Pi&U

Pa

LETTER

THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.

«;4^0

LETTER

THE REY. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.
REGIUS PKOFESSOK OF HEBREW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
ON
CERTAIN DEFECTS,
Bottrmal anir ^ratttcal,

POPULAR SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY,

AND ON TUE

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES,

so FAR AS OPPOSED TO THEM.

THOMAS PELL PLATT, ESQ.
POBMERLy FELLOW OP TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON:
J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON.
1840.

LONDON :
PRINTED By RICHARD WATTS,
Crown Court, Temple Bar.

I HAVE much pleasure in being able to say that
this Letter will not be seen by him to whom
it is addressed for the first time now that it is
printed. It has been already sent to Dr. Pusey,
and is published with his consent and appro
bation.
T. P. P.
Jan. 13, 1840,

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS TOUCHED
UPON IN THIS LETTER :—
Doctrine of Justification by Faith  p. 3
 Imputed Righteousness  17
Statements of St. Paul and St. James on Justification .... 25
Regeneration  27
The Homilies, and Views of the English Reformers  32
Tradition  37
Apostolic Succession  42
Doctrine of the Atonement  44
Want of Reverence in Sacred Things  46
Practice. — General Remarks  48
Religious Societies :
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel  55, 82
British and Foreign Bible Society  53, 83
Church Missionary Society  53
Colonial Church Society  57
Society for Educating Young Men for the Ministry. ... 66
Pastoral Aid Society  67
Spirit of Association  63
Chartists, Anti-Slavery Delegates, &c  62, 64, 76
Binney on Clerical Conformity  68
Dunn's Letter to Rev. F. Close  69
Temperance Societies  71
Doctrine of " the Divine Right of Kings"  74
 " that the People are the source of Power"  75
False delicacy towards Dissenters  77
Evils of the great number of Religious Societies  79
The Interpretation of Prophecy  84

LETTER
Src.

Rev. Sir,
I WAS brought up in a school of Theology very
different from yours ; but have gradually been led to
see that the Doctrines set forth in the Oxford
Tracts for the Times, and in other works published
by the writers of those Tracts, are the Doctrines of
the Church of Christ, and, more particularly, are
the real Doctrines of that branch of it which we call
the Church of England. I speak of course gene
rally : some things which have been written by the
authors to whom I refer, I have not seen ; others I
may not be prepared altogether to agree with ; but
in the main, the opinion that I have been led to
form of their Doctrines is such as I have above ex
pressed. Now some conversations which I have
lately had with friends who do not agree with me
in this opinion, and who still hold what I myself
was formerly taught to receive, have caused me to
consider more fully the change that has taken place
in my own views : and I have thought that some
B

account of the difficulties which I long since felt, and
the errors which I now see to have existed, in my
former opinions ; as well as of the ways in which
those diflBculties have been to a great extent got rid
of, and those errors, I hope, in some degree corrected,
would not be uninstructive. Such an account may
encourage, and possibly in some things guide and
direct, those who are striving to bring back more
sound and wholesome opinions into the Church ;
while it may, at the same time, be useful to any who
are, or have been, in the same circumstances with
myself. I am glad also to find an opportunity of
bearing testimony against evils which I have formerly
had but too much share in fomenting and extending :
I mean, the evils connected with the principles and
proceedings of our modem Religious Societies.
I was brought up then. Rev. Sir, in that school of
Theology which is usually called Evangelical. I
use that term here and elsewhere in no reproach-
ftd sense ; but to avoid circumlocution, and because
also the word is in itself an honourable epithet,
and one which the persons of whom it is used not
unfrequently in fact apply to themselves. I passed
through the University of Cambridge, still attaching
myself to those who held such views, and became a
Fellow of Trinity College. I held my Fellowship
for a few years ; but am still a Layman, though now
adventuring to meddle with these subjects, which
you may perhaps think are too high for me. About
the same time that I held my Fellowship, I was
also closely and officially connected with one of our
great popular Religious Societies. So much for
personal history.

In proceeding to the subject now before us, I feel
somewhat at a loss where to begin. There are cer
tain practical evils connected with the System of
which I am about to speak, in treating of which I
should feel that I was treading on easier and surer
ground than in discussing Doctrines, and investi
gating points of Theological Controversy. Yet
Practice is built upon, or results from, Doctrines ;
and to these therefore it seems necessary first to
turn our attention, however unwilling one may feel
to involve oneself in such matters.
The first point then that I will touch upon, shall
be the Doctrine of Justification by Faith : a serious
truly and weighty subject, and one on which I hope
to speak with due diffidence and moderation. I
may be allowed to begin with it, inasmuch as I have
ever been used to hear it set forth as the Foundation
of the Christian System, the " articulus stantis aut
cadentis Ecclesise." But let it not for a moment be
supposed that I am about to lay down Canons and
Articles of Belief on such a point. I am merely to
state the difficulties that I have formerly felt con
cerning it, and the way in which those difficulties
have now been to a certain extent cleared up or
got rid of.
This Doctrine then of Justification by Faith, I
have been accustomed to hear taught precisely in
the way described by Mr. Newman, in the first of
the Lectures on this subject which he has recently
published. The Doctrine that we are justified by
Faith, was explained to mean that Faith is the
instrumental cause in our Justification ; that is, the
use of Faith therein was stated to be this, that it is
B 2

the instrument or means whereby we apprehend
and receive Christ, or His righteousness, and re
mission of sins thereby ; and so, in other words, the
instrument whereby we become justified. This view
of the subject is set forth at large in the 3d chapter
of Dr. Owen's Treatise on Justification. (See espe
cially pp. 148, 151. ed. 4to. Lond. 1677.)
Now this account of the nature of Faith, and its
office in our Justification, I always found it exceed
ingly difficult to reconcile with certain passages in
the Epistles of St. Paul, in which he appeared to be
expressly and ex professo treating of Faith and its
nature, and of the Righteousness which is of Faith.
These passages were chiefly the three following ; —
the 4th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and
especially verses 16 — 25; the 10th chapter of the
same Epistle, verses 4 — 11 ; and the 11th chapter of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. In all these. Faith
always appeared to me to be set forth as nothing
but what the word itself signifies. Belief; believing
what God hath said or promised, whether in re
ference to our Lord Jesus Christ and His salvation,
or to any other subject. In the 4th chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans, the Faith of Abraham is
thus defined, (ver. 21), the " being fully persuaded
that what God had promised. He was able also to
perform." The Apostle makes no reference here, so
far as I could see, to Abraham's foresight of the
day of Christ, or to any belief in Him or His sal
vation : his words seem quite general ; they refer
simply to a promise, the performance of which was
in human estimation most improbable, but not to
the particular nature of that promise. " He stag-

gered not at the promise of God through unbelief ;
but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and
being fully persuaded that what He had promised,
He was able also to perform ; and therefore it was
imputed to him for righteousness." (verses 20 — 22.)
And then when the Apostle applies this to the
case of the Christian Believer, how does he set forth
the Doctrine ? He does not say, " It shall be im
puted to us also, if we believe in Jesus our Lord,
who was delivered for our oflPences ; and in the
remission of our sins, through His atonement and
righteousness." Not at all : but, precisely in agree
ment with what he had just said of Abraham, " It
shall be imputed to us also, if we believe on Him
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."
The reasoning surely is this : " As Abraham believed
that what God had promised, notwithstanding all
improbabilities and impossibilities. He would per
form ; so must we believe that what God promised,
He has performed; in raising up Jesus our Lord
from the dead, beyond all hope and expecta
tion, or possibility in the eyes of man." And this
view of the argument seems entirely confirmed by
another of the passages above referred to, the 9th
verse of the 10th chapter of this same Epistle,
where it is expressly said that what we are re
quired to believe in the heart is this, " that God
hath raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. Nothing
more, no farther object of belief, is there mentioned
or alluded to ; though the Apostle appears to be ex
pressly giving a definition of saving faith, and
drawing precisely the line of distinction between it
and the covenant of the Law.

So again in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, Faith appears to be nothing but simple
belief of God's word, whether relating to any thmg
that He has done or will do ; belief in His Almighty
power, and constant presence with His servants.
Belief of the Scripture account of the Creation of
the World is the first instance given to show its
nature and effects (ver. 3) * : and again, in ver. 6,
belief of the existence of God, and of His disposition
to reward those that diligently seek Him. Where
the name of Christ is expressly mentioned, in the
case of Moses (ver. 26), still the nature of his faith
is described in the same way as in other instances,
" He had respect unto the recompence of the re
ward ; he endured as seeing Him who is invisible."
Powerful and beautiful descriptions these of the
effects of faith, if we look at it in the light in which
* I have sometimes wondered that the Apostle should begin
his catalogue of the mighty works of Faith by what appeared so
low and every-day an instance of its operation, as that here re
ferred to. Surely, one thought, there is no great exercise of faith
here : every one but the avowed infidel believes this. But time has
shown me how far this was fi:om being the true state of the case.
The enticing speculations of Geologists have tried men, and have
shown how hard a thing — how uncommon a thing at least — it is,
even for men who call themselves Christians, humbly to receive,
firmly to believe, and stedfastly to keep in view the history which
the Creator Himself has given of His own work of Creation.
Surely every thing in Nature that seeems at variance with that
History, if such things indeed there be, should be viewed and re
corded, I will not say with caution merely, but with awe ; and
simply left on record, tUl Time, if it please God, shall have thrown
more light on the mystery.
I have called the speculations that have been put forth on these
subjects, ' enticing ' ; but when one reflects on the ideas of the
past histoiy of the Earth and its occupants which they set before

we are now considering it, and if we look at the
definition given of it in the 1st verse of the chapter;
but weak surely and defective indeed, if the pri
mary object of Moses's faith was the atonement and
righteousness of Christ.
The Rev. Thomas Scott, of Aston Sandford, in
his Commentary on the Bible, in explaining or
paraphrasing the 22d verse of this 4th chapter of
the Epistle to the Romans, which we have been
considering, writes thus : —
"  ' His faith was imputed to him for righteousness.'
That is, his faith was thus approved to be genuine, meet to
form a relation between him and the predicted Redeemer ;
and thus it marked him out as a proper person to be jus
tified by the everlasting righteousness which the Messiah
would introduce."
But where, I would ask, is one word of this in
the Text ?
The Commentary then goes on : —
" It is evident from the whole context that Abraham's
faith did not justify him by its own merit or value, but as
us, ' extravagant ' seems almost a better epithet. One cannot
help thinking of such passages as Is. xliv. 24, 25.
Then again, the Apostle says, " Things [the things] which are
seen were not made of things which do appear." How forcibly
does this recur to the mind, as one reads page afler'page of some
geological work, each describing the formation of one rock or
species of earth after another, till at last nothing is left, of things
at least which are now seen, which was not made of things appa
rent and sensible.
But I throw these observations into a note, as they do no
strictly belong to the subject of this Letter; though I have known
but too many of the Evangelical School sadly led astray in these
matters.

interesting him in Christ : for though the sincerity of his
faith was manifested on this occasion, he had actually been
justified long before ; and his example would not in any
way aptly illustrate the Christian s justification by the
righteousness of Christ, and not by those (sic ed. 1814)
of his ovra faith, if we do not thus understand it."
But the very thing to be proved, is, that the pas
sage has any reference at all to the Christian's justi
fication by the righteousness of Christ ; and from
the above Commentary we may fairly conclude that
without introducing a great deal of extraneous
matter,*of which there is not a word in the Text,
no such reference can be made out.
Let it not however be supposed that I am main
taining, in opposition to Mr. Scott, that " Abraham's
faith justified him by its own merit or value." On
this point we shall speak farther presently. Nei
ther let it be supposed that I am maintaining that
a mere belief of the fact, that God hath raised His
Son from the dead, is all that is required of a man;
without a knowledge of the Son, and trust in Him,
and in the Atonement that He hath made for sin.
I have not forgotten, that when St. Paul says, " it
shall be imputed to us also, if we believe on Him
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead," he
immediately subjoins, " Who was delivered for our
offences, and was raised again for our Justification."
Faith, though it be nothing more than Belief, is not
to be an ignorant, inoperative belief, but a belief
leading to humble trust, submission, and obedience.
I would be far indeed from saying that the Apostle
teaches us that Faith is nothing but the mere naked
belief of a fact : I am only maintaining that his

account of its nature and character seems quite dif
ferent from that of those who represent its use and
value to consist merely or chiefly in this, that it is
the Instrument by which we apprehend Christ, or
His righteousness : the term " to apprehend Christ"
not merely meaning dependence on Him for salva
tion as its only meritorious cause — for the duty of
so depending upon Him who would deny? — but
the appropriating, so to speak. His righteousness
by an act of Faith.
Considering, then, that the passages of Scripture
we have referred to, seemed by no means to sup
port the view taken of this subject in the Evangeli
cal School, and feeling moreover great difficulty in
understanding, with any degree of precision, what
was meant by " apprehending Christ, or His righte
ousness, by Faith," I remember some years ago
looking round for farther information on the sub
ject. And with this view I read Dr. Owen's Trea
tise on Justification by Faith. But here I found
myself as far from satisfaction as ever.
In one part of his work (chap. 2. p. 131. ed. 4to.
Lond. 1677), I found that view of the nature of
Faith which I had obtained from the passages above
referred to, set forth. Dr. Owen gives it in the
words of a writer whom he does not name ; but
this writer, he says, considers faith to be " JExisti-
matio magnified sentiens de Dei Potentia, Justitid,
Bonitate, et si quid promiserit, in eo prcestando
constantid." This definition, however, Dr. Owen
rejects, though he allows that " it hath much of
the nature of Faith in it." Farther on (p. 145) he
gives another definition, by Dr. Jackson, which " is,

10
in the main scope of it, both pious and sound," and
yet he says he knows " few that will subscribe unto
it." What, then, does he himself substitute in the
place of these definitions, which come so near the
truth, and yet are not free from flaws ? What he
gives is a chapter of above twenty quarto pages
explaining the nature of Justifying Faith : and just
before the end of it, he sums up the matter in these
words : —
" Having given this brief declaration of the nature
of Justifying Faith and the Acts of it (as I suppose, suffi
cient unto my present design), I shall not trouble myself
to give an accurate definition of it. What are my thoughts
concerning it will be better understood by what hath been
spoken, than by any precise definition I can give. And
the truth is. Definitions of Justifying Faith have been so
multiplied by learned men, and in so great variety, and
such a manifest inconsistency among some of them, that
they have been of no advantage unto the Truth, but occa
sions of new controversies and divisions, whilst every one
hath laboured to defend the accuracy of his own definition,
when yet it may be diflicult for a true Believer to find any
thing compliant with his own experience in them ; which
kind of definitions in these things I have no esteem for."
p. 144. You may imagine, Sir, that I did not find much
satisfaction from my researches into Dr. Owen's
work. Truly, one may say, if such difficulties as
these beset a subject of this vital and essential im
portance, the Gospel message is not that simple and
plain thing one is accustomed to think it. But few
even of the learned can come, it seems, to any satis
factory conclusion in the matter ; and the great
mass of mankind must take the Doctrine of Christ

