (§. 1.) " as 
 our IMother,'" (§. 2.) " the great love borne us by Mary, our 
 Mother," (§. 3.) that " Mary is the refuge of repentant 
 sinners" and so (§. 4.) " our life, since she obtains us the 
 pardon of our sins,*" (c 2. §. 1.) " because she obtains us 
 perseverance,"" (§. 2.) " the necessity of Mary's intercession 
 in order to obtain salvation," (c. 5.) &c. The sayings of 
 Bernardine of Sienna, Albertus M., Bonaventure, &c. are 
 alleged as authorities. It is still alleged as a true saying, 
 " All is subject to Mary's empire, even God," (p. 138, see 
 Abp. Ussher, above p. 19C).) It is not, of course, to be sup- 
 posed that no mention should be made of her Sox, or from 
 time to time that her intercession is available through her 
 Son, or that " Jesus is our Redeemer, Mary our Advocate." 
 (p. 88.) " Jesus is my only hope, and after Him you, O Vii-gin 
 Mary" (p. 90.) One could not imagine any thing written 
 by a Christian in entire forgetfulness of his Lord ; but 
 these are but scanty; the main object of the work is, (as it 
 professes,) " the Glories of Mary,'' and these are so set 
 forth, as for the most part to end in her, to place her 
 where a Catholic would expect mention of his Lord. 
 Thus at the hour of death, it is said, " May I invoke you 
 during life, and die when calling on — Mary, my Mother, 
 my blessed amiable Mother." (p. 38.) To whom again 
 could it be thought that such language as the following is 
 addressed ? 
 
 " If you grant me your aid, what can I fear > during life 
 and at my death, your name and remembrance shall be the 
 delight of my soul, p. 74. I desire to consecrate myself more 
 particularly to your service — dispose of me according to your 
 good pleasure ; direct me ; I abandon myself wholly to your 
 conduct; never more let me be guided by myself; chastise 
 me, if I disobey you ; your correction will be sweet and agree- 
 able. (Ps. cxli. 5.) I am then no longer mine, / am all yours ." 
 (p. 30.) " My sins render me unworthy of approaching you. 
 
 I should expect nothing but chastisement from your hands 
 
 I place in you all tny confidence, and provided I may be happy 
 enough to die before your image, I shall firmly hope to join in 
 heaven that innumerable multitude who have been saved by
 
 •JOn Ilhis(i-(itin}is (>/ Bomiish Oorlrino of Invocation 
 
 your intercession." (p. 53, 4.) " How dare a sinner, unworthy 
 as I, appear before you? I am the last of sinners; I have 
 offended the Divine Majesty more than any other; since I can- 
 not recall the past, help me to amend the present." (p. 57.) 
 " O consolation of the afflicted ! have pity upon me ; remorse 
 of conscience gnaws me ; my best actions are but imperfectly 
 performed ; hell awaits to carry off my soul ; divine Justice 
 must be satisfied ; what then shall become of me .^ what shall 
 be my eternal lot?" (p. 83.) " He who is protected by you 
 cannot be lost; heaven and earth confess it. Hence though 
 all creatures forget me, though the whole world abandon me, 
 provided you forsake me not, I should think myself secure." (p. 
 PO.) " I cannot abandon myself to despair ; because you are 
 my refuge, and your clemency is unbounded." (p. 135.) " All 
 power has been given vmto you in heaven and on earth ; 
 nothing is impossible to you, for you can give hope to the de- 
 sponding." (p. 138.) 
 
 Again, it is, of cour&e, presupposed and sometimes ex- 
 
 f)ressed that S. Mary is a mediatrix with our Lord, that 
 ler power is derived from Him, and through Him ; but 
 then, at best, it is a power absolutely vested in her ; it is 
 not the Intercession of a creature, however exalted ; it is 
 the will of one, whose will is complied with and obeyed. 
 She stands between the soul and its Judge ; it need not 
 go to its Judge; it has but to gain the intercession of His 
 Mother, and leave the rest to her. 
 
 " Because she opens at pleasure the abyss of the Divine 
 mercy, no sinner, however enormous his crimes may be, can 
 perish if he is protected by Mary." (p. 25 ) " Every petition 
 shr' offers is as a law emanating from the Lord, by which He 
 obliges Ilhnself to be merciful to those for whom she inter- 
 cedes." (p. 21.) " You have the keys of the Divine mercy, draw 
 on this inexhaustible treasure, and dispense its riches to this 
 ])oor sinner, in proportion to his immense wants." (p. 13().) 
 " Wlicn Mary,' says S. I'eter Dauiian, " ])res(>nts herself 
 before Jesus, tlie altar of reconciliation, she rather seems to 
 <li(tfitc than to sup))licate, and has more the air of a Queen 
 than a Nulijf'ct ' — ' the saint (IJernardine) wishes to insinuate 
 that God hears .Mary's prayers, as if they were contmands." 
 ' Ihc Lord, () Mary, has so exalted you/ says S. Anselm, 
 ' that His favour has rendered you onuiipotent.' ' Yes,' says 
 Richard of .S. Laurence, ' Mary is onuiipotent, for according to 
 all laws the (|uecn enjoys the same ])rivileges as the king, and 
 that power may l)e etpial lictwcen the Son and the Mother.' " 
 (p. IMH.) " Albertus M. makes you say, ' It suffices to 
 entreat inc tf> desire a thing, for whatsoever F wish is neces-
 
 still existing^ from LignorVs Glories of Mary. 207 
 
 sarily accomplished.' " (p. 139.) " AH good comes to us 
 with Mary ; he who has found her, has found all grace, all 
 virtue, since there is no good, which he does not obtain 
 through her intercession. She herself warns us that she has at 
 her disposal all the treasures of the Divinity. ' With me are glory 
 and riches, that I may enrich them that love me.' Hence S. 
 Bonaventure wishes us ever to keep our eyes on the hands of 
 Mary, to receive from them all that is necessary for our true 
 welfare." (comp. Ps. 123, 2.) p. 88. " Another time, our 
 Blessed Lord said to Mary in the presence of St Gertrude, ' I 
 know that in virtue of My Omnipotence I have invested you 
 with power to deal out mercy in such a measure as you find 
 good, to all sinners who invoke you.' " (p. 104, 5.) " We, holy 
 Virgin, hope for grace and salvation from you, and since you 
 need but say the word, ah, do so, you shall be heard, and we 
 shall be saved. " (p. 144.) 
 
 To add one more definite statement from a popular and 
 authoritative work, the " Treatise on the Scapular," (c. 7. 
 p. 43.) 
 
 ** It is a Catholic proposition, that the most sacred Virgin 
 Mary, by a participated authority, granted to her as Mother of 
 Jesus Christ, can do much in all things, where mercy doth con- 
 tend with justice. Wherefore S. Anselm saith, " There is no 
 doubt but the Blessed Virgin Mary, by maternal right, is with 
 Christ president of heaven and earth. S. John Damascene saith, 
 It is fitting and convenient that Mary should possess what is her 
 Son's. — Hence we may infer how the Blessed Virgin can free the 
 souls of her devouts out of purgatory, and fulfil her other promises 
 made to the brothers and sisters of the holy Confraternity ; to 
 wit, by a power communicated to her by her Son. For she 
 being really Mother of the Word Incarnate, there is in all pro- 
 priety due to her a certain power, or, as others say, a dominion 
 over all things, as well spiritual as temporal, to which the autho- 
 rity of her Son doth extend itself. So that she hath by a natural 
 right of maternity, a power almost like that of her Son, of which 
 she may serve herself, as often as she shall think good. Relying 
 therefore on this her participated, omnipotcncy, and on the effica- 
 ciousness of her merits and intercessions, she promised the 
 devouts of her holy habit to free them from the temporary pains 
 of purgatory fire, from the eternal pains of hell-fire, and from 
 many dangers and calamities of this life, as well spiritual as 
 temporal.' 
 
 Yet this has been said yet more strongly in " the Glories
 
 '20H lUmtrations of Romish doctrine of Invocation 
 
 of Mary," that she not only " partakes His Omnipotence,"" 
 but that He has "resigned" it to her. 
 
 " Now the King of heaven, Wliose bounty is infinite, desiring 
 nothing so ardently as to confer His favours on us, in order to 
 increase our confidence in Him, has given us His Mother tor our 
 Mother, and in her liands resigned, (if we might say so,) His 
 omnipotence in the sphere of grace, ti)at we might place in her 
 the hope of our salvation, and ail the help necessary to 
 attain it." (p. 85.) 
 
 And this power tliey are fond of representing as belong- 
 ing to her, not as the creature of whom our Lord deigned 
 to take our nature, but (as before in Abp. Ussher, p. 19o. 
 190. 198. 199. ^02.) derived from her own merit towards 
 her Son, as the result of a debt which He owed her. 
 They are painfully fond of placing her in the same 
 relation as The Father. 
 
 " Mary owes her Son an infinite gratitude for choosing her for 
 His Mother, but it is not less true to say that Jesus Christ has 
 contracted a species of obligation towards her for the human 
 existence He received from her, and in recompense for this 
 benefit. He honours her by hearing her prayers." (ib. p. 26, 7.) 
 
 '' Mary has not spared her own Son, her own soul, for the 
 salvation of many." p. 3"2. " If to evince the love of God the 
 I'atlier for man it is said, that ' He delivered up His own Son for 
 them;' may we not use the same terms, to express the love of 
 Mary ? ' Yes,' says S. Bonaventure, ' Mary has so loved us, 
 tliat she has given us her only Son.' ' She gave Him us,' says 
 F. Nieremberg, • when in virtue of her jurisdiction over Him as 
 mother, she permitted Him to deliver Himself up to the Jews.' 
 ' She gave Him for us — she hath given this Well-Beloved Son; 
 she sacrificed for us a Son, Who was infinitely dearer to her 
 than herself.' ' If oar salvation was then so near her heart.' 
 (p. 41 — 11.) ' This Divine Saviour Whom she has given to the 
 world.' (p \\\.) ' llirh;ird of S. I-aurence beautifully explains 
 this passage, (Prov. xxx 1 1 .) in reference to the holy Virgin, ' The 
 lieirl of the man of Clod who trusts in Mury, be shall not want 
 spoils,* for she has snatched from bell its prey, to enrich with 
 spoils our I-ord Jesus Christ." 
 
 " In taking tlesh in your chaste womb, a Hod has been pleased 
 to bccoine your debtor, in order ft place afterwards at your 
 disposal ail lb« treasures of His uul)OUM(led mprcy," (p. 144.) "as 
 it was revealed to S. Bridget, .Jesus has obliged Himself to grant 
 all the desires an<l re<piests of His blessed Mother, not willing to
 
 still existing, from Liguori's Glories of Manj. •>()*> 
 
 refuse her any thing in heaven, since she has refused Hiiti 
 nothing on earth.'" (p. 138,9.) 
 
 *• S. Gernianus says to Mary, ' You.O holy Virgin, have over 
 God the authority of a Mother, and hence you obtain pardon for 
 the most obdurate sinners.'" 
 
 So that at last it seems nothing strange, tlmt she shoukl 
 be introduced as upbraiding an apostate, " Thou hast 
 renounced me and my Son," (p. 135.) or that she should 
 be addressed by a penitent, " I have by my impurity 
 sinned against God and against Mee," (p. 80.) or with the 
 attribute of Divinity, " O sweet in communicating^ thyself 
 to those that love you, to those that seek 3'ou." (p. 193.) 
 
 It is, of course, believed in the abstract, that our Lord is 
 the One Mediator with the Father, and the blessed Virgin 
 a mediatrix only with our Lord; Rome is not charged 
 with denying, but with overlaying the Faith by her ad- 
 ditions ; but practically, at the best, where is tiie induce- 
 ment held out to a sinner to go further than the bles=ed 
 Virgin, when it is taught that she has all power given her, 
 that she obtains what she wills, that persons need only pray 
 to her? Certainly it is said that none can be saved v/ho 
 do not pray to her, but it is not taught (but the contrary) 
 that those will not be saved who pray to none i)esi{les her, 
 who never pray to God. Nor can this be paralleled with 
 the Catholic doctrine of prayer to the Father through the 
 Son ; undoubtedly, there may be a form of unconscious 
 Unitarianism lurking under exclusive prayer to our Lord ; 
 (as it would also be un-Scriptural and un-Catholic ;) but, 
 at least, in such prayers, prayer is offered to Him Who 
 %vith the Father and the Holy Ghost is One God ; in 
 these -prayers to the Virgin, the creature is substituted for 
 the Creator as the object of prayer. 
 
 Such, it is much to be feared, must be the effect of this 
 teaching on conunon minds; but, at the very best, her 
 office, as thus set forth, practically takes the place of that 
 which our Blessed Lord deigns to bear. The feehno-s of 
 
 » It .seems but a following out of this teaching that a heresy is said to exist 
 among the lower ranks in Rome, that in the Holy Eucharist, not only our 
 Lord but His Mother is present. Such a heresy would, again, naturallv 
 follow from such teaching as, " Mary and Jesus having biit one and the 
 same Flesh, says S. Arnand Abbot, why should not the .\Iother enjoy, con- 
 jointly with the Son, the honours of royalty ?" The application to the'Holy 
 Eucharist seems to lie nearer, and were not more profane, than that actually 
 made.
 
 v?in Itlxstrations of Romisfi fide trine of Invocation 
 
 devout affection, trust, and hope amid our sins, "boldness 
 in approncliinor to the throne of grace,"" consciousness that 
 we ha%'e One Who can have a fechng for our infirmities, 
 which, in the Catholic system, are directed towards our 
 Lord, as being man although Tiod, in the Romanist are 
 turned aside to His Mother. Our Lord is contemplated 
 as (lotl and our Judge, the blessed Virgin has that office 
 wliicb, in the Cathohc system, is occupied by the glorified 
 Hnmanitv of our Lord ; justice and mercv are no Kmgcr 
 met together, but justice is apportioned to our Lord, His 
 other attribute of mercy is divided from Him and given to 
 His Mother. The soul is invited, not to lift itself up to 
 Him, but to rest in His Mother, as finding in lier the very 
 attributes, which Holy Scripture and the Catholic Church 
 set forth to us in our Lord. 
 
 Some painful evidence of this has been already given by 
 Abp. Usshcr; these statements are repeated, and enforced 
 to this day : 
 
 " Mary is Queen of mercy alone; she is a sovereign, not to 
 punish sinners but to pardon and forgive them. — Gerson 
 observes that as the kingdom of God consists in mercy and jus- 
 tice, the Lord has, as it were, divided it ; reserving to Himself 
 the dominion of justice, and yielding to His Mother that of 
 mercy. S. Thomas confirms this, when he says, that one half 
 of the kingdom of God Avas given to Mary, when she conceived 
 and brought forth the Eternal Word, so that she became 
 Queen of mercy as her Son is King of justice. A learned in- 
 terpreter, writing on Ps. Ixxii. 1. says to God, ' Lord, you have 
 given justice to the King your Son, because you have reserved 
 mercy for the (Jueen His Mother.' S. Bonaventure and Ernest 
 Abp of I'rague, explain the words in nearh' the same terms," 
 (p. 2.3 ;) " Let us go then, Christians, let us go to this most 
 gracious (Jucen, and crowd around her throne, (comp. lleb. iv. 
 U).) without being deterred by our crimes and abominations. 
 1 et us l>e convinced that Mary has been crowned Queen of 
 mercy, it is that the greatest sinners may be saved by her 
 intercession "." (p 27,28.) " Prayer in the mouth of a sinner — 
 is useful and salutary, S. Thomas says, being founded not on 
 the merits of him who })ray.s, but on tlie goodness of God and the 
 merits of Jesus Christ. — It is just the same with our petitions 
 made in the nnme r)f His most holy Mother. If he who j)rays 
 nicnts not to be heard, the merits of Mary will pray for him, 
 wiyn .S. Anselm, exhorting all sinners to address themselves 
 
 •♦.Thf nhotking vinifin of th<' " two ladders," (»fc above, iti Al)p. l'-i<lur, 
 p. 20:{.) i^i rfpi'Hti'd. p. I MO.
 
 still existing, /rom LigiiorVs Glories of Mary, Oil 
 
 confidently to— the Mother of God." (p. 51.) " S. Bernardiiie 
 of Sienna asserts^ that * if God has not destroyed man after his 
 sin, it was in consideration of — the blessed Virgin ! and out of 
 the singular love He bore her; he even doubts not that all the 
 mercies granted to sinners in the old law have been given in 
 consideration of — Mary ! With good reason then does S. 
 Bernard exhort us to seek grace through her since she has 
 found the grace which we have lost. It is []uot for herself, 
 ' who needed it not, being by her' (immaculate) * conception 
 full of grace ;' "~\ ' it is for sinners,' says Cardinal Hugo, ' that 
 Mai-y has found grace, which they had irretrievably lost. 
 Hence let them come, and say to her with confidence, render 
 us what belongs to us." (p. 5Q.) " I shall no longer apprehend 
 either my sins, since you can repair them ; or the devils, since 
 you are more powerful than hell ; or your Son justly irritated, 
 since one wonl from you will appease Him. 1 shall only fear 
 myself, and that forgetting to invoke you, I shall be lost." 
 (p. 74.) " If my Saviour drive me off because of my sins, I 
 shall go and cast myself at the feet of His Mother ; thence I 
 shall not rise, until she has obtained my pardon ; for she does 
 not know what it is to be insensible to the voice of misery, and 
 her pity w-ill soften the anger of her Son. Regard us then, O 
 Mary most merciful, for we your servants place all our hope in 
 you." (p. 89.) " ' The sun,' says Hugo, ' is a figure of Jesus 
 Christ, whose splendid rays illumine the just who live in the 
 day of grace; the moon is typical of Mary, whose mild lustre 
 illumines sinners amid the dreary night of sin.' ' It is towards 
 this propitious orb,' says Innocent III., ' that he who is buried 
 in the shades of iniquity should look.' Having lost divine 
 grace, the da\- disappears, there is no more sun for htm ; but 
 the moon is still on the horizon ; let him address himself to 
 Mary." (p. 9 1.) " * This strong hold,' says Albertus M., 'Js 
 the sacred Virgin established in grace and glory.' Once 
 introduced to her let us be silent, for it does not become us 
 to open our mouth before the Lord, Whom we have so much 
 offended, but leave Mary to speak and intercede for us." ( p. 9^2.) 
 " The glorious S. Bonaventure, to animate o\u- confidence in 
 Mary, represents to us a raging sea, in which sinners, already 
 fallen from the vessel of divine grace, are tossed about by the 
 billoAs of temptation, torn by tiie gnawings of remorse, and 
 horrified by the terrors of Divine Justice, without light or 
 guide, are ready to be swallowed up in the gulf of despair ; 
 but just then the Lord shews tliem Mary the star of the sea. and 
 seems to say to ihem, ' Sinners, unfortunate si.iners despair not, 
 fix your eyes on this bright luminary; its lustre will save you 
 from the tempest, and conduct you to the j)ort of salvation.' 
 Blosius figures M^ry to us, as the unhj refuge ol" these who have 
 incurred the Divine indignation." (p. 9^.) " '\'\\v prophet
 
 212 Illustrations of Botnish doctrine (f Invocation 
 
 com])lained — ' Lord, we have sinned, and there is none to 
 restrain your arm from falling- heavy upon us;' but no.v 
 Mary ])ie.sents herself between God and His ofFendiner crea- 
 tures. — Riciiard of S. Laurence also observes on this subject, 
 that in the old law, God often complained that there was none 
 to interpose between Him and sinners, but since Mary, the 
 mediatrix of peace, has appeared on earth, she restrains His 
 arm and averts His wrath." (p. yi.) " S Anselm, in order to 
 increase our confidence in Mary, assures us that our prayers 
 will (iftcn be more speedily heard in invoking her name than 
 in calling on that of Jesus Christ, and the reason he gives is, 
 that Jesus being no less our Judge tjian our Saviour, He must 
 avenge the wrongs we do Him by our sins, while the holy 
 \'irgin being solely our advocate, is obliged to entertain only 
 sentiments of pity for us." 
 
 This is thii.s reconciled "ith the belief, which of course, 
 Romanists niu.si hold, that there is hut '" One Mediator 
 between God and man." 
 
 " We are far from in-inuating, neufrihcless, that she is more 
 powerful than her Son. Jesus Christ is our only Mediator ; He 
 alone has obtained our reconciliation with God His Father; 
 but as in recurring to Him, Whom we must necessarily con- 
 sider a Judge Who will punish the ungrateful, it is probable a 
 sentiment of fear may lessen the confidence necessary for being 
 heard, it would seem that in applying to Mary, whose office is 
 that of mercy, our hope would be so strong as to obtain all we 
 ask for." (p. 103.) 
 
 The explanation, however, leaves the fact as it was, that 
 St. Mary is set forth as a more desirable Advocate than 
 our Lord. 
 
 " How is it, that wliereas we ask many things of God without 
 ohtaininp tlieiu. we no sooner ask through Mary than they aie 
 gianted us ?" ib. 
 
 ♦' As we liave not access to The I'ather but by Jesus Christ, 
 we have not atcess to Jesus Christ but llirough Mary, tiiat this 
 Divine Saviour \N honi she has givi-n to the world, may receive 
 us from her iinnds. Wlio eoiiUi know God e.\ce|)t by you, O 
 lidiy Virgin? who could ijc saved, O powerful Virgin, except 
 through yo\ir inieic<'s.sion?" (p. I'il.) Hugh of S. Victor exhorts 
 us, if we are deterred by apprehension of the Divine Majesty, to 
 approach to Mary wiihuut fear. She is, it is true, holy and spot- 
 Jess, the Queen of the I'niverse and the Mother of God, but she 
 is aUo n pure cuHlure, and a child of Adam like unto us. " if
 
 still existing, from Liyuori's Glories of Mary. 213 
 
 you fear to approach to God, look to Mary; then thou findest 
 nothing to lear ; thou seest thy own race." (p. 191.) 
 
 And these recommendations are enforced by the history 
 of great sinners who were saved, having sought mercy of 
 Mary alone. 
 
 " In my last moments, abandoned by all, and seeing myself 
 loaded with sins, I addressed this prayer to the Mother of God, 
 ' O thou, the refuge of the forsaken, have pity on me ! Hope 
 of the universe, my only hope, come to my assistance.' This 
 little supplication was not made in vain, Mary obtained for 
 me the grace of true contrition, by means of which I escaped 
 Hell." (p. 40. see also p. 54—57.) '" I promised my Mother 
 most readily (to recite the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin every 
 day), and never failed to keep my word amid all my debauch- 
 eries; nay, I confess that for the last ten years it is the only act of 
 religion \ ever performed,' the confessor now saw clearly, that 
 the conversion of this young man was owing to the special pro- 
 tection of Mary," (p. 90.; 
 
 These intercessions of S. Mary are represented also, 
 
 " As not only useful but necessary to this great end (our 
 salvation), not of an absoUite necessity, it is true, but of a moral 
 necessity, which has its source in the Divine will." (p. Il6. ) 
 
 " Poor souls, what are you thinking of when you abandon 
 Mary, when you cease crying to her for protection ?" ' Take 
 away the sun," says S. Bernard, ' and what does the world 
 become } An abode of horror, a chaos of confusion ; thus, 
 let a soul abandon Mary, and she is seated in darkness, that 
 darkness which the Holy Spirit says, ' favours the passage of 
 the beasts of the forest.' ' VVoe to him,' says S. Anselm, 'who 
 despises the light of this sun, that is, who neglects Mary ; it is 
 soon night with hira, and his sovd becomes a haunt of sin and 
 of devils." S. Francis Borgia doubted, and with reason, of the 
 perseverance of such as had not a special devotion to Mvary. 
 Enquiring one day of the novices, to which saint each one was 
 most devoted, he perceived, that some among them were 
 wanting in devotion to the blessed \'irgin, wliereupon he noticed 
 the master of novices, and desired him to have a particular 
 watch on these young people. The event justified the saints 
 fears ; all those w ho had not honoured Mary, lost the grace of 
 their vocation and quitted the society. S. Germanus then had 
 reason to call Mary, ' the respiration of Christians ;" for as the 
 body cannot exist without breathing, so the soul cannot live 
 without recurring to the Mother of God." (p. 67-)
 
 2H Ilhtatralions qf Eotnish doctrine of Invocation 
 
 " ' Blessed Virgin,' says S. Anselm, ' as it is impossible, that 
 he who neglects and despises you, can be saved, so it is impos- 
 sible, that he who has recourse to you sincerely, can be lost.' 
 S. Antonius says, ' As those from whom Mary turns her merci- 
 ful eyes, cannot be saved, it necessarily follows, that those on 
 whom she looks with benignity, will share in eternal glory.' 
 And here let us ask, if the words, ' It is impossible that he who 
 is devout to Mary,' should not make those tremble, who de- 
 spise or neglect her ? Let all such hear the anathema pro- 
 nounced against them by Albertus Magnus ; ' The people who 
 will not serve you shall perish.' And S. Bonaventure, ' He 
 ■who neglects Mary, shall die in his sins — he who does not 
 invoke her, shall have no share in the kingdom of God ;' and 
 again, ' There is no hope of salvation for those from whoni 
 Mary turns her face.' — " On the contrary, Mary assures us, that 
 ' He who hears her, shall not be confounded.' S. Bonaventure 
 says, ' Great Queen! he who perseveres in your service, is far 
 from damnation.' ' No,' adds S. Hilary, ' he will not be lost, 
 although he might have hitherto grievously offended his God." 
 p. Hi?. 
 
 And thus not only is S. Mary held out to returning; sin- 
 ners as a Mediatrix more suited to them than our Lord, 
 but as l/ic special means, whereby they who stand may be 
 kept upright. 
 
 " We have the same hope as this great saint, and shall not cease 
 to say with S. Bonaventure, ' O Mary, I have hoped in you, 
 and shall never be confounded." (p. 172.) S. Philip Neri used to 
 say, ' My children, if you wish to persevere, be devout to Mary." 
 The venerable Berchman, S. J. said also, ' That he who loves 
 Mary, will persevere to the end.' And Abbot Rupert draws 
 from the |)arable of the prodigal a very ingenious reflection to 
 the same effect. ' If this libertine child,' said he, ' had his 
 Mother, he would never have abandoned liis paternal home, or 
 he would have returned sooner:" thus he who has Maiy for 
 Mother, never abandons God, or if he does, lie soon seeks Him 
 again. Oh if all men loved this most merciful Mother, and had 
 recourse to her in the hour of temptation, we would seldom .see 
 any one lost, or suffer shipwreck.' ^^'e fall, anil we are lost, 
 when we fail to invoke her assistance. Saint Laurence Justi- 
 nian ai)plies to the l)lessed \'irgiii these words of Lcclesiasticus, 
 ' I walked on the waves of the sea ;' for he makes her say, ' [ 
 walk on the waves of the '<ea with my servants, in order to 
 .■>ave them from a mclaiitiioly shipwreck.' S. I'liomas V'il- 
 lanuva says, ' When tiie birds of prey (meaning the tlevils) 
 piiinice on ii.><, let ii.s imitate the chickens, who wlien llic hawk 
 .ippiMi-, fly for refuge under the wings «»f tlieir Motlier ; let us
 
 still existinr)^ from LigtiorVs Glories of Mary. 215 
 
 fly to Mary without losing a moment, and she will secure us in 
 her maternal bosom. O Mary, continues the saint, addressing 
 the Queen of heaven; it is for you to defend us, since you after 
 C»od are our refuge, our protectress, our sweetest hope.' We 
 shall conclude with the words of S. Ijernard: ' Christian who- 
 ever thou ait, thy life on earth is a perilous navigation : if 
 thou dost not wish to be drowned, turn not away thy eyes 
 from this brilliant star, look up at the star of mariners, invoke 
 Mary in occasions of sin, in the struggle of temptation, in 
 the midst of danger call Mary to thy aid ; let her powerful 
 name be ever in thy heart, and on thy lips, to inspire thee with 
 Confidence; trust in Mary, and thou wilt not fall into despair ; 
 follow her, and thou wilt not straj^ ; let her hand protect 
 thee, and thou wilt have nothing to fear ; let her be thy 
 guide, and thou wilt infallibly arrive at the haven of salvation. 
 'I'his do, and thou shalt live." (p. 69 — 71.) " The Church in her 
 public service teaches us to recur to Mary under the titles of 
 Health of the sick ; Refuge of sinners ; Help of Christians. 
 In her offices for the festivals of Mary, she applies to her these 
 words of VV^isdom : ' In me is all hope of life and virtue ;' 
 "again, ' he who finds me shall find life, and obtain salvation 
 from the Lord : they who work in me shall have life ever- 
 lasting.' Now what do all those texts go to prove, but that 
 the intercession of Mary is necessary for vis ?" 
 
 Lastly, it should be noticed that there is an essential 
 difference between the way in which men's salvation is in 
 any passages of tlie fathers said to be derived through 
 S. Mary, and that in which it is attributed to her Ijy tliese 
 later writers. The object of S. Irenaeus'" and other fathers, 
 in tlie first place, is not to magnify S. ]\Iary, but to point 
 out the reality of the Incarnation, which was denied by 
 the Gnostic heretics; but then, further, the benefits are 
 said to be derived through her, in that, of her according 
 to the flesh, Christ was born ; in the later writers, they 
 are attributed to her by virtue of the dignity, since be- 
 stowed upon her: in the fathers, they are spoken as coming 
 from her indirectly, in later writers, directly; in the 
 fathers, from her when on earth, in later writers from her 
 in Heaven ; in the fathers from the Nativity of our Lord, 
 later, from her sovereignty, rule. Intercession, Command, 
 
 ^ " Thisi! comparison between Mary and Eve (' that the world is freed by 
 [through] a Virgin, which before by a virgin [Eve] had fallen under sin,') in 
 the same manner as Christ and Adam are compared, is so common among 
 the older writers, that from S. Tremcus downwards, it would be easy to fill 
 pages with quotations." Dr. Wiseman's remarks on Mr. Palmer's Letter, 
 p. 24.
 
 '216 Illustraliojis of Uointsh due trine uf In vocation 
 
 with which for her merits she is alleged to he invested. Tiie 
 expressions of the fathers do not go heyond St. PauTs words, 
 " Adam was not deceived, hut, the woman heing deceived 
 was in the transgression ; notwithstanding, she shall be 
 saved through the childbearing," as though the blessed 
 fact that our Lord was " born of a woman" had some 
 mysterious relation to the fall by a woman; that there is a 
 correspondence between death coming through the trans- 
 gression of the woman and life coming through her. In 
 the " Glories of Mary" it is expressly denied that this is 
 the sense in which the modern savings should be taken. 
 
 " That God has constituted Mary the ordinary dispensatrix of 
 His graces, was the opinion of St. Bernard : it is now the com- 
 mon opinion of all theologians, and all doctors. It is taueht b}' 
 Tega, Mendozza, Poire, Pacciuchelli, Segneri, Crasset, and a 
 crowd of others. Even Father Noel Alexander, so reserved in 
 his propositions, says, • That God wishes that all the favours 
 men expect from Him, they should be indebted for to the inter- 
 cession of Mary.' " 
 
 " But this doctrine does not please a certain modern author : 
 this person, who otherwise speaks with much ])iety and learning, 
 of true and false devotion, is very parsimonious when there is 
 question of the worship of the holy Virgin, refusing her that 
 glory, and those privileges, which a St. Germanus, a St. Anselm, 
 a St. .John Dam-.iscene, St. Bouaventure, a St. Antonius, a 
 St. Bernardine of Sienna, and innumerable other holy doctors, 
 made no difficulty to grant her. He pretends that the aforesaid 
 proposition, ' God confers no grace but through Mary's interces- 
 sion,' is an hyperbole which fervour caused some saints to utter, 
 and that it is only correct in this sense, that ' Mary has given to 
 tlie world, .Icsus the Author of grace ;' for, adds he, * the apostle 
 formally teaches, that we acknowledge but One sole Mediator 
 between God and man, viz. the Word made flesh." (p. 116, 7.) 
 
 It is for earnest-minded Romanists seriously to consider 
 the tendency of all this; T^iith is not holding truth in the 
 abstract, it must penetrate the life and run throuo-h a 
 man's whole belief; worldly-minded persons are often, in 
 the whole habit of their mind, Socinians, although if asked 
 they would acknowledge or think that thcv believed the 
 Divinity and Atonement of our Lord ; and persons may be 
 practically worshippers of the Blessed Virgin only, while 
 they would acknowledge in the abstract that she derives all 
 her power from her Son It ou^ht probably to awaken
 
 still existing^/ro)7i Liguorfs O lories of Mary. 217 
 
 some fears in them that they habitually contemplate and 
 speak of S. Mar}' as " the Mother of God" only, still speak 
 of our Lord, in reference to her, as her Son only ; there 
 may be in this a subtle Humanitarianism, which, while 
 they are encouraged to shrink from the thought of their 
 Lord as their Judge, thinks of Him only as the Son of 
 JNIary, and while it acknowledges S. Mary as the Mother 
 of God, practically forgets that He created her, and in that 
 they hold her to have been without sin, denies that He 
 redeemed her. The term " Mother of God" expresses 
 Catholic truth ; yet may it be, and it is, continually used 
 by Romanists in an heretical sense. 
 
 While these things are so, although we did not separate 
 from Rome, yet since God has permitted that Rome should 
 separate us from her, we see not how the Anglican Church 
 could re-unite with her, without betraying the trust 
 which she owes to her own children. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 BAXTKR, PRINTKR, OXPonn.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. T. T. CHURTON, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW AND 
 
 TUTOR OF BRASENOSE COLLEGE. 
 
 " If I build again the things which I have destroyed, I make 
 myself a transgressor",— Gal. ii. 18. 
 
 OXFORD : 
 
 W. GRAHAM, HIGH-STREET. 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
 
 oxfoud : privtwi iiv J. mondav, jun., ql-ukn-strekt.
 
 A LET TEE, 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 You will doubtless have watched with much 
 interest the proceedings in the University since the 
 date of our letter addressed to the Editor of Tracts 
 for the Times. You will have felt no small satisfac- 
 tion that the Hebdomadal Board, on grounds sub- 
 stantially the same with those, on which we presumed 
 to intrude our names upon that gentleman and the 
 public, has disavowed any sanction on the part of 
 the University of the Tract No. 90. You will also 
 have seen the candid acknowledgment by Mr. New- 
 man of his authorship of the Tract, made to the Vice- 
 Chancellor. 
 
 But I now wish to draw your attention to the 
 letter addressed by Mr. Newman to the Rev. Dr. 
 Jelf. It is there stated, that the four gentlemen who 
 signed the " protest" against his Tract No. 90, have 
 misunderstood him in a very material point ; namely, 
 that, whereas they said the Tract suggests, that the 
 Thirty-nine Articles do not contain any condemnation 
 of the doctrines of purgatory, &c. as taught authori- 
 tatively by the Church of Rome, Mr. N., on the
 
 Q 
 
 contrary, does consider that they contain such ; he 
 only says, that whereas they were written before the 
 decrees of the Council of Trent, they were not directed 
 against those decrees. — (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6.) 
 
 I am sure we did not think of pronouncing what 
 the Author of the Tract himself did or did not consider 
 the Articles to contain, further than as the Tract 
 seemed to express an opinion. It is however further 
 said, (Letter to Dr. Jelf) that the phrase in the Tract, 
 *' the received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of 
 this day too, or the doctrine of the Roman schools,*' 
 was intended to be equivalent to " authoritative teach- 
 ing"— pp. 9, 10. 
 
 You would, I know, much regret with me, that 
 we should have misunderstood, and by consequence 
 unintentionally have misrepresented, the meaning of 
 the Author of the Tract ; but for my own satisfaction 
 I have, since the appearance of the Letter to Dr. 
 .Telf, reviewed the grounds, which we seemed to have 
 on March 8th, for expressing ourselves as we did. 
 
 Unhappily, in so doing, these alternatives have 
 been presented to me, fither that we used our terms 
 incautiously, or that, since we did not represent Mr. 
 N.'s meaning, liis language in the Tract was not 
 sufficiently precise. That we felt a difficulty at the 
 time from what we thought a want of definiteness, 
 in many expressions in the Tract, and were aware, 
 that if we stated the writer's meaning to be, what 
 it might be, or most probably was (to our aj)pre- 
 h(*nsion) we miglit find afterwards that such was not
 
 3 
 
 his real meaning-, is doubtless very clearly recollected 
 by us all. 
 
 But we thought, that the general reader would take 
 as the undoubted meaning, that which appeared to 
 us on the whole to be the meaning-, and it was 
 desirable for the sake of others, that it should be 
 repudiated or avowed. At the risk of being tedious, 
 it will be for our satisfaction to go over the grounds 
 in detail, on which we decided as we did, which will 
 oblige me to recite considerable passages of the Tract, 
 §. 6. And, at the same time, I confess a desire to 
 keep attention fixed upon the whole Tract for some 
 while longer. 
 
 We judged that the Author designed in §. 6 to open 
 subscription to the articles to persons holding opinions 
 which might generally be thought to be incompatible 
 with it, and that we judged rightly, see letter to Dr. 
 Jelf, pp. 28-29. His argument in that section was 
 founded on taking the word Romish in the Article 
 as a distinctive word ; that the Romish doctrine of 
 Purgatory, &c., was distinguished from other doc- 
 trine of Purgatory, &c. Of this reading of the 
 words of the Article, something may be said below ; 
 but if that were conceded him, then would be ex- 
 cluded, of course, from condemnation in the Article, 
 all doctrines respecting Purgatory, &c. which could 
 not be classed as Romish. 
 
 Now, though we doubted as to this reading of 
 the Article, though in fact I have no doubt myself 
 but that, on the contrary, "Romish doctrine" is the 
 
 u2
 
 general term, and Purgatory, &c. the special, it could 
 not be conveniently insisted on, in the short paper 
 we issued, which has since been called a protest. 
 But, on the writer's own scheme, a distinction was 
 forced upon us, as will be clearly seen, between the 
 doctrines as taught by the Church of Rome, and the 
 doctrines as popularly apprehended and received. The 
 Tridentine doctrine, under its formal decrees, was 
 excluded from the compass of the Article XXII., by 
 his express memorandum that it was drawn up before 
 the decree of the Council of Trent. This exclusion is 
 really of no importance, because the decrees of that 
 Council derive their full meaning from the teaching of 
 the Roman Church, in and about the time when they 
 were promulgated. However, we put that aside.* The 
 Tridentine doctrine itself could not, in all its decrees, 
 historically, be pointed at by the Article, and though 
 the Tract intimated, on other than historical grounds, 
 that the Article might be received on some points as 
 well as the Tridentine decree, it was not worth while 
 to advert to this.t Neither was it worth while to 
 
 " I cannot but wonder wliy this unimportant fact should be made, in tlie 
 Tract itself, the ground of a distinction, from which nothing practical is 
 drawn ; and should furnish the whole cause of complaint against the four 
 gentlemen. 
 
 ■|- " The purgatory contemplated by the Homily was one in which our 
 " state would be changed " •, (that this was not so will be seen afterwards). 
 " On the other hand, the Council of Trent, and Augustin and Cyprian, 
 " held purgatory to bo a place for hcUcvers and Tiot unbelievers. The 
 " Homily then, and therefore the article, does not speak of the Tridentine 
 " purgatory "—Tract, \\ 2(1. " The Council of Trent is obliged both to 
 " confess the above-mentioned enormities in a veneration of relics, and 
 " to forbirl tlicm" — p. '.W. " Hero again the article gains a witness and 
 " concurrence from the Council of Trent", &.c. — p. 40.
 
 5 
 
 take any exception, from the fact of the convocation 
 and statute of 1571, subsequent to the Council of 
 Trent, being the authorities by which clerical sub- 
 scription to the Articles is now enjoined ; ahhough, 
 if the Church of England should be thought to be 
 any the more committed against the Romish errors, 
 from its articles dating subsequently to the last Ses- 
 sion at Trent, this circumstance deserves the most 
 attentive consideration of those who now subscribe to 
 them. 
 
 But to go on. The passage in the Tract which we 
 seem to have misunderstood, is the following — "What 
 is opposed is the received doctrine of the day, and un- 
 happily of this day too, or the doctrines of the Roman 
 Schools". No doubt, if this passage had stood alone, 
 and had the statement made in it not been exempli- 
 Jledf we could have found no fault with it j doctrines 
 of the Roman schools seeming to be a phrase equivalent 
 to Romish doctrine, because in the Articles of Edw. 
 VI. the expression was, " The doctrine of the School- 
 men", &c. ; and the received doctrine might have 
 meant the received teaching. The Article would then 
 have been represented in the Tract as opposed, not 
 to the Tridentine decrees themselves, but to the 
 Romish system of doctrine and practice, which up to 
 that time had been authoritatively taught, and was 
 fastened upon the Roman Church by the decrees of 
 Trent. This would have been intelligible and satisfac- 
 tory; whereas the mere exception, that the Articles 
 could not point at the Council of Trent, unless it
 
 6 
 
 meant, that they did not point at the teaching of the 
 time recognised by that Council, appeared to be 
 made to no end.* 
 
 But there was another passage in §. 9, apparently 
 very deliberately penned, which appeared to confine 
 the meaning of received doctrine^ or Romish doc- 
 trine, to the actually existing practical corruptions 
 then before the eyes of men. 
 
 " Xothino; can show morQ 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' (s) of iVasses, certain observances, 
 for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of 
 the Articles saw before their eyes, and knew to have been in 
 force in time past, and which involved certain opinions and 
 a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, ' in 
 which it teas commoulij said' ; which surely is a strictly histo- 
 rical mode of speaking". — Trad, p. D. 
 
 Here the creed of the Roman Church could not 
 mean the entire creed of the Roman Church ; for no 
 writer could possibly think of saying, that an Article, 
 headed *' Of the one oblation", &c., was not directed 
 against the entire creed of that Church, including the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, with others which the Church 
 
 • In fact, nothing was done in the way of reformation at Trent— even 
 the correction of ccclcfeiastical abuses, pretended to be made, became of 
 no effect, from the roscrv.ition of the Pope's dispensing power. Of the 
 doctrines, &c., witli wliich we are now concerned, tlie decree concerning 
 the mass embodied the floating teaching that it was a sacrifice propitiatory 
 for liviiif,' and dead. As to Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, &c., thoy 
 were all hurried over on the last two days of Session, Dec. 3-4, 1563, 
 and left an they were.
 
 of England, as well as of Rome, holds with the rest 
 of Christendom : it must therefore mean the doc- 
 trine of the Romish Church on that point of the one 
 oblation — namely, as to the sacrifices of masses. The 
 Tract, therefore, would say, that not the creed of the 
 Romish Church respecting the mass (which is what 
 the four Tutors would mean by authoritative teaching 
 as to the mass) is condemned in the Articles, but 
 certain existing errors in that doctrine of the mass — 
 namely, of (private) masses, and masses for money 
 payments. " On the whole", says the Tract, " it is 
 conceived that the Article before us neither speaks 
 against the mass in itself, nor against its being an 
 offering for quick and dead for the remission of 
 sin". — p. 63. 
 
 In the above passage, the C7'eed of the Romafi 
 Church, on special points, be it observed, is said not 
 to be condemned in the Articles ; the " received doc- 
 trine", equivalent to " authoritative teaching", and 
 "established creed", (Letter, p. 6, 10,) is thought 
 to be spoken against by the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 What "all the best writers" say is "authoritative 
 teaching", and is censured by the Articles, (Letter, p. 
 12.) Also in page 15 of the Letter, " existing 
 creed" is what the gentlemen who signed the protest 
 call the "authoritative teaching". Nothing however 
 can be more unsatisfactory than the attempt to follow 
 this writer through the shifting of his terms, both in 
 the Letter and the Tract. 
 
 But as to the application of the principle advocated
 
 8 
 
 in the Tract, it seemed to be this ; whatever the 
 Article does not condemn it permits ; the tenets and 
 practices it condemns will be pointed out chiefly by- 
 means of the comment which the Homilies afford ; 
 whatever is found not to be therein condemned may 
 be believed with subscription.* 
 
 We come, then, to — 1. Purgatory. — Tract, p. 25. 
 *' What the doctrine is which is reprobated, is plain, 
 from the following passage in the Homilies". Then 
 follows the extract, in which occur these expressions — 
 " Where is, then, the third place which they call 
 purgatory f or, where shall our prayers help and 
 profit the dead ? S. Auyustin doth only acknoiv- 
 
 • I say subscription from p. 4, Tract. " Articles may be subscribed 
 " by those who aim at being CathoHc in heart and doctrine". Compare 
 Letter, p. 25, after quotations from Bramhall, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bull, 
 and Stillingfleet, " which go far beyond every thing he has said". " This 
 " view of the Articles, conveyed in these extracts, evidently allows of much 
 " greater freedom in the private opinion of individuals subscribi7ig them, 
 " than I have contended for". Here is a remarkable instance of the 
 fallacy of quotations so frequent with this writer. His citations do not ap- 
 ply, they go to the granting a freedom in the private opinions of individuals, 
 but not of subscribers. Bull is the only one who mentions subscription ; 
 she (the Church) " propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, 
 " for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted, 
 " by her sons. And therefore she requires subscription to them only from 
 " the clergy and not from the laity". Burnet makes the distinction very 
 clearly, where our Author would confound. " And therefore though they 
 " drew up a large form of doctrine, yet to all her lay-sons this is only a 
 " standard of Church Communion. The citations that are brought from 
 " those two groat Primates, Laud and Bramhall, go no further than this 
 " — they do not seem to relate to the clergy who subscribe them, but to the 
 " laity and body of the people". Intr. Exp. XXXIX Art. 
 
 If it bo dnsired to open tlio question as lo a latitude in clerical subscrip- 
 tionH to tho Articles wliich are pointed against the Romish errors, let it 
 bo openly done, and argued upon the principles stated, p. 2G, or any 
 other ; but lot not conclusions be intimated under authority of groat names, 
 which in fact mako nothing for them.
 
 ledqe 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". — Horn, concern. Prayer. 
 
 Tract, p, 2(). — "Now it is plain, 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 tvhich our state would be 
 changed, in which God's sentence could be reversed. ' The 
 sentence of God', says the writer, ' is uncliangeahle, 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 ivho 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, 
 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 conditional 
 sense of the terms of the Article now under consideration. 
 For such praj ers are obviously not condemned in it in the 
 abstract, or in every shape, but as offered to rescue the lost 
 from eternal fire" . — lb. 
 
 The inference here intended in the Tract seemed to 
 us undoubted, that one might remain untouched by 
 the Article — believing-, not only that men dying in a 
 state of acceptance with God should be subjected to 
 purgatorial pains hereafter, but that the prayers of 
 others might alleviate their pains ; and in the face of 
 a much more distinct statement than that quoted 
 above as to the * received doctrine', we should have 
 been justified in saying, that the Tract * suggested', that 
 the authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome as to
 
 10 
 
 the doctrine of purgatory was not condemned in the 
 Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 Now see, in juxta-position, a quotation from Bull, 
 (page 14, Letter to Dr. Jelf ) : — 
 
 " This Article (the Tridentine) of purgatory after this life, 
 as it is understood and taught by the Roman Church {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 
 by prayers, indulgences, &c.)is contrary to Scripture and the 
 sense of the Catholic Church for at least the first four cen- 
 turies", &iC. 
 
 Now Mr. Newman conceives, (Letter, page 12,) 
 that what all the best writers say is authoritative 
 teaching, and a sufficient object for the censures con- 
 veyed in the Articles, though the decrees of Trent, 
 taken in themselves, remain untouched. And yet he 
 can make his quotation from Bull, as descriptive, on 
 the authority of the teaching of the Roman Church, of 
 a doctrine of purgatory, which, apart from any chrono- 
 logical exception,* would be reached by the spirit of 
 the Article, and, say in the Tract ; " The Homily 
 then, and therefore the Article, does not speak of the 
 Tridentine purgatory" ; ** the Homily (and therefore 
 the Article) contemplates only a purgatory in which 
 our state would be changed, so that they who have 
 died in God's wrath may gain pardon"; and therefore 
 
 • Not that tlio historical exception would avail here, for the Romish 
 view of purgatory must liavc been well known at this time, since in Sess. 
 Cone. Trident. VI. do Justificatione, the Canon quoted p. 11, was pro- 
 mulgated. This Session was Iicld sixteen yoare before tho Articlca were 
 drawn up, namul), Jan. l.'Uh, 1547-
 
 11 
 
 does not condemn the Romish purgatory of Bull, ** a 
 place where many faithful souls", &c. 
 
 I confess myself surprised to see, that Mr. New- 
 man, (Letter, p. 26), still seems to think, that the 
 doctrine concerning purgatory condemned in the 
 Article, and the doctrine held by Rome is, *' that 
 temporary punishment is a substitute for hell in the 
 case of the unholy". He quoted a small phrase from 
 the Trent decree of purgatory in the Tract ; the im- 
 portant portions he seems to have overlooked : — 
 
 " Qiium catholica ecclesia docuerit, purgatorium 
 
 esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimnm 
 vero acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari, praecipit sancta syno- 
 dus episcopis, ut sanam de purgatorio doctrinam a Sanctis 
 Patnbus at sacris conciliis traditam a Christi fidelibus credi 
 
 Curent autem episcopi, ut fidelium vivorum suf- 
 
 fragia, missaruni scilicet sacrificia, orationes, eleemosjnae, 
 aliaque pietatis opera, quae a fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus de- 
 functis fieri consueverunt, fiant". 
 
 In the sixth session of the Council, which was held 
 January 13, 1547> De Justificatione, be it observed, 
 sixteen years before the Articles were drawn up. 
 
 Canon XXX. is as follows : — 
 
 " Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam cuilibet pec- 
 catori poenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum eeternse poenee 
 deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis 
 exsolvendee vel in lioc sseculo, vel in futuro in purgatorio, 
 antequam ad regna coelorum aditus patere possit : anathema 
 sit". 
 
 Harding's definition of purgatory : — 
 
 " Quum nihil inquinati aditum habeat in coelum, quidam 
 autem vita exccdant quamvis homines isti Chmtiani et ccelestis
 
 12 
 
 reyni hcpredes non ita tamen penitus piiri atque undi(|ue pur- 
 gati, restat ut qui ejusinodi sunt post banc vitani priusquam 
 ad ilium sempiterufe felicitatis locum perveniant, purgatione 
 justa defungantur". Quoting 2 Cor. vii. 1, he says — " Quis 
 non hinc sequi videt, multis qui justificati sint, deesse tamen 
 aliquid ad satisfactionem et sanctimoniam ? qui si prius e 
 rebus bumanis auferantur quam legitimos omnes sanctitatis 
 numeros expleverint, an non in ea causa sunt, ut post bine 
 vitam elui debeant ac perpurgari". — Contra Juelli Apol. 
 
 Upon this Jewell joins issue with him. 
 
 Nay, the conclusion on the whole of this must be, 
 that Mr. Newman holds, that the Article does not 
 condemn the doctrine of purgatory, as promulgated 
 by the Tridentine decrees, expressing, as they do, the 
 authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome ; or, 
 if he prefers it, as taught by its best writers ; upon 
 his principle, I do not see why it might not be taught 
 in our Lecture Rooms and from our pulpits. 
 
 After two quotations exemplifying the grievous 
 extent to which the popular notions of purgatory 
 might be carried, nothing further is added ; and this 
 is all on the subject of purgatory. 
 
 2. Pardons, or Indulgences. 
 
 Tract, p. 28. — " Tbe bistory of tbe rise of the Reforma- 
 tion will interpret ' the Romish doctrine concerning pardons', 
 without going further". 
 
 Then follows a passage from Bishoj) Taylor. The 
 Authors cited, not only declare the enormous height 
 to which the old doctrine was carried, but also the 
 ill-foundation of tlie doctrine at all, that it originated 
 in a gross misapplication of an authority given by the 
 Council of Nice to the Bishops, to shorten the terms 
 of penance inflicted by ecclesiastical censtircs.
 
 13 
 
 " 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 immediate admission into heaven, was believed to 
 be the certain effect of it" — Burnet. 
 
 " It would be considered what is meant by so many years of pardon, 
 and so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural interpreta- 
 tion of it ; and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are 
 but fantastical, and not true ; and iu this I find no fault, save only that it 
 ought to have been said, that all of them are fantastical". — Taylor. 
 
 The conclusion of the Tract-writer is subjoined in 
 these words and no more — "The pardons then spoken 
 of in the Article are large and reckless indulgences from 
 the penalties of sin obtained on money payments". 
 That such should be the conclusion, we were naturally 
 surprised ; but thinking that he had missed that, to 
 which his quotations should have led him, if he con- 
 sidered them exponents of the Article, namely, that 
 it condemns all indulgences from the penalties of sin 
 (in penalties of sin, I do not include ecclesiastical cen- 
 sures) we did imagine him to hold, that this Article 
 did not condemn the doctrine of indulgences as taught 
 by the Romish Church, but only the corruption of that 
 doctrine, which was perhaps never authoritatively 
 taught, though practised with effrontery, the giving 
 large and reckless indulgences upon money payments. 
 
 3. Veneration and worshipping of images and 
 relics. 
 
 He says " that the Homilies" (and the Homilies 
 through this section of the Tract are taken as repre- 
 senting the Articles) " do not altogether discard reve- 
 rence towards relics has been shewn. Now let us
 
 14 
 
 see what they do discard". But here I 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 understanding 
 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 Cliapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being yet alive, did work 
 miracles : and that after his death, de%'ils, 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 ivhat authority St. Jerome, and that most 
 ancient history, yive unto the holy and learned Bishop Epi- 
 phanius, tvhose judgment of images in churches and temples, 
 then beginning by stealth to creep in, is worthy to be noted" . 
 
 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 tlie said cloth, and so bury him", — Honi. ib. 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " St. Ambrose, in liis Treatise of the Death of Thcodosius the Emperor, 
 Bailh, ' Helena fouml the Cross, and the title on it. She worshipped the 
 King, and not the wood, surely (for that is an heathcnisli error and tlio 
 vanity of tlio wicked) but she worshipped Him that hanged on the Cross, 
 and whoso Name was written on the title', ond so forth. See both the
 
 15 
 
 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 ivor- 
 shivped the Cross itself, lohich teas embrued with our Saviour Christ's 
 own precious blood" Peril of Idolatry, part 2, circ. init. 
 
 " In these passages the writer does not positively commit 
 himself" to the miracles at Epiphaniiis'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 : — 
 
 " T/tei/ thought it had been an heathenish error to have 
 ivorshipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our 
 Saviour Christ's own precious blood. Jlnd we fall down before 
 every cross piece of timber, which is but an image of that cross" . 
 — Horn. 
 
 This is but an argument a fortiori, by no means 
 shewing that the writer wished the hearer to think 
 he beheves 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. neither of the passages bear upon 
 the question of relics, much less convey any judg- 
 ment of the Homilist. 
 
 This is a very small matter in itself, that in ex- 
 tracting a quotation, a line or two of the succeeding 
 context should have escaped the eye ; but in this 
 case these few lines would give a totally different
 
 10 
 
 character to the passages taken, and to the thread of 
 the arounient of the writer. The inference from 
 these citations was very material ; an inference which 
 depends solely on the places, and which I do not be- 
 lieve could be derived from any other extracts from 
 the Homilies, unless equally incomplete. 
 
 " This he (the Homilist) would not do, if he thought all 
 honour paid to relics wrong". 
 
 " If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine 
 concerning 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' ".— Tr. p. 24, 
 
 From this example or partial induction in the case 
 of relics he assumes his general proposition, the truth 
 of which as applied to each particular he then pro- 
 ceeds boldly to verify. To return to p. 31. It has not 
 then been already shewn that the Homilies do not 
 altogether discard reverence towards relics. How- 
 ever, after quoting four close pages from the Homilies 
 on the subject of image worship, the writer comes 
 to this conclusion. 
 
 " Now the veneration and worship condemned in these 
 and other j)assages are such as these : kneeling before images, 
 lighting candles to them, offering them incense, going on pil- 
 grimage to them, hanging up crutches, &c. before them, lying 
 tales about them, belief in miracles a^ if wrought by them 
 through illusion of the devil, decking them up immodestly, 
 and |)roviding incentives by them to bad passions ; and, in 
 like nuuuicr, merry music and minstrelsy, and licentious 
 practices in honour of relics, counterfeit relics, multij)lication
 
 17 
 
 of them, absurd pretences about them. This is what the 
 Article means by * the Romish doctrine' ". 
 
 As if there were any veneration or adoration per- 
 missible by the Article as interpreted by the Homilies. 
 For my own part 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 XXH. 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. For it would seem, if the ques- 
 tion be decided by the Homilist, that he would 
 deem even the having of images, if not Popish, un- 
 lawful. 
 
 " Wherefore the images of God, our Saviour Christ, the 
 Blessed Virgin Mar)% the Apostles, Martyrs, and others of 
 notable hoHness 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. 
 
 And if there should be no images, neither, were 
 
 there any, should there be any adoration of them j 
 
 for, in a passage not quite correctly quoted in the 
 
 Tract, 
 
 " What a fond thing is it for man, who hath life and 
 
 c
 
 IS 
 
 reason, to bow himself to a dead und insensible imagre, the 
 work of his own hand. Is not this stooping and kneeling 
 before them, adoration of them, which is forbidden so earnestly 
 by God's word". 
 
 The words in italic are not in the passage as 
 quoted in the Tract. 
 