11
entirely on trust from their several teachers; the
greater Jhalf of whom, to say the least of it, are
likely to be quite wrong. Is this the Gospel which
was especially to be preached to the poor ?
Having made these researches then in past years
with but little success, I was pleased to hear of the
appearance of Mr. Faber's work, entitled, " The
Primitive Doctrine of Justification investigated;"
and of Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justification;
published in the years 1837 and 1838 respectively.
Mr. Faber adopts Dr. Owen's views ; but I got very
little farther light on the matter from his work. In
fact I must confess that when first it came into my
hands, I laid it aside before I had entirely read it
through. And two things contributed to render it
of less interest to me. First, the quotations from
the Fathers seemed too general, not precisely upon
the points which I was desirous to investigate : in
deed, there seems much reason to doubt whether
those particular points had been raised and become
subjects of discussion at all in the times of the Fathers.
And secondly, there is at the outset of Mr. Faber's
work (p. 10 — 12) an exposition of the views of his
opponents, quoted from Mr. Knox's Remains, which
seems to me to contain in it so much of Truth, so
much that commends itself strongly to the con
science, that to my mind it was enough quite to
take off the edge and force of all the arguments
that follow against them. I do not say that objec
tions may not be taken against the exposition to
which I am referring; but it has surely a great
principle of Truth in it, if it be indeed true that a

12
man is to be judged at last according to the works
that he himself hath done, and not another.
I have since that time, however, gone through
Mr. Faber's book, and find in it a succession of
arguments in defence of the views which he adopts,
clearly stated and well put, but nothing either to
explain what is meant by " apprehending the
righteousness of Christ " (a phrase which Mr. Faber
himself uses), or to show how such views can
be reconciled with the Texts which I have above
quoted. I shall have occasion, however, to refer to
several parts of Mr. Faber's work, as we proceed.
But as I was thus dissatisfied with Faber, you
perhaps think that now at last, proceeding to New
man's Lectures, I there found all that I wanted ; all
that I had been so long searching for. Not so,
however : at least, I did not find what I was looking
for, a brief and clear exposition of the theory of the
subject ; but I found nevertheless, I trust, what is a
most excellent substitute for it, and what will pre
vent me from looking for such an exposition any
more. Mr. Newman's first Lecture is an able sketch of
the Doctrine which I have been accustomed to hear
delivered on these points, a sketch preserving with
graphical accuracy all the usual style and phraseo
logy of the Evangelical School ; but when one
comes to the development of his own views, I must
confess that, excellent and instructive as his work is,
I did not derive from it much clearer notions, as to
the theory of the subject and definition of the terms,
than I had found elsewhere. And when at last

13
I reached the Appendix, one seemed to have
got into Dr. Owen's labyrinth again, or even a
worse. At the end of all, however, appeared at
length that most consolatory substitute for any
farther research among conflicting theories, to which
I have already referred. It is contained in two
quotations; the one from Barrow, the other from
Jeremy Taylor (Newman, p. 439 — 441), giving it as
their full and concordant opinion, that the contro
versy is, after all, one almost entirely of words;
and " about the real points of doctrine," Barrow
says, " there hardly doth appear any material diffe
rence." Most satisfactory is it, to find that two such
men have so judged : and surely, in examining the
matter without reference to former prepossessions,
any man will find it to be indeed as they say. He
will find, that on the " real points of Doctrine " all
agree — all Protestants at least: I am not now
speaking of Romanists, with whose views I am
not sufficiently acquainted. He will find, that all
admit alike, on the one side, that we are justified
freely by God's grace through the redemption that
is in Christ Jesus ; and on the other side, that when
we appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, every
one shall receive the things done in his body, ac
cording to that he hath done, whether it be good or
bad. And these Doctrines, it seems to me, both
sides admit, not because they are found in so many
words in Scripture, and therefore they are obliged
to admit them, though they may afterwards explain
them away ; but they admit them in their plain, ftdl,
literal meaning. And if so, may we not well say to
the disputants, in the words of the Text taken by

14
Dr. Hook for his admirable Sermon on Union
among Churchmen, " Sirs, ye are brethren ; why do
ye wrong one to another" ?
Let me not, however, do Mr. Newman the injus
tice of leaving it to be supposed that I got nothing
from his work but what he has quoted from other
writers. To pass any commendation upon such a
book would at any time have been presumptuous
in the writer of such a paper as this ; but now it is
I hope superfluous also. The very beautiful and most
instructive passage quoted from it in a late Num
ber of the Quarterly Review (No. 126. p. 532), has
made it to be known and in part read, one may
almost say, of all men. And surely every seeker
after Truth, and lover of Christian Doctrine, will
desire to see the whole of a work from which such
things can be extracted.
Mr. Newman's views, again, leave one in full pos
session of the Texts quoted above in the outset of
this discussion. We may take them in their
straightforward, literal sense, without being obliged
to introduce any supplemental clauses of our own
to qualify and guard them.
But let it not be supposed that there is the least
of novelty in so understanding these Texts. Whe
ther by novelty we mean pernicious innovation, or
the discovery of new and important truth, in neither
sense has the word here any place. Let any one
look at the Commentary published by the Christian-
Knowledge Society with their Family Bible, and he
will soon find that tbe venerable writers there
quoted have long ago taken the 4th chapter to the
Romans just in the sense given to it above ; that is

15
to say, just according to the literal meaning of the
words. It is usually urged, that the Evangelical view of
this subject is of so great importance, because on
any other system we introduce the doctrine of
Human Merit; and Mr. Faber accordingly does
not hesitate to call Mr. Knox's opinions, on this
ground, " highly dangerous, and essentially unscrip-
tural." — (Faber's Prim. Doct. Justif., pref. p. xxiii — xxvi.)
But the Justifying Faith which St. Paul speaks of
in the passages above quoted from his Epistles,
even when in its highest exercise ; the faith of those
Old-Testament Worthies whom he refers to, who
simply believed what God said to them ; who be
lieved Him even when all appearances were against
the probability of His words coming to pass, and
who evinced the sincerity of their belief when put
to the severest tests ; this faith, this believing state
of heart, and the conduct that results from it, is not
to be boasted of : it is not of ourselves, " it is the
gift of God."
It is replied by Mr. Faber (loc. cit.), that this in
volves an idea of merit on the part of man, because
this kind of faith, this implanted principle of right
eousness, though originally the gift of God, is still
our own, when implanted, in the sense in which
our souls and intellect are our own ; for these also
are originally the gift of God. So that if we are
justified by this kind of righteousness, salvation is
our own work, as much as a man's comprehending
a proposition of Euclid is his own work : for the
intellect by which he comprehends it we call his
own, though it were originally given him of God.

16
To this it might be rejoined, that we have no
desire to exclude the idea of merit any more rigidly
than Scripture itself excludes it : but waving this
point for the moment, let us see whether the idea
of merit is in fact got rid of at all the more on the
other scheme. I never could see that it was ; and
this is one of the things that I have often been
puzzled to understand.
On that System it is said, as has been already
observed, that faith is the instrument, or hand,
that apprehends Christ, or His righteousness (Faber,
pref. p. xx). " And what merit," I have heard it
asked, " is there in a drowning man catching at
any thing to save himself" ? But observe the
entire difference of the two cases. In the case of
the drowning man, natural instinct prompts him :
in the case of the perishing sinner, natural instinct
is all the other way. In order to see his danger
and stretch out his hand, he must overcome his
natural propensities. While the generality of men
around him are going on with delight in their sins,
he must separate from the multitude, and go to
Christ, All this requires a great and painful effort;
and when he has made it, and caught the hand that
saves him, why may he not self-complacently say
with the Pharisee, " God, I thank thee that I am
not as other men are " ? Why, but because this in
clination for deliverance, this faith that leads him
to seize the helping hand, is all, from first to last,
implanted in his soul by the Spirit — is all the gift
of God.
Thus we come back to the same point as in the
other view of the case. Whether the faith that

17
justifies be faith apprehending Christ, or faith be
lieving God, and issuing in obedience ; whether the
"sola fides" of some, or the "fides formata" of
others, it is the gift of God, and in no degree of
man's own production. And in either case, it is
effectual only through the atonement and merits of
Christ. All alike say, "We are justified freely
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
I repeat therefore, are not Bishop Taylor and
Barrow right, when they say that this whole con
troversy is nothing much more than a strife about
words ?
We have seen then thus far that the Evangelical
view of the Doctrine of Justification appears to be
attended with much danger, as adding unauthorised
qualifications and limitations to the word of God ;
and to be also perplexing and unprofitable, as lead
ing men to consider the belief and right under
standing of certain subtle doctrines to be necessary
to salvation, the accurate definition and comprehen
sion of which doctrines is extremely difficult, and,
after all, of very secondary importance.
But the evil of such views is most felt, practi
cally, through the influence of another doctrine,
closely connected with this of Justification, and in
deed almost, if not altogether, inseparable from it
(Faber, Prim. Just., p. 21) : I mean, the Doctrine of the
Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to the
Believer. This doctrine, I remember, has long appeared to
me extremely questionable. Surely a doctrme so
mysterious, and so open to perversion, ought to be
found clearly stated in Scripture, before we are

18
required to admit it : for that we are to receive it on
the Tradition and Testimony of the Church, is not
pretended. But where is it so found ? Hear Mr.
Faber again : " This at least is certain, that nowhere in
Scripture is Christ's righteousness explicitly said to
be imputed to the believer." (Faber, Prim. Just., p. 20.)
Mr. Scott, indeed, would have us find it in one of
the passages from the Epistle to the Romans, which
we have been already considering, Rom. x. 9 : but
how he, or any one else, can see it there, I am at a
loss to conceive. The words are, " If thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Mr. Scott
thus paraphrases the verse :
"  In short, if a man confessed faith in Jesus, as the Lord
and Saviour of lost sinners, and really 'believed in his
heart that God had raised Him from the dead,' in attesta
tion of having accepted his atonement, he should certainly
be saved, hy the righteousness of Christ imputed to him
through faith. (Note iv. 23—25.)"
But where, I ask, as in a former case, where is
one word of this in the Text? It really rouses
one's indignation to see clauses coolly tacked on
in this way to the Apostle's words, to eke out
a Theological System. And then for authority or
illustration, we are referred back to, another passage;
" Note on Rom. iv. 23 — 25," where, as we have
already seen above, the very same thing has been
done by the same writer before.
But'again, this doctrine is not only questionable
as to its truth, but, like that before mentioned,
extremely difficult also of comprehension. I have

19
always found it impossible to understand how far
it is to be carried. If the Believer is made right
eous, not in himself, but in Christ ; if he is encou
raged to look for hope, not to his own defective
righteousness, but to Christ's perfect work accom
plished for him, where is this to stop ? How can
we avoid the fearful conclusion, that a man need
not be over carefal about the frequency of his sins,
or the nature and extent of his acquirements in
holiness? This I could never imderstand; nor can
I avoid the conclusion which Bishop Bull comes to
in his Harmonia Apostolica, that such statements
lead, by strict logical deduction, to downright
Antinomianism .
If indeed this doctrine of the Imputation of the
Righteousness of Christ were clearly revealed in
Scripture, we should have nothing to do with con
sequences. " Let God be true, and every man a
liar." Whether it seemed, in man's judgment,
likely to lead to Antinomianism or not, would
make no difference in the duty of the Christian ;
which would be, simply to receive it just as it
had pleased God to deliver it to him. But as it
avowedly is not so revealed, but is deduced from a
particular system of interpretation, we must neces
sarily look at it in all its bearings and results.
Mr. Faber asks, repeating and urging his ques
tions with an air of triumph, If a man be justified
by works, what precise amount of righteousness
shall be enough to procure his justification ? What
mortal man can undertake to draw the line ? What
peace of conscience can on such a system ever be
enjoyed ? and so on, (p. 202 — 205). And then,
c2

20
(p. 206) he contrasts with all this the tranquillizing
and consolatory nature of his own system ; in which,
he says, " we build our Justification, not upon the
ever-shifting sands of man's imperfect and inherent
righteousness, but upon the immoveable rock 
of the perfect and finished Righteousness of Christ."
Now if Mr. Faber is prepared to carry this view
of the matter fully and fairly out, and to say that it
matters not how a justified man lives, inasmuch as
he has a perfect Righteousness to depend upon,
which cannot be affected by any sins of his : then
indeed the system, whether true or not, is consistent
and intelligible enough ; and no doubt, if really
believed, would be very tranquillizing to the con
science. But if Mr. Faber abhors such positions as
these — if he admits, as he afterwards does, with
Hooker, " a dutiful necessity of doing well" — if he
believes that a man is to be judged at last, according
to that he hath done in the body — how does he get
rid of the difficulty in any measure whatever ? He
only encutnbers it with fresh perplexities.
If it be asked, but how then is any assurance of
salvation to be obtained, or is it to be attained at
all ? — we cannot do better, surely, than look to the
example of St. Paul, and see what his views are
on the subject. We shall there find, that though he
says, " Being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ," yet he was all
the time fighting and striving, lest that by any means,
when he had preached to others, he should himself
be a cast-away : and so, when, after long and patient
perseverance in well-doing, he was approaching the
end of his course, he was able to say with confi-

21
dence, " I have fought a good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there
is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which
the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that
day." Such was St. Paul's ground of assurance, and
none of us, I apprehend, will be able to find one
safer or better,
God forbid that I should say that those who are
called the Evangelical Clergy preach that a man
may live carelessly, or live as he likes. No, they
explicitly urge the necessity of good works. But
this I say, that they have lost the strongest argu
ments whereby to enforce it. When such a foun
dation is laid as this Doctrine of Imputation, it is
only by a happy inconsistency, and disregard of the
principles of strict reasoning, that the performance
of good works can be enforced with any power.
The exhortations to them are deprived of half their
force : they are often comprised in a very few sen
tences appended at the close of a Sermon ; and a
stinted, incomplete, partial system of righteous
living among the hearers is the result.
Since I have considered these subjects more fully,
I have been often exceedingly struck with the
meagreness, vagueness, and want of precision that
may too often be found in what are called Evan
gelical Sermons, And it is natural that they should
be of such a character. For if the principles on
which they are grounded were fairly and fully
followed out, they would lead to consequences, as
we have just observed, which the preachers shrink
from and abhor. And they are therefore obliged to
be constantly guarding, and qualifying, and half

22
unsaying what they say. If they are setting forth
what are called the Doctrines of Free Grace, among
which this of Imputed Righteousness holds a con
spicuous place, they find themselves continually
treading on the verge of Antinomianism : if they
are urging the practice of good works, they come
immediately upon what they consider to involve
notions of Human Merit, Hence probably it is,
that their sermons are frequently mere abstract
statements of elementary Doctrine ; one on the
Depravity of Human Nature for instance ; another
on Justification by Faith; with nothing to show
how the Doctrines are to be worked out in practice,
except, it may be, a few admonitory clauses at the
end, by way of summing up. And these doctrinal
sermons, it should be farther observed, are not deep
examinations of the subject proposed, explaining it
to the hearers more fully, and elucidating its diffi
culties, but mere dry statements of the very same
positions over and over again,
I was looking lately, after a long interval, at a
work which I once thought highly important,
"Letters to an Enquirer after Divine Truth," by
the late Rev. Edward Cooper, Rector of Hamstall
Ridware. There the writer, after giving his views
of the Truth according to the System which we
have above called Evangelical, devotes two Letters
to the subject of Antinomianism, the frightful evils
of which he very strongly depicts. But the line
by which he describes its doctrines to be separated
from those which he is advocating, is but faint
indeed, and fearfully exposed to the danger of being
trodden over and vanishing away.