 Upon this clause our impression was, that 
 whereas the Article (as interpreted by the Homi- 
 lies) would condemn all adoration and worshipping 
 of images and relics, would consider as Romish 
 all doctrine which taught such regard might be paid 
 to them ; the writer of the Tract asserted or implied 
 the contrary. 
 
 4. Invocation of Saints. 
 
 I think we all felt a degree of vexation, that the 
 writer should draw the distinction made in the follow- 
 ing passage. It is to be hoped that no one is so weak 
 as to think, that the Articles condemn, as Romish 
 invocation, poetical or rhetorical apostrophes ; nor, 
 on the other, that saints might be lawfully invoked 
 for their aid and intercession, because they might be 
 apostrophised in figure of speech.* 
 
 " By ' invocation' here is not meant the mere circumstance 
 of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms 
 
 • " Thoy make the rhetorical flourishes and apostrophes of tlio Fathers, 
 in their panegyrics of the Martyrs, to be Bolemn invocations of them. 
 Now, wliat is there in all this, but wliat is usual in all authors, sacred and 
 profane ? What is there more in this than in those apostrophes frequently 
 found in the sacred writings, even to insensible creatures — ' Hear, O 
 Mountains, and give car, O Earth' — ' Praise the Lord, ye Drapons and all 
 Dcepn" — and who will infer from this that insensible creatures were thereby 
 invoked and addressed unto ?" — Discourse concerning the Invocation of 
 Saint*, bit S. Freeman, D.l>. : IfifU.
 
 19 
 
 in our daily service, which are frequent in invocations of 
 Angels to praise and bless God. J a the Benedicite too we 
 address ' the spirits and souls of the righteous', and in the 
 Benedictus, St. John Baptist". 
 
 *• On the other hand, judging from the example set us in 
 the Homilies themselves, invocations are not censurable, and 
 certainly not ' fond', if we mean nothing definite by them, 
 addressing tliem 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 superstitions use of invoca- 
 tions". 
 
 An example set by the Homilist being the follow- 
 ing:— 
 
 " We have left Him neither heaven, nor earth, nor water, not country, 
 nor city, peace nor war to rule and govern, neither men, nor beasts, nor 
 their diseases to cure ; that a godly man might justly, for zealous indig- 
 nation, cry out, O heaven, O earth, and seas, what madness and wicked- 
 ness against God are men fallen into" ! 
 
 After some passages from the Homilies, the text 
 is taken up thus : — 
 
 " Whereas, then, it has been already shown, that not all 
 * invocation is wrong (the only invocation as yet excepted is 
 that of the apostrophe), this last passage plainly tells us what 
 kind of invocation is not allowable, or what is meant by in- 
 vocation 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., sacrificiny 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 accom- 
 pany their services with 'piping, singing, chanting, and play- 
 ing' on the organ, and of invoking saints as patrons of particular 
 elements, countries, arts, or remedies". 
 
 * A(d TO (Tvi'syyvg ilvat ti)v ofnovvjJiiav \avQavH fXaWoi', 
 
 c2
 
 '20 
 
 Now, a part of one of the passages quoted is the 
 following-, which, at the risk of being tedious, I must 
 transcribe : — 
 
 " 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 Hira 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. Tlie fourth is, that he understand 
 better than ourselves what we lack, and how far we have need of help. If 
 these things be to be found iu 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 tlie 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 
 Gon, as St. Paul doth write". 
 
 In the following passage it will be observed, that 
 if the Article coincide or is consistent, or so far as 
 it is, with the decree of the Council of Trent, so 
 far it does not condemn, in the judgment of the 
 Tract, the Roman doctrine which was embodied in 
 them : — 
 
 " Here again, as before, tlie Article gains a witness and 
 concurrence from the Council of Trent. * Though', say the 
 divines there assembled, ' the Church has been accustomed 
 sometimes to celebrate a few masses to the honour and re- 
 membrance of saints, yet she doth not teach that sacrifice is 
 offered to them, but to Gon alone, who crowned them ; 
 wherefore neither is the priest wont to say, I offer sacrifice to 
 thee, O Peter, or O Paul, hut to God". (Sess. 22.) 
 
 If the passage means, that the celebrating masses 
 to tlie honour of saints is not condemned in the Article, 
 the Article does not so far condemn the Romish 
 doctrine of invocation of saints.
 
 21 
 
 After quoting a passage from Bishop Andrews, in 
 which he seems to consider the practical teaching of 
 the Romish Church in its formularies to be of direct, 
 absolute, and final prayer to saints, and that if it 
 were indirect or " prier pour prier", it would not be 
 unlawful, " Bellarmine's admissions quite bear out 
 the principles laid down by Bishop Andrews and the 
 Homilies" — but certainly the Homilies never laid 
 down such as the following : — 
 
 " 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 God. 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 gods, but as able 
 to gain from God tchat 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, forti- 
 tude', &c., provided that we mean ' save and pity me by prayiiig 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 Sane. Beat. i. 17. 
 
 Now, if the Author holds, that the Article does not 
 condemn prayer to the saints for their intercession ; 
 in the judgment of the Homily, to which the Tract 
 appeals, as showing the sense of the Articles, such 
 prayer is unlawful and heathenish. 
 
 *' For it is evident, that our iniage-maintaiuers have the 
 same opiniou of saiuts which the Gentiles had of their fake 
 gods, and thereby are nioved to make them images, as the 
 Gentiles did. If answer be made, that thev make saints but 
 intercessors to God, and means for such things as they would 
 obtain of God ; that is, even after the Gentiles' idolatrous 
 usage, to make them of saints, gods, called Dii Medioximi,
 
 22 
 
 (o be mean iutercesjsurs 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 woi'king 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 tliis also, it is most evident, that our image- 
 maintainers be all one in opinion with the Gentiles idolaters. 
 — Against Peril of Idolatry, part 3. 
 
 But how could we conclude otherwise, from the 
 expression of the Tract, than that it was thought 
 the Article did not convey a condemnation of the 
 Romish doctrine of invocation of saints, but only of 
 the corruption and abuse of it ? 
 
 5. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass. 
 
 " Here the sacrifice of the mass is not spoken of, but * the 
 sacrifice(s) of masses, certain observances, for the most part 
 private and solitary". — Tract, p. Cid. 
 
 " On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before 
 us, neither speaks against the mass in itself, nor against its 
 being an offering for the quick and dead for the remission of 
 sins". — p. 63. 
 
 The Tract, very evidently, here draws a distinction 
 between the doctrine of Rome, and the error in 
 it ; maintains that the doctrine of the mass is not 
 condemned by the Article, that solitary and venal 
 masses are. But this distinction was not allowed 
 by the Romanists themselves, in the age when the 
 Articles were composed. 
 
 Henry VIII.'s Answer to the German Ambas- 
 sadors : — 
 
 " .Vara si ideo misso? privatft* abolenda? sunt in totum, quia 
 de illis Thomns Aquinas, Onbrirl, atquo alii doctrinap vl
 
 23 
 
 dicitis impias induxerunt, viz. niissas ex opere o])erato gra- 
 tiam mereri, et tollere peccata vivorum et niortuorum, et 
 applicari posse alienum opus ad alteram, quicquid sit, quod 
 illi asserunt, hoc de omni missa asserunt, non de privata 
 duntaxat ; qua propter si ad tollendas illas opiniones qua- 
 lescunque missa privata esset abroganda, eadem ratione ah- 
 roganda esset synaxis et missa publica". — Burnet's Hist. Re/. 
 Addenda, vol. L, sec. vii. 
 
 The Germans had said : — 
 
 " Ex quibus omnibus sequitur missam non esse sacrificium, 
 quod ex opere operato raereatur, facienti vel aliis remissionem 
 peccatorum, ut illi (scholastici) docuerunt. Et quocunque 
 quidam fuco nitantur excusare missas privatas, semper eis 
 refragatur et reclamat doctrina ipsorum de missa, qua earn 
 aliis posse adplicari tradiderunt, et peccata delere hominibus 
 persuaserunt".— lb. sec. vi. The date is 1538. 
 
 So also Harding and Jewell. Harding- would not 
 overstate the Romish doctrine. Anno 1563. 
 
 " Hoc autem respectu, minime dubitamus, quin hoc sacro- 
 sanctum missae sacrificium valeat, efficaxque sit ex opere 
 operato, non quemadmodum Juellus interpretatur, quia missa 
 dicitur, et fit, in quo opus operatum ad ipsam sacerdotis acti- 
 onem refert : mimime sic : sed propter ipsum opus, quod Deus 
 
 ipse operatur. Quod corpus atque sanguis, quando, 
 
 juxta ejus mandatum Deo oiFertur Gratissimum illi 
 
 est sacrificium, pro vivis simul et mortuis, si nullum is, qui 
 sumit, obicem posuerit. Mortuos intelligo eos solummodo, qui 
 23er fidem se redemptionis per Christum acquisitee commenda- 
 runt, perque banc fidem a Deo meruerunt, ut postquam liinc 
 migrarint, quemadmodum Augustinus ait, hoc illis sacrificium 
 prodesse posset" . — Qucest. .vx., sec. 1. 
 
 Then see Jewell : 
 
 " Vel felicitatem, vel peccatorum remissionem, quae est 
 interna sancti spii'itus actio, externo cuiquam officio acceptam 
 referre, erroris cujusdam est superstitiosi, iuepti, Judaici. , . .
 
 24 
 
 . . . .De sacrorum auteiu mysterioruni usu ae ratione Christus 
 Don dixit, Hoc facile in remissionem peccatorum : sed, Hoc 
 facite in meam commemorationem. Unicnm pro peccato per- 
 petuumque sacrificium est ipse Dei filius crucis supplicio 
 ttffeetus : qui nunc in carnis nostrae natura, atque substantia 
 patri suo ad dcxteram assidet, et pro nobis in eeternum inter- 
 pellat, estque illud unicum pro peccatis nostris sacrificium, et 
 propitiatio. Quaecunque est huic doctrinse contraria doctrina, 
 ea impia et blasphema est". — lb. sec. 3. 
 
 I do not wish to add more on this particular head ; 
 but, on the whole, we were forced to the conclusion, 
 that the Author held, that many doctrines, which we 
 thought Romish, which turn out to be so, were not 
 expressly excluded by the Thirty-nine Articles. Nor 
 can I now see how the " vagueness" in some parts of 
 the Tract, which gave us this impression, " arose 
 from the doctrines of the Articles being sometimes 
 brought out only so far as the Homilies explained 
 them" — (Letter to Dr. Jelf, postscript) — because, 
 from the citations made in this Letter, one thing will 
 be obvious enough, that the Author's conclusions are 
 brought out much beyond any legitimate inference 
 from his quotations. 
 
 Whereas the Homilist holds with S. Augustin, that 
 *' there be only two states hereafter, heaven and hell", 
 the Tract thinks the Article would not condemn the 
 opinion that, there is a third place, wherein prayers 
 may benefit those who there abide. In another place 
 of the Homily not ((uoted, " 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
 
 25 
 
 hoi pen by our prayers". — Horn. cone. Prayer. — 
 Whereas Jer. Taylor, who is quoted to illustrate 
 the Article on the point of pardons, " thinketh all of 
 them to be fantastical" ; the Tract considers the 
 Article to " speak only of large and reckless indul- 
 gences, obtained on money payments. 
 
 While the Homilist, a good interpreter here, says 
 generally, that ^' adoration of images is earnestly 
 forbidden by the Word of God", and nothing what- 
 ever even indirectly in favour of honour paid to relics ; 
 the Tract thinks only certain veneration and worship 
 of images to be condemned. 
 
 The Homilist ; that we must *' call neither upon 
 angel nor upon saint, but only and solely upon God" ; 
 the Tract- writer thinks, that what Bellarmin will con- 
 cede on the one hand, may be admitted by the Article 
 on the other, " That we may ask of saints their suppli- 
 cating from God what is profitable for us". 
 
 Little have the Divines of our Church dreamt, 
 either that the Articles were not " full against Po- 
 pery", or that any doctrine of purgatory, invocation 
 of saints, &c., could be other than Popish. If the 
 origin of some of these doctrines ran up towards the 
 primitive times, they would only see in this an early 
 "working of the mystery of iniquity". They would 
 rather, if there were any connexion between the two, 
 surrender that which was primitive, than, in regard 
 to the primitive, look tenderly on that which was 
 Popish.* 
 
 ♦ Primitive, that is in a certain sense. In its highest sense the Primitive
 
 26 
 
 I have at hand Bishop Stratford : — 
 
 " 1 need not show, that the doctrine of purgatory, as taught 
 by the Church of Rome, cannot derive its pedigree from the 
 Scriptures or the primitive Fathers, because it is freely con- 
 fessed by many of her own members, that it hath no found- 
 ation in either of thejn. The doctrine of indulgences is another 
 new article of the Roman creed— Cardinal Caietan grants 
 that no sacred Scripture, no authority of the ancient Doctors, 
 Greek or Latin, hath brought the original of them to our 
 knowledge. Another corruption is the propitiatory sacrifice 
 of the mass. The Church of England not only grants, but 
 asserts, tJiat the Eucharist is a commemorative and repre- 
 sentative sacrifice ; but this will not satisfy tlie present Church 
 of Rome, and therefore our Church hath deservedly con- 
 demned the sacrifice of masses as blasphemous fables and 
 dangerous deceits. Another gross corruption in the worship 
 of Rome, which rendered the Reformation necessary, was the 
 worship of images. This the Church of England has con- 
 demned as idolatrous, and proved it to be so by the authority 
 of God's Holy Word, and by the testimonies of the ancient 
 Fathers. Add to this their solemn prayers to saints departed. 
 The distinctions of worship into supreme and sub- 
 ordinate, absolute and relative, terminative and transient, as 
 they have no foundation in Scripture, so the Christians of the 
 first ages were ignorant of them, they having no such diflerent 
 objects of religious worship to which these different degrees 
 were to be suited". — Discourse of the necessity of Reformation. 
 
 Let me now cordially congratulate you, as in- 
 
 is the spring time of the Catholic ; but there is a lower sense, such as when 
 an opinion begins to shew itself in one or two respectable Fathers. " Agree- 
 ably, we say that the Sacraments do not profit the living without faith, much 
 less the dead ; for as to what they pretend concerning their purgatories, 
 t/wuffh that is no very late invenlion, yet it is nothing but a silly old wives' 
 Btory. St. Augustin sometimes saith there is such a place ; sometimes 
 he doth not deny but there may be such a place ; sometimes he doubts if 
 there bo ; and at other times he positively denies there is any such i)lacc 
 at all , and thinks that men out of human kiiidness to the dead are de- 
 ceived on that imuV\— ^Jewell's Apologij.
 
 27 
 
 terested with the rest of us in the well being of our 
 Church and people, on the events here of the last 
 few days. We may well be thankful, that the atten- 
 tion of a writer, who for some time past has been 
 thought to exercise a considerable influence in the 
 formation of clerical and Church opinion, should have 
 been drawn forcibly, but not I trust rudely, to the 
 possible tendency of some of his opinions, and of his 
 method of putting them forth. We may well be glad 
 for the sake of numbers at a distance from this place, 
 some of whom might not perceive that the Tract 
 contained any thing strange ; some might consider 
 the Author already a Romanist ; others be utterly 
 bewildered as to its meaning ; that the Letter to Dr. 
 Jelf has appeared, from which certain of the writer's 
 views may with a degree of distinctness be gathered.* 
 For to say nothing else, it is most desirable, that 
 one who acknowledges himself to be opposed to the 
 " traditionary " *' modern " interpretation of the for- 
 mularies of our Church,t should place himself in a 
 distinct position. I do not think, that the opinions he 
 advocates will, in consequence, gain fewer adherents 
 than otherwise, but they \vill be expressed with more 
 definiteness and precision, than is usually met with in 
 fugitive and anonymous Tracts : and wherever they 
 
 * I cannot say that, on the whol^, this Letter is much more satisfactory 
 
 to me than the Tract. There is found in it the same ambiguity of terms 
 
 the same shifting of terms— the same inapplicability of quotations to that 
 which they are to prove ; — yet there are some views of the writer's brought 
 forward distinctly. 
 
 t Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 18.
 
 28 
 
 may be thought to be erroneous, or of an ill tendency, 
 those, who are competent to discuss them, will not 
 avoid the controversy, from a dislike to enter the lists 
 with an opponent who has no bearing on his shield. 
 
 We have been accustomed now, for many gene- 
 rations, to consider the Articles exponents of the 
 Catholic faith. Should there really have been formed 
 any deliberate design of referring the interpretation of 
 them back again to Catholic and primitive tests, (and 
 who is to collect, and who is to decide upon the 
 suffrages of antiquity,) it will be necessary for those 
 who have more leisure, and are better qualified than 
 myself, to vindicate the existing position, in respect 
 of her Articles at least, of the Anglican Church. I 
 must indeed confess a suspicion, that from the struggle 
 of close and legitimate controversy the maintainers of 
 this vague Catholicity will shrink. If one may judge 
 from partial examples, they have not formed the 
 necessary habits of accuracy in definition, in division, 
 in inference, in method, in citation. 
 
 But there will not be wanting men to show the 
 true character of our Church ; that she has her 
 strength in a legitimate formal constitution ; whereby 
 she is an authorized channel of grace in the sacra- 
 ments ; wliil(! in fact her teaching is so Scriptural, 
 that she almost discourages the holding, as matter 
 even of opinion, on religious subjects, that which may 
 not be proved by the Word of God. While she re- 
 cognizes, as in fact she must, if she would teach a 
 reasonaV)l(' faith and service, that the ultimate appeal
 
 29 
 
 as to the interpretations of Scripture will, from the con- 
 stitation of man, he to the reason and spirit of the in- 
 dividual ; she would lead her children, and instruct 
 them, hut they must finally, with the aids she gives, 
 judge for themselves ; they must " search the Scrip- 
 tures, whether these things he so". She would have her 
 disciples say, " Now we helieve, not hecause of thy 
 saying, but we have seen Him ourselves, and know 
 that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the 
 world". And I know not where scope maybe found 
 for the " feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reve- 
 rence, and devotedness", when they struggle for utter- 
 ance in the breast of the spiritual man, more freely 
 than in our communion. Where our sons are taught 
 without adding thereto, or diminishing aught from 
 it, the " great mystery of Godliness ; God manifest 
 in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, 
 preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
 received up into glory". 
 
 But if without any theory or scheme of recon- 
 structing our Church according to some ideal primi- 
 tive model, amiable and benevolent men might desire 
 by a relaxation of certain articles to comprehend some 
 who might otherwise wander from our communion 
 in the direction of Rome ; surely there are other 
 " arrows within the quiver" of a well-furnished theo- 
 logian, other arts of a " fisher of men", for the saving 
 of such souls. The fact of any hesitating between 
 the Roman and Anglican communion, because men 
 feel " led" to doctrines and practices, which at least lie
 
 30 
 
 on the very verge of the Popish system, might rather 
 induce a suspicion that they have already gone some- 
 what too far ; that there has been something unsound 
 in their previous teaching and institution. It is a 
 good maxim, a necessary one, that no dogma may be 
 beheved, which is contrary to Scripture. It is a safer 
 practical one, to reckon, that none, which may not 
 be proved by it, is of much worth in the Christian's 
 belief, possibly injurious to its purity ; he had better 
 be taught to suspend his judgment on such points, 
 than endeavour where scripture is silent, to decide 
 them by some other authority. And schemes of com- 
 prehension, of necessity defeat their own design ; if 
 weak brethren are included on the one hand, w^ak 
 brethren will take offence on the other. 
 
 In conclusion, I would seriously beg the attention 
 of those who, in an amiable, a pious affection for that 
 which is ancient, would gladly see some practices 
 called primitive restored among us, which the wisdom 
 of the Church of England (which is to us the channel 
 of grace and salvation) has thought fit to dispense 
 with or disallow — I would beg their attention to the 
 following passage concerning the setting up of images 
 in Churches, and that they would generalize the 
 warning conveyed in it : — 
 
 " And thus you see how, froiu having of images privately, 
 it came to public setting of them up in churches and temples, 
 although without harm at the first, as was then of some 
 wise and learned men judged : and from simply having: 
 them there, it came at the last to worshipping of them. So 
 that I corK^Iude, as it may be possible in xnme one dty or little
 
 31 
 
 vonntrij to have images set up in temples and churclies, 
 and yet idolatry, by earnest and continual preaching of 
 God's true Word, and the sincere Gospel of our Saviour 
 Christ, may be kept away for a short time : so it is impos- 
 sible that (images once set up and suffered in temples and 
 churches) any great countries, much less the whole world, 
 can any long time be kept from idolatry. And the godly 
 will respect, not only their own city, country, and time, and 
 the health of men of their age, but be careful for all places 
 and times, and the salvation of men of all ages. u4t the least 
 tliey will not lay such stumbling blocks and snares for the feet 
 of other countryinen and ages, ivhich experience hath already 
 proved to have been the ruin of the tvorld. — Against Peril of 
 Idolatry ; St-d part. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours very faithfully, 
 
 H. B. WILSON. 
 
 St. John's College, March 2(), 1841.
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 Mr. Newman quotes Archbishop Laud, in his Letter to Dr. 
 .lelfj with a design of uiferring, that principles of allowing great 
 diversity of doctrine with subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles 
 were entertained by that Prelate. I am very glad that my 
 attention should have been drawn by one of the public Journals 
 to the History and Writings of one Davenport, otherwise Fran- 
 ciscus a Sancta Clara, to whom the subjoined notice refers ; 
 from which it will appear that the Archbishop was not a man 
 to surrender the pure doctrine of the Cluirch of England, or 
 the independence of its Constitution. 
 
 The extracts which follow from the writings of Sancta Clara, 
 and which I regret time does not permit me to carry to a greater 
 length, will shew, in juxta-position with some passages in Tract 
 No. 90, that we may well regard its principles with suspicion, 
 when they so resemble the propositions of such a propagandist 
 as Davenport. 
 
 "Christopher Davenport, a very learned Englishman, 
 was born at Coventry, in Warwickshire, about the year 1598, 
 and educated in grammar learning at a school in that city. 
 He was sent to Merton College, in Oxford, at fifteen years of 
 age ; where spending two years, he, upon an invitation from 
 some Romish priest living in or near Oxford, afterwards went 
 to Doway, He remained there for some time ; and, then 
 going to Ypres, he entered into the order of Franciscans among 
 the Dutch there, upon the 7th of October, 1(517. After several 
 removals irom place to place, he became a missionaiy into 
 
 D
 
 34 ADDENDUiM. 
 
 England, where he went by the name of Fianciscus a iSancta 
 Clara; and at length was made one of the chaplains to Hen- 
 rietta Maria, the royal consort of King Charles I. Here he did 
 all he could to promote the cause of popery, by gaining dis- 
 ciples, raising money among the English Catholics to carry on 
 public matters abroad, and by writing books for the advance- 
 ment of his religion and order. He was very eminent for bis 
 iincommou learning, being excellently versed in school divinity, 
 in fathers and councils, in philosophers, and in ecclesiastical 
 and profane histories. He was, INIr. Wood tells us, a person 
 of very free discourse, while his fellow-labourer in the same 
 vineyard, Hugh Cressy, was reserved; of a lively and quick- 
 aspect, while Cressy was clouded and melancholy : all which 
 accomplishments made him agi'eeable to protestants as well as 
 paj)ists. Archbishop Laud, it seems, had some knowledge of 
 this person ; for, in the seventh article of his impeachment, it 
 is said, that ' the said Archbishop, for the advancement of 
 popery and superstition within this realm, hath wittingly and 
 willingly received, harboured, and relieved divers popish 
 priests and Jesuits, namely, one called Sancta Clara, alias 
 Davenport, a dangerous person and Franciscan friai', who hath 
 written a popish and seditious book, entitled, Deus, natura, 
 gratia, &c. wherein the Thirty nine Articles of the Church of 
 England, established by Act of Parliament, are much traduced 
 and scandalized : that the said Archbishop had divers con- 
 ferences with him, while he was writing the said book',&c. 
 To which article, the Ai'chbishop made this answer : — ' I never 
 saw that Franciscan friar, Sancta Clara, in my life, to the ut- 
 most of my jncnioiy, above four times, or five at most. He 
 was first brought to me by Dr. Lindsell : but I did fear, that he 
 would never expound the Articles so, that the Church of Eng- 
 land might have cause to thank him for it. He never came to 
 me after, till he was ahnost ready to ])rint another book, to 
 prove, that episcopacy was authorized in the Church by divine 
 right; and this was, after these uiiha[)py stirs began. His 
 desire was, to have this book jjrinted Jiere ; Ijut at his several 
 adrlresse.M to me Wu- this, 1 still gave him this answer: That I 
 did not like tlu» wav whieli the Church <if Rome went concern-
 
 ADDEXDUxM. 
 
 35 
 
 ing episcopacy ; that I would never consent, that any such book 
 from the pen of a Romanist should be printed here; that the 
 Bisliops of England are very well able to defend their own 
 cause and calling, without any help from Rome, and would do 
 so when they saw cause : and this is all the conference I e\-er 
 had with him'. 
 
 " He was the author of several works: — He wrote, 1. Para- 
 phrastica expositio articulorum confessionis Anglicse. 2. Deus, 
 natiira, gratia: sive, tractatus de prsedestinatione, de mentis, 
 &c." 
 
 SANCTA CLARA, Problem. 
 
 37, de Invoc. Sanct. 
 
 " Verba in frontispicio sine 
 dubio durissima. Attenden- 
 dum tamen, quod vi hujus 
 articiili non reprehenditur In- 
 vocatio Sanctorum simpliciter 
 seu in se : ut patet : sed Ro- 
 mana doctrina de Invocatione, 
 seu de explicatione invoca- 
 tionis Sanctorum : sic etiam 
 diserte asti-uitur : ut etiam 
 patet". 
 
 TRACT FOR TBIES, 
 
 § r;, p. 23. 
 
 " Xow the first remark that 
 occurs on perusing this Article 
 is, that the doctrine objected 
 to is *tlie Rumish doctrine' ". 
 
 id. ib. 
 
 " Eodem plane modo et 
 eodem verborum tenore, iu 
 eodem articulo, abjiciunt, non 
 Purgatorium, indulgentias, 
 adorationem imaginum et re- 
 liquiarum in se, sed ut prius 
 DocTRiNAM RoMAXAM de his 
 onuiibus, id est, doctrlnam 
 
 id. ib. p. 25. 
 
 " If, then, the doctrine con- 
 demned in this Article con- 
 cerning purgatory, pardons, 
 images, relics, and saints, be 
 not the Primitive doctrine, nor 
 the Catholic doctrine, nor the 
 Tridentine doctrine, but the 
 Romish, ducfrina Romane?i-
 
 3« 
 
 ADDKXDUM. 
 
 falso nobis imputatain. De 
 Purgatorio putant esse locum 
 a nostris inventiiin ad caca- 
 bum Pontifiicis concoquenduin 
 (est phrasis Calvinistarum) ad 
 crucem Christi evacuandani, 
 &c. mira hujusmodi clamitant. 
 De Indiilgentiis, putant illas 
 Pontificis venales nuiidinas, 
 quasi pro libito suo viatores, 
 vel defunctos ab omni poena- 
 rum debito exsolvere (intel- 
 ligo semper de Calvinistis). 
 De cultu imaginum et reli- 
 quiarum, putant nos latriani 
 l)ropric dictam ipsis termina- 
 tive tribuere, Gentium idola 
 constituero. Has impias im- 
 piorum honiinum calumnias 
 et fabellas, ^ub nomine Doc- 
 trixjE Romance, ut ridiculas 
 abjiciunt, nos ut Dei sponsae 
 summe injuriosasabhorremus. 
 Purgatoriuin vcro in se, sen 
 quoadsubstantiamdefinitionis 
 Ecclesitt?, praesertini in Flo- 
 rentino, plurinii adniittunt, id 
 est, locum puryationis et emun- 
 dalionis, ut loquitur C'yprianus 
 torn. I. ep. ^2, (licet modus 
 purgandi ct emnndnndi non 
 iidco perspicuc dcfinitur'}. 
 
 shim, let us next consider 
 ^i•]lat in matter of fact it is". 
 
 id. Pani[)li. Art. xxxi. 
 
 " Totus liic Articulus duris- 
 
 simus videtin- ; rcclius tamen 
 
 introspiciendo, non adeo veri- 
 
 fiili di^'ordcni judiccin 
 
 id. § !), p. O:^. 
 " On the whole, tlicn, it is 
 conceived that the Article be- 
 fore us neither speai<s against 
 I he Mass in itself, nor against
 
 ADDENDUM. 
 
 37 
 
 ... In verbis posterioribus, si 
 sobrie intelligantur, nihil agi- 
 tur contra Sacrificia Missse in 
 se, seel contra vulgarem vel 
 vulgatam opinionem de ipsis, 
 scilicet quod Sacerdotes in 
 Sacrificiis offerrent Cliristum 
 pro vivis et defunctis, in re- 
 iTiissionem poenae et culpae, 
 adeo ut virtnte bujus Sacri- 
 ficii ab eis oblati independen- 
 ter a Crucis Sacrificio, mere- 
 rentur popnlo remission em, 
 &c. Usee est vulgata opinio, 
 quam liic perstringit Articu- 
 lus". 
 
 its being an offering for the 
 quick and the dead for the re- 
 mission of sin ; but against its 
 beingviewed, on the one hand, 
 as independent of or distinct 
 from the Sacrifice on the Cross, 
 which is blasphemy, and, on 
 the other, its being directed 
 to the emolument of those to 
 whom it pertains to celebrate 
 it, which is imposture in ad- 
 dition". 
 
 oxford: printed by j. mundav, jun. queen-street.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 
 
 REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 PUBLICATION OF No. 90. 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM SEWELL, M.A. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVF.RSITV 
 
 OF OXFORD. 
 
 Second Edition, with a Postscript. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1841.
 
 DAXTKB. FKIXTF.B, OXrOKn.
 
 My Dear Pusey, 
 
 I have been told, that letters have been written 
 to yourself and to others, expressing the opinions 
 of individuals on the last-published Tract for the 
 Times, No. 90. And in the position in which 
 you are placed, it may be desirable that you 
 should know as much as possible of the sen- 
 timents of those around you. With the feelings 
 which I, like so many others, have always 
 entertained towards yourself and the other Au- 
 thors of the Tracts, I would not willingly leave 
 you to learn my own sentiments from common 
 report, which would probably misrepresent them. 
 And however distressing it is to differ from you, 
 it seems to be my duty, for many reasons, to 
 avow at once openly, that the publication of the 
 Tract has caused me the most serious pain. 
 
 I may not be disposed to take precisely the 
 same line of objection which has been taken 
 by others. That the Articles were not intended 
 as a body of dogmatical teaching, but as marks 
 set upon certain existing errors, to warn us 
 against them, leaving the whole space between 
 them free and open, would appear to be an 
 
 A 2
 
 obvious fact, recognized by our best divines, and 
 perfectly in harmony with the true spirit of a 
 CathoUc Church. To treat the Articles as a 
 regular system of theology, or to erect such a 
 system and impose its reception by authority, 
 would probably be a serious evil. But on a careful 
 and repeated perusal of the Tract, it did to my own 
 mind convey intimations, which if unintentionally 
 suggested through incautious expressions, would 
 still, at such a moment as the present, be most 
 deeply to be lamented; and if intended, must be 
 open to considerable discussion, and I will add, 
 in my own view, to the gravest objections. 
 
 But I wish most distinctly and emphatically 
 to state, that I am describing only the impression 
 on my own mind, and not presuming to assert 
 that I have caught the real meaning of the 
 author. If I am mistaken, it will be a subject 
 of great satisfaction. And the fact of my own 
 misconception may prove an apology for others, 
 who may have been similarly misled with 
 myself. 
 
 I allude especially to the disparaging language 
 in which the Articles appear to be spoken of, — 
 the representation of them as a bondage, rather 
 than as a safeguard, — and the suggestion, that 
 their latitude, and so called ' ambiguity,' is an evil 
 to be deprecated, and to be palliated for the 
 present only by a forced strain of the gram- 
 matical meaning; instead of exhibiting these cha-
 
 racteristics, especially in this place, in the true 
 light of a most wise and charitable moderation, 
 and a blessing for which we should be thankful. 
 
 Farther, it was difficult not to infer the con- 
 templation in the mind of the writer of some 
 future and unexplained changes in the external 
 system of the Church. It is guarded indeed 
 with certain conditions for the present, but with 
 such as seem by no means sufficient to allay 
 or restrain the natural discontent, and tendency 
 to rash, restless reform, which must be created 
 by the language in which the present condition 
 of the Church is described ; not as regards 
 the sins of her individual members, (for in this 
 no change can be enforced too earnestly,) but 
 in her " formularies," " precedents," and " prin- 
 ciples." If the " body of death," which we are 
 now said to bear about, is applied to her system 
 as established in " uncathohc times," such is 
 surely not the tone in which our greatest divines 
 have been accustomed to speak of the Church of 
 England, especially as distinguished from the 
 Church of Rome. If it apply to any external op- 
 pression from the State, we have, individually, a 
 simple remedy in the patient, obedient, but faithful 
 and bold performance by each of us of our several 
 duties, as they are enjoined on us by the express 
 command of God ; and any fetters with which 
 the State has bound us will then become as flax, 
 without any formal change in our ecclesiastical
 
 constitution ; the contemplation of which, I 
 should venture to think, is not to be encouraged, 
 but to be most fervently deprecated. 
 
 In connexion with this point I cannot but feel 
 uneasy at the palliating, and, if our older divines 
 are right, the erroneous language in which the 
 criminal usurpation of the Papacy is described, 
 [p. 11 ?^ simply ' as an event in Providence ;" as 
 ordained of God while it existed, and claiming our 
 obedience ; as involving no question of "ought," 
 [p. 97.] either in obedience or resistance to it ; and 
 as coming under the same description with the 
 Metropolitan and Patriarchal systems. Bar- 
 row's language'', for instance, is very different. 
 And on a point of such vital importance, which 
 may really form the great line of demarcation 
 between the Church of England and Popery, 
 incautious language is full of peril. 
 
 To these objections 1 would add, the ap- 
 pearance of a general disposition to give scope 
 and indulgence to a number of opinions, not 
 essential to the faith of Christianity, and not war- 
 ranted by sufficient evidence of their catholicity; 
 opinions, which are not indeed formally con- 
 demned by our Church, but of the dangerous tend- 
 ency of which she has surely desired to warn us, 
 by carefully excluding from our Church Services 
 so many things which might encourage them. 
 It is most true tiiat our Church does not 
 
 * Treatise cii tlie I'ope's Supremacy.
 
 presume to shackle private opinions, beyond 
 what is absolutely necessary for the preservation 
 of the faith. But seeing the inevitable tendency 
 of the mind to slide from private opinions into 
 Romish errors, is it not wiser and more con- 
 sistent with the spirit of that rule, under which 
 God has placed us, to lead minds, and young 
 minds especially, from indulging such opinions, 
 to the grand indisputable truths of the Gospel, to 
 the plain practical duties of life, and to an ardent 
 and sincere devotion to our own Church as it is 
 constituted ? 
 
 Whatever are the evils and defects in the 
 mode in which her system is administered by 
 ourselves as individuals, surely she possesses 
 amply sufficient in herself, without borrowing 
 from such dangerous sources, to stimulate 
 and indulge all that is good and safe in the 
 imagination and affections. Perhaps the very 
 contemplation of this as an object may be 
 full of risk, and withdraw us from the simple 
 task committed to us, of holding up the Catholic 
 faith before men, and leaving in the hands of 
 God its effect upon the heart. Our object as a 
 Church, we must allow, is not to govern men, 
 but to witness to the truth ; and we know from 
 a lamentable experience, how easy it is, when 
 this ground is in the least shifted, to sink into 
 most fatal errors. 
 
 I must think also, that although it is Christian
 
 8 
 
 and prudent to speak reverently of the mysteries 
 ot religion, and leniently of the errors of others, 
 when there is no risk of leading to their imitation, 
 our present position in relation to the Church of 
 Rome, and to many members of our own com- 
 munion, is not such as to warrant any expression, 
 or any silence, which may tend to throw weak 
 minds ofl' their guard, and make them insensible 
 to the real enormities of the Romish system. 
 And such does not appear to have been the tone 
 adopted by those great men, who, we know, were 
 able before this to maintain the highest doctrines 
 of our Church, with the boast that none of their 
 disciples had been tempted by them into the 
 Communion of Rome. 
 
 And, lastly, though it is impossible to estimate 
 too highly the value of the real Catholic Testi- 
 mony of Antiquity to the essential Doctrines of 
 Christianity, or to look without the highest 
 veneration on the great Fathers of the Early 
 Church, is it not dangerous to consider ourselves, 
 or to lead others to consider themselves, as 
 ' Disciples of the Catholic Church,' rather than 
 as the dutiful and affectionate children of that 
 branch of it, to which we immediately belong? 
 May it not encourage a fanciful and even self- 
 willed spirit, to throw them back upon a distant 
 period of the Church, not for great truths which 
 we are taught by our own Church, and are com- 
 manded by her to confirm by such testimony ; but
 
 for habits of thought and practice, difficult to be 
 realized, impossible to be understood in all their 
 bearings, unfitted, it may be, for our own state, 
 and powerless for effecting the good which is 
 hoped from them ; the proof of which need onl}^ 
 be sought in the state of society at the time, and 
 in the evils which subsequently sprung from them? 
 From what has come under my own observation, 
 I do think it more than ever necessary to main- 
 tain, that our access to the ancient Church must 
 be through the cbannel of our own English 
 Church, and under the control of living rulers, 
 as well as of written rules. Our vitality must 
 indeed be drawn from Apostohcal sources, but 
 only as the leaf is nourished from the root, by 
 adhering firmly to the branch on which it is 
 growing. 
 
 I have touched on these heads generally, and 
 should have explained my meaning at greater 
 length, had I not found myself really unequal to 
 the anxiety and labour of engaging in such a dis- 
 cussion, farther than seems absolutely necessary. 
 The objections which I have stated may be 
 groundless. But they have been forced on me, 
 and may have been forced on others far more 
 open to their influence. If readers least disposed 
 to take offence are startled and pained by a work, 
 must there not be something to complain of in the 
 tone or form in which its opinions are put forth? 
 As starthng, they may rouse attention, but surely 
 such cannot be a proper form in which religious
 
 10 
 
 truth should be permitted to appear ? We may 
 indeed feel indifferent to the effect produced on 
 one class of opponents ; but are there not tender 
 and delicate minds, whose eyes are to be couched 
 gradually, if they are in darkness, and for whose 
 sake we are bound to be cautious ? Does not 
 any shock in religious opinion, even if in some in- 
 stances it bring us to truth, unsettle the mind, and 
 dispose it generally for the reception of paradoxes, 
 and therefore of error? And would it not have 
 been well, if a truth so obvious as that asserted 
 in the Tract, had been put forward, without 
 hazarding the creation of alarm and opposition ? 
 
 If you ask me why I have thought it necessary 
 to say thus much, one reason is, that although I 
 have never, as you know, been in the slightest de- 
 gree connected with the Publication of the Tracts, 
 and have always studiously avoided habits of inti- 
 macy with their authors, as fearing the creation of a 
 party, I wasonce,asyouhavestated tome yourself, 
 the means underProvidence of considerably allaying 
 the irritation and alarm, which had been raised 
 against you and others, by false and silly charges. 
 If I have ever maintained similar principles with 
 the Tracts, it has been so far only as I believed 
 them to be the principles of the Church of 
 England. And iu whatever I have hitherto done 
 I have endeavoured to act independently, only 
 desirous of guarding Truth, and, where I might 
 do it without presumption, the characters of 
 others against idle and malicious calumnies. What
 
 11 
 
 I am now doing, I trust, will not be attributed to 
 a different spirit. But I will venture to entreat 
 you to consider, whether under present circum- 
 stances, the continuation of the Tracts is not 
 pregnant with danger to the cause of Peace, and, 
 what is dearer than Peace, of Truth. 
 
 The circumstances of the times may fairly be con- 
 sidered as a sufficient reason for their original pub- 
 lication. But it is dangerous for any body of indi- 
 viduals, however small, to combine to disseminate 
 peculiar religious opinions within the Church. It 
 becomes still more dangerous, when their works 
 have acquired, however improperly, a name, which 
 compromises a great public University in no way 
 responsible for them, and when they are put forth 
 anonymously, and apparently with the sanction of 
 the whole body ; but, as it appears from Mr. Perce- 
 val's Letter, is the case with the Tracts, without any 
 adequate superintendence being exercised over the 
 opinions and expressions of the individual writers. 
 When the object of this arrangement is, as Mr. 
 Perceval's statement also indicates, to ' produce 
 effect,' * to be effective,' ' to please,' and ' to strike,' 
 this bias, however unintentionally, may still farther 
 interfere with the simple enunciation of truth. And 
 it has now too become evident, that the continua- 
 tion of the Tracts, at least in their present shape, 
 may lead to painful collisions, not with persons in- 
 competent to judge, but with authorities, whom we 
 must all respect. Under these circumstances may it 
 not be right to guard against this evil, and against
 
 12 
 
 the gradual formation of a party, and the chance 
 of driving those who differ from you still farther 
 from what you believe to be truth, and against 
 even the possibiUty of a schism — all this, when the 
 object is accomplished, for which you first com- 
 menced your labours, and when the fundamental 
 principles, which you have advocated, have 
 taken root, and spread, and are advancing every 
 day, with a rapidity, which ten years since 
 we should have pronounced it a delusion to 
 imagine ? 
 
 I will make no apology for writing thus openly. 
 You, who have never spoken harshly even of 
 those who have most cruelly traduced you, will 
 not be slow to make allowances for one who has 
 never uttered a word or entertained a thought, 
 either of yourself or of the other authors of the 
 Tracts, but those of gratitude and affectionate 
 respect. 
 
 But my name has been most improperly con- 
 nected with them. And it is right that neither 
 of us should be made responsible for any but our 
 own opinions. And an act even of an individual 
 so insignificant as myself may not be wholly use- 
 less at this moment, if it shews, that the move- 
 ment now making in defence of the Church and 
 of her principles is carried on by persons not 
 connected by party spirit, or other ties than 
 their duty to the Church — that to differ in such 
 points, as those to which I have now objected, 
 does not imply the least dissension on the grand
 
 13 
 
 objects for which we are contending — that these 
 very differences on detached questions will be a 
 great security against error in those which are 
 the most important ; and that it is possible to 
 hold, what are supposed to be extreme opinions 
 with respect to great Church doctrines, and at 
 the same time to be keenly (perhaps you will say 
 unreasonably) sensitive to any thing which seems 
 to border either on a disparagement of our' 
 English Church, as it is at present constituted, 
 or on the slightest needless approximation to the 
 errors of the Church of Rome. 
 
 In conclusion I cannot but say, that although 
 pain may be caused to individuals for the present, 
 the discussion opened by the Tract, however 
 unhappily commenced, seems likely to do much 
 good, in calling our attention to the real character 
 of our formularies, and leading us to be still more 
 attached to them, and more grateful for the 
 Providence, which, whatever were the thoughts 
 of their authors, watched over their construction. 
 Nor, I trust, can there be any fear, that the quiet, 
 sobriety, and kind feeling, which has so long been 
 the characteristic of the University, is likely to 
 be disturbed on the present occasion. 
 
 Believe me, My dear Pusey, 
 With the sincerest esteem and regard, 
 
 Your's ever truly, 
 
 WILLIAM SEWELL. 
 
 Exeter College^ March 17, 184L
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 I take the opportunity of a second Edition to 
 add one remark, not with a view to express any 
 opinion of my ow^n, which might be officious 
 and useless, but at the suggestion of others. 
 
 Without referring at all to the merits or 
 demerits of the particular Tract in question, I 
 must confess that I did at the first regard the 
 Resolution of the Hebdomadal Board with con- 
 siderable uneasiness. And the same uneasiness 
 has undoubtedly been felt, and to a great degree, 
 by men of high eminence and station both in the 
 University and the Church, who are as little 
 connected as myself with party, and equally 
 indisposed, I should conceive, to identify them- 
 selves with any opinions, but the acknowledged 
 and indisputable doctrines of our Church, as 
 contained in her formularies, and maintained 
 by her Standard Divines. 
 
 If books before this have been condemned in 
 the University, the condemnation has been 
 passed by an Act of Convocation, which is the 
 proper and only Representative of the University 
 " in matters of greater moment," And for the
 
 ]6 
 
 decision of certain other Theological Questions 
 within the University, the Statutes have appointed 
 a particular Tribunal selected from the Faculty 
 of Theology. If therefore the Resolution of the 
 Hebdomadal Board were to be represented as an 
 Act of the whole University, or as a formal 
 decision on a Theological Question, it would 
 assuredly introduce a novel and unstatutable pro- 
 ceeding, and might render it imperative on 
 Members of Convocation to protest publicly 
 against it, lest it should be turned into a most 
 dangerous precedent. 
 
 But after a careful enquiry, I believe I shall be 
 justified not only in inferring from the express 
 terms of the Resolution, but in asserting on the 
 highest authority, that the Hehdomadat Board 
 have scrupulously and deliberately endeavoured to 
 guard their proceedings against a violation of the 
 privileges, either of Convocation or of the Theolo- 
 gical Faculty. They seem to have acted simply 
 as the appointed guardians of the Statutes, bound 
 in the words of the Statute Book itself, * ' de Statutis 
 observandis tractare, deliberare, et consilia inire." 
 Considering (whether with reason or not, we 
 need not here enquire) that the Tract in question 
 might tend to a violation of the Statutes, they 
 could scarcely avoid taking notice of it. And as 
 the authorities, by whom in their several Colleges 
 the Tutors are appointed, to whom the Statutes 
 have committed" the teaching of the Articles,
 
 17 
 
 their attention would more especially be called 
 to it. How far the publication of a separate 
 Resolution of the Heads of Houses with the public 
 mark of the University Seal attached to it may 
 have been objectionable, as seeming to claim for 
 it a higher authority than it really possesses, 
 may be open to discussion. But it is only an 
 act of justice to admit, that it is the mode usually 
 adopted by the Board, in calling the attention 
 of the Junior Members of the University to the 
 observance or violation of any particular Statute. 
 And under circumstances of no little difficulty, it 
 may be well not so much to cavil too scru- 
 pulously at the past, as to hope that such 
 objections, if they were well grounded, might be 
 guarded against in future. 
 
 It is easy to imagine that the Heads of Houses 
 might feel strongly the duty of giving some public 
 warning to young men against a publication, 
 which they deemed likely to mislead them — and 
 that they might desire also to take an oppor- 
 tunity of disclaiming that connexion between the 
 University, and certain publications of individual 
 members of it, which had been so erroneously and 
 disingenuously asserted by those who are friends to 
 neither. And there would be nothing derogatory 
 to the Board or inconsistent with their proceedings 
 in supposing that they might wish to adopt a 
 mode of discharging this duty, as little painful 
 as possible to an individual, whose character has 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 commanded for him the highest respect, and 
 whose great services to the Church in reviving 
 many most important Truths it would be im- 
 possible to deny, or to reflect on without the 
 greatest gratitude. And certainly they have 
 reason to be satisfied with the result, if, as is 
 generally understood, the Tracts are henceforth 
 to be dropped, and great ends have been gained 
 without involving the University in the many 
 dithculties and evils, which must have attended 
 any attempt to pronounce formally on the merits 
 of a publication, which even by those most opposed 
 to it would probably be condemned chiefly by 
 implication and suspicion, and as unguarded and 
 liable to perversion in the application which may 
 be made of it. 
 
 It is scarcely possible that such an act should 
 be made use of, even by the most unscrupulous 
 persons, as if it implied a censure either by the 
 University or the Hebdomadal Board on any 
 publication but the single Tract named in the 
 Resolution. Still less as generally condemnatory 
 of the great fundamental doctrines which have 
 within these last ten years been advocated by a 
 large body of the English Clergy, as well as in 
 the Tracts for the Times, and which are generally 
 known by the name of Church Principles, as 
 distinct from any peculiar opinions, which may 
 have been niaiiitaincfl by irulivirlual writers. 
 
 Kven if the general character nf the University
 
 19 
 
 and of the Heads of Houses were not sufficient 
 at once to correct such perverted misrepresent- 
 ations, it would be refuted at once by the well- 
 known fact, that on many other occasions writers, 
 who have most earnestly devoted themselves to 
 the maintenance of Church Princioles, have 
 thought it their duty to dissent from particular 
 subordinate opinions advocated in the Tracts, 
 at the very time, when they have expressed 
 strongly their concurrence in fundamental truths. 
 The Tracts for the Times never have been taken 
 as a standard of Church Principles, nor, whatever 
 opinion may be entertained of them individually, 
 would it be possible to do this without compro- 
 mising the first of Church Principles, that we 
 must adhere to no authority but that of our 
 Ecclesiastical Rulers, our authorized formularies, 
 and the interpretation of our old standard 
 Divines. 
 
 Having before this received through the kind- 
 ness of the Vice-Chancellor a private communi- 
 cation which completely satisfied my own mind 
 on these points ; and knowing how desirous he 
 expressed himself that others should be satisfied 
 likewise ; I have had the less scruple as a private 
 friend in requesting hitn to read over these 
 remarks, that if I have made any mistake, so far 
 as regards matters of fact, I may correct them
 
 20 
 
 before publication. He has with his usual kind- 
 ness consented to do this, and I am happy to be 
 able to state, that he has not suggested any 
 alteration. ' 
 
 Exeter College, March 81, 1841.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE EEV. J. H. NEWMAJY, 
 
 UPON SOME PASSAGES IN HIS 
 
 LETTER TO THE REV. DR. JELF 
 
 BY N. WISEMAN, D. D. 
 
 Bishop of Melipotamus. 
 
 Secontr Otrition. 
 
 LONDON : 
 CHARLES DOLMAN, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 BIRMINGHAM : 
 rniMTkn dy wim.iam stonh.
 
 A LETTER, 
 
 SL Mary's College, Oscoit, 
 3Iarch 27, 1841. 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 The second edition of your Letter to Dr. ,Telf 
 has just reached me ; I had not been able to see it 
 sooner. In addressing directly to yourself some ob- 
 servations upon it, I hope you will not consider me as 
 presuming upon the passing acquaintance I made with 
 you some years ago in Rome, however pleasant to me 
 the recollection of it may be, but as moved by consider- 
 ations of a higher character. I have sufficient con- 
 fidence in your candour and in your powers, to believe 
 that, if I shall be so happy as to convince you of the 
 inaccuracy of any of your views and statements, you 
 will be the first to correct them, and will be able to 
 remove the impressions you have produced, far better 
 than I could ever hope to do. On the other hand, did 
 I address the public only, as though entering into 
 controversy against you, and not into discussion with 
 you, I might appear to exclude from my earnest anxiety 
 to convince, the very person in whom the character 
 of the present theological enquiry naturally prompts 
 me to feel most interested. I will, therefore, tem- 
 perately but frankly, proceed to offer you my ob- 
 servations upon such parts of your Letter, as must be 
 distressing to every well-instructed Catholic. 
 
 The purport of your Letter to Dr. Jelf is to vindi- 
 cate yourself against the sentence of four tutors of
 
 Colleges, who have represented the Tract No. 90, 
 of -svhich you are the author, as asserting that the 
 Thirty-nine Articles do not condemn " Purgatory, 
 Pardons, AVorshipping and adoration of Images and 
 Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they 
 ^Ycjaught authoritatively by the Church of Rome." 
 
 Your reply to this is, that you " consider that they 
 do contain a condemnation of the ' authoritative teach- 
 ing ' of the Church of Rome, on these points : " that you 
 " only say that, whereas they were written before the 
 decrees of Trent, they were not directed against those 
 decrees." P. 4. Your next paragraph — painful though 
 it be to my feelings — I must give in your own words. 
 
 " 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 Purgatory. 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 
 Poperv." P. o. 
 
 In further explanation of your meaning, you quote a 
 passage from another of your writings, from which I 
 think it sufficient, at j)resent, to extract the following 
 sentence. " In the Roman Schools we find St, Mary 
 and the Saints the prominent objects of regard and dis- 
 |)ensers of mercy, Purgatory or Indulgences the means 
 of oljtaininj^ it, the Pope the ruler and teacher of the 
 Cluirch, and miracles the warrant of doctrines." Ibid. 
 
 Your intention seems to be, as far as I can gatlier it
 
 from these and other passages in the Letter, to establish 
 a distinction between the doctrines defined or decreed in 
 the General Council of Trent, and the authoritative 
 teaching of the Roman Church, that is, I suppose, of the 
 Catholic Church in communion with Rome. It is not 
 your intention, I presume, to designate by the term " au- 
 thoritative teaching " local abuses, or the extravagances 
 of individual writers, but the teaching by authority, 
 which that Church, as a Church, sanctions and pursues. 
 
 The existence of any such authoritative teaching at 
 variance with the doctrines of the Tridentine Synod is, 
 to me, a novel idea ; and I think will prove so to all 
 Catholics. It is chiefly with respect to its existence and 
 its supposed objects and systems, as described by you, 
 that I take the liberty of respectfully addressing you. 
 
 Suppose I were to assert, that in the Church of 
 England, there is an " authoritative teaching," at 
 variance with the Articles, as interpreted by you in the 
 Tract. You believe your interpretation of the Articles 
 to be the only one reconcilable with catholic truth, or 
 that can bring your Church into harmony with the 
 Catholic Church * Suppose then further that I reasoned, 
 that your Church was not to be judged by the Articles, 
 but by such authoritative teaching, and that therefore its 
 doctrines, and consequently itself, are not catholic. How 
 
 * " But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which is merely to 
 shew that while our Prayer book is acknowledged on all hands (o be of 
 Catholic origin, our Articles also, the offspring of an uncatholic age, are 
 through God's good providence, to say the least, not uncatholic, and may be 
 subscribed to by ihose who aim at being catholic in heart and doctrine." 
 Tract p. 4,
 
 6 
 
 wuiild you reply ? 1 think you would justly ask, where 
 does that authoritative teachino- reside? "STho has 
 power to make it, so as to limit the interpretation of the 
 Articles ? You would not be satisfied wdth extracts 
 against Transubstantiation, the Mass, a middle State 
 of souls, and honouring of Saints, from hundreds 
 of writers and divines in communion with your Church, 
 who have proclaimed that these things are, completely 
 and without reserve, condemned in and by your Church. 
 You would not be content with the joint opinion of 
 College Tutors, or of the hebdomadal board, or, I 
 believe, of individual bishops, whose sentiments are 
 in part recorded on your views. None of these, indi- 
 vidually or collectively, would you allow, I think, to 
 have the character of an authoritative teaching ; certainly 
 not to the extent of justifying an opponent, in fastening 
 upon your Church their sentiments, instead of the Articles. 
 Let us apply this case to ours. It is a serious thing to 
 charge us with setting up the Blessed Virgin in place 
 of the Holy Trinity, and Purgatory instead of Heaven 
 and Hell. We naturally ask, what shall be considered 
 sufficient evidence of there being an authoritative 
 teachinf/, that supersedes tiie solemn and synodal 
 decrees of our Church, and makes us resjjonsible in 
 solidum for its lessons ? This 1 have endeavoured to 
 discover in your Letter ; and yet I own, I have been 
 foiled, even as to any plausible conjecture concerning 
 what you yourself had in mind, when you adopted the 
 f/iiii. You seem to have rested content with certain
 
 vague generalities, not easily reduced to tangible 
 forms. I will try to enumerate some of your various 
 evidences of this " authoritative teaching." 
 1°. " What we see of it " (I suppose of our teaching) " in 
 
 public." p. 6. 
 2°. The doctrine of "the Roman schools." Ibid, and p. 8. 
 3". The teaching of the Catechism of the Council of 
 
 Trent, p. 5. 
 4*^. " Popular notions " of Catholics, as attested hy the 
 
 Homilies and Jeremy Taylor. Ibid. 
 5°. The abuses which Luther assailed before the Council 
 
 of Trent. Ibid. 
 6**. Popular worship and practice of Catholics in 
 
 general, p. 7, par. 1. 
 7°. The honours paid to saints in catholic countries. Ibid. 
 
 par. 2. 
 8°. The sentiments of " all the best writers " upon such 
 
 subjects, p. 10. 
 I could add some other heads I think ; but these will 
 suffice. I put it. Rev. Sir, to your candour and good 
 sense, whether you would admit such evidences as 
 these, of a teaching in your church, sufficiently authorita- 
 tive, to be considered as taking place in it of the Articles 
 you have subscribed. To " the teaching of the Roman 
 schools, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the 
 sentiments of the best writers," I have no objections to 
 make. But that you should give as evidences of autho- 
 ritative teaching " popular notions " and practices, &c. is 
 <^ertainly surprising. Popular notions concerning the
 
 8 
 
 Bible and Rule of Faith, yoii surely would not admit as 
 evidence of the teaching of your Church: popular 
 practice as to fasting, the Eucharist, and prayer, you 
 would not allow to define your doctrines on those subjects. 
 
 But you must bear with me if I go into details, both 
 as regards the evidences which you refer to, and the 
 doctrines you suppose them to teach. 
 
 P. The Roman Schools. I have given one extract 
 where you appeal to these, in support of your views. 
 In the Tract p. 24, you express a similar sentiment, and 
 you have copied it into your Letter. "What is opposed' 
 (by Art. xxii ) " is the received doctrine of the day^ and 
 unhappily of this day too, or the doctrines of the Roman 
 Schools." After the extract, you thus proceed. " 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." P. 8. 
 