23
" I need not inform you," he says, (Letters, p, 145,) " that
the grand peculiarity of this (the Antinomian) system
consists in exhibiting the righteousness of Christ as im
puted to his people, not only for pardon and acceptance
with God, but for sanctification also. He is represented
as being 'the end of the Law' to all true Believers on
Him, not only for their justifying righteousness, but also
for their personal holiness. They are described as holy
and sanctified in Him, no less than pardoned and justified :
while this more extended view, as it is asserted, of His
all-sufiiciency and perfection for the salvation of His
people, exalts His glory, and supplies to them additional
sources of joyful praise and grateful adoration. But
mark the practical consequences which result from this
perverse and unscriptural representation of Christian
Truth — consequences so direct and obvious, that although
they may not be studiously pointed out by the teacher of
these doctrines, yet they cannot fail of spontaneously sug
gesting themselves to every one of his hearers. If the
people of Christ are sanctified in Him, where is the neces
sity of their being sanctified in themselves ? If they have
in Him a personal holiness, where is their obligation to
have a personal holiness of their own ?'"
But may not these questions be addressed with
almost the same cogency to Mr. Cooper himself,
as to his Antinomian opponent? If the righteous
ness of Christ Himself is imputed to the Believer,
and that so as to procure his acceptance with God,
what necessity for any thing farther ; for personal
holiness, or any thing else whatever ? Such ques
tions can only be got rid of by subtle distinctions
about righteousness being imputed for one purpose,
and not for another ; — distinctions, I will venture to
say, utterly unknown to the language of Scripture.
Mr. Cooper goes on again, in page 148, This
System —

24
" — does not pretend to introduce or establish new doc
trines. It only professes to carry those which the other
advocates for Evangelical Truth adopt and venerate, to
their legitimate extent and obvious conclusions. Here
however, in this very process, the mischief is effected.
Under the pretext of honouring these doctrines, Antino
mianism corrupts and perverts them. The sufficiency of
the Redeemer, the completeness of his salvation, his
imputed righteousness to his people, the love which he
feels for them, the care which he takes of them, the privi
leges wliich he confers on them, are those delightful truths
which constitute the glory and beauty of the Gospel, and
are the only foundation of genuine devotion and piety.
And these are the very truths on which Antinomianism
professes to raise her superstructure. She pretends to
esteem and adopt them as the life and soul of her system ;
but in her mode of adopting them, she artfully contrives
to destroy their vitality, and whatever semblance of
beauty may be externally preserved, to substitute a putrid
and offensive mass within."
But what is there of argument in all this? an
Antinomian might well ask, " We profess," you
say, " to carry your views to their legitimate extent
and obvious conclusions: show us that we do any
thing more than this. Show us by sound argument ;
not by strong language only, and harsh words."
This doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, if fairly
followed out, seems indeed but too truly described
in the awakening language used by Cudworth on the
subject, in one of two excellent sermons of his, pub
lished by Bishop Jebb at .the end of his valuable
compilation, entitled, " Piety without Asceticism."
I was intending to extract the passage, but it is
too long. I refer to pages 453 — 455 of Bishop
Jebb's book, ed. 12mo. Lond, 1837.

25
One remark more on the subject of Justification,
" I have often felt much difficulty in admitting the
explanation, which I have been accustomed to hear
given in order to reconcile the apparent discre
pancy between the statements of St, Paul and St,
James, on Justification by Faith and by Works, It
has been stated, that St. Paul is speaking of justi
fication before God, and St, James of justification
in the eyes of men. Now there is no such distinc
tion at all obviously apparent in what they have
written : yet one has been accustomed to hear
the statement made with unhesitating confidence
and assurance, as though it were a point long ago
settled ; so that one was led in fact to regard it as
such, and to receive the explanation thus offered
accordingly. But now that I have learned to
pay less regard to these modern traditions, I have
examined into the matter a little more for myself,
and fully perceive that the assumption of any such
difference in the meanings of the term Justification,
as used by the two Apostles respectively, is utterly
groundless; it is a mere baseless and gratuitous
hypothesis. If any one does not see this from an
attentive and impartial consideration of the passage
of St. James itself, he may see it unanswerably
shewn in Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica, part 2,
chap. 1.
On this point Mr. Faber, who ventures still to
assert (p. 249) that St. James is speaking of our Jus
tification before men, seems to me lamentably to
fail in his reasoning. And although he appears to
be acquainted with Bishop Bull's writings, and oc
casionally refers to them, yet he makes no attempt

26
whatever to refute the arguments in the Harmonia
Apostolica to which I have just been referring, and
in fact takes not the slightest notice of them.
It is more consistent, however, with the nature
and design of this Letter to refer those who wish for
farther information to the works themselves, than
to undertake in this place any lengthened review
of the arguments on both sides. And I the more
readily do this, because it seems to me that it re
quires nothing but to discard preconceived notions,
and come to the reading of St. James's Epistle with
an unbiassed mind, to see at once that he is using
the word "justify" precisely in the sense in which
St. Paul uses it ; — to see that, "Abraham was justi
fied," and, " it was imputed to Abraham for righ
teousness," are used as synonymous expressions by
St. James, just as they are by St. Paul.
But then, it will be asked, how are the statements
of the two Apostles to be reconciled? The one
says, a man is justified by faith without the works
of the Law : the other, a man is justified by works,
and not by faith only? How can we make these
statements agree ?
To provide a satisfactory answer to this question,
is the object of Bishop Bull's work, which he entitles
" Harmonia Apostolica." That work I have never
till lately seen ; but a masterly work indeed I found
it to be. I would be far from saying too hastily that
I agree with the Bishop in all things ; and as far
from undertaking to state here at once wherein I
agree or disagree : the subject and the book are alike
too weighty to be thus lightly and incidentally dis
cussed. Yet I may perhaps venture to say, that I

27
have deduced from his work one great and most
important principle, which he appears, I think, sa
tisfactorily to establish. And that principle is this :
that when St. Paul mentions Faith, the believing,
obedient disposition of which we have been speak
ing, as contrasted with, or opposed to. Works ; he
always means such works as man can do by his own
strength, before or without the grace of the Gospel ;
as, for instance, the observance of ceremonial rites,
and abstinence from gross outward sins ; but that of
works wrought by the Believer through Christ
strengthening him, through the Spirit of Christ
dwelling in Him, he never speaks but in language
quite in harmony with that of St. James. At any
rate, I feel that I may safely recommend the work
to the careful consideration of all who wish to
search into the true sense of the Apostles' words,
with a reverential fear of perverting or explaining
them away. I have only read it in the English
Translation by the Rev. Thomas Wilkinson (Svo.
Lond. 1801.)
Let me next advert to the Doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration. Into any controversy on this subject
it is not my intention to enter ; nor do I recollect
any particular books to mention, or steps to trace,
by which I was led to sounder views on this point.
Suffice it to say, that since I have been brought to
see the truth of this doctrine, which I was formerly
taught to reject, I have discerned, with more andmore
clearness almost daily, on the one hand, its power, in
the distinctive character and awful responsibility im
posed on every baptized person ; and, on the other.

28
its beauty, and the consolation which it so richly
administers. How much of meaning, what a glow of
lively faith, and assured hope, and deep piety, now
shines forth in those baptismal and catechetical offices
ofour Church, which before could only be understood,
or at all admitted, by the help of cold and laboured
explanations ! And especially, what delightful hope,
what most animating encouragement, does this Tnith
afford to those who are engaged in the education of
children, in bringing them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord. What a chilling, wither
ing thought, to have the fear before one, that the
little ones the mother is teaching are still the child
ren of wrath, lying in the wicked one, unwashed, un-
sanctified, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,
strangers from the covenants of promise. Yet this,
according to the Evangelical view, must be the case,
unless a secret change has passed upon them, of
which, at that tender age, seldom indeed can any
judgment be formed, and never can it with certainty
be known. It must always be a trembling hope at
best. And how, with such views, children can with
any consistency be taught the Church Catechism,
is more than I can understand.
It seems so extravagant to describe a baptized
person, whether child or adult, especially one bap
tized according to the rites of the Church of Eng
land, as " a stranger from the covenants of promise,"
that it may be thought I have overcharged the pic
ture, in stating that such a description is ever applied
to them. Though I myself not very long since heard
the expression so applied, yet I should certainly
have hesitated about quoting it as a description

29
generally adopted, and should have set it down as
uttered hastily and unguardedly on the occasion
that I refer to ; had I not again heard, since I have
been writing this Letter, a sermon preached by one
who is a leader and a man of authority in the Evan
gelical School, in which this very phrase, and all the
others connected with it in Ephesians ii, 12, were
examined at length, set forth in all their fearful
import, and then expressly applied to the state of
the baptized Christian, so long as he -remained un
converted, as it is called.
One occasionally hears of persons going away
from sermons with angry or contemptuous expres
sions against the preacher, for "hitting them so
hard," and the like ; and even of persons, who re
gularly attend at his church, talking so. And these
are mentioned as instances of the power of the Go
spel in pricking men to the heart, and of the depra
vity and obstinacy of man's heart in resisting it. I
have learned always to suspect, that in these cases
there is fault in the preacher as well as the hearer ;
a fault of the kind we have just been considering.
When men are solemnly reproved for their sins and
wickedness, in the way in which Christians ought
to be reproved — when the unspeakably awful con
sequences to which they must lead are set before
them, as before men who know the Truth, and
are, or at least have once been made, members of
Christ — then a man may indeed go away and com
plain of the strictness and severity of the preacher ;
or may refrain from going again to hear one who
proclaims truths so unpleasing: but to speak of him
in the words of scorn or railing is more than he

30
dare do. Conscience would not endure it for a
moment. Still less would he go to hear such things
from time to time, " till he got used to it." But
when the preacher pours forth these sweeping de
clarations of the heathenish darkness, ignorance,
vileness, and helplessness of the state in which the
greater number of his Christian hearers are lying,
conscience does not respond to him, and gives him
no support. Christians feel inwardly that they are
not in such a state, whatever difficulty they may
find in replying argumentatively to the preacher's
reasonings. And so, as soon as they are out of his
way, they turn upon him with impunity, and deny
his statements, and hold him up to reproach and
scorn. I am getting upon points on which I ought to
speak with much caution and diffidence, if indeed it
becomes me to speak upon them at all. To criti
cize different styles of preaching is a difficult and
dangerous task, and to speak also of a large body
of men under the general and undefined term of
Evangelical Preachers may lead to misconception ;
so many are there who are called so, and may even
call themselves so, who have yet in a very great
degree got rid of the prejudices and trammels of a
School of Theology, and to whom any remarks that
may be made on the subject would not apply. If
however it be lawful to state, with these previous
cautions, the conclusion to which my own experience
has led me, I should say that the great and charac
teristic difference between what is called Evangelical
preaching, and the preaching of other clergymen,
seems to turn entirely upon this point of Baptismal

31
Regeneration, The clergyman who adopts the views
that we are here maintaining, and which our Church
sets before him in her Baptismal Service, addresses
his hearers as all standing on the same footing, all
being baptized Christians, and so regenerate, and
grafted into Christ's Church, He addresses them
therefore as all entitled to the same privileges, all
bound to the same duties, all involved in the same
awful responsibility. The Evangelical Preacher, on
the contrary, divides his hearers into two classes, as
he well may according to his views — the converted
and the unconverted ; or, which is the same thing
in his estimation, the regenerate and the unregene-
rate. The latter are addressed in the language used
by the Apostles of or to the Heathen ; the former,
as Christians, are exhorted to live up to their pri
vileges, and to show forth their thankfulness for the
mercies bestowed upon them by a consistent walk
and conversation. But how each hearer is to know
in which class to rank himself, I have never yet
heard at all clearly explained.
The effect of this distinction, however, is deeply
to be lamented. Often have I heard or read very
solemn admonitions, most profitable and necessary
to every Christian man, the effect of which has
been entirely impaired by the conclusion of the
discourse, from which it has appeared that these
warnings were, after all, only intended for the un
converted ; and the converted are dismissed with a
very brief exhortation at the close, of the character
which I have before described. In fact, the ten
dency of such preaching is to leave those who
have any reason to suppose themselves converted

32
very much to themselves, as though they only wanted
a little occasional reminding, and would in the main
keep the right path almost as a matter of course.
Sometimes this tendency is but too strongly deve
loped ; but the same kind of happy inconsistency
which has been noticed above in reference to a similar
subject, seems to prevail also in these addresses to
the converted. I have heard it stated, for instance, in
a sermon, that "blessings are secured to such persons
of which nothing and nobody can deprive them ;"
and a little after it was said, " they are everlastingly
saved, and heaven is secured to them ;" yet in the
very same sermon, in speaking of the carnal prin
ciple still at work in the believer, it was said, " he
sees that this carnal principle must be destroyed, or
it will destroy him ;" and his consequent exertions to
destroy it were described. These expressions I
noted down at the time, as things which I knew not
how to reconcile, nor do I yet see how such doc
trines are to stand together.
But I am here reminded of an important question
that suggested itself to my mind in considering
these subjects, viz. What kind of preaching is set
before us in the Homilies of our Church ?
One great benefit that I consider myself to have
derived from reading the Tracts for the Times and
similar writings, is, that they have set me upon
examining into the records of our Church, and
the opinions really maintained by our Reformers,
Strype's writings, or rather compilations, appear to
me exceedingly valuable in this respect. The nu
merous letters and original documents which they
contain, and the incidental notices which they from

33
time to time afford of the manners, and views, and
habits of thinking of the age, render them highly
important, I have read lately, with much interest
and advantage, twelve volumes of the Oxford 8vo,
edition of his works, and hope to get through the
rest as opportunity may be afforded. In the mean
time, I was sent off to the Homilies sooner perhaps
than I should otherwise have resorted to them,
by the Paper prefixed to the fourth volume of
the Tracts, written in answer to an Article in
a Religious Magazine on the subject of Baptism,
I was surprised at the tone of that Paper. It
seemed almost as though the writer of it had
nothing to bring against his opponent but the
retort, " If I find in the Homilies things awkward
to get over, you on your principles will find worse,"
I was desirous therefore to see what the Homilies
did really say, and I read them pretty carefully
through, I was certainly apprehensive that what I
had begun to consider to be sound and consistent
and Scriptural views of Divine Truth, might after
all be found to be opposed to the Doctrines taught
in these authorised Documents of our Church ; but
to my great satisfaction I found that you had
nothing to fear from them. The Third Homily, on
the Salvation of Man, taken by itself, appears in
deed at first sight to be written on the Calvinistic
scheme ; though it does not seem to me that even
in that there is anything said that a Writer in the
Tracts for the Times would refuse to admit ; and
in fact Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia Apostolica,
quotes several passages from it in support and
illustration of his own Anti-Calvinistic views. But

34
at all events, when we look at the Homilies together
as a whole, the result is decidedly in your favour.
They are as different from the style of Evangehcal
preaching, which I have been describing above, as
one can well imagine any Sermons to be. Of the
great distinguishing mark of that kind of preach
ing, the difference made in addressing the converted
and the unconverted, there is scarcely a trace. The
hearers are addressed continually as " good Chris
tian people,'' even when they are reproved for, or
warned against, the most fearful sins. And indeed
even in that very Homily which I have just re
ferred to as apparently at first sight Calvinistic, it is
assumed that Original Sin is remitted in Baptism;
thus granting a point on which in fact, as has been
already observed, the whole controversy turns. This
doctrine is not set forth at length, or supported by
proofs, but, as I have said, is assumed ; for indeed
it appears that at this date it was hardly questioned
by any.
And as to the Homily on Alms-deeds, most
assuredly there is many a zealous Evangelical man,
who if he were to hear such a Sermon as that
preached now, would be very much disposed to get
up in the middle of it and leave the Church. I con
fess that I was myself startled with it at first, but on
consideration I perceived that no more was said in
commendation of the virtue of Alms-giving than
undoubted testimonies of Scripture warrant, setting
aside the Texts from the Apocrypha which are
quoted on the subject.
I feel that my knowledge of the History of the
Reformation is yet so imperfect, that one is almost

35
afraid to speak of it, or to deduce anything from it ;
but if I might venture to say a few words on such a
point, I would state that the general impressions I
have derived from what I have lately read on the
subject are as follows : —
1. That the Reformers never had any idea of set
ting up a New Church ; they desired to purify the
Church, not to pull it down and erect a new one of
their own; they never thought of adopting any
scheme that had been or might be framed by men's
imaginations from the bare letter of Scripture with
out reference to ancient usage ; but on the contrary,
their references to the Ancient Fathers for authority,
both on points of doctrine and discipline, are ex
plicit and constantly recurring.
2. That nevertheless they did not keep clearly
and steadily enough in view the nature of the work
that they had to do, and which they were to a great
extent really doing ; so that though Jewell, in his
Apology for instance, sometimes says that they have
not departed from the Church of Rome, but rather
from her errors, and to that effect, yet in other
places he speaks as if they had indeed altogether
departed from her, and gone back to the Primitive
Church ; in such a sense as though they had esta
blished a new Church of their own on the primitive
model: not sufficiently observing that they were
keeping up the old frame-work, and only clearing
off from it corruptions and incongruities,
3, That much of this indistinctness of percep
tion arose from the close union which as Protes
tants they naturally kept up with the Foreign Pro
testant Churches, which union was made yet closer
d2

36
during the days of persecution under Queen Mary,
when those Churches afforded them protection
abroad, 4, That the Order and Unity of the Church, im
mediately on its first establishment in the Reformed
state, was most vigorously and effectually main
tained, under the Providence of God, by Archbishop
Parker, but that it was maintained at that time not
so much from just views of the authority and claims
of the Church as such, but rather from the Arch
bishop's clear perception that those who wished
to alter the laws and relax the orderly discipline of
the Church were equally ready and desirous to
alter all other laws, and to get rid of kingly as
well as priestly rule and discipline ; in fact, from an
almost prophetical foresight of the insubordination
and anarchy that would result should such men
attain their objects,
5, That gradually throughout Elizabeth's reign
sounder notions of Episcopal authority and of the
constitution of the Church continued to gain ground,
so that by the endofArchbishopWhitgift'sdays,atthe
beginning of the reign of James I, these things were
looked upon in a much more correct view than in the
beginnings of Parker : and that thus the views of Laud
and others, who have been unjustly stigmatized as
Half-Papists, were not in any degree a counter-
reformation, or a departure from the principles of
those who had gone before them, but merely the
carrying out those principles more fully; the com
pletion of what had been gradually going on ever
since the establishment of the Reformation itself.
Finally, that at the time when the Articles were

37
drawn up, the Theological opinions of the Heads of
the Church of England approached very nearly,
except as to the Doctrine of the Sacraments, to what
are generally called Calvinistic views ; and that these
theological opinions underwent a gradijal change
and modification in after-years, just as opinions on
external Ecclesiastical order did. The Articles
themselves however never having been changed,
they retain of course their Calvinistic complexion.
Yet as it was attempted in Whitgift's days to add
to them a strictly Calvinistic interpretation, which
attempt was discountenanced and set aside, it seems
but fair to conclude that they are to be taken in so
moderate a sense that a man who does not hold
with the whole Calvinistic system may honestly
subscribe to them. And moreover if they be taken
in a strongly Calvinistic sense, they would be
opposed to the Homilies, Liturgy, and Services of
the Church,
But it is time to proceed to another subject.
The next point shall be, the use and authority of
Ecclesiastical Tradition,
For want of proper views on this point, I have
formerly felt in danger of having one's faith shaken
on most important matters ; and I have also found
that while one is despising or protesting against the
authority of Tradition, one may all the time be
falling back upon it, and not only so, but falling
back upon it as presented in a bad and really
objectionable form, as I shall presently show,
I remember reading, several years ago, Dr, Ward-
law's work against Socinianism, and I rose from

38
it with a feeling of disappointment, " Surely," I
thought, " so momentous a Doctrine as that which
we have here before us, a Doctrine at first sight so
repugnant to what Scripture and Reason alike teach
us of the Unity of the Divine Being, ought not to
require so much argument to prove that Scripture
really teaches it. One would expect it to be set
forth in characters that none could misconstrue or
mistake. Instead of which, here are several pas-
sages that require explanation, and seem at first
against the Doctrine. And several of those in
favour of it are such as the ingenuity of man has
enabled him plausibly to interpret in some other
sense, and so to get rid of. In some, the readings
of the Original are disputed, and that with so
much show of reason, that one is unable to rest
upon them with anything like firm conviction.
The passages in which the Doctrine is incidentally
referred to, and of which no reasonable interpreta
tion can be given without admitting it, are indeed
numerous and very strong ; but then are we to
gather so momentous a Doctrine from incidental
mention of it only ? " I felt therefore disappointed ;
but I resolutely shut my mind against all doubts on
the subject, and that chiefly from this consideration,
that all the good men, all the devout Christians,
whom I had ever seen or heard spoken of, or whose
works I had read, believed the Doctrine, and not
only believed it, but looked to it as the anchor of
their hope and salvation.
I do not speak of these doubts as having risen in
my own case to anything of a serious extent. But
to have one's habitual settled conviction of any

39
great truth shaken, though ever so slightly, is a
dangerous thing ; and a thing which in some minds
would be likely to produce the most lamentable
results, when there was nothing satisfactory found
to fall back upon. Now what was it that I had iii
this case to fall back upon ? What but the opinion
of good men — the testimony of those, who, however
sound in Doctrine, or holy in life, were still fallible
men — what in fact but mere human authority?
Thus then while I was all the time considering
the Doctrine of Tradition as an exploded Popish
fiction, I was in fact supporting myself on Tradition
in its worst and most objectionable form, resting on
the mere opinions and declarations of man.
Now, Sir, through the teaching of yourself, and
others like-minded with you, I have acquired, I
hope, better knowledge, and stand, I trust, on firmer
ground. Should any such doubts as I have described
now recur, I see that I can fall back, not upon the
opinions of any individual Christians, but upon the
authorised and authoritative declarations of the
Church. And when we rest upon any Ancient Re
cord of the Church's opinions on such points, the
Nicene Creed for instance, it is not that we merely
transfer our confidence from men of the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, to men of the fourth or
fifth, it is not that we believe these rather than
those, thinking them to have been wiser and better
men — though upon this point also something might
be said — but the case is this : I believe that there is
a Church, to which our Lord promised His presence
and the guidance of His Spirit, and that that
Church, however now distracted and weakened in

40
herself, and borne down by the Civil State, had in
early times opportunities of coming together as an
entire body and of expressing her opinions, which
opinions deserve to be received with all respect and
acceptation, subject only to the authority of the
express Word of God : and I feel moreover that
these decisions of the early Church carry with them
irresistible power, when viewed in the light of
Historical Testimony, as authentic Records of the
faith handed down to her from the Apostles,
And herein indeed the immense importance of
Ancient Tradition appears mainly to lie, an im
portance which one would suppose no one could
question or controvert. The Bishops at Nicsea for
instance stg-rted no new opinions ; they brought
thither the Doctrines which had been received and
taught of old in their churches, and of which no
beginning could or can be traced short of the times
of the Apostles themselves. If this be the true
Historical view of the subject, their opinion and that
of the Fathers in general becomes inestimably va
luable, not so much for its own intrinsic worth, as
because it forms part of a chain of Historical Testi
mony, bearing witness to us what was the Doctrine
which the Apostles really taught. If it had pleased
God to give in the Inspired Scriptures of the New
Testament a regularly arranged System of Theology ;
a Confession, or Creed, or set of Articles of Religion ;
such Testimony might more easily have been dis
pensed with. Instead of which, it is manifest on the
very face of most of the Apostolical Epistles, that
they were written, not as Systematic Expositions of
Christian Doctrine, but with reference to local and

41
temporary circumstances of the Churches or indivi
duals to whom they were addressed ; nor in any of the
Books of the New Testament is anything like a Creed
or Confession to be found. And in the meantime we
read of the continual oral preaching and teaching
of the Apostles, and an order of men is instituted
to carry on this teaching to succeeding generations.
But it is superfluous to pursue this argument, and
indeed almost presumptuous to enter upon it, after
the many excellent things which have just recent
ly been written concerning it. May I mention as
writings which have been very satisfactory and con
vincing to my own mind, the Lecture of the Rev.
W. Dodsworth on the Scriptures and Catholic
Antiquity, printed in his work entitled, " The
Church of England a Protester against Romanism
and Dissent," (12mo, Lond. 1836); a Sermon by
the Rev. J. B. Cartwright on Romish Tradition,
preached in March 1838, (published by Baisler,
Oxford Street); and the Introduction to the first
Sermon on Antichrist in the Oxford Tract No. 82,
And here having had occasion to mention the
name of my valued friend Mr, Dodsworth, I cannot
refrain from adding that there is no one from whose
writings and personal communications I have de
rived more information and instruction on these
subjects than from his. His writings are short,
clear, addressed to common sense, and eminently
adapted for those who may not yet have inclination,
or may think that they have not time, to examine
into these things more extensively, I refer to the
work of his that I have just now mentioned, to his
Advent Lectures, his Sermons on the Advantages of

42
Frequent Communion, and some other Sermons and
Tracts, which have been published separately.
But to proceed :
Connected with the subject of Tradition is that of
Apostolical Succession, or the position that those
only have a right to exercise the Pastoral Office in
the Church who can trace their ordination by
Succession from the Apostles, I am not aware that
this point ever came under my notice in the former
times that I have referred to ; but ever since I have
thought on the subject at all, it has seemed to me
such a matter of common sense, that it appears
extraordinary how any one can have any doubt about
it, I was surprised therefore to find a Paper on
this subject in the Oxford Tracts (No, 19 in vol. I)
written in so cautious and timid a tone. To me
a simple and somewhat amusing story told by the
Rev, S, R. Maitland in his " Voluntary System "
(The Voluntary System, by a Churchman, 12mo, Lond. 1834,
Rivingtons) seems quite sufficient on this point. I want
nothing farther. And as it is possible that you
may not have seen this story, may I be allowed
here to introduce it ? I believe that at the time the
incident took place, Mr. Maitland was not himself
ordained. However, the story is as follows :
" Some years ago I lived in the neighbourhood of a dis
senting minister who was, and had been for some years
 assistant to a senior minister, who had a large
congregation, and who, though he worked hard himself,
absolutely required some help in the numerous services
which he had to perform. My friend, the junior, having
never been ordained, was pretty much as if he had been
in Deacon's orders, and though he was fully allowed to

43
preach and pray, yet he could not administer the Sacra
ment of the Lord's Supper, and I am not sure whether,
under such circumstances, he could baptize. This was
frequently a source of inconvenience, and his ordination as
co-pastor had been talked of from time to time, and defer
red for no reason in the world but that nobody thought it
worth while to be busy in it. One day, when we were by
ourselves, I said to him, ' I wonder you do not get
ordained — it would surely be much more convenient.' —
" Why, yes,' he replied, ' it certainly would ; we have often
talked about it, but it has been deferred.' — ' Well,' said I,
' I wish you would let me do it at once.' He looked at me
with some surprise, and said — ' You ? ' — ' Yes,' I answered,
' unless you have any objection to me — if you have, I have
no wish to offer myself.' — 'Well, but how?' — 'Nay,' I in
terrupted, ' I have not the least wish to press my own
services ; there are Mr.  and Mr.  (two Deacons of
the Meeting), they are older men, and men in whose piety
you have fall confidence — why do you not ask them?' —
' Well, but how could they do it ?'— ' Why not ? '— ' Why—
of course — that is — ^you know they are not Ministers.' —
'Indeed! then you think it necessary that they should
have been ordained themselves ? ' — ' Why, yes, does not
every body think so ? ' — ' I do not know — ^but it appears to
me that you hold the doctrine of Apostolic Succession ; for
if there is a link out of a chain, it seems to me to matter
very little whether it is wanting at one end or the other.'
" Such was the substance, and I believe very nearly the
language, of our discourse. My good friend did not appear
to have considered that view of the matter, and certainly
did not explain it to me. Nor have I since met with any
explanation." Vol. Syst. pp. 289-291.
This of course does not touch the question be
tween Presbyterians and Episcopalians ; but on the
subject of the necessity of Apostolical Succession of
some kind, I confess that I want nothing more.