 What, I beg leave to ask, are these "Roman Schools?" 
 What does the term signify ? Where is the teaching of 
 these Schools authentically recorded ? 
 
 Bear with me, if I speak too prominently in my own 
 name, because I have some right to come forward as evi- 
 dence in this matter. I have resided for two and twenty 
 years in Rome, intimately connected with its theological 
 education. For five years I attended " the Roman 
 Schools " in the Roman College, where all the clergy of 
 tiie City were obliged to be cdncalcd. I went through 
 
 • Mere we hiive an instance again of vagueness of liinguago, on mat- 
 ters whicli reijuiro strict accuracy. What constitutes " ihe established 
 Crefd oj a Church ? ' Is it not the doctrine of ilA formularies, as solemnly 
 recognized by its authorities? How then is the term here applied ?
 
 the entire theological course, and publicly maintained it 
 in a thesis. Since then I have been always engaged in 
 teaching theology in our national College ; and for some 
 years have held the office of a professor in the Roman 
 University. I ought therefore to be tolerably acquainted 
 with the doctrines of the Roman Schools. 
 
 Now I solemnly assure you that, throughout the entire 
 course of studies, I never heard a word that could lead 
 me to suppose, that our Blessed Lady and the Saints are, 
 or ought to be, the "prominent objects of regard," or 
 could be " dispensers of mercy : " or that " Purgatory 
 or Indulgences are the means of obtaining it, &c." * 
 
 Moreover I declare, with all sincerity and earnestness, 
 that I have always there heard and taught, exactly the 
 contrary to what you represent as the doctrine of the 
 Roman Schools. Surely if there be any place, institution, 
 system, or code, on earth, which has a right to this name, 
 it must be that of the very schools to which I refer. 
 
 But perhaps you will say, that it is not the formal 
 teaching which you mean, but the spirit infused into 
 the whole system of the Roman schools ; as if one should 
 say of the Oxford school, (not schools) that it taught 
 certain doctrines, he would not signify that such 
 doctrines are delivered ex cathedra, but that they are 
 instilled throughout the course, and form its soul or 
 spirit. But to produce this effect, some means at least 
 are necessary. The doctrines, which it is wished to 
 
 * The very idea sounds new, that Purgatory is ever considered a means 
 of obtaining mercy, al least to the living who are ever exhorted to escape it ; 
 a place of mercy we certainly consider it, 1 never remember hearing or 
 seeing it enumerated among the media or ineaiiti of mercy.
 
 10 
 
 bring prominently forward, will be repeatedly inculcated 
 and insinuated, and their importance dilated on. Yet 
 here again, I cannot recall to my mind any circumstance, 
 which, upon reconsideration, appears to me like any such 
 attempt, or such a system. 
 
 The distribution of the theological course was at that 
 time as follows. One professor occupied four years (an 
 hour's lecture a day) upon the Sacraments, the " instru- 
 ments of grace and pardon," as you rightly tell us, in 
 the ancient Church. Another professor distributed his 
 course, as follows : first year, De Locis Theologicis, and 
 chiefly De Ecclesia ; second, De Deo Uno et Trino ; 
 third, De Incarnatione ; fourth, De Gratia. A third 
 professor was engaged two years on Scripture ; and a 
 fourth, the same time, on Moral Theology. These were 
 the obligatory courses, without having attended which, 
 no one could receive Orders. Now, I ask you, are the 
 Anr/licun "schools" so arranged as to " set before the 
 soul, the Holy Trinity," or to make " Christ the Son 
 of God, his grace, his Sacraments and his Church, the 
 main aspect in the economy of Redemption," more 
 decidedly, more clearly, or more essentially, than does 
 this theological system of the Roman schools ? You are, 
 1 dare say, conversant with the order and matter of 
 the theological treatises I have enumerated : but I am 
 sure many others of my readers will hardly know, where 
 those matters which you consider the prominent ones in 
 the Roman schools, are introduced in them. For their 
 sakes I will state it. All that is taught about" St. Mary
 
 11 
 
 and the saints," tlieir relics and images, is introduced 
 into a short treatise at the end of De Incarnatione* 
 Indulgences are spoken of in a supplementary treatise, 
 or appendix, to Penance, among the Sacraments.f 
 And as to Purgatory, which your readers will naturally 
 suppose has quite superseded in our minds heaven and 
 hell, it comes in between the two, occupying far smaller 
 space in our theological works than either of them, % 
 in a tract appended to that De Deo Creatore, which is 
 often distinct from the one on the Trinity. 
 
 This forms the doctrinal teaching of the " Roman 
 schools ; " and if it be such as I have described it in their 
 very centre, 1 suppose no one will doubt that the authori- 
 tative teaching of other Catholic places will not go beyond 
 Rome itself, in what you consider Roman doctrines. 
 
 But perhaps I have not as yet caught your meaning : 
 your expression may be intended to apply to the ascetic, 
 rather than to the dogmatical, teaching of Rome. Let us 
 then examine this. In the first place, I may observe that 
 in speaking of authoritative teaching in a church, and 
 appealing for its existence to its schools, one naturally 
 understands the dogmatical schools, as indexes of dogma- 
 tical teaching. But secondly, there is, properly speaking, 
 no other school. We must examine the ascetic 
 teaching chiefly in authorised and sanctioned practices. 
 
 * In ihe theological course now pursued at the Roman College, that of 
 Father Perrone, the treatise De Incarnatione occupies upwards of 360 
 pages: that on the Saints, their Images, Relics, &c. under one hundred. 
 
 Vol. iv. Rom. 1836 
 
 t In Perrone's work it occupies less than 50 pages. Matrimoay occupies 
 upwards of 200. Vol. vii. 
 
 % Ibid Vol. iii. Heaven occupies about 45 pages, Hell 53, Purgatory 23.
 
 12 
 
 Do these, then, countenance your assertion, of an au- 
 thoritative teaching which has usurped the place and 
 authority of the Tridentine Canons, and has made those 
 blasphemous and idolatrous substitutions, which it is 
 painful to me to repeat? 
 
 Every year, the pulpit of almost every great church 
 in large cities, and of every metropolitan and parochial 
 church in other places, gives a regular course of Lenten 
 sermons, often filled with warm and feeling eloquence. 
 The general practice is to devote one sermon, (on the 
 third Sunday) to Purgatory. Indulgences I have never 
 heard introduced into the series : the B. Virgin seldom 
 more than once, on the commemoration of her Dolours. 
 But deatli, heaven, hell, judgment, form the theme 
 of many discourses. A fortnight towards the end 
 of Lent is always set aside (in addition to the course in 
 the morning) for daily instructions to crowded churches, 
 on what? on purgatory or indulgences, as the means 
 of obtaining mercy ? No : but on the paschal duty of a 
 sincere repentance and confession, and of a worthy 
 participation of the B. Eucharist. I doubt if those two 
 topics are even alluded to. 
 
 The spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, or a spiritual 
 retreat, are considered the most cfHcacious means of 
 bringing men to a sense of duty, and a life of virtue. 
 And I will say, from tolerable experience, that their 
 efficacy is little short of miraculous. They consist in a 
 series of meditations (based upon the consideration of 
 Man's end) much in the followinir order : on sin, on
 
 13 
 
 hell, on death and judgment — several on each — not one 
 on purgatory ; then, on the incarnation and birth of our 
 Saviour, on the mysteries of His infancy, on His life, then 
 on His sufferings and death ; afterwards on His resur- 
 rection, on heaven, the Blessed Eucharist, and the love of 
 God ! Not one on the Blessed Virgin! The pulpit and the 
 spiritual retreat are the two principal means of individual 
 sanctification, in the o?/^z(;artZ economy of the Church. 
 
 Take the Italian, or French, or Spanish catechism ; 
 and candidly examine, whether in any of them, the 
 Trinity and Incarnation, and the entire Creed be not the 
 primary and principal subjects of instruction : — whether 
 any thing is taught the children who learn their faith in 
 it, that can lead them to suppose that the Blesssd Virgin, 
 purgatory, images, and indulgences, are the main sub- 
 jects to be attended to. 
 
 I really do not know where to look for an "authorita- 
 tive teaching " as carried on in the " Roman schools," 
 beyond the places and objects which I have enumerated, 
 and I cannot find in any of these the smallest proposition, 
 or intimation, at variance with the Decrees of the holy 
 Tridentine Synod. But before quitting this subject of 
 the Roman schools, permit me to draw your attention to 
 one of the specific doctrines which you seem to attribute 
 to them. You will bear in mind that you identify what 
 loas the received doctrine of the Roman schools when the 
 Articles were drawn up, with what it now is. (Tract p. 
 24. Letter p. 8.) The passage, then, to which I allude is 
 the following startlingone. "For instance as to Purgatory,
 
 14 
 
 I consider (with the Homily) tliat the Article opposes the 
 main idea really encouragedhy Rome, that temporal punish- 
 ment is a substitute for hell in the case of the unholy, and 
 all the superstitions consequent thereon. (Letter, p. 24.) 
 You are aware, Rev. Sir, that your assertion weighs 
 much with many : that you are believed to have made 
 no common study of catholic works of theology and 
 piety, and to have endeavoured to gain acquaintance, to 
 a greater extent and in a kinder spirit than most others, 
 with the true doctrines of our Church. A doctrine like 
 the one which you state, is wicked and fiendish, driving 
 men headlong, because cruelly hoodwinked, to perdition. 
 Can you prove that Rome has " really " ever " en- 
 couraged," or does now "encourage" such an idea? 
 In what formulary ? in what decree or declaration ? by 
 what practice ? by what connivance 1 I cannot remember 
 anything, published or done, that can possibly be con- 
 strued into any such encouragement. If you have proofs 
 of this terrible assertion, I earnestly call upon you to 
 produce them ; if you have not, I entreat you in charity 
 to recall it. 
 
 2. Another evidence of an authoritative teaching in 
 the Catholic Church, which goes beyond, or supersedes, 
 the Tridentine decrees, you draw from the Catechism of 
 that Council. This looks the most plausible of all your 
 corroborations of your theory ; but I think upon con- 
 sideration you will see that it has been unfairly used. 
 
 First, to ])ut the Catechism at variance with the 
 Council, which ordered it to be drawn up and published,
 
 15 
 
 strikes one, at once, as unnatural, and as a fallacy. 
 Those who compiled it and revised it were among the 
 most learned and zealous assistants at the Council ; they 
 undertook to embody in a catechetical form, its doc- 
 trines. We must suppose these men, (and mind they 
 were St. Charles Borroraeo, Sirletus, Seripandus, 
 Foreiro, Medina, and others of equal character) delibe- 
 rately contradicting their own acts, or else not knowing 
 what they had previously decreed. Such hypotheses 
 cannot be reasonably sustained. 
 
 Secondly. The fact, in truth, is, that the Catechism is 
 a popular exposition, and therefore admits greater lati- 
 tude of expression ; it even states matters not of faith. 
 Thus you will find the doctrine of Angels-guardian 
 taught and expounded in it, though only a pious belief, not 
 an article of faith : we are also told there that the Apostles 
 drew up the Creed, though this has not been defined 
 by the Church. It employs, therefore, the usual language 
 in which a doctrine is spoken of in the Church. From 
 the time of St Augustine it has been usual to call pur- 
 gatory, whatever its purgation may consist of, a fire, a 
 cleansing fire, &:c. But to say, that the incidental use of 
 such a term constitutes an authoritative teaching, more 
 binding and decisive than the cautious phraseology of a 
 dogmatical definition, is clearly a straining of facts for the 
 sake of an argument.* 
 
 • To show how far catholic divines are from imagining that this expression 
 of the Catechism interferes with the liberty allowed br the decree, I will 
 quote the words of Perrone ; which are, in fact, the language of every 
 catholic theologian. " Omnia igitur -juae spectant ad locum, durationsm.
 
 16 
 
 Thirdly. Your theory is, that the authoritative teaching, 
 which has replaced the Tridentine doctrines, has made 
 Purgatory or Indulgences usurp the place of the sacra- 
 ments as " means of obtaining mercy," And you quote 
 the Catechism as evidence of this teaching. Will your 
 readers, think you, imagine, that in that voluminous 
 compilation, the subject of Purgatory occupies just two 
 sentences ? that in treating of Penance, Indulgences are 
 not even mentioned ? 
 
 Fourthly. If the Catechism is better evidence of what 
 we authoritatively teach, than even the decrees of the 
 Synod, why not let us have the entire benefit of such 
 evidence? For instance, let us be tried by the very 
 test you have proposed for Purgatory, on the subject 
 of Images. After explaining their lawfulness and use 
 the Catechism thus proceeds. " But as the enemy of 
 mankind, by his wiles and deceits, seeks to pervert every 
 the most holy institution, should the faithful happen 
 at all to offend in this particular, the pastor, in accord- 
 ance with the decree of the Council of Trent, will use 
 every exertion in his power to correct such an abuse, 
 and when occasion offers, icill explain the decree itself to 
 
 ponnarum rjuulitalem, ad catliolicam fidem minime epectant, seu definita ab 
 ecclijsia non sunt. Nuni scilicet. ... ignis j)ur^alorii sit materialis nn meta- 
 pboricas ; utrum scilicet consistiil in (jiiadam suiimitristitia exortaex anteactae 
 vitae consideratione, focdidate |iecca(i, &c.. . .dirersae olim de iis ex<i(erunt 
 inter veteres Eccleaiae Patres, et inter scbolasticos etiam recontiores adbuc 
 vigent discrepantos sententiae." Vol. iJi. p 321. Surely this will satisfy any 
 renxonablo mind, that wo are as free to speculate on the nature of purgatory 
 since the Catocliiarn culled it a fire, as we were for the /wo years between the 
 ratification of the Council (15(54) aiid the publication of the Outechism, (I.^CG)
 
 17 
 
 the people" &c.* Is this an " authoritative teaching " 
 which supersedes the decree of Trent, or a sanctioning, 
 on the subject of images, of more than it warrants? I 
 beg in like manner to refer you to the instructions of the 
 Catechism regarding the worship of Saints.f And again 
 I ask, if its doctrine have to prove so much for you on 
 purgatoi'y, because fire is merely mentioned, ought you 
 not to have given us the benefit of what it proves on all 
 the other subjects, included by }'0u under the title of 
 Roman doctrines ? 
 
 3*^. " I conceive that what 'all the best writers' say is 
 authoritative teaching, and a sufficient object for the 
 censures conveyed in the Articles, though the decrees of 
 Trent, taken by themselves, remain untouched." p. 10. 
 I am willing to admit the test ; and therefore shall be 
 satisfied that you are right, if you will give the testimony 
 of all, or any, of our best writers in favour of what you 
 call "Romanism or Popery," that is, "preaching the 
 Blessed Virgin, the Saints and Purgatory," instead of 
 " the Holy Trinity, Heaven and Hell," &c. I might, indeed, 
 justly protest against having the authoritative teaching of 
 the Catholic Churcli, decided by the opinions of one indi- 
 vidual, or of any number of individuals, however respec- 
 table, if such teaching be contrary to, or beyond, that of 
 our last General Council; as much as you would against the 
 doctrines of your church being determined by the opinion 
 of Bishop Hoadley, or its principles by those of Bishop 
 Newton, rather than by the Articles. But I have no 
 
 * Catecliism. Rom. Part. iii. Vol. . p. 441, Ed. Rome, 1839. Latin and 
 English. 
 
 t Ibid, . 27, 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 objection to waive that plea, and accept you own terms. 
 Our best writers are well known to you better than to 
 most : show in them such a system as you have des- 
 cribed, and you will have done something- towards 
 carrying out your views. But Dr. Lloyd's bare assertion, 
 which is all you now have, will not suffice. 
 
 However, after all, allow me to put it to yourself, 
 whether you have not inadvertently, fallen into a mistake, 
 in applying his words ? They are as follows : — 
 
 "That latria is due only to the Trinity is continually 
 
 asserted in the Councils ; but the terms of dulia, and hy- 
 
 perdulia have not been adopted or aclinoicledged by them 
 
 in their public documents ; they are however employed 
 
 unanimously by all the best tvriters of the Romish Church."" 
 
 On these words, you make the comment with which 
 
 I began this paragraph. Your object is to confirm, by 
 
 the words of Dr. Lloyd, a discrepancy between the 
 
 Council of Trent and catholic writers of celebrity. Dr. 
 
 Lloyd, however, speaks of Councils in the plural. And 
 
 in fact, I think you will not find the word latria any 
 
 more than dulia in the decrees of the Council of Trent. 
 
 Therefore, no proof of discrepancy between it and writers, 
 
 can be drawn from this statement of Dr. Lloyd's. 
 
 Moreover, I will observe, that the use of terms by certain 
 
 writers, will not put them in contradiction to the Council, 
 
 simply because it happened not to employ them: the 
 
 doctrine of both is one. 
 
 4". These seem to be the only sources which could 
 have a right, with any plausibility, to be alleged as 
 evidence of an authoritative teaching in our Church,
 
 19 
 
 distinct from its formularies. They all give the same 
 results as these. I will now glance at your remaining 
 heads of evidence. 
 
 I think you yourself, when you endeavour to analyze the 
 conviction in your mind of the existence of your " autho- 
 ritative teaching" in the Catholic Church, will find that 
 it is not based upon the use of the word " fire " in the 
 Catechism, nor on any teaching of any Roman Schools, 
 nor upon the works of" all our best writers ;" but rather 
 upon what you call the " popular worship " (which you 
 identify with our " existing creed ") p. 7. upon " popular 
 notions of catholics " on " what is seen in public " and 
 on such like vert/ popular and generally admitted themes 
 of anticatholic declamation. I do not think you would 
 deliberately allow yourself to be led away by these. I 
 do not think you would reflectingly take, for a guide of 
 your sentiments, the prejudiced statements of travellers, 
 or the assertions, however unanimous, of the great body 
 of writers against us. But it is exceedingly difficult to 
 think, differently from what every body about us has 
 always been thinking and saying. It is almost impos- 
 sible to stay the mind, when hurried on by the press of 
 those behind, and on either side of us. And so I fancy 
 that you, like many other candid men, (and I am sorry 
 to add, occasionally some catholics) having heard every 
 protestant traveller, and every protestant writer, and 
 in fact almost every protestant man and woman, describe 
 or take for granted, the superstitions of the Italians, or of 
 Spaniards, and their enthusiastic devotion to the Mother 
 of God, or their confidence in Indulgences, &c. have too
 
 20 
 
 implicitly assumed all this ; and so have come to 
 construct your theory, that this " popular religion " is 
 the fruit of a certain authoritative teaching, although 
 this does not exist in any tangible or visible form. 
 Perhaps, indeed, you would consider a tacit sanction of 
 such practices and doctrines as you describe, equivalent 
 to an authoritative teaching of them. If so, the expres- 
 sion is likely to mislead ; but my task remains the same. 
 First, then, I would most respectfully ask, are you pre- 
 pared to say, that any extent of corruption, or sanction of 
 error by the members of a church, if at variance with its ac- 
 knowledged formularies, deprives the Church of the benefit 
 of these, and warrants its being treated as having admitted 
 a new faith ? If you are then, I answer, that you and your 
 friends, from the early Tracts down to Mr, Bowden,*have 
 been grievously in error, when you have maintained that 
 the supposed corruptions in the Catholic Church, before 
 the Council of Trent, did not invalidate its title to be the 
 true Church, because such errors were not embodied in 
 formularies of faith. For, if practical corruptions are to 
 be taken as stronger declarations of the Church's belief 
 than the formularies themselves, then had the Church 
 forfeited all claims, and sanctioned error, as much before, 
 as after, the Synod. Now your argument does assume, 
 that certain supposed practical corruptions amongst us 
 have more riglit to indicate our "existing creed," than 
 the very decrees of a Council, to which we all are bound. 
 Further, I ask you, whereas the Established Church, for 
 a considerable period, (as during the last century,) had 
 • Life of Gregory VII. vol. i, p. 7.
 
 21 
 
 forgotten or rejected those views which you have revived, 
 and authoritatively taught, as far as universal teaching 
 public and private went, views of the Articles diame- 
 trically opposed to your present ones, do you consider 
 this universal defection, as establishing the doctrines of 
 your Church, in preference to the Articles ? 
 
 I think, therefore, that it will not be easy to 
 determine, that the decrees of Trent are to be put 
 aside, by any amount of practical departure from them. 
 A catholic can never be obliged, by any authority, to 
 go beyond them : and therefore, if such universal 
 defection exist amongst us as you imply, he may be 
 like Lot in Sodom, standing alone in virtue ; but 
 his faith or creed will be that of the Council. 
 
 But, secondly, let us come to the question of fact, 
 which is the more important. Is the popular belief and 
 practice in catholic countries such as to warrant your 
 theory ? Allow me to ask you what means you have 
 used to arrive at a knowledge of the " pojDular notions " 
 of catholics on the points at issue? or of their belief? 
 For by these must their practices be mainly judged. 
 
 AVhat evidence have you, for instance, that they go 
 beyond a sound faith respecting our Blessed Lady ? 
 Have you ever seen a popular work that told them 
 or insinuated to them, that she could be the object 
 of faith ? that to her sacrifice could be offered ? 
 that she could forgive sins ? or that any other prero- 
 gative of the Supreme Being belongs to her? Or 
 have you yourself been able to converse with the people, 
 and ascertain their ideas, upon these and similar topics ?
 
 22 
 
 or have you received information concerning tlietn, from 
 such as have had means or opportunity of ascertaining 
 them? If not, allow me to assure you that you may 
 have been easily led into error. 
 
 Perhaps you will tell me that such investigation is un- 
 necessary (although I think christian charity will consider 
 none too troublesome, before pronouncing a sentence of 
 idolatry upon many millions,) because gross abuses meet 
 the eye ; because crowds are seen praying before images 
 of the Blessed Virgin and the shrines of Saints ; because 
 Indulgences are proclaimed on all sides, and Purgatory 
 is placed before the thoughts by frequent representations. 
 
 Now, to examine this view of the case, let us take as 
 an instance, an Italian peasant. What are the religious 
 exercises which are enjoined him, and which he regularly 
 attends ? First, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, every 
 Sunday and holiday, and pretty generally every morning 
 before going to work. He knows, as well as you or I, 
 what the Mass is, and that it cannot be offered up to 
 any, save to God. 2ndly, the Holy Communion at least 
 several times a year ; often, much more frequently. 
 3rdly, as a preparation for it, confession of his sins, 
 made penitently and contritely. These two sacraments he 
 well knows have nothing to do with the Blessed Mother 
 of God; nor can Indulgences, * still less Purgatory, be 
 
 • Wlien INIr. Nfwmnn (pUs us that Indiilgonces have usurped llie place of 
 the Sacraments, he iirobably overlooked the fact tliat no plenary indulgenco 
 (save one or two) can be gained without confession and communiou. Thus 
 an Indulgence, instead of re|)lacing the sacraments, ensures their reception. 
 A condition always is, that the faithful be " vero pn^nitentes confessi et sacra 
 communiono rt-fccii." See Houvier (I'p. of Mans.) Traitc des Indulgences, 
 p. 6 ), Tournay, 1837.
 
 23 
 
 substituted for them. 4thly, the Benediction, or adora- 
 tion of the Blessed Sacrament, generally in the evening 
 of all festivals, and often on other days. To this we 
 may add the forty hours' prayer, or exjiosition of the 
 Blessed Sacrament for that space of time, watched by 
 adorers day and night. Among the prayers most fre- 
 quently inculcated, and publicly recited, are acts of faith, 
 hope, charity, and contrition, which are always repeated 
 by the children after catechism, and well known by the 
 most illiterate. These leading exercises of worship) and 
 devotion all belong to God : the principal one that 
 is referable to the Blessed Virgin is the Rosary. This 
 generally forms a part of family evening devotions, and is 
 moreover occasionally said in public. * I would gladly 
 enter, did my present object permit such details, into an 
 explanation and analysis of this devotion, one of the 
 most beautiful to my mind ; at present I need only say, 
 that every book of devotion will show you, what the 
 Catechism in Italy, and I believe in Spain, fully explains, 
 that the Mysteries of Our Saviour's Birth, Death, and 
 Triumph, are the real objects of this form of prayer. 
 However, take it as you please ; consider it as a devotion 
 principally addressed to the Blessed Virgin, and add to 
 it any others usually said, as her Litany — and I ask you 
 what do they amount to, compared with the exercises of 
 piety which I have before enumerated, the most solemn by 
 far, and the most indispensible ? For every catholic, 
 however ignorant, knows that he must every festival 
 
 * The Rosary is likewise tbe prayer of those who cannot read, and who 
 find their attention kept up best by some outward practice, such as the use 
 of beads affords.
 
 24 
 
 assist at Mass, under pain of sin ; but none imagine that 
 a similar penalty is attached to the neglect of any of their 
 devotions to the Blessed Virgin. This surely forms a 
 most important distinction between the two worships, 
 that to God, and that to the greatest of the Saints. 
 
 But ao-ain, I shall be told, that the manner in which the 
 poorer Catholics pray before her images and those of the 
 Saints, betrays a greater fervour of devotion than they dis- 
 play at other times; nay, that it even indicates a supersti- 
 tious trust in those outward symbols themselves. This ap- 
 pearance may be partly true ; though I am ready most 
 completely to deny, that half the ardour, enthusiasm, 
 and devotion is ever exhibited before relics or images, 
 which you may see any day before the Blessed Sacrament, 
 when it is exposed to adoration. But at the same time, I 
 will assert that the tenderer emotions are not the proper 
 tests of higher feelings, such as confidence, veneration, and 
 homage. A child may be more fondling and affectionate 
 with his mother, while he will more reverence, more 
 obey, more believe, and more confide in his father. 
 And so I conceive, that the more sensible part of 
 devotion,' that which works upon natural feelings, may 
 be more apparently excited by the joys, the sufferings, 
 the glories and the virtues of beings more akin to our 
 nature, than by contcm])lation of those, however much 
 more perfect, of a Being infinitely removed from our 
 sphere. What thouglit so powerful as to be able to mea- 
 sure tlic abyss of suffering, whicii overwhelms tiie heartof 
 Jesus, expiring on the cross? But what mind so dull, or 
 what heart so callous, as not to be able to apprehend the
 
 25 
 
 maternal feelings of her, who stands bereaved, at its 
 foot ? Does not her grief, in fact, present us the truest 
 and clearest mirror of His sufferings ? Does not the 
 Stahat Mater, on that very account, excite the purest 
 sentiments of love and sorrow for the iSon, because His 
 griefs are viewed through the sympathies of the 
 Mother? But, does it follow, that because the illiterate 
 give way to such feelings as these, more strongly than 
 others, and exhibit them more openly, we are to judge 
 their hearts, and pronounce, without question or 
 enquiry, that they have renounced their faith, and 
 abjured their God ? Is not "this the sin of Heli, who, 
 witnessing the deep feeling of Anna's prayer, pro- 
 nounced her drunk ?* And has not many a poor Italian 
 been equally unjustly judged, when upon similar evi- 
 dence, he has been pronounced an idolater? 
 
 There is, I am sure, much serious misapprehension in 
 this country, regarding the religious instruction of poor 
 catholics abroad, and their knowledge of their respective 
 duties towards God and other beings. Their devotional 
 feelino-s are taken as tests of their convictions and faith; 
 and men who never perhaps feel sensible emotions in 
 prayer to God^ measuring the enthusiastic feelings of 
 foreign hearts towards inferior beings, by their own 
 towards the superior, judge them not merely extravagant, 
 but derogatory to higher worship. But interrogate those 
 who have manifested those powerful feelings, about their 
 faith, and you will soon find that it is Tridcntine s^ndi sound. 
 Allow me, by way of illustration, to relate an anecdote 
 
 *1 Sam. i. 13
 
 26 
 
 communicated to me by a learned and pious friend. He 
 was on an excursion to Paestum with a protestant com- 
 panion, who often descanted on the superstition and 
 ignorance of the Italians ; and certainly no spot could 
 appear more likely to justify his ideas, than the immense 
 unwholesome plain over which they were journeying; 
 the inhabitants of which, one would naturally suppose, 
 must be debarred from all chance of religious instruction. 
 A little boy mounted behind the carriage, and offered to 
 be their Cicerone to the ruins, — his dress and appearance 
 sufficiently bespoke his poverty. To him it was deter- 
 mined to refer the subject of discussion. ** Do you love 
 the Madonna?" was the first question asked. The little 
 fellow's eyes sparkled with affection and delight, as he 
 answered in the affirmative. * Who redeemed the 
 Madonna? " he was then asked. " Her own Son," was 
 his reply. "Could she have redeemed you?" "Not 
 unless her Son commanded her." The protestant gen- 
 tleman, (who has often since spoken of his " little 
 Paestum theologian " as he calls him,) owned himself 
 surprised and corrected. Here in fact we have that 
 separation accurately expressed, between the feelings and 
 the belief. The love of that child for tiie Mother of God 
 seemed unbounded ; but he well knew her to be but a 
 creature, dependant on her Son, and by Him redeemed. 
 I doubt whether many boys at a grammar school could 
 liavc given such answers.* 
 
 • By way of contrnat, I will mention an inlerrogafory of a boy frequenting 
 a protestant achool in this neighbourhood, who was met a few days ago, upon 
 (lie roiiil by two of our profossors, and examined on a far more fundamental 
 doctrine of religion. " How many Gods are there ? " " Nine." Upon some
 
 27 
 
 But, there is another solid test of the sincere con- 
 victions of illiterate catholics, and one to which I 
 confidently appeal, the sentiments with which they 
 meet death. Look at the Roman Ritual, " De Visita- 
 tione et cura infirmorum ;" and see if the practices and 
 prayers there prescribed, betray any wish, that the 
 catholic should expire with his trust in *' St. Mary and 
 the Saints," rather than in the Blessed Trinity, or 
 expecting mercy through Indulgences and Purgatory, 
 rather than from the Sacraments, Then go on to the 
 section headed "Modus juvandi morientes" and see if 
 in the exhortations which the priest is enjoined 1o make 
 to the dying man, or in the short pi'ayers he is recom- 
 mended to suggest, there is a word to encourage such 
 misplaced ideas. I have not time, or I would for the 
 sake of other readers, copy out the heads of exhortation. 
 But,you may perhaps ask, are these prescriptions observed 
 in practice ? I answer, most faithfully. I have stood 
 with the Curate, by the death-bed of his parishioner, who 
 for days and nights is never abandoned by him, and I have 
 seen the prescriptions of the Ritual faithfully observed. 
 