44

We proceed to another subject, one that must
be approached with reverence and solemnity — the
Doctrine of the Atonement.
This subject has always appeared to me full of
difficulty and mystery. How it could satisfy the
Justice of God, or even be consistent with it, that
an innocent person should suffer for the guilty, I
could never understand. Even Bishop Butlen
excellently as he speaks upon the subject generally
(Analogy, part 2, chap, 5) seems to me, if one may
venture to say so, to fail, when he attempts to
answer the objection, that this doctrine " represents
God as being indifferent whether he punished the
innocent or the guilty," Yet one is accustomed to
hear the doctrine set forth and dwelt upon in minute
, detail, and described as wonderfully illustrating all
the Divine attributes. Justice among the rest. It is
admitted indeed to be a deep mystery ; but the
mystery consists in the wonderful wisdom and love
of God therein displayed, in the wonderful conde
scension of the Son of God in undertaking the office
of a suffering Mediator, or in the wonders of His
Person, as God and man united. The nature of the
plan of salvation by an Atonement, and the re
conciling this plan with the Righteous Judgment
and Justice of God, seem to be considered as
points that are perfectly intelligible and present no
difficulty. The usual way of setting forth this Doctrine being
then to my mind altogether unsatisfactory, I at the
first embraced with pleasure, and now acquiesce
with entire satisfaction in the view that I find taken

45
of it in the Oxford Tracts, as 9. mystery not fully
revealed to us, one which we cannot understand, and
ought not curiously to pry into ; which we ought
not too unreservedly to teach, nor to attempt fully to
explain and illustrate. (Tract No. 73, pp. 27-30, and
Tract No. 80, p, 74), Or let me rather express my
ideas on the subject in the words of Bishop Butler,
in a passage from the same chapter of his Analogy
to which I have already referred ; a passage which
I had no doubt read before, but had neglected and
forgotten, till your writings were the means of again
directing my attention to it :
" Sacrifices of expiation were commanded the Jews and
obtained among most other nations, from tradition, whose
original probably was revelation. And they were continu
ally repeated, both occasionally and at the returns of stated
times, and made up great part of the external religion of
mankind. ' But now once in the end of the world Christ
appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,' And
this sacrifice was in the highest degree and with the most
extensive influence, of that efficacy for obtaining pardon of
sin, which the heathen may be supposed to have thought
their sacrifices to have been, and which the Jewish sacri
fices really were in some degree and with regard to some
persons. " How and in what particular way it had this efficacy,
there are not wanting persons who have endeavoured to
explain, but I do not find that the Scripture has explained
it. We seem to be very much in the dark concerning the
manner in which the Ancients understood Atonement to
be made, i. e. pardon to be obtained by sacrifice. And if the
Scripture has, as surely it has, left this matter of the satis
faction of Christ mysterious, left somewhat in it unrevealed,
all conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd,
vet at least uncertain. Nor has any one reason to com-

46
plain for want of farther information, unless he can show
his claim to it.
Some have endeavoured to explain the efficacy of what
Christ has done and suffered for us, beyond what the Scrip
ture has authorised : others, probably because they could
not explain it, have -been for taking it away, and confi
ning his office, as Redeemer of the World, to His instruc
tion, example, and government of the Church ; whereas
the Doctrine of the Gospel appears to be, not only that
He taught the efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of
the efficacy which it is, by what He did and suffered for
us : that He obtained for us the benefit of having our
repentance accepted unto eternal life : not only that He
revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of sal
vation and how they might obtain it, but moreover that
He put them into this capacity of salvation by what he
did and suffered for them; put us into a capacity of
escaping future punishment and obtaining future hap
piness. And it is our wisdom thankfally to accept the
benefit, by performing the conditions upon which it is
offered, on our part, without disputing how it was procured
on His," Analogy, chap. v. part 2.
One thing that strikes one very painfully in hear
ing the subject of the Atonement discussed, is the
extreme want of reverence which is often shown in
speaking of it. We are told what is supposed to
have passed in the Councils of Heaven and what
each Person of the Holy Trinity engaged, as it is
expressed, to do for man ; as though all this had
been clearly revealed to us, and as though it were
permitted to us to speak as freely of it as of any
transaction which History records to have taken
place between earthly Princes and their subjects.
Neither is it with respect to the Atonement only
that this want of reverence prevails. The designs

47
of God in his various works, and the ends which He
has in view in them, are often far too positively
stated, and too lightly discussed; and in fact the
whole of our phraseology on deep and sacred sub
jects requires to be brought into a more subdued
and reverential tone.
To take the first instance that occurs; let me
quote the opening of a printed Sermon, a copy of
which came into my hands a day or two since — I do
not mention the author of it, because I have no
wish whatever to represent him as more faulty than
others in this matter. He begins thus :
" To exhibit His own character, in the harmonious
union of all His infinite perfections, is the great design
which God has had in view from all eternity, and which
He has pursued in all His dealings with His creatures
from the beginning. To this design, as to their origi
nating motive, must be traced up all the wonders of crea
tion and of Providence; to this must be referred the
entire scheme of God's moral government of the world ;
and to this also must be ascribed that greatest of all the
works of God, that richest display of Divine wisdom and
goodness, in comparison of w^hich all others sink into
insignificance, the stupendous scheme of redemption and
grace." Now this statement may be true, or may not be
true. That point I have no intention to argue.
What I mean to say is this, that no man, it appears
to me, ought to adventure to make statements of his
own, or in his own words, on subjects so awful and
mysterious: no man ought to attempt to tell us
what is the great design that God has had in view
from all eternity, or to determine which is the
greatest of His works, and what the richest display

48
of His goodness ; except as he may be able to do so
in the language, I mean as far as the case admits in
the very words, of Scripture itself. In fact, nothing
strikes one more m descending from the Tracts for
the Times and other works of the same class to the
popular theological writings of the day, than tbe
holy solemnity which pervades the former, and the
familiarity of style and loose statements about sacred
things which run through the latter.
From Doctrines let us now proceed to Practice,
And here it appears to me that twenty years
ago the Evangelical men, as a body, had greatly
the advantage, as to their walk and conversation in
the ordinary duties of life. And indeed it was
natural that it should be so. For the views oppo
site to, or at least different from, theirs; called,
sometimes for distinction's sake, sometimes with a
view to the real meaning of the word, " Orthodox ;"
had been almost universally taught and preached
by the clergy of the Church of England in the last
century; and therefore the multitude of mankind,
who, careless about the substance of religion, hold
the opinions which their fathers or teachers have
held before them, all belonged to the Orthodox
School. Whereas the Evangelical man, having em
braced new views, then but beginning to be taught
in the Church, had of course, from the nature of the
case, been searching and inquiring into religious
matters before he was led to take such a step ; and
therefore necessarily professed, and in general in
his practice evinced, a serious regard for religion.
But as his standard of Doctrine was low and

49
defective, so was his standard of practice also ne
cessarily low and defective too, and in many things
deviating from the right path. Yet in the ordinary
duties of life he doubtless, for the reasons above
mentioned, too often excelled those whose prin
ciples, had they paid any regard to them, and acted
at all up to them, would have taught them better
things. Let me revert for a moment in illustration of this
to the time when I was an Undergraduate at Cam
bridge, now about twenty years ago. The young
men of Evangelical principles were then in the
habit of attending the preaching of the late Rev.
Charles Simeon, and were often called " Simeonites,"
And this Sectarian appellation they bore not unde
servedly, for what business had we to select a
Teacher for ourselves, one who had no authority
whatever to teach us : none at least in his character
of a Preacher in his own Parish Church in the Town,
which was the place to which we resorted to hear
him. Now then while the Simeonite hastened off
on the Sunday to the Sermon of Mr, Simeon after
the services of his own .College, while he spent
the rest of the day in retirement, or in the society
of one or two intimate friends ; what was the Ortho
dox doing ? Was he engaged in the exercises of
devotion, only confining himself to the authorised
services of the University instead of seeking after
those of an unauthorised Teacher ? Not so un
happily. The protracted breakfast-party in the
morning, the wine-party in the afternoon, or an
other party in the evening, often all three on the
same day, wasted the precious hours, in too many
cases, in unprofitable frivolity and idleness. But

50
perhaps while the Simeonite observed the Sunday
more strictly, the Orthodox put him to shame in
the regard he paid to other solemn festivals, and to
the fasts of the Church, Not so again, I never
heard of those days being more regarded by the
one party than the other, or indeed by either of
them at all, except so far as the University or Col
lege Regulations compelled them to do so. In fact,
so little did even those in authority then attend to
such matters, that for most if not the whole of the
time that I was an Undergraduate, the Litany was
not even read on Wednesdays and Fridays in the
course of the daily service in our C!ollege Chapel,
And it was at last through the intervention of an
Undergraduate, whose name, if I felt it right here
to introduce it, ought to be mentioned with honour
— orthodox yet devout, not a Simeonite himself, yet
not despising those who were — 'that this gross irre
gularity was set right.
What a privilege it must be to young men at
Oxford now, to see in so many of their superiors
strict conformity and obedience to all outward laws
and ordinances, joined to exemplary holiness of
life! — what an effect ought this to produce, what
accuracy of knowledge, what excellence of practice!
For the difference in the walk and conversation
of the two parties at Cambridge was not discernible
on Sunday only, it prevailed to a great extent also
in daily life; and I apprehend that this state of
things in the University was in the main a pattern
of the state of things in England at large.
Yet the standard of duty taken by the Evangelical
School was, as I have already observed, sadly low
and defective. Not only did they undervalue and

51

neglect the outward ordinances and observances of
the Church, but they were too prone to set up a
standard of holiness of their own, which they never,
or but too seldom, thought of exceeding. They
fixed upon a few places or things which were prohi
bited, as for example, the Theatre, the Card-table,
the Race-ground, and then stopped short. If abs
tinence frorh these were observed, efforts after far
ther attainments in holiness were too little thought
of or inculcated, and men were left very much to
themselves; to live, if they chose, a self-pleasing,
easy, careless life without disturbance. Such I fear
was the effect in practice of the views they enter
tained : as mighty indeed be expected ; for they were
afraid, as has been already remarked, to insist upon
labours, mortifications, and self-denial, through fear
of exalting the merit of human works.
In making these general observations however,
which Truth seemed to justify and to require, I
shall not be thought, I hope, to have been passing
judgment on individuals : lest it should be replied,
"wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest
thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things,"
There is assuredly a right and a high standard that
ought to be aimed at, whatever may be the failings
of this or that particular person.
But the great bane of the System adopted by
those of whom we have been speaking, in its influ
ence upon the Church and the nation at large, that
evil from which we are at this day most grievously
suffering, was the spirit of independence and insub
ordination which it generated and fostered. And
in nothing was this more clearly exhibited than in
e2

52
the nature and direction of their labours for the
promotion of religion in the world through the
agency of public Voluntary Societies,
Their plans formed for this purpose involved
indeed other evils also, I might mention for in
stance that these labours were, in very many cases,
so far from being attended with self-denial and
mortification of the flesh, that on the contrary but
too much occasion was administered for the gratifi
cation of pride and self-importance in the exercise
of them. The hurry and turmoil of business in the
management of the numerous Religious Societies,
the bustle and animation of frequently-recurring
Committee-Meetings, and of the debates at them,
and finally the extreme excitement of the great
Public Meetings, are all exceedingly agreeable to a
man of an active mind. He has the excitement and
self-importance of one engaged in some high Public
Office, and all the time has the satisfaction of per
suading his conscience that he is doing God service
therein. But evils of this kind, it may be said, are
not parts of the System we are speaking of, or prin
ciples on which it is founded : they are rather abuses
which have grown out of it, and which may be and
ought to be checked. Let us look then more parti
cularly at the spirit of independence, and Libe
ralism, to use a modern word, which prevails through
out these Societies; and this I fear will be found
to be not an adventitious circumstance, but the very
principle of their first establishment and present
existence. And here I would set out with saying that one
of the first things that began to detach me from

53
those with whom I had before acted, was an exhi
bition of this Liberalism on the part of the British
and Foreign Bible Society, in their refusal to
exclude Socinians from the management of the
Society, and other privileges of membership. The
practice of admitting such persons and acting with
them might unawares have crept in and been
tolerated ; but that when the evil had been pointed
out, and remonstrances made to the Society against
it, it should be pertinaciously defended and che
rished — 'this startled one, and to a certain extent
opened one's eyes. We of the minority however,
who then retired from the Society, never thought of
anything better than forming another public and
voluntary Society of the same sort, merely providing
for the exclusion of one or two obnoxious classes
of persons, and for the acknowledgment of the duty
of united prayer in the Committee.
But from that day to this I have gradually, I hope,
been acquiring better knowledge and juster views
on these subjects. I now see how unfit are these
irresponsible and uncontrolled Societies, this mixed
multitude, for meddling with sacred things, and
taking upon them to provide for the spiritual wants
of their own and even of other nations.
Let us look for instance at a Society which is
thought by many to be free from all reproach of
Liberalism, that which is called The Church Mis
sionary Society,
An assembly of persons, consisting of all who
choose to subscribe a guinea a year to the proposed
object, meet together, and appoint some twenty or
thirty of their number to manage the affairs of the

54
Society. The Board thus constituted, a Board of
bankers, lawyers, merchants, traders, and perhaps
some military or naval officers, and other laymen,
meet together, and have the assistance from time
to time of a few clergymen, some appointed as
they themselves are, some voluntary and occasional
helpers, none of them invested with the least Ec
clesiastical authority. And this heterogeneous board
of a self-constituted Society thus sitting in London,
selects men to preach the Gospel, judges of their
qualifications, sends them out all over the world,
appoints their stations and salaries, recalls or
removes them at pleasure, and, where they are
placed in the dioceses of our Bishops, exercises
a concurrent jurisdiction with the Bishops them
selves over them. The whole system seems so
utterly inconsistent with any, even the lowest view
of Ecclesiastical authority and discipline, that one
is perfectly astonished how one could have gone
on so many years without perceiving or suspecting
the evil of it.
That some of our Bishops entirely countenance
these proceedings, and that others are ready to
ordain the men recommended to them by such a
Board, to be employed afterwards under the direction
of the Board, is indeed deeply to be regretted, but
it very little affects the nature and character of the
Society's operations *, In fact one must acknowledge
* I had written all this before I saw the Paper on the Ecclesi
astical Relations of the Church Missionary Society appended to the
last (39th) Report of the Committee. That Paper is skilfully
drawn up, but what I have written above is the plain common-
sense statement of the case, and I do not see that I need alter a
word

55
that there are Bishops who uphold the whole system
of Doctrine and Practice which is opposed in this
Letter ; and I trust it is not written with the slightest
feeling of disrespect either towards themselves or
their sacred office. They do not urge, so far as I
am aware, an agreement with their own views and
practices, as a matter of canonical obedience, even
upon those who are immediately under their charge ;
and still less therefore can they object to a member
of the Church of England, who is not in official sub
jection to them, stating respectfully, yet freely, his
views on these subjects.
Now it was not that zealous men were driven to
the irregular proceedings we have been describing,
by the want of any provision in the Church of
England for Missionary purposes. There was the
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, a Society
equally excellent in its object and constitution. For
though it were much to be desired indeed that
Missionary operations should be directed by a Synod
or other regular assembly of the Church, yet in
default of that, the Propagation Society, governed
and directed as it is entirely by the Incorporated
Members, to the exclusion of the general body,
comes as near to a right Constitution as we can
expect or hope. For among these Incorporated
Members, the two Archbishops and several other
Dignitaries of the Church are included by the Charter
of Incorporation, and provision is made by the Rules
of the Society for the admission of all the Bishops
word of it. However, let us at all events be thankful that the
Committee have found it necessary to append any such Paper at
all to their Report. It is a good Sign of the Times.

56
into their number. At the time when the Church
Missionary Society was formed, it may be that the
Propagation Society had become inactive or ineffi
cient, or that it had appointed as Missionaries or
Teachers some who were not properly qualified for
their office. Supposing this to have been the case —
I do not at all know that it was — but suppose it to
have been, what was the remedy ? Not surely to
start a rival Society, rending our beloved Church
with divisions, and that too a popular Society under
no Ecclesiastical discipline or control, but to have
laboured to improve the Venerable Institution which
was already existing : to have laboured for this in the
way of vigorous exertion in its behalf, and respectful
remonstrance to those who conducted its affairs, but
above all in unwearied and earnest Prayer to the
great Head of the Church, that He would pour out
His Spirit and His blessing richly upon it. But
this patient, praying, trusting spirit, was not the
spirit of the times. Why it was not the spirit of
those good men, for such they surely were,
who established the new Society of which we have
been speaking; why it did not please God to open
their eyes to the true character and the consequences
of what they were doing, who shall say? Yet
the promise is, that the Spirit shall guide those
who seek His guidance into all Truth, — for that
promise doubtless was not made to the Apostles
alone, but to those also who should believe through
their word, — and we cannot therefore but conclude
that, misled it may be by the errors and false views
of the times in which they were living, those good
men did not cast themselves with due humility and

57

self-renunciation entirely upon the, counsel and di
rection of their Heavenly Teacher in this matter.
What was the true character and what have been
some of the consequences of the step that they took,
we shall consider more fully as we proceed ; but at
this point of the subject I cannot help stopping for
a moment to notice the lamentable fact, that with
respect to interference with the Propagation Society
and its field of labour, matters have just recently
been pushed to greater lengths than ever before.
For although the Evangelical body have indeed
all along thrown their main strength iiito the
Church Missionary Society, so far as missions to the
Heathen were concerned, they have still appeared
to concede that the Propagation Society were use
fully employed in providing for the spiritual wants
of Emigrants and other British subjects in the
Colonies, And when a Royal Letter has occasionally
been issued in behalf of the Society, their congrega
tions have shown a praiseworthy liberality in their
contributions. Now however, recently, a fresh
Society has been started, to enter into competition
with the Propagation Society in this last-mentioned
department of its labours also. It is called the
" Colonial Church Society," and grievous it is to
see the ground that is taken by its founders and
promoters in the Prospectiis they have put forth
respecting it. They begin with stating the great
spiritual destitution of the Colonies and the in
adequacy of the means now at the disposal of the
Propagation Society to supply it. One would ex
pect then an appeal for larger liberality towards
that Society, But no — there is to be a new Society^

58
a Society which prefers indeed the Church of En
gland to other sects, but is quite willing to fraternise
with them all. " Our zeal," they say, " is not sec
tarian ;" — thus do they set out with borrowing from
the lowest school of dissent a term which until
lately even the most levelling dissenters had not
the effrontery to apply to the members, tenets or
operations of the Church of England. This So
ciety, however, is to send out Clergymen, who are
to take the oversight of their flocks on the " wise
and orderly" plan that they should be responsible
both to their Bishops and to the self-constituted
Committee in London, in the same way as a " Curate
in this country is responsible both to his Bishop and
to his Rector." But was such a plan of joint super
intendence as this ever heard of before among per"
sons calling themselves members of the Church of
England ? Yes ; it seems it has been " traced out
for them by the experience of the Church Missionary
Society" — a worthy precedent truly. And then they
go on to speak of their intention of sending out faith
ful ministers, such as are " ordained by Christ him
self ;" an expression of which it is difficult to say
whether it is merely unmeaning, or whether it may
not justly be thought to approach to profaneness.
It is quite depressing to read a paper containing
such a project as this, and such sentiments as we
have been quoting, at a time when one had hoped
that sounder opinions respecting Ecclesiastical dis
cipline and authority, better notions of humility and
subordination, were gaining ground. But let us
not fall into those errors ourselves which we see
and lament in others. Let us wait in prayer and

59
patience ; in submission, yet with assured hope, upon
Him, " who alone can order the unruly wills and
aiFections of sinful men," The second Regulation
of this very Society, defective as it is in itself, and
still further limited and qualified by the interpreta
tion of it which we have already quoted from the
Prospectus, indicates nevertheless, we may hope,
the prevalence of greater regard for order and dis
cipline than some years ago prevailed among the
members of these Voluntary Societies, It is as
follows :
Reg. 2, "The selection and appointment of Missionaries
and Catechists is to rest entirely with the Committee of
the Society, subject, as to those Missionaries sent from
England, to the approbation of the Bishop of London, and,
as to those appointed in the Colonies, to that of the Bishop
of the Diocese ; and such Missionaries and Catechists are to
be subject to the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the respective
Diocesans." But if we turn from lamenting these irregular
proceedings, to inquire into the cause from which
they originate, we shall find I think that it is no
thing else but the want of faith and patience in
waiting for Grod, as has been already observed, which
gives rise to them all.
In the case of this new Society for instance, the
Prospectus of which we have just been considering,
it appears to me from the whole tenor and contents
of that paper, as well as from my own personal
knowledge and experience in such matters, easily
discernible what the real motive for forming such an
Institution was. It was not formed from any per
verse desire to injure the Propagation Society, or to

60
set up a rival to it, merely to harass and aistract the
minds of Churchmen ; it was not from any head
strong determination to get rid of inconvenient
trammels, and cast off, as far as might be. Episcopal
authority — though doubtless to some minds the
relaxation of such restraints may have appeared de
sirable — ^but the real object of the framers of the So
ciety was, to get Clergymen out into the Colonies that
they could depend upon " to preach the Gospel," as
it is called. For they apprehend that those who may
be sent out by the Propagation Society will for the
most part preach on the Orthodox, as distinguished
from the Evangelical scheme ; and this they regard
as no slight or unessential difference, but a fatal and
fundamental error. Such preaching, as you can
yourself doubtless testify, is thought by many to be
but a shade better than Popery, and to be connected
in most cases with a careless and worldly life.
Though the persons then, whose plans we are con
sidering, be quite mistaken, yet with their present
views and opinions their object may be good.
Well, but then suppose for a moment a great and
grievous evil, such as they believe they are com
bating, really to exist; what is the course that
ought to be followed ? Are unauthorised persons
to take things so sacred into their own hands, and
set about rectifying them just as they think fit?
Surely the proper posture is, to humble ourselves in
supplication and prayer to the great Head of the
Church that He would enlighten the minds and
quicken the zeal of those whom He has set as His
Vice-gerents over His members upon earth, and in
the meantime by all proper representations and

61
remonstrances to endeavour to influence them our
selves : but surely not thus to take the law into our
own hands.
Let us look at a case somewhat analogous in
temporal matters. Suppose there were a set of igno
rant and profligate Judges in the Court of Queen's
Bench, would any men in their senses think of set
ting up a Court of their own, and Judges of their
own, instead of them ; or if they did, what would
their decisions be worth ? Or if it were thought that
the interests of British Commerce were neglected
and betrayed by inefficient or treacherous Ambassa
dors and Consuls in foreign lands, would any men
dream of starting a company to send out Ambassa
dors and Consuls of their own? Would not the
obvious course be, to petition the Sovereign for the
removal of all such obnoxious Judges and Envoys,
and to apply to the other branches of the Legisla
ture also to interfere according to their respective
powers? And if one petition would not do, men
would petition again, address, remonstrate, urge, till
their requests were granted.
Now in Ecclesiastical things, have we not a
King to petition, who is Head over all things to the
Church, a King who has encouraged us to petition
and address again and again, and has promised
to hear His people and avenge their cause ; a
King of all faithfulness, and of all wisdom and
power to perform that which He has promised?
What is the difference between the two cases ? I
can see none but this, that in the one, the Sovereign
is visible, and putting forth visible and palpable
power before our bodily eyes; in the other, the

62
King is for a time unseen, as it were behind a veil.
And this is the very thing required of us, that we
should walk by faith, not by sight : should walk as
seeing Him who is invisible ; should walk as we
would if our Lord were sitting and ruling on His
throne upon earth before our eyes, though now we
see Him not.
For a day is coming when the veil shall be drawn
aside (a-noKoKv^ii, re-velatio, 2 Thess. i. 7), and the
King will show Himself: and then blessed indeed
those who have waited for Him and put their trust
in Him alone.
Perhaps indeed in the cases that I have been
supposing, the analogy does not hold good to the
full extent, except with regard to those who are sent
forth without any valid authorisation to preach or
teach at all. But the same principle is adopted,
the same spirit is at work, in what are called
Church Societies, only that in practice things are
not carried so far.
It is unhappily however now no longer true that
even in temporal and political matters men have
been kept within the bounds of moderation by re
spect for visible authority. Those who are called
Chartists have at last come forward and taken the
true Missionary-Society ground, " If our rulers will
not do these things for us, we will do them for
ourselves." And let it not be said that we are here getting
upon different ground, and going into things that
have nothing to do with our present subject, or can
only be connected with it by remote analogies. It
really appears to me that the connexion between

63
these popular religious Societies and the proceed
ings of the Chartists is quite distinctly and directly
traceable, without the intervention of any remote
analogies whatever. For in the first place, surely
these Societies have been main instruments in ex
citing and keeping alive the Spirit of Association
generally, the system of carrying out any measure
that men may think desirable by the united efforts
of multitudes combining together for the attainment
of their objects. And in illustration of this I would
just mention here by the way what I well remember,
the impression produced by the prevalence and
effects of this Spirit, on the minds of some excellent
and well-intentioned foreigners who visited Eng
land occasionally some years back, and were con
nected a good deal with the friends and members
of such Societies. Among them was the late la
mented Baron Auguste de Stael. Their schemes
and designs were entirely philanthropic, and intended
to remedy evils which they saw to prevail, or to in
troduce improvements which they considered to be
wanting, in their own countries, chiefly in France.
They caught at this Spirit of Association as the great
moving principle that they must bring into opera
tion, the great engine without which they could not
hope to stir the minds of their nation and bring
about their schemes. And the effects of this Spirit
as developed in these great Religious Societies were
the objects alike of their, astonishment and admi
ration. But to go on with our argument : These Societies
have not only strengthened and diffused this Spirit
of Association generally, but we may trace its pro-

64
gross from them towards the formation of the politi
cal bodies that we have mentioned, in one direction
at least, by particular and distinct steps. For surely
we may safely say that from these Societies, and the
example they had set, the Society for the Abolition
of Slavery took its rise ; if indeed it may not be
considered as altogether one of them. Now in what
did that Society end ? Why at last in the establish
ment of a body of Anti-Slavery Delegates sitting in
London de die in diem, " declaring their sittings per
manent," in the language of the Revolutionary Sec
tions of Paris, and, after the example of those Sections,
endeavouring to control the Government of the
Country, and to compel them to grant what they
chose to require. From Anti-Slavery Delegates, the
next step was to Anti-Corn-Law Delegates; and
the Anti-Corn-Law Delegates continued to agitate
till they were driven off the stage by the Physical-
Force men of the National Convention : those who
wanted to make a moderate and respectful rebellion
being obliged, as usual, to yield to those who were
for carrying matters fairly through.
To return however to Religious Societies. The
great argument for hasty and precipitate action, and
against waiting for providential openings, and an
opportunity of doing good in a regular and orderly
way, has always been this : " While we wait, souls
are daily passing into eternity, and those are lost
who might by our means have been saved." To
this, it appears to me, a general answer is quite suffi
cient : " We must not attempt to do good in an
unlawful way : of the possible consequences of our