 But beyond this, it has been my happiness, not 
 once, but often, to attend the poor and illiterate to the 
 threshold of eternity, by acting as their spiritual 
 director, in the hospitals of the. Eternal City. How 
 
 astonishment being expressed at the answer, lie reduced the number to four ; 
 and in the end acknowledged that he knew nothing of the subject. Yet in this 
 parish there are endowments for education, (by the Catholic Bishop Vesey,) 
 belonging to the Establishment, to the amount of perhaps £1000 a year. 
 Another grown boy owned himself perfectly ignorant concerning the existence 
 of a Deity. I will matchthe poor peasants of Italy against those of England. 
 Oh ! that we took beams out of our own eyes, before we spied motes in others'!
 
 28 
 
 often have I said, humbled and shamed by the 
 glowing sentiments of hope and piety, which lit up 
 their last moments, " May my last end be like unto 
 theirs ! " Confidence in the intercession of their Re- 
 deemer's Mother they certainly had, lively and affec- 
 tionate ; but one who hoped for salvation through 
 her, or otherwise than through the death and blood, 
 of her Son, I never met. Purgatory I have heard 
 them speak of, as an object of dread ; and I have often 
 heard them pray to God, that their sufferings might 
 be increased here below in expiation of their sins, 
 that so they might forthwith see His face ; but as a 
 means of obtaining mercy I never knew it mentioned. 
 And so I can confidently say, that I never knew one 
 who put his trust in Indulgences, as a substitute for 
 the Sacraments ; who looked for forgiveness out of 
 Penance, or for grace and strength in his last moments, 
 save in the Viaticum of the holy Eucharist, and in 
 Extreme Unction. 
 
 I am satisfied, that if the true sentiments of poor 
 catholics, in catholic countries, were better examined, 
 much error would be removed, and much inconsiderate 
 assertion spared. An eminent professor in Germany, who 
 after liaving given promise of great literary celebrity 
 by his early productions, has since almost exclusively 
 devoted hinisrlf to tlic dufios of the sacred ministry 
 among the poor, assured me not long since, that he 
 would rather give up all that he knows in Sanskrit, 
 Armenian, and classical literature, tlian surrender the 
 comfort and edification, which he finds in (he spiritual
 
 29 
 
 direction of the poor. *' I have heard sentences/' he 
 remarked, " from the lips of poor illiterate females, 
 fraught with profound meaning, and containing a 
 deeper theology than can be found in hooks. I have 
 felt humiliated, at seeing how much more learned they 
 were in the wisdom of God, than my study had made 
 me." I felt and acknowledged that he was right. 
 
 I will now draw my letter to a close ; not because I 
 have touched upon all the points in yours, which I con- 
 sider erroneous, but because I think I have sufficiently 
 glanced at the grounds on which you maintain the ex- 
 istence of an " authoritative teaching;" in the Catholic 
 Church, at variance with the Tridentine decrees. I 
 proposed to myself nothing further, than to show the 
 fallacy of this theory, both as to the existence of the 
 system, and as to its supposed objects. 
 
 You will remember, that your late amiable friend, 
 Mr. Froude, in one of his unhappy moments of hasty 
 censure, pronounced us, not Catholics, but "wretched 
 Tridentines." This expression was quoted, with apparent 
 approbation, by his Editors, in their preface.* It seems 
 hard that now we should be deprived of even this 
 " wretched " title, and sunk by you a step lower in the 
 scale of degradation. Still more it seems unaccountable 
 that you should now court that title, and assert (as your 
 Tract does) that while ice have abandoned the doctrines 
 of Trent, you, and those who take the Articles in your 
 sense, interpret them in accordance with those doctrines. 
 1 say this in a spirit, not of reproach, but rather of 
 * Froude 's Remains, vol. i. p. xi,
 
 30 
 
 charitable warning. That which you once considered a 
 heavyimputation,you seem now to consider comparatively 
 a light blame : for you would now be glad to see us in stricter 
 conformity (according to your views,) with the decrees of 
 that Council. You then blamed us for adhesion to 
 them, you now blame us for departure from them. 
 Why not suspect your judgments, if you find that 
 they vary ? If there loas ever a time when you did 
 not see many of our doctrines as you now view 
 them ; when you utterly rejected all comprecation 
 with, as much as prayers to, saints; all honour, 
 without reserve, to images and relics ; when you did 
 not practise prayers for the departed, nor turned from 
 the congregation in your service ; when you did not 
 consider bodily mortification necessary, or the Breviary 
 so beautiful ; when, in fine, you were more remote 
 from us in practice and feeling than your writings now 
 show you to be, why not susjiect, that a further approxi- 
 mation may yet remain ; that further discoveries of 
 truth, in what to-day seems erroneous, may be reserved 
 for to-morrow, and that you may be laying up for 
 yourself the pain and regret, of having beforehand 
 branded with opprobrious and afflicting names, that 
 which you discover to be good and holy ? 
 
 I will indulge in one more remark. You observe, p. 
 11, that " the only thing which can stop this tendency 
 [to priictical idolatry] in the decrees of Rome, [about 
 Images ami Relics] as things are, is its making some 
 formal declaration the other way." Permit me to ask 
 you what extent of " fornial declaration " would satisfy
 
 31 
 
 you ? Slie has declared her sentiments against image 
 worship and abuses regarding the saints, in the solemn 
 acts of her Synod, composed of her Bishops from every 
 country ; she has declared them in her Catechism ad- 
 dressed to all her parochial clergy ; she has declared 
 them in the catechisms which she teaches her 
 children : she has declared them in her Ritual in the 
 most beautiful form ; * she has declared them through 
 every divine, every ascetic, that has expounded her doc- 
 trines ; she declares them through her pulpits, her chairs, 
 her confessionals : and yet all this, in your judgment, 
 does not constitute sufficiently authoritative teaching, 
 but that " popular belief and practice of catholics " out- 
 weighs it all in the scale of evidence. Say then, in 
 what J A?-- would you have the Church of Rome 
 draw up a^r^j promulgate a declaration that should be 
 more satisfactory than all those various declarations put 
 together? 
 
 In conclusion, I thank you. Rev. Sir, from my heart, 
 for the welcome information which your letter contains, 
 that men, whom you so highly value, should be opening 
 their eyes to the beauties and perfections of our Church, 
 and require such efforts, as your interpretation of the 
 Articles, to keep them from " straggling in the direction 
 of Rome." Would to God the day were come, when 
 not stragglers, but crowds should press forward towards 
 the everlasting gates of Christ's one Church, and knock 
 
 * In tlie form for the solemn Benediction of sacred Images, in the Ponti- 
 fical, which embodies, in the most perfect manner, the doctrine of the 
 Church concerning them.
 
 32 
 
 for free admission : and gladly would I sit down in the 
 lowest place in that His kingdom, to make room for the 
 new comers. It would be a day of joy such as the 
 Spouse of the Lamb hath not tasted, since that on whicli 
 the cross was mounted on the Imperial Diadem. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 Rev. Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully in Christ, 
 N. WISEMAN, 
 ^ Bishop of Melipotamus. 
 
 fth/ Jr 
 
 I'rintBil l)V Wifllniu Sl.jiiC, .)(;, Hull Sln:«t, r.iriiiingliuiii.
 
 LETTER 
 
 TO THE RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 LOED BISHOP OF RIPON, 
 
 ON THE STATE OF PARTIES IN THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND. 
 
 WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D. 
 
 VICAR OF LEEDS. 
 
 CljittJ iStiition. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 J G. F. AND J. RTVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARn AND WATERLOO- 
 
 PLACE ; J. BURNS. PORTM AN-STREET : AND J. CROSS, 
 
 T. HARRISON. T. W. GREE.V, AND SLOCOMUE 
 
 AND SIMMS, LEEDS. 
 
 1841.
 
 [n. PKiiRiso A.vD CO., rniNTKns, i.kkds.I
 
 LETTER TO THE RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD 
 BISHOP OF RIPON. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 At the ]Meetino- of the District Committee of the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, which was 
 held in my parish on the 31st of March, and at which 
 your Lordship kindly presided, I commenced a statement 
 with reference to the condition of Parties in the Church 
 of England, which your Lordship considered to be 
 irrelevant to the purposes of the Meeting, and which, 
 in obedience to your Lordship's command, I did not 
 continue. But it seems to me that I was permitted to 
 proceed so far in my statement as to render it exjjedient 
 if not necessary for me to inform your Lordship and my 
 Parishioners Avhat it was that I intended to say, in order 
 that T may not be misrepresented or misunderstood ;
 
 and this, with your Lordsliip's permission, I propose 
 in the present letter to do. At the same time, my 
 Lord, I wish it to be clearly understood that I have no 
 intention whatever to question the propriety of your 
 Lordship's conduct in interrupting me ; for I can fully 
 understand your Lordship's apprehensions on the subject. 
 There was considerable excitement of feeling exhibited 
 by my Parishioners assembled at the Meeting, from the 
 circumstance of their having supposed that on a late 
 occasion I had been unjustly attacked. Your Lordship 
 evidently feared lest in proceeding with my statement 
 I should excite that feeling still further. I can assure 
 you, my Lord, that nothing was more distant from my 
 intention ; but my intention was unknown to you, and, 
 bowing as I should do to the decision of the chairman 
 under any circumstances, I felt peculiar pleasure in 
 submitting to your Lordship's wishes, for of all your 
 Clergy none can respect or reverence your Lordship 
 more than myself. 
 
 I had stated to the Meeting, before I was interrupted, 
 that we can no longer Ijliiid ourselves to the fact that 
 the Church of England is now a divided body. It 
 cannot be injudicious to say this when it is evident to 
 :ill llijit tlie fact is as I have stated it to be. Tlie most 
 unhappy determination of the IlebdonuKhil Board at 
 Oxford lu censure Mr. Newman — a censiii-e wiiich I
 
 have little doubt the convocation of the University 
 would, if summoned, reverse — has proclaimed this from 
 one end of the country to the other. The meeting of 
 the Pastoral Aid Society in Leeds, which was regarded 
 as a demonstration against me, the Vicar of the Parish, 
 — a " rally," as it has been called — declared it to my 
 Parishioners. It would indeed be worse than affecta- 
 tion and a want of moral courage to deny what is 
 evident to all. 
 
 It is a fact, an undeniable fact, that there are two 
 Parties in the Church of England ; the High Church 
 Party and the Low Church Party. And the act of the 
 Hebdomadal Board renders it absolutely necessary for us 
 to range ourselves on the one side or on the other. That 
 is to say, we must join that party with which in general 
 principles we agree, aud not desert it merely because 
 we may think that a few individuals may have expressed 
 themselves on some points incautiously, or have been 
 hurried into acts which a colder and a calmer judgment 
 may condemn. I cannot illustrate my position better 
 than by mentioning what occurred to myself and to 
 several other clergymen whose names I have no objection 
 to mention in private to your Lordship. On the publica- 
 tion of the 90th Tract for the Times, I determined to point 
 out in a pamphlet what I considered to be certain errors 
 in the application of the principle it was written to main- 
 tain. But the moment I heard that the writer was to
 
 be silenced, nut by argunient, but by a usurped authority, 
 that moment I determined to renounce my intention : 
 that moment I determined to take my stand with him ; 
 because, though I did not altogether approve of a 
 particular Tract, yet in general principles, in the very 
 principle advocated in that Tract, I did agree with him : 
 in a word, I was compelled by circumstances to act as a 
 Party man. And in justice to one whom I am proud 
 to call my friend, I am bound to say that Mr. Newman's 
 explanatory Letter to Dr. Jelf is to my mind perfectly 
 satisfactory. 
 
 What I maintain on this point is, that, under existing 
 circumstances, we must become party men. We cannot 
 halt between two opinions. We must take our side. 
 Minor differences nmst be forgotten when our general 
 principles are attacked. High Churchmen have always 
 been averse fi-om such a proceeding. We have hitherto 
 repudiated all idea of Party. I myself have done so 
 very zealously. But we are opposed by a Party ; and a 
 Party, too, feared by our rulers ; and, in self-defence, 
 we also must form ourselves into a Party; and not 
 refuse to support one another merely because we may 
 not all agree in respect to a few non-essentials. 
 
 Kow, my Lord, the two Parties into which the 
 (jhurch of lOnuliiiid is divided is, as I have said, the 
 High Church Party and the Low Church Party. And
 
 on these I propose to make a few observations in a 
 spirit which, I hope, will not, which I am sure ought 
 not, to provoke controversy. 
 
 The High Church Party is accused by indiscrimi- 
 nating zealots of the Low Church Party of Popery : the 
 Low Church Party is accused by indiscriminating zealots 
 of the High Church Party of Socinianism. And both 
 accusations are false. For we all know that among 
 those who hold Low Church views, the generality hate 
 Socinianism as cordially as Popery is abominated by the 
 generality of those who hold High Church views. But 
 the accusation on either side would not have been made, 
 or would not have been entertained, unless there was 
 something of truth mixed up in it ; and we must admit 
 that in all principles, as held and applied by fallen man, 
 there is a tendency to a vicious extreme. 
 
 Let us, then, candidly, and at once, admit that of 
 High Church Principles the vicious extreme is Popery. 
 I not only admit it, but proclaim it. As it would be 
 absurd to deny that there is a division in the Church, so 
 it would be worse than absurd to deny that, of High 
 Church Principles, Popery is the vicious extreme. Most 
 unfair, and most wicked, it is to accuse those of Popery 
 who carefully avoid the extreme, and warn others against
 
 8 
 
 it, as being vicious ; but when High Church Doctrines 
 are very generally preached, when they are uncon- 
 sciously held by men who profess to oppose them, 
 perversions to Popery may be feared, and, therefore, 
 ought to be guarded against. For what is Popery ? It 
 is the corruption of the Truth. We are not to suppose 
 that men sat down, like Calvin or Socinus, and deter- 
 mined to form a system of Theology, and so produced 
 Popery. No. God's truth was held in God's Church 
 for a long period, ])ure and uncorrupt. At length the 
 Church became allied to the State; and its union with 
 the world, highly important as that was, in order that 
 the Church might discharge one of her offices, namely, 
 that of being the Salt of the Earth, to season and to 
 civilize Society, had also, too often, the ill-effect of 
 introducins- a worldly spirit into it. Men began to 
 think of the Church as an important and useful 
 Institution. Instead of actinir towards her as dutiful 
 children, they styled themselves Friends of the Church; 
 and tliought that they befriended her best, not when 
 they assisted her in j)roniulgating nnj)opular truths, but 
 when tli(!y rendered her po])nlar by inducing her to 
 8uj)press what was contrary to the s])iiit of the age, and 
 to adopt evcr\ innovation which the spirit of the age 
 demanded. In (hjference to the sj)irit of the middle 
 ages, which was superstitious, in order that the Church 
 might hccoiiic )i(i|iiihii-, that the nunilx-r <»f its niend)ers
 
 might be increased, that weaker brethren might not be 
 shocked, many of the high truths of religion, many 
 ancient and primitive practices, M'ere perverted to the 
 purposes of superstition. The very Power of the Pope, 
 in spiritual affairs, how did it originate ? There were 
 controversies and disputes, as among sinful men there 
 always will be, and by those who cared not for the 
 Truth, but desired only the temporal welfare of the 
 Church, it was desired that these controversies and 
 disputes might be put an end to. For this purpose the 
 Pope was permitted to usurp an authority to which he 
 could not plead the shadow of a claim : he called 
 himself the Head of the Universal Church, and those 
 whom he could not silence by argument he silenced by 
 authority. 
 
 But, not to proceed further on this point, I say that 
 the Sin o Popery consists not in the deliberate inven- 
 tion of wrong doctrine, but in the gradual corruption 
 of the Truth, the gradual perversion of what in practice 
 was originally right. And while I do not deny that 
 corruptio optimi est pessima ; still I humbly contend 
 that we are no more called upon, on this account, to give 
 up the truth, or denounce practices primitive and aposto- 
 lical, than the rich man is bound to give up his wealth 
 because wealth is liable to be misapplied and so to 
 involve the owner in endless misery.
 
 10 
 
 I admit, tlien, fully, tliat the vicious extreme of 
 High Church doctrine and practice is Popery ; but I 
 maintain at the same time that this is no reason why 
 that doctrine and practice should be renounced. And 
 now having said thus much on the vicious extreme on 
 the High Church side, I proceed to a few remarks on 
 the vicious extreme on the other side. 
 
 Now the distinguishing principle of the Low Church 
 Party is the assertion of the sufficiency of private 
 judgment in the interpretation of Scripture. The High 
 Church Party take Holy Scripture for their guide, and 
 in the interpretation of it defer to the authority of 
 primitive antiquity : the Low Church Party contend for 
 the sufficiency of private judgment. But if the sufficiency 
 of private judgment be admitted, it follows that there is 
 but one heresy, and that is the rejection of Holy Scrip- 
 ture as the Word of God. Receive the Scriptures, and 
 then, on this principle, you arc safe whatever construc- 
 tion you put upon them. Tlie Socinian understands 
 them in the sense which, by attention to minute criti- 
 cism, by comparing them with what he witnesses of 
 the Work of God in nature, and by consulting manu- 
 scripts and various versions he thinks they will bear. 
 They who hold the sufficiency of private judgment, 
 may discuss with him, but further than this they have 
 ijo right to go if they would be consistent. They have
 
 11 
 
 no right to call any one a Heretic, who, receiving the 
 Holy Scriptures, understands them to the best of his 
 judgment. Hence it is that the tendency of Low 
 Churchism is to Socinianism ; — not that I mean to say 
 that Low Churchmen may not hate Socinianism : but 
 this is the tendency. Whenever Low Church prin- 
 ciples are extensively prevalent, Socinianism is the 
 result. Low Churchism was the prevalent system of 
 the last century.* Many High-Establishment men were 
 Low^-Churchmen. And what was the last Century ? 
 It was the age of Socinianism. All Churchmen 
 who held what would now be called liberal prin- 
 ciples, were, like Hoadly, socinianized. All alter- 
 ations of the Liturgy — all the reforms which were 
 suggested as the means of strengthening the Church by 
 the worldly friends of the Church, were projected with 
 a view of enabling the Socinians, who formed the 
 influential persons in most of our large towns, to 
 conform. If the effect of preaching High Church 
 doctrines be to create in weak minds a tendency to 
 Popery, the prevalence of Low Church doctrines led to 
 Socinianism — a soul-destroying heresy now almost ex- 
 tinct. Who, indeed, would now propose to alter the 
 Liturgy to conciliate the Socinians ? 
 
 * Nothing can move clearly establish the assertion made above 
 than the state of religion at Geneva and in Germany. But I have 
 omitted any allusion to those places, as my wish is to be concise.
 
 12 
 
 I should, my Lord, had I been permitted to continue 
 my address to the Meeting of the Society for Promoting 
 Christian Knowledge, have dilated, at some length, on 
 the topics upon which I have now touched : on the fact 
 that we are divided into two Parties, and that there is a 
 vicious extreme on either side to be avoided. Of course, 
 in my opinion the extreme on the Low Church side is 
 the worst of the two ; that is, Socinianism is worse than 
 Popery. And my object in alluding to this would have 
 been to point out how we may look upon what we, at 
 first, contemplate as an unmitigated evil in the light of 
 an advantage. Doubtless, our divisions are permitted as 
 the punishment of our sins. They are an affliction. 
 But every punishment, and every affliction, if borne in 
 piety, may become eventually a blessing. Our present 
 division may have this salutary effect. It may place a 
 barrier on either side. While both Parties are narrowly 
 watched by their opponents, neit.:er will be permitted to 
 deviate into the extreme. Both Parties continuing in 
 the Chuich uf England, will receive her for their guide, 
 and to her articles and formularies an appeal will be 
 continually made. The accusing Party will not, indeed, 
 be permitted to interpret those articles and formularies 
 in his own sense, and then, begging the whole question 
 to convict his oj^ponent of heterodoxy ; but the accused 
 Party will always find it necesary to make good his 
 cause by shewing that he does not in reality depart from 
 the coimnun standard.
 
 13 
 
 Thus may either party be the means of preventing 
 the divergence of the other into an extreme. 
 
 I am sure, my Lord, that you will pardon me if here 
 I pause to observe that an awful responsibility rests 
 upon our spiritual rulers Most humbly and most 
 heartily do I pray that to them may be vouchsafed that 
 spirit of wisdom and sound discretion which may enable 
 them to moderate between parties without declaring 
 themselves for either. And I have the less hesitation 
 in venturing to say this to your Lordship since I know 
 that such, as it has been hitherto, will ever continue to be 
 your object. And guided by the wisdom and piety of our 
 Bishops, we may hope to see both parties ere long united 
 as before in many things : united in a full determina- 
 tion to resist Rome, while Rome continues as she 
 now is, and, in the words of Mr. Newman, brings 
 in another gospel : and at the same time united in 
 so solemnizing the offices of the Church of England 
 as to give free scope to those feelings of awe, mystery, 
 tenderness, reverence, and devotion, which the Scrip- 
 tures would excite, and which, if our Church were 
 to neglect them, would lead men to Rome, who appeals 
 to them: united, if not in reverence for antiquity, in 
 filial love to our Mother the Church of England, 
 through whose instructions, I agree with Professor 
 Sewell in thinking, we who are her children are
 
 14 
 
 to imbibe Catholic truth : united in a desire to maintain 
 a wholesome discipline in the Church, and through the 
 Church to preach repentance towards God and faith in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. But union we shall never 
 have, unless we convince our rulers that our strength is 
 sufficient to demand their consideration; and that, if 
 concessions are to be made, there is a conscience to be 
 considered on one side as well as the other. The Low 
 Church party have declared a war of extermination 
 against High Church Principles, and peace will not be 
 restored to the Church until it is made quite clear that 
 we are too strong to be put down by clamour. We have 
 only to hope that in all the controversies that may arise 
 our chief rivalry will consist in an endeavour to show 
 which system is most productive of gentleness and 
 peace, and forbearance, and kindness, and Christian 
 love : which system most conducive to purity of morals, 
 to charity of sentiment, and to elevation of character. 
 If we are to be engaged in controversies, I hope that 
 they will not be conducted by evil speaking, lying, and 
 slandering, which seem to be the besetting sins of the 
 religious world ; nor by recourse to the petty manoeuvres 
 of political warfare ; nor by the bitterness of sarcasm ; 
 nor by the vulgarity of ridicule ; nor by the rancour of 
 personal hatred ; nor Ijy insinuations which arc known to 
 be false, and which are only cowardly methods of 
 stating nil iintnith : iior bv iitti-ihiitiriL!," tin; worst motives
 
 15 
 
 where cliarity ought to suggest the best. No, let the 
 weapons of our warfare be not carnal but spiritual : let 
 them be sound arguments from the pure word of God, 
 incessant prayer, and such good works as God hath 
 prepared for us to walk in. In all the controversies in 
 which the two Parties I have referred to may be 
 engaged, it is always to be remembered that we are 
 Brethren ; and I hope that while we contend for the 
 truth, we shall contend, as brethren amicably dis- 
 cussing, not as foes engaged in deadly feud. It is 
 not like a controversy between ourselves and those 
 who are out of the Church : on many occasions we 
 must act together : we must often meet in friendly 
 intercourse : our pulpits ought to be open to one 
 another, with the understanding, of course, that we 
 refer in our sermons on such occasions to the many 
 points on which we agree, and not to the few on which 
 we differ. 
 
 And here, perhaps, your Lordship will perceive how 
 I might have brought my observations to bear upon the 
 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge : I might 
 have pointed out how, in a variety of ways, it is calcu- 
 lated to afford common ground on which both parties 
 may meet. But into that subject I need not enter in 
 this letter, though it would have afforded much matter 
 for my speech. I will only here direct attention to
 
 16 
 
 the importance of maintaining the Society for Pro- 
 moting Christian Knowledge in its neutral position. A 
 Party exists which has introduced unhappy discussions 
 into the Committee Room in London, and which is 
 suspected of a desire to revolutionize the Society. The 
 policy of the Standing Committee has hitherto been to 
 conciliate and concede to this Party. But concession 
 may be carried too far : and if the consciences of High 
 Churchmen be violated, and they be compelled to with- 
 draw from the Society, I do not doubt of their being 
 able to form a new Society more efficient than the old 
 one, but I do dread the introduction of a fresh element 
 of discord among us. 
 
 With every sentiment of affection, reverence, and 
 respect, I have the honor to be, 
 
 My Lord, 
 Your Lordship''s obliged and dutiful Servant, 
 
 W. F. HOOK. 
 
 Vicarage, Leeds, 1st April, 1841. 
 
 [K. PKBHINO and (II., I-IIINTKMS, tKKDH.]
 
 Jyti^' />»--5 
 
 i>*^ 
 
 A LETTER, 
 
 8fc.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE REV. R. W. JELF, D.D, 
 
 CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH, 
 
 IN EXPLANATION OF No. 90, 
 
 IN THE SERIES CALLED 
 
 THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER: 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 oxronn: i'RiNTi;n nv i. siirimpton.
 
 A LETTER, 
 
 Spc. 
 
 My Dear Dr. Jelf, 
 
 I have kno^vn 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 honoring 
 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 m 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 material a 
 point, that it certainly is necessary to enter into the 
 subject at some length. They consider that the 
 Tract asserts that the Thirty-Nine Articles 
 
 " do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines of 
 Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images 
 and Relics, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they 
 Jire taufjht authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only 
 of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent 
 Romanists repudiate as much as we do." 
 
 On the contrary I consider that they do con- 
 tain a condemnation of the authoritative teaching 
 of the Church of Rome on these points ; I only say 
 tliat, whereas they were written before the decrees 
 of Trent, they were not directed against those 
 decrees. The Church of Rome taught authorita- 
 tively before thdfee decrees, as well as since. Those 
 decrees expressed her authoritative teaching, and 
 tliey will continue to express it, while she so teaches. 
 Tlie sim})le question is, wlietlier taken by them- 
 selves in their mere letter, tliey express it ; whether 
 in fact other senses, short of the sense conveyed in 
 the present authoritative teaching of the Roman 
 ( liurth will not fulfil their letter, and may not even 
 now in point of fact be hchl in that Church.
 
 As to the present authoritative teaching of the 
 Church of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in 
 public, I think 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 awful words, ' Though we, or an Angel 
 from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that 
 ye have received, let him be accursed.'"
 
 8 
 
 On the doctrine of 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 Jire, 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 ex})lain what the word Indulgence 
 means : — it is unnecessary to observe how very 
 definite and how monstrous is the doctrine wliicli 
 Luther assailed. 
 
 Again, the Divines at Trent say that "to Images 
 arc to be paid due lionour and veneration;" and to 
 those who lionour tiic sacred xolunie, pictures of
 
 friends and the like, as we all do, I do liot 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 ;" it does 
 not even command the practice. But the actual 
 honours paid to them in Roman Catholic countries, 
 are in my judgment, as I have already said, a 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 often before spoken against the actual state of 
 the Church of Rome, or could I have anticipated the 
 sensation which the appearance of the Tract has 
 excited. I say.
 
 10 
 
 " By * the Romish doctrine ' is not meant the Tridentine 
 doctrine, because this article was drawn up before the 
 decree of the Council of Trent. What is opposed is the 
 received doctrine of 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 agamst this I 
 think the Thirty-nine Articles speak. I think they 
 speak, not of certain accidental practices, but of a 
 body and substance 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 are 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 exist, will ever tend to foster and produce 
 them, as if principles and elements of them — that is, 
 while these decrees remain unexplained in any truer 
 and more Catholic way. 
 
 The distinction I have been making, is familiar 
 with our controversialists. Dr. Lloyd, the late 
 Hisliop of Oxford, whose memory both you and 
 myself hold in affection and veneration, brings it 
 out strongly in a review wliich he wrote in the 
 British (Critic in 1825. Nay he goes further than 
 any tiling I have said oil one point, for he thinks the
 
 11 
 
 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 own 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 with 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 
 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 die 
 calumnies of the Protestants. This we cannot allow ; and
 
 12 
 
 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 acknoivledged by them 
 in their public documents,- they are, however, employed 
 unanimously by all the best writers of the Romish Church, 
 and their use is maintained and defended by them." 
 p. 101. 
 
 I conceive that what *' all the best writers" say is 
 authoritative teaching, and a sufficient object for 
 the censures conveyed in the Articles, though the 
 decrees of Trent, taken by themselves, remain 
 untouched. 
 
 "This part of the 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, not 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 
 aiKjdorum, we pass on, &c." p. 102. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " On the (juestion whether the Invocation of Saints, 
 professed and practised by the Church of Rome, is 
 idolatrous or not, our opinion is this; that in the public 
 formularies of their Church, and even in the belief and 
 ])ractice of the best informed among them, there is nothiny 
 of idohitry, although, as we have said, we deem that 
 ])ractice altogether uiiscriptural and imwarranted ; but we
 
 13 
 
 do consider the principles relating to the worship of the 
 Virgin, calculated to lead in the end to positive idolatry; 
 and we are well convinced, and we have strong grounds 
 for our conviction, that a large 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 statement entirely with a single ex- 
 planation. 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 jyract'ically operating 
 on the existing feelings of the Church. 
 
 Again : 
 
 " She [the Church of England] is unwilHng to fix upon 
 the priyicipks 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 ReHcs, 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 unscriptm'al 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. 
 
 I will add my belief that the only thing which 
 can stop this tendency in the decrees of Rome, as 
 things are, is its making some formal declaration the 
 other way. 
 
 Once more : 
 
 " We reject the second [Indulgences] not only because 
 they are altogether unwarranted by any word of Holy
 
 14 
 
 Writ, and contran' to every jirinciple of reason, but 
 because we conceive tlie fowLilations on which they rest 
 to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous and absurd. 
 These principles are, 1. that the power of the Pope, 
 great as it is, does not properly extend beyond the Umits 
 of this present world. 2. That the power which he pos- 
 sesses of releasing souls from Purgator}' 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, suiferings, 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. 
 
 And Bramhall : 
 
 " A comprecation [with the Saints] both the Grecians 
 and we do allow ; an ultimate mvocation both the Grecians 
 and we detest ; so do the Church of Rome in their doctrine^ 
 but they vary from it in their practice." Works, p. 418. 
 
 And Bull : 
 
 " This Article [the Tridentine] of a Purgatory after this 
 life, (u it is understood and tawjht by the Roman Church 
 {that is, to be a place and state of misery and torment, 
 whercunto many faithful souls go presently after death, and 
 there remain till they arc thoroughly ])urgcd from their 
 dross, or delivered thence hy Masses, Indnl/jences, &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,
 
 )5 
 
 And 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 
 Unwilling that others should." Def. of Expos. 5. 
 
 I have now said enough on the point of distinc- 
 tion between the existing creed, or what the Gen- 
 tlemen who signed the protest call the '' authoritative 
 teaching" of the Church of Rome, and its decrees. 
 And while this distinction seems acknowledged by 
 our controversialists, it is a fact that our Articles 
 were written before those decrees, and therefore are 
 levelled not against them, but against the authori- 
 tative 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 infallibility. 
 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 
 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 ?
 
 16 
 
 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 en'oneous 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 recognized interpreter of all the Councils but 
 the Pope ? 
 
 On this whole subject I will quote from a work, 
 in which, with some little variation of wording, I 
 said the very same thing four years ago- without 
 offence. 
 
 " There are in fact two elements in operation within the 
 system. As far as it is Catholic and Scriptural, it appeals 
 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 expressively called Popery, it exalts the will and
 
 17 
 
 pleasure of the existing Church above all authority, whether 
 of Scripture or Antiquity, interpreting the one and disposing 
 of the other by its absolute and arbitrary decree. . . . We 
 must deal with her as we would towards a friend who is 
 visited by derangement .. .she is her real self only in name. 
 . . . Viewed as a practical system, its main tenet, which 
 ■ gives a colour to all its parts, is the Church's infallibility, as 
 on the other hand the principle of that genuine theology out 
 of which it has arisen, is the authority of Catholic antiquity." 
 — On Romanism, pp. IQ^irr^. ; .' . ' 
 
 ?>rf3oro 
 Nothing more then is maintained in the Tract 
 than that Rome is capable of a reformation ; its 
 corrupt system indeed cannot be reformed ; it can 
 only be destroyed ; and that destruction is its 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 differ from us in other points 
 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-
 
 18 
 
 sicler 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 o^\^l 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 which 
 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 point's in question ; but I desire that it may not 
 be supposed as utterly unlawful for such private 
 Christians as feel they can do it Avith 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 by itself need not cause separation; ' 
 or to hold with Hammond that no General Coun- 
 cil, truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of 
 faith ; or with Bull, that man was in a supernatural 
 state of grace before the fall, by which he could 
 attain to immortality, and that he has recovered it 
 in Christ ; or with Thorndikc, that works of humi- 
 liation and penance are requisite to render God 
 again propitious to those who fall from the grace of 
 Baptism ; or with Pearson that the Name of Jesus
 
 19 
 
 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 prmciple then is admitted, as indeed the Four 
 Gentlemen, whom I have several times noticed, 
 themselves observe. I do not think it a greater lati- 
 tude 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 Ci*eed ; the Articles did not define 
 them ; they existed before the Articles ; they are 
 referred to in the Articles as existing facts, just as 
 the broad Roman errors are 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) 
 in the drawing up of a Pohtical Declaration or 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 narrowly watches that nothing is 
 inserted to prejudice his own particular opinion, or stipu- 
 lates for the insertion of what may rescue it. Hence 
 
 c2
 
 '20 
 
 general words are used, or particular words inserted, which 
 by superficial enquirei"s afterwards are criticised as vague 
 and indeterminate on the one hand, or inconsistent on the 
 other; but m fact, they all have a meaning and a history, 
 could v,e ascertain it. And if the parties concerned in 
 such a document are legislating and determining for 
 posterity, they are respective representatives of corro- 
 spondmg parties in the generations after them. Now the 
 Thirty-Nine Articles he 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 drawn 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, Taylbr, Bull, 
 and Stillingfleet, which indeed go far beyond any 
 thing I have said. 
 
 For instance. Bull : 
 
 " What next he [a Roman Catholic objector] saith con- 
 cerning our notorious pi-cvarication from the Articles of our 
 Church, I do not perfectly understand. He very well 
 knows, that all our Clergy doth still subscribe them: and if 
 any man hath dared openly to oppose the declared sense of 
 the Church of England in any one of those Articles, he is 
 liable to ecclesiastical censure, which would be more duly 
 j)assed and executed, did not the divisions and fanatic 
 disturbances, first raised and still fomented by the blessed 
 eniissaries of the Apostolic See, hinder and blunt the edge 
 of our discijjline. lint possibly he intends that latitude of 
 sense, which onr Church, as an iii(hilti;eiit iiiolhcr, allows
 
 21 
 
 her soils 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 orn- Church. 
 As for our being concluded by the Articles of oiu: 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, 
 avlU acknowledge ourselves so concluded by them, nor did 
 our Church ever intend we should. For she professeth 
 not to deliver all her Articles (all I say, for some of them 
 are coincident with the fundamental points of Christianity) 
 as essentials of faith, without the behef whereof no man 
 can be saved ; but only propounds them as a body of safe 
 and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be 
 subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And 
 therefore she requires subscription to them only from 
 the Clergy, and not from the laity, who yet are obhged 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 with two illustrious testimonies of two famous Prelates. 
 The late terror of the Romanists, Dr. Usher, [Bramhall ?] 
 the most learned and reverend Primate of Ireland, thus 
 expresseth the sense of the Church of England, as to the 
 subscription required to the Thirty- Nine Articles ; ' We 
 do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-Nine Articles 
 of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither 
 do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or 
 legacies of Christ and His Apostles ; but in a. mean, 
 as pious 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,)
 
 22 
 
 denieth, in general, that any Church can lawfully propose 
 any Articles to her sons, besides those contained in the 
 common rule of fliith, 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- 
 ligion, 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 
 and allowed by the whole Church of God." 
 
 And then in the seventh and eighth Propositions, 
 he speaks fully to our purpose. — Prop. 7. ' There 
 are and may be many theological points, which are 
 wont to be believed and maintained, and so may law- 
 fidly 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 Christian 
 religion, undoubtedly delivered in tlie Scriptures, and 
 allowed (except the Romanists, who have so affected 
 singularity, as to frame to themselves a new Christianity) 
 by the whole (Jhurch of God, they are by the consent of all 
 ( 'hristians acknowledged to be contained in that called the 
 Oeed, or rule of faith. 
 
 " This rule of faith, and that also as it is more fully cx- 
 j)laincd by the first General Councils, our Churoh heartily 
 f-mbraccth. and liatli made a part of her Liturgy, and so
 
 23 
 
 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 Apostles' 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 she 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 Scriptiu-e ; 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 Stillingfleet : 
 
 " The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, 
 but such as have the testimony and approbation of the 
 whole Christian world of all ages, and are acknowledged 
 to be such by Rome itself, and in other things she i-equires 
 subscription to them not as Articles of Faith, but 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
 
 24 
 
 any of these questions, as necessary to be believed, either 
 necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti, which is much 
 less ; hut only bhideth 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 toe 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 Bel. 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 (/pinion prirntely tcithin himself, and another thing 
 boltlly and jjublicly to ajfirin it. And again, 'tis one thing 
 to Ijold couti'ary to some part of an Article, which perhaps 
 may be but in the manner of Expression, and another thing 
 positively to aflirin, that the Articles in any part of them 
 afC 8U{)crstitious, and erroneous. On Tradition, xiv. 2.
 
 25 
 
 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 thcv 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 hberty 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 thouijjh I consider that the 
 wording of the Articles is wide enough to admit 
 persons of very different sentiments from each other 
 in detail, provided they agree in some broad gene- 
 ral sense of them, {e. g. as difiPering from each other 
 whether or not there is ant/ state of purification
 
 26 
 
 after death, or whether or not any 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 I advocate, if I must so 
 call it, is this, — that, whereas it is usual at this day 
 to make the particular belief of their writers their true 
 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 trenches on zejorship, (as the Homily 
 puts it,) the question whether ora pro nobis be such, 
 being oj)en, — not indifferent indeed, but a most grave 
 and serious one for any individual who feels drawn 
 to it, but still undecided ])y the Article. As to 
 Images, the Article condemns all approach to idola- 
 trous regard, such as Rome does in point of fact 
 cncourngo. As to the Mass, all that impairs or
 
 27 
 
 obscures the doctrine of the one Atonement, once 
 offered, which Masses, as observed in the Church of 
 Ptome, actually have done. 
 
 2. And now, if you will permit me to add a few 
 words more, I will briefly state why I am anxious 
 about securing this liberty for us. 
 
 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 
 essential differences one from another, and perhaps 
 from any Church system, still all bear witness to it. 
 Mr. Alexander Knox in Ireland bears a most sur- 
 prising witness to it. The system of Mr. Irving is 
 another witness to it. The age is moving towards
 
 26 
 
 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 iieed not be so closed as 
 the received method of teaching closes them, and 
 oufyht not to be for the sake of many persons. If 
 we will close them, we run the risk of subjecting 
 persons whom we should least like to lose or dis- 
 tress, to the temptation of joining the Church of 
 Rome, or to the necessity of withdrawing from 
 tlic Chinch as establislicd, or to tlie misery of
 
 29 
 
 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 set before me by parties I revere, to do all 
 I could to keep members of our Church from strag- 
 gling in the direction of Rome ; and, as not being 
 able to pursue the methods commonly adopted, 
 and as being persuaded that the view of the Articles 
 I have taken is true and honest, I was anxious to 
 set it before them. I thought it would be useful 
 to them, without hurting any one else. 
 
 I have no wish or thought to do more than to 
 claim an admission for these persons to the right 
 of subscription. Of course I should rejoice if the 
 members of our Church were all of one mind ; but 
 they are not ; and till they are, one can but submit 
 to what is at present the will, or rather the 
 chastisement, of Providence. And let me now im- 
 plore 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 
 th^t 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 
 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
 
 30 
 
 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. H. N. 
 
 Saturday, 
 March \Zth, 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 Angel for Spirit, in page 30, 
 (though the passage itself perhaps had better have been omitted,) 
 and Ratification for Declaration, in page 80. 
 
 ^ Since tlie above was in type, it has been told me that tlie 
 Hebdomadal Board has recorded its opinion about the Tract.
 
 oxroun: riiiNiri) nv i. smiumpton.
 
 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 VIUGIn's, OXFORD. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 JOHN HENRY PARKER : 
 
 J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLI.
 
 oxFonn: riiiNTF.i) in i. .siikimpton.
 
 A LETTER, 
 
 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, T 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 Lordsiiip 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 allusion was made to the Tracts 
 for the Times. Some 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- 
 shi}). I wrote to the Archdeacon on the subject, sub- 
 mitting the Tracts entirely to your Lordship's dis- 
 posal. What T thought about your Charge will appear 
 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 
 whicii I iiad control, if I were informed which were 
 those to which your Lordsliip had objections. I after- 
 wards wrote to your Lordship to this cfFcct : that
 
 " I trusted I might say sincerely, that 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, but 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. I 
 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 Avill 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 
 liave 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 liad no aim at all in what 
 they have hazarded, that they did not mean what 
 they said, that tliey did not know the strength of 
 their own words, and that they were putting forth 
 the first crude notions which came into their minds ; 
 or tliat they were pursuing principles to llieir 
 consecjuences as a sort of pastime, and de- 
 velo})ing tlieir own theories in grave practical n)at-
 
 ters, in which 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
 
 8 
 
 Mysticism attributed to tlie Early Fathers of the 
 Church." It discusses the subject of the mystical 
 interpretation of nature and Scripture with a 
 learnino' 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 lioncst enough to con- 
 fess it. They were challenged to confess or deny 
 the cliarges tluis brought against the Fathers ; and, 
 since to deny the fact was su])])osed impossible, 
 they were bid to draw out a case, such, as either to 
 admit of a defence of the fact on grounds of reason.
 
 9 
 
 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 oiir 
 adversaries' hands ; who have in this, as in many other 
 instances, appropriated to themselves a treasure which was 
 
 ours as much as theirs. ... It may suggest character and 
 
 matter for our private 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 tlie 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 coining of the Queen Henrietta into Eng- 
 land, she and her Frcncli ladies, it appears, were ccjually sur- 
 ])riscd and dissatisfied at the disregard of the hours of 
 Prayer, and tlie want of Breviaries. Their remarks, and per- 
 haps the strength of their arguments, and the beauty of many 
 of their books, induced the Protestant ladies of the liousc-
 
 11 
 
 hold, to apply to King Charles. The King consnltcd Bishop 
 White as to the best plan of supplying them with Forms of 
 Prayer, collected out of already approved Forms. The 
 Bishop assured him of the ease and the great necessity of 
 such a work, and chose Cosin as the fittest person to frame 
 the Manual. He at once undertook it, and in three months 
 finished it and brought it to the King. The Bishop of 
 London (jMountain), 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 pubhshed 
 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 worship, such 
 necessary consolations in special exigencies, that they 
 reserved it by them as a jewel of great price and value.' 
 ' Not one book,' it was said, ' was in more esteem with the 
 Church of England, next to the Office of the Liturgy 
 itself.' It appears, in fact, to have become exceedingly 
 po])ular, and ran through ten editions, the last of which was 
 published in 1719." Preface to Cosin's Devotions, jy. xi. — xiii. 
 
 3. There has been another, and more serious pccu-
 
 12 
 
 liarity in the line of discussion adopted in the Tracts, 
 ^vhicli, whatever its merits or demerits, has led to 
 their being charged, I earnestly hope groiindlessly, 
 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 w^e 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 wliich 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 
 ])lace whicli characterize it. It lias 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 resj)cct or measure may also possibly 
 l)c urged against it. This a])plics, 1 conceive, as to
 
 13 
 
 all social institutions, so to the case of our religious 
 establishment and system at this clay. 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 wanton 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 between 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 
 liarm 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." O^ol.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 hap])cned to liim in s])ite of 
 great abilities, may lia})pen to others in defect of 
 them. 
 
 Several obvious ilkistrations may be given from 
 the controversies to which the Tracts for the Times 
 have given rise. Much attention, for instance, has 
 of hite years been j)aid by learned men to the 
 (piestion of the origin of our public Services. The 
 'i'racts liave made use of the results of their inves- 
 tigations witli a view of exalting our ideas of the
 
 15 
 
 sacredness of our Eiicharistical 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 towards 
 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 Ussher'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 th^ 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 reli-
 
 16 
 
 gion. In other words, if the Churchman is by the 
 result of" the discussion confirmed against Romanism, 
 he has been incidentally, and for tlie 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 
 w^ell 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 " vagueness 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 av«s 
 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 hozofar 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 ora p?'0 nobis was not on my shewing 
 necessarily included in the invocation of Saints 
 which the Article condemns. And in my Letter to 
 Dr. Jelf, 1 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 
 when ordinary persons do the same. There is much 
 less of awe and severity in the devotion which rests 
 upon created excellence as its object, and worldly 
 minds will gladly have recourse to it, to be saved the 
 necessity of lifting up their eyes to their Sanctifier 
 and Judge. And the multitude of men are 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 presumpfuousness 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 spontane- 
 
 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 ])L'ople, 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 by which 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 with Romanists," I say, " turns 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 with 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 fi-eshness 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 app y the term to such kinds of eri'or as are not 
 denials but j)crvcrsions, distortions, or excesses of it. Such 
 is the relation of Romanism towards true Catholicity 
 
 "Tlic same view of Romanism is im])licd, when we call our 
 ecclesiastical changes in the sixteenth century a Reforma- 
 tion. A building has not been reformed or rej)aired, when 
 it has been pulled down and built up Jigain ; 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-Cathf)li('s do not profess a different roli;ji;ion 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 om* 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 workmg 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 Romanisin, 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 reahzed 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 does but resemble thatunrulyProfestantism 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 
 religion .... 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 tM'o 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. 56, 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, tliey 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 their own name. Our differ- 
 ences from them, considered not in theory but in fact, are in 
 no sense matters 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
 
 system. The infallibility of the existing Church is then 
 found to be its first principle, whereas, 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 
 infallibiUty of the Church, thus solving the whole question, 
 by a summary and final interpretation both of Antiquity and 
 of Scripture." On Rovianism, p. 59, 60. 
 
 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 fi-om 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 wc are to gather our 
 opinions of Popery. 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, superstitious, 
 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 ti'uth to lie between the two 
 contending ])arties. Candour will oblige us to grant that 
 the mere acts of individuals should not be imputed to the 
 body;... yet not so much as they themselves desire. For 
 thouj^h the acts of individuals arc not the acts of the 
 Church, yet they nmy be the results, and therefore illustra- 
 tions, of its principles. We cannot consent then to confine 
 ourselves to a mere rerercncc to the text of the Tridcnline.
 
 27 
 
 decrees, as Romanists would have us, apart from the teach- 
 ing 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 arid 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, being 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 Purgatory, 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 vag-ue 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 extcn^al 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 Homousion, 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 wc sec clearly that certain 
 of these decrees have a natural tendency to produce certain 
 evils, when wc sec 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, 
 sandionod 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 intei-pret 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 
 aee, bv the Roman Church, as regards these excesses, is a 
 point deserving of serious attention ; — for two reasons : first, 
 because of the very solemn warnings pronounced by our 
 Lord and His Apostle, against those who introduce scandals 
 into the Church, warnings which seem almost prophetic of 
 such as exist in the Latin branches of it. Next it must be 
 considered that the Roman Church has had the power to 
 denounce and extirpate them. Not to mention its use of 
 its Apostolical powers in other matters, it has had the civil
 
 30 
 
 power at its command, as it has siiewn 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, M'ritten 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 Avhat 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 a'ccident 
 tore the bandage off their eyes. In like manner the 
 Roman (Catholics, we suppose, would maintain tliat 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 
 Ijcfore were held in solution. Now this is all very well in 
 the abstract, but let us return to the point, as to what tho 
 Apostles held and did, and what they did not. Docs tho 
 Romanist mean, for instance, to toll us that St. ]*aul the
 
 31 
 
 Apostle, when he was in perils of robbers or perils by the 
 sea, offered up his addi'esses to St. Mary, and vowed some 
 memorial to her, if she would be pleased 'deprecari pro illo 
 Filium Dei?' Does he mean to say that the same Apostle, 
 durino- 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 does 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 general councils might 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 thcv imaorine it themselves? Do they them- 
 
 I/O •' 
 
 selves, for instance, think that St. Paul was in the habit of 
 saying what Bellarmine and others say, — Laus Deo J ir- 
 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 ; ' and, 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 the 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, 325. 
 
 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 tliem their 
 own plain condcmntttion, in the judgment of an English 
 Christian ; no commendation of the general structure and 
 matter of" the Breviary itself will have any tendency to 
 reconcile him to them ; and it has been the strong feeling
 
 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 antic^uity 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 i*ecom- 
 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 beincr 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
 
 34 
 
 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 in 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 exti'act from a
 
 .3.3 
 
 defence of the English Church, which 1 wrote 
 ai^ainst a Roman contioversiahst in the course of 
 the last year. 
 
 " The Church is emphatically a living body, and there 
 can be no greater proof of a particular communion being 
 part of the Church, than the appearance in it of a continued 
 and abiding energy, nor a more melancholy proof of its 
 being a corpse than torpidity. We say an energy 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 M^e 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 
 Church 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, speakuig 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, 
 intercommunion 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 revive?, 
 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 
 
 c2
 
 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 like a green bay-tree. I went by, and lo, 
 he w^as 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 were 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 by 
 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 are 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 cnnrornod. it mav be said all along to have
 
 37 
 
 grown towards a more perfect Catholicism than that with 
 which 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 
 Elizabeth. 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 under 
 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, sweeping off the chief agents in the work, 
 and for a time levelling the Chm'ch to the ground. jMore 
 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 was 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 life of its 
 own, such as it had before ihey and their constitution came 
 into being. IIow many learned Divines have we had, even 
 our enemies being judges ! and in proportion i\s they were 
 learned, so on the whole have they approximated towards 
 the full ancient truth. Or take again those whom by a 
 natural instinct ' all the people count as Prophets,' and will
 
 38 
 
 it not be found that either altogether or in those works 
 which arc most popular, those v/ritei's 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 now Bishops 
 Wilson and Home, men of far inferior powei-s, but of 
 Catholic temper and principles, fill the doctor's Chair in 
 the eyes of the many. What a note of the Church is the 
 mere production of a man like Butler, a pregnant fact 
 much to be meditated on I 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 I 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, undisci})lined, 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 devclojimcnt, 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 tlic rest are dry. And
 
 39 
 
 lastly look at the present position of the Church at home ; 
 tliere too we shall find a Note of the true city of God, the 
 Holy Jerusalem. She is in warfare with the world as the 
 Chm-ch JSlilitant 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 arc 
 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 aU times, since 
 Christianity came into the worlfl, an open contest has been 
 ffoino; on between religion and u-religion; and the true 
 Church, of course, has ever been on the religious side. 
 This then is a sure test in eveiy age, where the Christian 
 should stand. . . . Now applying this simple criterion to the 
 public parties of this day, it is very plain that the EngUsh 
 Chiu-ch is at present on God's side, and therefore so far 
 God's Church; — we are soiTy to be obliged to add that 
 there is as Httle doubt on which side EngHsh Romanism is. 
 It must be a very galUns thouo;ht to serious minds who 
 profess it, to feel that they are standing with the enemies of 
 God, cooperatuig with the haters of truth and haters 
 of the light, and thereby prejudicing rehgious minds even 
 against those verities which Rome continues to hold. 
 
 "As for the English Church, 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 freedom from party-titles ; the Note of 
 life, a tough hfe and a vigorous; she has ancient 
 descent, unbroken continuance, agreement in doctrine 
 with the ancient Church. Those of Bellarmine's Notes, 
 which she 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 my 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 riot 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 wliich my name is 
 commonly associated. I might without offence 
 have introduced what is technically called High- 
 Church doctrine in much greater fulness ; since 
 there are many who do not hold it to my own 
 extent, or witli 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 prcacliing 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 mtroduction 
 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 jMiracles be explained away, because 
 the Articles say nothing about them ? Would your 
 Lordship allow me to preach in favour of duelling, 
 gaming, or simony ? or to revile persons by name 
 from the pulpit ? or be grossly and violently 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
 
 4^ 
 
 did not like, and wliich 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 believe has reached your Lord- 
 ship's ears, and which I only care to explain 
 to my Bifihop. 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 Prwmunire, 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 gi'eater 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 
 accordina: to that new state in which the Church 
 found itself. Knowledo-e and virtue certainlv 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 warm- 
 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 piimitive, more 
 worthv our hii<h callinof. Let the Church of Rome
 
 44 
 
 do the same, and it will come nearer to us, and 
 will cease to be what we one and all mean, when 
 we speak of Rome. To be anxious for a 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 ouglit 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 
 lieart 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 life of holiness within it, 
 this inward gift will^ if I may so speak, take care 
 of itself. It will turn all accidents into good, it 
 will supply defects, and it will gain for itself from 
 above what is wanting. I desire to look at this 
 first, in all persons and all communities. Where 
 Almighty God stirs the heart, there His other gifts 
 follow in time ; sanctity is the great Note of the 
 Church. If the Established Church of Scotland 
 has this Note, I will hope all good things of it ; if 
 the Roman Church in Ireland has it not, I can 
 hope no good of it. And in like manner, in our 
 own Church, I will unite with all persons as 
 brethren, who have this Note, without any 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 ; wlio 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 l(jng while, that, as various persons know, 1 
 seriously contcm[)hited, some time since, the resig- 
 nation of my Living, and was only kept from it by 
 the advice of a friend to whom 1 felt I ought to 
 submit myself. I bay this, moreover, in explanation
 
 47 
 
 of a Letter I lately addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, 
 lest it should seem dictated either l)y a mere percep- 
 tion of what was becoming in my situation, or 
 from some sudden softening of feeling 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 w'hatever 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. 
 IMay 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 
 humiliation, 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, 
 \ our Lordship's faithful and affectionate Servant, 
 
 JOHN HENRY NEWMAN. 
 
 Oriel College, 
 March 29M, 1S4L
 
 OXIOUD: IKINIKDDY t. SIHIIMPTON.
 
 SOME REMARKS 
 
 ON 4^V(/ -, JtV 4 L^%^ 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TU 
 
 THE REVEREND R. W. JELF, D. D. 
 
 CAXOX OF CHRIST CHURCH, 
 
 IN EXPLANATION OF No. 90 
 
 IN THE SERIES CALLED 
 
 ©le STractg for tiie ©nt^iS* 
 
 BY 
 
 AMBROSE LISLE PHILLIPPS, Esq. 
 
 OF GRACE DIEU MANOR. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 CHARLES DOLMAN, 61, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 184L
 
 l.ONDOX : 
 C.RICHARDS, PRINTER, ST. MARTIN'S LANE.
 
 R E M ARKS, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 No one, who has read the Letter which is men- 
 tioned in the title-page of these remarks, or the 
 Tract No. 90, of which it was intended to give an 
 explanation, or who reflects on the fact which is 
 now made public, that both the one and the other 
 proceed from the pen of a clergyman, who holds 
 the high reputation which the Rev. Mw Newsman 
 possesses in the Church of England ; no one, I say, 
 who has so read and reflected, whether he be a 
 Catholic or a Protestant, can. doubt for a single 
 instant the justice and propriety of some remarks 
 being published upon both the Tract and the 
 Letter, expressive of the feeling produced in Ca- 
 thohc minds by the perusal of them. 
 
 While I readily admit that there are many in 
 our English Catholic body, who are far more 
 capable than I am, of treating this important sub- 
 ject as it ought to be treated (and I am confident 
 such will be found to come forward on this occa- 
 sion), yet after the part I have recently and publicly 
 taken in reference to the supporters of the doctrines 
 contained in the Oxford Tracts, it appears, at least 
 to me, no less than to many others, whom I have
 
 consulted, that it is my duty publicly to express 
 my sentiments upon these two remarkable docu- 
 ments. 
 