65
proceedings we can know nothing, and can form no
judgment: for anything we can tell, we may destroy
more souls than we save, for we know that there are
those to whom the preaching of the Gospel becomes
a savour of death unto death ; and at all events, and
under any circumstances whatever, we are not to
do evil that good may come," This general answer
would be, it seems to me, quite sufficient : but have
we not, moreover, an express precedent and autho
rity for thus patiently awaiting the time appointed
of God, in the example of our blessed Lord Him
self? For we are told of. Him, that at twelve years
of age he was able to hear and to question the
learned men of Jerusalem, and yet we hear nothing
of His public ministry among the people till He was
about thirty years old. Here were eighteen years of
silence, while half a generation were swept away
from the earth. And much the same may be said of
the course of John the Baptist, And though we
have not now Divine and infallible indications to tell
us when the set time is come, yet surely we may
well judge that the time for anything cannot be
come, when that thing cannot be done except in an
irregular and unlawful way.
For farther illustration of this part of our subject,
I cannot refrain from referring to one other in
stance, which appears to riie admirably to exhibit the
patient, humble spirit of the Church, full of faith
and prayer ; and in contrast with it, the busy, self-
sufficient, secularized way of proceeding in religious
matters, by means of these Societies, that now prevails,
I refer to the excellent provision made by our
Church for obtaining fit persons to serve in her

66
ministry. Certain weeks in the year are set apart, in
which the Church is daily to offer up prayer for the
guidance of the Bishops in making choice of fit and
proper ministers, and certain days in those weeks
are to be more solemnly observed, not only with
prayer, but fasting also, for the same object. How
scriptural is this, (Acts xiii. 1 — 3), how admirably
suited to bring down the blessing that is sought !
How beautiful to see the Church prostrate before the
throne of Grace, humbly and earnestly supplicating
for Teachers filled with the Grace of God and His
heavenly benediction !
Now look at modern times. The prayer that I have
mentioned never offered but on one day of the week
in most of our Churches, and in some never heard at
all; the Ember weeks entirely forgotten and unknown
among the people, the fast-days never thought of;
and in fact the whole appointment and its intent and
purpose utterly lost sight of among the great body of
those who call themselves members of the Church.
When some good men then in late years, chiefly
Clergymen, began to feel the importance of having
the Church thus furnished with faithful pastors,
surely they returned to these forgotten rites, and
urged publicly their importance, and by their own
solemn observance of them set an example to others
to do the same. No such thing. They form a
Society, such is the modern fashion, and subscribe
money for sending those whom they consider pious
young men to the Universities to be educated for
ministers. And these young men they select of
course and examine for themselves, and pass judg
ment upon their qualifications, their piety, the sound-

67
ness of their opinions, and so forth. In the mean
time others, with the same object in view, spend
their property with most large liberality, worthy
truly of a better occasion, in buying up livings,
which are vested in Trustees, whom the purchasers
think they can depend upon to put into them sound
and pious men. That is to say, in both these cases,
men, instead of praying for their Bishops, must take
the Bishops' work, as far as they can, into their own
hands. Precisely as in other instances already re
ferred to, it seems as though they thought that
Prayer and Faith, though all very well to talk
about, were nothing to be depended upon when one
comes to act. " Then, do not let us trust to any
one else, but get the work into our own hands ;
there we are safe, then we know what we are about."
Such is, I say, the language which their conduct
speaks: God forbid that I should say that such
thoughts are knowingly and wilfully harboured in
their hearts. I have acted in these matters myself
with some of the men of whom I speak ; and as I
erred myself from mere ignorance, from want of
proper reflexion and proper teaching on these points,
so no doubt did and do they.
It is time to leave this subject : one need not go
into details when we are rather considering general
principles. Else I might mention the recent forma
tion of a Society called the Church Pastoral Aid
Society, set up on principles directly opposed to the
openly-expressed opinion of the Bishop in whose
diocese it was formed, and the opinions also of the
great body of our Bishops, who agreed with him,
and who are in consequence obliged to maintain a
F 2

68

separate Fund of their own for attaining the same
objects. But all this was no doubt for the sake of
making sure of " Evangelical " Pastors, and is a
case just similar to that of the Colonial Church So
ciety and others that we have been considering. Or
again I might mention the unseemly position which
those who are called Missionaries of the Church of
England occupy, when attempting to instruct the
members of other Churches, in Greece and Abys
sinia for instance ; who in the midst of the state of
ignorance and decay into which they have unhappily
fallen, put these very Missionaries to shame, by the
diligent and respectful observance of those external
rites and ordinances of the Ancient Church, which
we, though in words professing to observe them, in
act cast off and despise.
It will be observed that I have confined my re
marks for the most part to what are called Church
of England Societies. To speak here of those that
mix up Churchmen in the same body with Dis
senters of every sort and shade, would be, I conceive,
superfluous. Let me rather go on to observe that
it is not a little remarkable to see how members of
the Church of England, the Clergy especially, who
have entered into these anomalous unions, are be
ginning now to be pressed and driven by their own
allies to take up a better and more consistent posi
tion. Two instances of the kind have come under
my notice since I have been writing this letter.
First I saw a Discourse on Clerical Conformity (or
Non-Conformity, for I forget the precise title) by Mr.
Binney, a leader among the Dissenters in London ;
in which he presses the Evangelical Clergy so hard,

69
on the subject especially of Baptismal Regeneration,
supporting everything that he says by quotations
from the Formularies of the Church, that I see not
how they can possibly avoid his conclusion that
Conformity, so far at least as the Clergy are con
cerned, involves the renunciation of Gospel Truth ;
unless they in some way change or modify the senti
ments I have been used to hear them express.
Then again, I have heard an Evangelical Clergyman
argue from the Articles that the Church of England
intends to embrace as her children all the Protes
tants in the land, to whatever sect they belong, pro
vided only that they hold the doctrine of the Trinity
and one or two others of what are considered es
sential points. But Mr, Binney will not let them
escape so easily. He quotes Canon after Canon, I
may almost say page after page of Canons and or
dinances, anathematizing all who depart from the
Church, and set up sects and conventicles of their
own, of any class or description whatsoever. How
the Clergy are with any consistency to profess
obedience to the Canons, and yet to speak of such
men as their "Dissenting Brethren," and to act
with them as such, Mr, Binney cannot see ; nor,
one would suppose, can any one else.
Another pamphlet of the same tendency has also
come in my way, entitled, "A Reply to the Misre
presentations of the Rev, Francis Close and others,
as to the principles and practice of the British and
Foreign School Society," by Mr, Henry Dunn.
From this it appears that in the recent stir about
National Education, the Evangelical Clergy, forced
to make a stand against the projects of the Dissenters

70
and Liberals, have been taking up ground which
their " Dissenting Brethren " cannot at all distin
guish from that occupied by the Writers of " Tracts
for the Times," Mr. Dunn writes thus :
" The real question at issue between the friends and oppo
nents of the British and Foreign School Society (and to this
I would particularly request attention) is, whether or no
the Bible, and the Bible only, is sufficient for the instruction
of youth. The Rev. Hugh M" Neile at the late Education
Meeting exclaimed more than once, that no secular know
ledge could be beneficial or for the advantage of the people,
unless accompanied by the sapred Word of God, and the
formularies of the Church ! If this be true, the Bible is in
sufficient, and union among Christians is a dream. Where
in this doctrine differs from that which is advocated in
" Tracts for the Times," I do not profess to know : how
it accords with Mr. M° Neile's eloquent orations for " the
Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible," is for
him to explain. One thing, at least, is clear : it is a doc
trine as inconsistent with the principles of Protestantism
as it is incompatible with religious liberty." Reply, &c. p. 8.
It is fair to observe, that the Clergyman who is
especially mentioned in the foregoing Extract would
perhaps not consider himself, or be considered by
others, to agree in all points with the Evangelical
School. The pamphlet however is a Reply to the
Representations of certain Clergymen of that School,
and Mr. M° Neile is addressed as quoad hoc one of
them. Mr. Dunn says that on the principles which he is
combating, " union among Christians is a dream,"
And so such an union as he means ever must be, and
will turn out to be at last. For the union among
Christians which is set forth in Scripture rests upon

71
this principle, that they are members of one body,
the Church. They are said to be "one bread."
(1 Cor. X. 17.) But here are separate bodies of men,
men who abstain from communicating to one ano
ther even the outward and visible sign of the bread,
some who even reject the sign of bread altogether.
Among these what union can there be ? None but
such as human devices may for a time hold together,
but such as must at last be dissolved and broken to
pieces. Such Unions as those of which we are speaking
have lately appeared in a new form, and in that
form have been joined by some who had before kept
aloof from any thing of the kind : I refer to what are
called Teimperance Societies. Perhaps it has been
thought that these involve no religious or Ecclesi
astical principle : and in a certain sense that may be
true ; for are they not in fact formed upon principles
subversive of all religion ?
One of the great lessons that the Doctrine of
Christ was to teach, was this, that men should live
soberly in the world. (Tit. ii. 12. 1 Thess. v. 6-8.)
In fact, to teach this lesson was one of the great
objects for which it was revealed to man, as we may
gather from the passage just referred to in the
Epistle to Titus. And if it had not made men live
soberly, the Heathen might well have asked, and
would at once have asked, prompted merely by his
natural conscience, " Of what good is your Christi
anity to us at all?" And if it does not make men live
so now, the same question may be asked in our day
too. But on what principle are these Societies pro-

72

ceeding ? As it seems to me, on no other than this
that the Religion of Christ has been tried for this
purpose long enough, and has failed. His precepts
and the power of His Spirit are alike ineffectual to
make men sober ; or at least it is impossible to
make men attend to them and obey them, and there
fore we must try something else, " We must appeal
to the principle of honour and of regard to cha
racter among their fellow-men, and get them to sign
an agreement which they will be ashamed to violate.
This must be our substitute for the prayers and
labours of the Ministers of Christ, and the sanctions
of the law of Christ, which we find are doing no
good among us. We will not trouble ourselves
about making men true Christians ; but let us have
them temperate at any rate, though they be tem
perate infidels,"
Not that, after all, this scheme can even pretend to
do what Christianity does ; for it does not profess to
make men sober and temperate, but to make them
abstinent — to make them abstain altogether from
things lawful, as though they could not be used law
fully. It sets forth, that what God expressly permits
cannot be safely enjoyed, " For every creature of God
is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received
with thanksgiving : for it is sanctified by the word
of God and prayer," (1 Tim, iv, 4, 5,) And if it be
said that wine is not a creature of God, so neither is
bread ; but wine is continually mentioned in Scrip
ture in connexion with corn, and the one is described
as a gift of God for the use of man just as much as
the other.
The case of the Rechabites (Jeremiah, chap, xxxv)

73
may be, and I believe has been, mentioned, as a
justification of the plan of these Societies, But in
the first place, the commandment given to the Re
chabites by Jonadab their father was doubtless
foimded on a principle of religious self-denial, and
had reference to the consideration that he and his
seed were but " strangers and pilgrims upon earth."
(see verse 7). And then secondly, it was obeyed on
a right principle, on the principle of dutiful obe
dience and submission, not from the necessity of
acting up to any written engagement. And for
their obedience it was that God was pleased so gra
ciously to commend them ; for their obedience, and
for that only, so far as appears, without reference to
the nature of the command which they had obeyed.
And for this reason too they were held up as an
example to the Israelites; to teach them the great
lesson of Obedience : a lesson surely which in these
our days also, and in this Christian land, men have
especial need to learn. Obedience, submission,
patience — these are the things wanting. Freedom,
independence, the People are the source of Power —
these are the cries that we hear around us. And
even those who, warned by the voice of history and
imbued to a certain extent with better notions, set
themselves to oppose these wild and senseless cla
mours, take but too often sadly low ground, and show
a lamentable want of all high and consistent prin
ciple. One may hear men of this kind, men re
proached by their opponents as " high Tories," ad
mired by their friends as " staunch Conservatives,"
talking with sad carelessness and ignorance about
"the extravagant views of the Oxford men, the

74
exploded doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings,"
and so on.
Now if by the "Divine Right of Kings," be meant
the Right of Kings, as God's Vice-gerents, to govern
according to their own will, without the interven
tion of Parliaments or responsible ministers, that is a
question which in these days does not come before
us. And we have surely no occasion to encumber
ourselves with the difficulties of other men and
other times. " Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof." And if I rightly understand "the Oxford
men," I think that they would herein agree with
me. I would rather state the matter then more ge
nerally, and maintain " the Divine Right of Rulers."
And how we can take any lower ground than this,
without falling into grievous inconsistencies, and
in fact without expressly contradicting St. Paul, I
do not see.
If Rulers have not a divine right to govern, I see
not what right they have to govern at all : we must
go back to a mere scramble for power. Let us re
member, that even the Tax-gatherer who calls at
our doors is God's minister. (Rom. xiii. 6.)
St, Paul does not speak of obeying Kings exclu
sively or especially, but of obeying Rulers, Magis
trates, the powers that be. We must take the
powers that be as we find them. In this country,
they are so constituted, that the King is bound by
certain laws, and cannot act, in most things, without
the consent and authority of other powers. If then
he should attempt to enforce anything which one
thought contrary to the laws, or to act by his sole
authority, there would be no violation of the Apostle's
command, I apprehend, in so far "resisting," as

75
peaceably and quietly to refuse compliance with the
requirement made upon one, until the matter should
be brought before a tribunal properly authorized to
decide whether the thing in question were lawful
or not.
The great point is, to be " clothed with humility,"
and then we shall not find or feel much difficulty in
submittmg to those that are in authority over us,
whoever and whatever they may be. Not but that
after all there is a certain Sacredness about the
Kingly Office : there is much in Scripture that looks
that way. — But I cease, for I am getting on ground
that has been much better occupied before me. I
hardly know how in writing to yourself to refer to
your own Sermon, printed under the title, " Patience
and Confidence the strength of the Church." Let
me only say that I heartily wish it, were read and
well considered by all men who wish to act in Po
litical and Public affairs on Christian principles.
Almost while I am writing these lines arrives
a newspaper containing an account of an enter
tainment given to nearly the whole collective body
of Romanist Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland,
at which they sit and hear, and finally receive
with approving acclamation, this sentiment : " The
people — the true source of all legitimate power."
That men whose chief claim to belief rests upon the
duty of implicit submission to what they conceive to
be the authority of the Church, and who had just
before been recommending themselves to the laity
on the ground of their Christian patience under re
proach and persecution, should not see the flagrant
inconsistency of this sentiment with all their doc-

76
trines and principles, or seeing it, should yet be
willing, for any purpose, to connive at it and let it
pass, is astounding. And then to see the art and
skill with which he who proposes it disguises and
softens it down, to make it more palatable for the
occasion, less grossly at variance with the principles
of those whom he is addressing — The whole scene
reminds one most strongly of what I somewhere
read, or heard quoted, not long ago. That this
doctrine of the people's being the source of power,
is The Great Lie of Satan, by which in this our day
he is deceiving the nations.
On this doctrine depends that other principle, if
indeed it be another, and not merely the same in
other words, a principle maintained alike by all who
call themselves Reformers, high and low, rich and
poor  alike by Lord Brougham in his Letter to
Lord John Russell, and by the Carpenters and
Bricklayers who sign the Address of the London
Chartist Association — the principle of the right to,
and the blessedness of. Self-government. What is this
but the old Temptation, the infernal lure, which he
who was a liar from the beginning, has held out
from the beginning — " Ye shall be as Gods " ?
To turn from all this miserable turmoil to such
words as these : —
" Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek
and lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
"Yea, all of you be subject to one another, and be
clothed with humility ; for God resisteth the proud, and
giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves there
fore under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt
you in due time ; casting all your care upon Him, for he
careth for you."