 It is impossible to do sufficient justice to the 
 firmness and courage which Mr. Newman has 
 evinced in acknowledging the authorship of Tract 
 No. 90. I rejoice also to see that, in his subsequent 
 Letter to the Rev. Dr. Jelf, he persists in his noble 
 declaration in favour of so many Catholic truths, 
 no less than in his generous attempt to soften down 
 the differences between the Church of England and 
 the Catholic Church, which to me at least appears 
 a most important step towards the reunion and the 
 peace of distracted Christendom. Above all, I 
 hail with inexpressible joy, and the deepest grati- 
 tude towards Him who holds in his hands the 
 hearts of men, and who for the love of mankind 
 turns every event to the good of His Church, the 
 glorious admissions which, both in the Tract and 
 the Letter, are so fearlessly proclaimed in behalf of 
 that holy Council of Trent, against which for three 
 centuries such absurd and irrational prejudices 
 had taken root in the minds of our separated 
 brethren. At the same time, much as I feel for 
 Mr. Newman's difficult and painful position, no 
 less than for that of all who think with him, I 
 cannot consistently with my duty as a Catholic 
 pass over his Letter to Dr. Jelf, without entering 
 a respectful but firm protest against very many 
 things which it contains.
 
 And here let me say that, in these remarks I 
 confine myself chiefly to Mr. Newman's Letter^ 
 inasmuch as I am not aware of anything which 
 could appear objectionable to Catholic minds in 
 Tract No. 90, which is not perhaps even more 
 forcibly stated in that Letter. The remarks, there- 
 fore, on the latter, apply to the former also. I 
 shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. 
 
 In }Ktge 6, Mr. Newman contrasts the Council 
 of Trent with the authoritative teaching of the 
 Church of Rome. Against this distinction I most 
 positively protest ; neither the Church of Rome, 
 nor the other Churches in communion with her, 
 which taken in their totality form the Church 
 Catholic, acknowledge any other authoritative 
 standard of teaching than the Council of Trent 
 and the other general Councils which preceded 
 the Trideutine. But I 2;o further ; I hesitate not 
 to declare that neither in the Roman schools, to 
 which Mr. Newman appeals as bearing him out in 
 the justice of his distinction, nor in those of any 
 other Catholic university, is there in point of fact 
 any teaching considered as authoritative, whether 
 moral or dogmatical, in any way contrary to or 
 beyond the Council of Trent. In asserting this, 
 I do not mean to deny that there are theological 
 opinions, left as open questions in the Church, in 
 regard to which Catholic divines are at liberty to 
 follow each his own private judgment, or that in 
 some particular schools, in regard to some one or
 
 6 
 
 other of these, there may be a general agreement 
 of theologians, and consequently a general teachmg 
 on the part of the same ; but I do most distinctly 
 deny that any such agreement is anything beyond 
 an agreement in opinion, or that it could raise any 
 such opinion to the rank of an article of faith, or 
 justify any man in pronouncing it to constitute the 
 authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. Any doctrines of such a nature, never 
 having been proposed by the Avhole Church as 
 articles of faith, are received by all Catholics as 
 mere opinions, no matter how great the number 
 or how holy and learned the character of the 
 divines who support them. 
 
 I protest against the term Church of Rome, as 
 used by Mr. Newman. It is contrary to facts, 
 and to sound theology, to call the Churches (which 
 Mr. Newman includes under that term) the Church 
 of Rome. The Church of Rome is indeed their 
 head, or (to use the words of a grave and authen- 
 tic document, the Creed, as it is called, of Pope Pius 
 IV), " the Mother and Mistress of all Churches," 
 but it would be as absurd to call the Church of 
 France the Church of Rome, as it would be to say 
 that a man's head was the same as his arms or his 
 legs. 
 
 I^agc 7 is truly aftiictini;- : I hope Mr. Newman 
 will jjurdon me for saying so: Exeter Hall itself 
 c(Hild not have j)roduced anything more so. My 
 eldest little boy, though only six years old, could
 
 answer it. The begsrar boys at Naples could an- 
 swer it, as many of them did to me twelve years 
 ago, when out of curiosity I questioned them on 
 these points. In short, every Catholic in the Uni- 
 verse, 2vho has learnt his catechism (and it would 
 be unfair to question others) could answer it. 
 " The Roman, " (i. e. the Catholic) " system 
 preaches the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints, and 
 purgatory, instead of the Holy Trinity, heaven, 
 and hell " ! ! ! Look at j^dge 7, and see whether I 
 exaggerate Mr. Newman's words ; but if they be 
 there, as my eyes testify that they are, tell me 
 when a more unjust carricature was drawn even 
 by the fanatics at Exeter Hall ? 
 
 Pages 8 and 9 are less objectionable ; still why 
 does Mr. Newman speak of the Tridentine Cate- 
 chism, commonly called the Catechismus Romanus, 
 as an authoritative work, on a par with the Council 
 itself? where is his authority for such an asser- 
 tion r If that Catechism declare its belief in a 
 pvu'gatorial jire^ it does so not by way of obliging 
 men to adopt that as an article of faith, but 
 because it follows the generally received opi?iio7i 
 of theologians from the days of St. Augustine 
 downw^ards. But let any one consult the passage 
 of the Catechism to which Mr. Newman refers 
 (Catechismi Concilii Tridentini, Pars i. page 55), 
 and he will find, that though the article in question 
 commences with these words — " Prseterea est 
 purgatorius ignis," it yet, a few lines afterwards,
 
 8 
 
 explains the expression by the following words :— = 
 " ac de hujus quidem doctrinse veritate, quam et 
 scripturarum testimoniis, et apostolica traditione 
 confirmatam esse Scmcta Concilia declarant ; " 
 from which it is perfectly evident that the Triden- 
 tine Catechism aims at asserting nothing beyond 
 what had been defined by the holy Councils, and 
 consequently that the term pnrgatorius ignis was 
 used by the Catechism as expressive of nothing 
 beyond what the Tridentine Council had declared, 
 in reference to which Mr. Newman has already 
 shewn with great ability, that the belief of a pur- 
 gatorial fire is in nowise decreed. And here let 
 me observe, that the venerable Cardinal Bellarmine, 
 who may justly be styled the prince of controver- 
 tists, writes with admirable reserve concerning 
 this matter : — " It is no article of faith," says he, 
 {Bellarm. lib. ii. de Purgat. cap. 11), " that there 
 is a true and real fire in purgatory, .... because 
 this has not been defined by any of our councils ; 
 and though in the Coimcil of Florence the Greeks 
 openly declared that they did not believe in a pur- 
 gatorial fire, yet, in the decree passed in the last 
 session, it was merely defined that there is a pur- 
 gatory, l)ut not one word said as to there being a 
 fire there." This sentence of the great Bellarmine 
 a})})ears to me of immense im})ortance, the more 
 so as it is notorious that he himself did actually 
 hold the opinion that there was a real fire in pur- 
 gatory. I'Vom which it is evident how cautious 
 is the language of Catholic (hvines, when they
 
 9 
 
 are speaking of theological opinions, and how 
 far they are from expressing themselves in refer- 
 ence to these in any manner that could justify 
 others in terming it the author'itat'we teaching of 
 the Church. 
 
 Page 10. I do not understand Mr. Newman's 
 meaning, when he says ; — " while these decrees 
 remain unexplained in any truer and more Catholic 
 way." — At the same time it is consolatory to find, 
 after three centuries of cavilling and resisting 
 against the decrees of the holy Council of Trent, 
 that now in the full blaze of the boasted light of 
 the nineteenth century, a clergyman, decidedly 
 the most learned in the whole Church of England, 
 is compelled by the omnipotent force of truth to 
 do justice, tardily though it be, to those holy de- 
 crees ; yet cannot I understand why this beautiful 
 testimony is to be marred by a cavil about their 
 explanation. Oh ! in the name of charity, unity, 
 and peace, do I entreat that learned clergyman, 
 and all who think with him, with patience and 
 candour to examine our authentic books. What 
 must be the infallible result of such an examina- 
 tion ? I am sure it will be to admit, that from the 
 days of the Council of Trent to our own, these 
 decrees have never been explained in any other 
 way than what in fact amounts to what Mr. New- 
 man himself claims mjmge 18, the liberty to hold 
 the very same doctrines in the Church of England. 
 
 Page 11. Mr. Newman quotes a passage from 
 
 B
 
 10 
 
 the late Bishop Lloyd, in which his lordship states 
 his preference for English Roman Catholics above 
 the Catholics of the Continent. This testimony of 
 Bishop Lloyd's is certainly a very flattering one to 
 us, but one the justice of which true humility, no 
 less than true Catholic feeling, ought to lead us to 
 deny. I for one hesitate not to declare that I 
 think we have much to learn from our Continen- 
 tal brethren ; and when we shall have learnt it, 
 such men as Bishop Lloyd will perhaps love us 
 less exclusively, but they will love our religion 
 more. It is amusing (if it be not irreverent to use 
 such a word in treating of such awful and import- 
 ant subjects) to hear Bishop Lloyd commending 
 us for the disuse of processions and the rest of our 
 grand ceremonial, which, by-the-bye, has arisen 
 solely from the persecuting enactments of a Pro- 
 testant legislature ; but I should have thought, 
 that, at such an hour as this, learned prelates of 
 the Anglican Church had had experience enough 
 of the deficient machinery of their own system, 
 not to rake up the silly and worn out objections 
 against ceremonial. Surely it is not to so little 
 purpose, that during the last thirty years English- 
 men have been travelling in every direction over 
 the globe, or that the study of history has been 
 brought to so admirable a degree of perfection, 
 tliat they have not yet learnt that no system of 
 rehgion, true or false, can long maintain its sway 
 over the minds and hearts of men without the aid
 
 11 
 
 of ceremonial. The Right Honourable and elo- 
 quent author of that admirable article in a recent 
 Number of the Edinburgh Review, on Ranles 
 History of the Popes, might with justice have 
 added, in his survey of the causes of weakness in 
 the Anglican system, the absence of processions 
 and grand ceremonial, to that still greater source 
 of weakness occasioned by the want of religious 
 orders. But the fact is, the movement is going on 
 rapidly, and what Bishop Lloyd wrote on this sub- 
 ject he wrote in the year 1825. To judge from 
 the fact of his having so far outstripped his con- 
 temporaries even then, I suspect he would, had he 
 lived longer, have kept pace with them since, to 
 say the least ; nor do I think he would have quoted 
 in the year 1841 his sentiments of 1825. 
 
 Page 15. The hifalUbility of the Roman Church 
 separate from the rest of the Church Catholic, 
 was never advanced as an article of faith. It was 
 the opinion of Bellarmine, and of many other 
 divines ; but never having been asserted by the 
 whole Church as an article of faith, it is not fair 
 to object to it as an obstacle for Catholic commu- 
 nion. The infallibility of tlie whole Church in 
 her teaching capacity, whether in regard to ques- 
 tions of faith or definitions of morality, is an article 
 of faith received by all Catholics. He who stands 
 up for Church authority, without admitting the 
 infallibility of that authority, is either a bad logi- 
 cian, or a bad moralist. By infallibility, it is not
 
 12 
 
 meant that the Church has any arbitrary power of 
 decreeing articles of faith ; she can never decree 
 anything to be an article of faith, which was not 
 universally held to be so by the Church in all 
 ages, from the days of Jesus Christ and the apos- 
 tles. All that is meant, therefore, by hifallibUity 
 is, that the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, 
 whom our Lord promised should ever abide with 
 her, can never decree anything 7iew to be believed 
 as an article of faith, that is anything contrary 
 to the revelation made to us by God in the Old 
 Testament, and by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 under the New Testament, w ho promised to be with 
 his visible Church, in her office of " teaching all 
 nations,''' even until the end of the world. But 
 observe, this infallibility is promised by Jesus 
 Christ only to the Church teaching all nations — 
 that is, to the Universal Church. The moment, 
 therefore, that any portion of that Church isolates 
 herself from the rest of the Church Catholic, that 
 instant she forfeits the glorious promise w hicli was 
 made only to the totality, and which cannot be 
 inherited by the several parts of which that tota- 
 lity is composed, unless they remain in the original 
 ])osition in which God's providence had placed 
 them in reference to that universal body — that is, 
 living members of Christ's holy vine. It is, how- 
 ever, a delightful thought to reflect, that what the 
 malice of man has separated, the mercy and grace 
 of God can reunite. Nothing can bi' more con-
 
 13 
 
 soling to those who hold it, than the doctrine of 
 the infallibility of the Church. It is true that the 
 unlearned must receive it on trust, though not 
 without proofs which carry conviction evidently 
 along with them. But the learned can easily 
 demonstrate the infallibility of the Church, not 
 only as a theoretical proposition, but as a grand 
 and glorious fact, in the circumstance, which 
 their investigations cannot fail to lay open to 
 them, that the Church has never changed her 
 doctrines, from the days of the Apostles to our 
 own. 
 
 Page 16. In reference to what is stated by 
 Mr. Newman concerning our doctrine of Pardons, 
 whether in this part of his Letter to Dr. Jelf, or 
 in pages 28, 29, 30, 31, of Tract No. 90, I would 
 refer the reader who desires to know the real doc- 
 trine of the Catholic Church on this head, to an 
 admirable work published many years ago by the 
 learned Veron, entitled " The Rule of Catholic 
 Faith, or the Principles and Doctrines of the 
 Catholic Church discriminated from the opinions 
 of the Schools, and from popular errors and mis- 
 statements." This able treatise has been exceed- 
 ingly well translated by the Rev. Mr. Waterworth, 
 who published it in the year 1833. To quote at 
 length the masterly exposition which Veron gives 
 of the Catholic doctrine of pardons, would carry 
 me far beyond the limits to which I deem it right 
 to confine these remarks ; I refer the reader to
 
 14 
 
 the book itself, every page of which will amply 
 repay him for the trouble of reading. I cannot, 
 however, forbear from citing an admirable passage 
 of the great Bellarmine, which seems to me to set 
 at rest all the cavils and objections of writers like 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, quoted in Tract No. 90, no 
 less than those of all others who would make the 
 absurdities of individual Catholics pass for the 
 general doctrine and practice of the Church : 
 " Some writers," says he, " amongst whom are 
 Gerson and Soto, deny altogether that certain in- 
 dulgences, which promise remission of punishment 
 for thousands of years, have ever been granted by 
 any Pope ; and they assert, that all such indul- 
 gences are mere forgeries of the mendicants. It 
 has been the custom of the Popes to confine their 
 grants of indulgences to the same number of years 
 as the Church did her penitential canons ; which 
 were sometimes for two, three, five, ten, or twenty 
 years, or at most for a person's life-time, which 
 seldom reaches beyond a hundred years. A per- 
 son that really wishes to know the true history of 
 Papal indulgences, must not seek it in the writings 
 of our prof(*ssed enemies, nor in obscure and mise- 
 
 ra])lc pam])hl('ts Let him not refer to such 
 
 sources, but rather to the decrees of our Popes ; 
 to the authorized documents of our Church ; or, 
 at all events, to writers who have a just claim to 
 
 veracity, authority, learning, and probity 
 
 We never find any mention, in Avriters whose
 
 15 ^ 
 
 authority is of any iveiglit, of indulgences, either 
 of several thousand days, or of thousands of years." 
 Can any declaration be more explicit or more 
 satisfactory than this of Cardinal Bellarmine r 
 {Bellarm. lib. c. cap. 9.) The learned Veron, after 
 quoting it, sums up his remarks on the whole 
 subject with these plain words : " Let us propose 
 nothing to the belief of our dissenting brethren, 
 but what is contained in our Profession of Faith, 
 and the Council of Trent : let us not pretend to 
 be wiser than the fathers of the Council, or the 
 author of the Profession, Pope Pius IV. Let us 
 pass over all other questions ; since the profession 
 of what is propounded by these two authorities, is 
 undoubtedly enough to make any man a true 
 Catholic on this point. {Veron, Rule of Faith, 
 p. 65.) In short, so far from the strange opinions, 
 to which Mr. Newman refers, embodying the 
 authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic 
 Church on this head, it is perfectly clear that they 
 are even repugnant to it, if not plainly and abso- 
 lutely condemned by it. 
 
 With regard to what Mr. Newman states in the 
 same page, 16, concerning St. Bonaventure's Psalter 
 in honour of our Lady, I possess a copy of that 
 very curious production, which I purchased at 
 Rome some years ago. It is pubhshed with the 
 usual approbation prefixed to all devotional books 
 printed in Catholic countries which are not abso- 
 lutely prohibited, " Superiorum permissu ;" but as
 
 16 
 
 for any Papal approbation of it, Mr. Newman may 
 be correct, when he states that the Pope sanctioned 
 it, but I can find no authority for such a state- 
 ment ; assuredly in the copy which I possess there 
 is no Papal approbation prefixed. But even if it 
 were so, the private opinion of an individual Pope 
 constitutes no article of faith amongst Catholics. 
 On the other hand, it is quite clear that there is 
 nothing idolatrous in St. Bonaventure's Psalter ; it 
 certainly is not a book which I would circulate 
 amongst Protestants, for fear of mistakes : at the 
 same time I can perfectly conceive many Catholics, 
 especially in Catholic countries, using such a book 
 with great spiritual profit, because understood, as 
 they would understand it from their previous know^- 
 ledge of Catholic doctrine, it would tend to nourish 
 in their souls a lively sense of the efficacy of the 
 Blessed Virgin's intercession with her Divine Son. 
 It is quite clear from many expressions which we 
 find in the writings of St. Athanasius,of St. Ephrem, 
 and of St. Augustine, that in the primitive ages of 
 the Church, it was not unusual to address the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary, when invoking her interces- 
 sion, in terms quite as strong as any to be found in 
 St. Bonaventure's Psalter. I will just quote one 
 from the great St. Augustine, of IIip})0 {Sermon 
 xviii. de Sanctis in medio.) Addressing our Blessed 
 Lady, he says " Sit per Te excusabile, quod perTe 
 ingcrimus : fiat impetrabile, quod fida niente posci- 
 mus. Accipe quod offerimus, redona quod rogamus.
 
 17 
 
 excusa quod timemus : quia Tu es spes unica 
 peccatorum: perTe sperainus veniam delictorum, 
 et in Te beatissima nostrorum est expectatio proe- 
 raiorum, OSancta Maria, succurre miseris, juvapu- 
 sillanimes, refove flebiles, ora pro populo, interveni 
 pro clero, intercede pro devoto femineo sexu : 
 sentiant omnes tuum juvamen, quicumque celebrant 
 tuam sanctam commemorationem." Now assuredly 
 if St Bonaventure used idolatrous language in his 
 Psalter, the language of St. Augustine, in this ser- 
 mon, is equally idolatrous. Interpret the language 
 of either according to a Protestant interpretation, 
 and I admit that both would stand convicted of 
 something like idolatry ; for Protestants cannot 
 imagine men using such strong language, without 
 putting the object to whom it is addressed on a par 
 with God : but let them suppose for a moment that 
 they had been brought up from their infancy with 
 a great confidence in the prayers of Jesus Christ's 
 immaculate mother, would it be unnatural for 
 them, in that case, occasionally to express that 
 confidence in words, w hich in their strict sense can 
 only be applied to God, and can only be applied to 
 a creature, when in addressing such an one, we feel 
 that we are in reality addressing God through the 
 medium of that creature ? We have instances of 
 the invocation of saints and angels in Scripture, 
 quite as strong in point of expression. I will cite 
 one only — it is given us in our Lord's parable of 
 Dives and Lazarus. It is written, " The rich man 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 also died, and was buried in hell : and lifting up 
 his eyes, when he was in torments, he saw Abraham 
 afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom : and he cried 
 and said, Father Abraham have mercy on 
 ME AND SEND Lazarus, &c." Now if the expres- 
 sions of St. Bonaventure and those of St. Augustine 
 be idolatrous, those of Dives are equally so. What 
 then was Abraham's duty under such circumstan- 
 ces ? Was it sufficient for him to reply to the poor 
 damned soul that his invocation, his supplication, 
 was useless ? Ought he not also to have rebuked 
 him for his idolatry ? But does he ? I maintain then 
 that the man, who would convict St. Bonaventure 
 and St. Augustine of idolatry, would bring in 
 Abraham himself as guilty of the misprision of 
 idolatry, to say nothing of Christ, our Lord, for 
 teaching us such doctrine in one of his parables. 
 But why this eternal disputing about expressions 
 to be met with in Catholic authors ? Are not they 
 to be interpreted by the doctrine of the Church, not 
 the doctrine of the Church by these expressions ? 
 And when has the church made it an article of her 
 faith that her cliildren were bound to use such 
 expressions r Is it not a notorious fact that there is 
 li.'irdly an instance in her whole Liturgy, in which 
 any invocation of saints goes beyond the simple 
 comprecatory form, "-ora pro nohis'' ? And is it not 
 ecjually notorious that tlie Church has contented 
 herself with pronouncing the invocation of saints 
 to be " hanum rf sdlutarc^' and that she has never
 
 19 
 
 enjoined it as necessary to salvation ? If this be 
 so, — and who can deny it ? — it is surely most unjust 
 to appeal to such a book as St. Bonaventure's Psal- 
 ter, as expressing the authoritative teaching of the 
 Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 Pa<ye 18. If Mr. Newman would come forward 
 to advocate a reunion between the Church of Eng- 
 land and the Catholic Church, I should think him 
 quite consistent in claiming a right to hold "a 
 comprecation with the saints " with Bramhall — 
 the Sacrifice of the Mass with Andrews — or that 
 Transubstantiation was an innocent doctrine with 
 Hooker — or with Hammond, that no general coun 
 cil ever did or shall err — or with Thorndike, the 
 satisfactory nature of penitential works : but to 
 advocate isolation, and yet to advocate the right of 
 holding the very doctrines, on the ground of the 
 supposed erroneousness of which the right of iso- 
 lation was first asserted, appears to me a plain 
 inconsistency. 
 
 Page 19 speaks of "articles which admit both 
 Arminians and Calvinists," and a few lines lower 
 down of " broad Roman errors." Page 19 seems 
 to me to make out a poor case for the Church of 
 Christ, what with the broad errors of Rome and 
 the trimming of the English Church. Protestants 
 never seem to reflect what they are about, wlien 
 they make out the visible Church to be a less faith- 
 ful voucher for the doctrines of Christ, than the 
 Mahometan sect is on all hands allowed to be for 
 the doctrines of Mahomet.
 
 20 
 
 Page 26. How can a man of Mr. Newman's 
 learning, and with his CathoUc feehngs, seriously 
 assert " that the main idea really encouraged by 
 Rome concerning Purgatory is, that it is a substi- 
 tute for hell in the case of the unholy" ? I give the 
 sense of his words. 
 
 Pages 27 to 30 contain most interesting matter. 
 Mr. Newman certainly does justice to the Catholic 
 movement which characterizes our age ; but I am 
 surprised, that in quoting Sir Walter Scott, Mr. 
 Wordsworth, Mr. Coleridge, Mr. Alexander Knox, 
 and even the fanatical Mr. Irving, as so many wit- 
 nesses of it, that he should have overlooked the 
 name of that learned and noble writer, who was 
 formerly a Member of the Anglican Church, and 
 whose admirable works, the Broad Stone of Honour 
 and the Mores Catholici, will certainly form one of 
 the brightest ornaments of our national literature 
 in the nineteenth century, as long as the English 
 language shall endure ; or that lie should not have 
 noticed some recent works of Protestant Authors, 
 such as Mr. Hallam's admirable History of Eur o- 
 l^ean Literature, or an eloquent article owRanke's 
 History of the Popes, attributed to the Right Hon. 
 T. B. Macaulay. The two latter unquestionably 
 indicate the approximation of great minds to Ca- 
 tliolic truth ; whilst the Mores Catltolici and the 
 Broad Stone of Honour may be triuni})hantly cited 
 as a si)lcndid proof of what genius, united to vast 
 learning, may produce, when temjx'rcd and directed 
 by the sanctilying and ciniobling influence of the
 
 21 
 
 Catholic religion. But it is not alone in literature 
 that this movement manifests itself; we may appeal 
 to the progress of art as another proof. Surely 
 the name no less than the productions of that 
 magnificent artist, Mr. Pugin, can recall to the 
 mind no other associations than such as are con- 
 nected with the sublimest inspirations of Ca- 
 tholicism. Who that has seen the churches which 
 he has erected at Derby and Macclesfield, or that 
 truly beautiful cathedral Avhich he is now raising 
 to the honour of God at Birmingham, can fail to 
 breathe that air of Catholic sanctity and devotion 
 which dwells within them ? 
 
 But it is not alone in the learned class that this 
 movement prevails : look to the lower orders — 
 look to the multitudes of converts to the Catholic 
 religion, who, amongst the poor all over England, 
 in all our large towns, and even in many of our 
 country villages, betake themselves to the Catholic 
 system, as the only one that can afford them solid 
 peace and comfort, worn out, as they are, with 
 the doubts and divisions of Protestantism. Listen 
 to the ardent language in which some of these 
 poor converts will describe the consolations they 
 experience, amid the ineffable solemnities of the 
 Catholic worship ; and say whether the people of 
 England will much longer endure the dull, cold 
 formalities, the monotonous uniformity, or the 
 dreary absence of all that beautifies and enlivens, 
 which stamp the Protestant system with barren-
 
 Q'2 
 
 ness and failure. Truly, under such circumstances, 
 it is not surprising that men of keen observation, 
 like Mr. Newman, should come forwards to re- 
 invest, if possible, his own distracted and desolate 
 Church with the mantle of Catholicism. I, for 
 one, applaud his endeavour ; but let him beware 
 lest in his attempt, noble though it be, he fail, 
 from not carrying out his principles to their legi- 
 timate conclusion. The English Church can never 
 be Catholic, while she remains in her present 
 position, isolated, separated from the rest of Christ- 
 endom, — not even holding communion with any 
 other Protestant Church, — torn and divided too 
 within herself by conflicting factions. The Eng- 
 lish Church can never command the respect and 
 veneration of the people, so long as she justifies 
 separation in her language to Catholics — con- 
 demning it, when she addresses the Dissenters. 
 It is in vain for the English Church to aifect 
 to speak the language of the Fathers, while 
 she continues to repeat the jargon of Calvin 
 and Bucer, and while her temples have all the air 
 of Genevan preaching-houses, and not a single 
 characteristic of Catholic antiquity. Let her re- 
 member that the eyes of Catholic Europe are fixed 
 upon her, watching whether yet again she will join 
 their vast family. It is in her power to do so : the 
 Catholic (Imrch, like; a benignant mother, waits 
 with outstretched arms ready to embrace her. Let 
 her not disappoint the universal h()])e of Christ-
 
 23 
 
 endom ; myriads of faithful souls all over the earth 
 are now praying with one accord for this blessed 
 consummation : let not the grace be oflfered in 
 vain. 
 
 Now is the moment for men of learning and 
 piety in her communion to come forward boldly to 
 advocate what Grotius, what Leibnitz, what Arch- 
 bishop Wake, what a learned clergyman in Queen 
 Anne's reign, with such vast erudition, and so 
 forcibly advocated in an admirable treatise now 
 lying before me, entitled " Au Essay towards a 
 Proposal for Catholic Communion,''' an essay 
 which, in my opinion, it would be of infinite ser- 
 vice to the cause of unity and peace to reprint. 
 Let Mr. Newman advocate this, let others do this ; 
 there is every thing to encourage them. That there 
 are difficulties and obstacles I do not deny : but 
 this I fearlessly assert, that from the hour of the ill- 
 fated Reformation np to the present, there never 
 was a moment more favourable for such an 
 attempt. This I will confidently predict, that if 
 any other course be adopted, neither Mr. Newman 
 nor any other man living will be able much longer 
 to satisfy the cravings of really Catholic hearts 
 with the miserable crumbs of Catholicism, which 
 the present rulers of the Anglican Church, in her 
 actual Protestant position, will suffer to be doled 
 out to appease their hunger. Such men will not 
 stop much longer to enquire how far it is possible 
 to reconcile the contradictory and ambiguous
 
 24 
 
 statements of the Thirty-nine Articles with Catholic 
 verity, but whether they are to be held back by 
 such a formulary from the profession and the en- 
 joyment of that divine truth, for which the Catholic 
 iChurch of God has testified with the blood of 
 innumerable martyrs in every age. 
 
 Grace Dieu Manor. 
 
 Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady, 
 1841. 
 
 % 
 
 t»NDON : c RicriAnns, riiiNTrn, st. martini i.anp
 
 \
 
 m
 
 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.
 
 AA 000 517 310 
 
 "k-^
 
 .•^''' 
 
 r( 
 
 ^\ 
 
 / 
 
 
 .V. 
 
 y, ^ 
 
 '^V^,-^