77
How unspeakably soothing and blissful is the
contrast! The very words seem to bear an im
press of Divinity upon them : one feels that they
can have come only from Him who said to the
raging waters, "Peace, be still"— and there was a
great calm.
I have spoken above of the sad want of high and
fixed principle in those who profess to be the De
fenders of our Church, and our Civil Constitution.
While writing this Letter I one day observed a la
mentable instance of this defect in a very respect
able political publication, the Standard Newspaper ;
but one is so unwilling to enter into any thing like
controversy with anonymous editors of Newspapers
that I had resolved to pass it over in silence. But I
have since seen the notions of the Newspaper Editor
adopted, and maintained almost in the same words,
by an Alderman of the City of London, who puts his
name to what he writes ; (I allude to a Letter from
Sir Peter Laurie to the Rev. Charles Cator, lately
published * ) ; and I am induced therefore now to
restore the passage which I had before cancelled.
Some writer then, it seems, one of the accredited,
or rather avowed, supporters of the Church of
England, had been saying something that was
thought harsh and disrespectful of the body of
* See the Morning Herald for December 13, 1839.
This passage, as indeedappears from the context above, was added
some time after the rest of the Letter was written, and while it was
passing through the press ; which will account for the discrepancy be
tween the date here mentioned and that affixed to the end of the
Letter.

Wesleyan Dissenters ; upon which the so-called Li
beral Newspapers of course had not failed to ani
madvert. Up starts the Standard forthwith, dis
claiming and disavowing any and every word and
opinion of the kind, anything that could give offence
or pain in any way to so highly respectable and
valuable a set of men : disavowing all this, not only
in its own name, but on behalf of all existing publi
cations in support of Church and State that are
worthy of notice, and contemptuously setting aside
out of the list one or two, which, it was said, " advo
cate Puseyism."
Why what miserable work is this ! A set of sec
taries, the most inexcusable of all, because they
profess to be separated by a slighter shade of diffe
rence than any others from the Church, rebels against
the authority of the Church in fact, and therefore
against the authority of the State also in principle —
such are the men, who, because they choose for the
moment to behave themselves quietly and civilly,
are to be treated with all these delicate menagemens
— our own language hardly affords a word refined
enough — and not a syllable is to be breathed to
their discredit.
Non tali auocilio, nee defensorihus istis, we may well
say, both of the Wesleyans themselves and of those
who thus compliment them. How can such men
expect to stand in the shock for a moment ! What
we want is, high and well-understood principles,
and unflinching, unbending minds to maintain them ;
minds that may be overpowered and silenced indeed
by force, having to contend, as they have, with the
tremendous power of him who is called by the

79
mysterious and fearful titles of the Prince of the
Power of the air, and the God of this worid : but
that can never be bent by his artifices. The very
men themselves of whom we have been speaking
will far more respect him who tells them at once,
kindly yet firmly, that they are wrong; that they
ought to be ashamed of themselves, and to flock
back to the Church from which they have departed
— than him who is afraid to say whether they are
wrong or right, and meets them with doubtful
civility, and hollow compliments.
But we are wandering far from the subject of our
modern Religious Societies, and I find that I cannot
even yet finally leave them. One other point respect
ing them has been so forcibly impressed upon my
mind since I have been writing this letter that I feel
obliged still to notice it ; I mean the evil arising
from their number and diversity, and from the fre
quent repetition of their various calls for support.
I have been residing during most part of the
time that I refer to, in a place where, soon after
my arrival, a powerful appeal was made to the
inhabitants from the pulpit of the Parish Church, in
behalf of the Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel. The Secretary of that Society, who preach
ed the Sermon, set forth the awful state of destitution
as to spiritual privileges and the ordinances of reli
gion under which our Colonists and Emigrants in
many parts of the world were suffering, and the depths
of vice and iniquity in which thousands of them were
sunk. He urged their claims upon us, setting forth
the fearful responsibility incurred by the nation in

80
suffering such a state of things to exist, and the duty
of powerfully supporting the Society which was the
channel for supplying the pressing wants of these
our fellow-subjects and countrymen. One felt the
high importance of the subject; that it was a
matter that ought not to depend upon the excite
ment produced by a single sermon, but one to which
the Pastor of a Parish would do well from time to time
to refer, as fit opportunity might be offered, in his
ordinary ministrations, and which he ought not to
forget to recommend to his people by his per
sonal example and influence, in his daily inter
course with them. But what has since followed?
Why, first a Sermon for one of these modern Socie
ties almost the next Sunday after, and then after a
little interval, a second Sermon for another, and
since that two Sermons for a third, besides two Pub
lic Meetings, for a fourth and a fifth, both sanctioned
by some of the clergy, one, I believe, by all. Under
such circumstances, how can a Pastor enforce the
duty of which we have been speaking ? If he recom
mends one Society for personal support, he must
recommend all the others, and the consequence is
that he passes over so important a thing altogether,
and lets each Society take its chance of what the
Preacher or speakers may be able to get for it.
Thus the people's benevolence is frittered away in
desultory, unguided, and unauthorized efforts ; the
sacred duty of giving largely of their substance for
the work of the Lord is lost sight of; they go from
Sunday to Sunday, or to one Meeting after another,
to hear something new, and to leave in the collect
ing plate the accustomed pittance, a shilling or five

81
shillings, or whatever they may be used to give, and
then go away and think no more about it. And how
should it be otherwise ? How should they decide
upon the arguments of the several orators, and the
claims of the different Institutions? The utmost
that they do is to think them all good things in their
way, and, as charitable people, to give a few shillings
to one and another of them ; but without the least
abiding sense of duty and responsibility about any
one of the number. While others in the mean time
make the number of the claims an excuse for attend
ing to none of them at all, and laugh at the itinerant
preachers as rival traders puffing off their several
wares *,
If the sacred duty of a " rich liberality" had been
solemnly enforced upon the members of our Church ;
if the administration of their abundance had been
undertaken by their Pastors under the direction of
the Heads of the Church, as it ought to have been ;
if even the sums that have been actually raised and
have been frittered away in desultory and misdi
rected efforts during the last thirty years, had
been poured in a steady and uniform stream into
* As you must yourself know, and others may see this Letter
who will know also, to what place it is that 1 have been here al
luding, I think it but right to say, that I by no means intend to repre
sent the circumstances that I have described as singular, or pecu
liar to the parish of which I am speaking : they are common to it
and to many, I fear I might almost say, many hundred, others.
And I should farther state, that one of the clergy of the parish— one
whose valuable ministrations, if it were fitting here to do so, I might
very sincerely eulogize— told me that he refrained from attending
the second of the Public Meetings to which I have above referred,
on much the same grounds as I have here set forth.
G

82
the Treasuries of the Propagation Society and the
Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, and
into a Fund for the Building and Endowing of
Churches, how blessed might have been by this
time the result. Instead of being distracted with
the conflicting claims of a hundred Societies, all
thinking their objects of high importance, and all
equally complaining of being unable to attain them,
or of being only able to do things by halves for
want of adequate support ; we should have been
quietly rearing the majestic fabric of our Church,
and causing her to increase into goodly proportions,
commensurate with the enormous increase of our
home population, and of the widely-spread multi
tudes of our Colonists and Emigrants, And having
thus first provided for our own household, we should
doubtless by this time have found large means for
sending out those who might cause her light to
shine also among the Gentiles, to enlighten those
who are yet sitting in darkness and the shadow of
death, without God in the world, and worshipping
the works of their own hands.
But these things have not so been : let us strive
and pray that they may even yet so be.
As to this whole subject of Religious Societies,
however, I at first doubted whether to enter upon
it here at all, I have been formerly so much mixed
up with them, and, though I have been for some
time gradually retiring from them, am yet from
various causes still so far connected with one and
another of them, that it seemed scarcely possible
to give an opinion about them, without incurring

83
the charge of inconsistency. But the subject
seems so important, it appears to my own mind so
clear and unquestionable, that their true character
and tendency is such as I have been describing,
and the evils they have been and are producing
are so great, that I have felt it a duty to speak my
mind freely, at the risk of any personal retorts and
charges whatsoever.
For one of these Societies, — and I may as well
mention it at once, the British and Foreign Bible
Society — I am engaged at this moment in editing a
work which occupies much of my time. I entered
upon it several years ago, and still consider it a great
and important work; nor have I felt called upon
under the circumstances to throw it up, or thought
that I should be justified in doing so. I can
only say, would that it had been undertaken under
better auspices !
It is painful to be even in appearance casting im
putations upon those among whom one has been
educated and with whom one has long acted. In
all that I have above written, it has been my anxi
ous desire to avoid anything of the sort. Any
change of views that may take place in the mind,
whatever it may be, must almost necessarily involve
a difference in sentiment from some with whom one
has previously agreed ; but it does not involve any
necesssity of condemning them, or bringing accusa
tions against them. To their own Master they must
stand or fall. Why may not their hearts be right
in his sight, though their knowledge be defective ?
Or who shall judge of the infinitely varied circum
stances by which they may have been kept back
G 2

84
from making farther progress ? The difficulties
attending a subject of this kind were of course very
painfully felt at the Reformation, and even for a
generation or two after, as appears from the sermon
of Hooker's, in which he treats of the question, no
doubt at that time deeply interesting, "Whether
our Fathers, infected with Popish superstitions and
errors, may be saved " ?
And now. Rev, Sir, having told you of many
things in my former views with which I had pre
viously felt dissatisfaction, and of things in which I
have found satisfaction from the writings of your
self and those who act with you, I will venture to
mention one thing in which the Tracts for the Times
and the writings of their authors seem carrying me
back to a faulty system, a system from which I
hoped that I had long ago escaped : I mean the
giving mystical and spiritual interpretations to the
Prophecies of the Old Testament; or, if I may so
speak, spiritualizing them away, I refer especially
to the system of interpreting as spoken of the
Christian Church, prophecies which speak of the
Jews, Jerusalem, and the land of Israel, And here
I rely in some measure on the testimony of others,
for the only place in which I have myself observed
this System to be recommended or adopted is the
Tract No. 80 ; but I am told by those on whose tes
timony in such matters I can depend, that in Ser
mons both of yours and Mr. Newman's it is fol
lowed out ; and that passages in the 60th chapter of
Isaiah for instance, are quoted as predicting the
extension and prosperity of the Christian Church.

85
The principal passage on the subject in the Tract
No. 80 is the following:
And He said to His disciples privately. But blessed
are the eyes which see the things which ye see, for I say
unto you that many prophets and kings have desired to
see the things which ye see, and have not seen them.'
Those glorious promises therefore of the Old Testament
were now already thrown upon the world, but only seen by
certain persons who had 'eyes to see.' So that those
glowing prophetical descriptions of Christ's kingdom may
not imply any great change in the external appearance
of the world, as is sometimes supposed, but only those high
and heavenly privileges which some may value and re
ceive. And the blessings of Christ's kingdom as con
tained in the Beatitudes would indicate the same, as con
fined to persons of a certain description and character." —
Tract, No. 80, pp. 9, 10.
Now if the statement that the glorious promises
of the Old Testament were then already thrown
upon the world, merely means that they were then
just beginning to be accomplished, I have no objec
tion to make to it. But to warrant the inference
drawn from it, it must mean much more. It must
mean, that even when they should be carried out
into full accomplishment, there would be, or, at
least, probably might be, no more generally visible
manifestation of glory than there was at the time
when our Lord spoke the words quoted. How this
is to be deduced from the passages referred to (ap
parently Luke X. 23 and Matt. xiii. 16) I cannot at
all see.
The ancient Prophets doubtless desired to see
the things that the disciples then saw; but how can
we with safety go on to the conclusion that they

86
expected and hoped for nothing beyond them, or of a
different nature from them ? On the contrary, we
are expressly told in another passage of Scripture
(1 Pet^ i. 10, 11) that the objects of their anxious
meditations and hopes, the subjects of their di
vinely-inspired oracles were, "the sufferings of
Christ and the glory that should follow." Observe,
the glory that should /bZfow, not precede or accom
pany them. Whether that glory may mean the
glorious exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the
Father, or the glory that was afterwards displayed
in the Christian Church, or a glory that is yet to be
revealed, the Text certainly does not determine ;
but at all events it was a glory yet remaining to be
revealed when our Lord spoke the words quoted;
and therefore whatever the Prophets may have
spoken of, they surely at all events spake of greater
things than the Apostles then saw.
That the Beatitudes are confined to persons of a
certain description and character is doubtless true :
we see not how it could have been otherwise. But
the nature of the blessings promised is most en
tirely in accordance with the expectation of a glo
rious reign 'of Christ upon the earth : one of them
indeed, the " inheriting of the earth," seems scarcely
intelligible on any other supposition.
That many passages in the Old Testament have
a mystical or spiritual signification, even when at
first sight there appears to be nothing recondite
about them, there can be no doubt. But then they
have their ordinary literal sense first, and include
the other besides. For instance, St. Paul says that
the Israelites drank of a spiritual Rock that followed

87
them, and that that rock was Christ. Yet no one
doubts that there was also a material Rock, which
was struck by the rod of Moses, and produced water
for the refreshmtjot of the bodies of the people, and
for their beasts kkewise. So again St. Paul says
that the command, " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
that treadeth out the corn," was given with refe
rence to the recompence due to the spiritual la
bourer. But surely it was binding on the Jew in its
literal sense also. It would never have done for him
to say, " This is not a carnal, but a spiritual pre
cept: I shall muzzle my ox or not as I like. God
looks to the spirit, not to the letter." Surely this
would have been direct disobedience to the com
mandment. In fact there seems great irreverence in supposing
that the Divine Spirit does not mean what He
plainly says, unless we are expressly told the con
trary. Not of course that we are to push the literal
interpretation so far as to exclude the exercise of
common sense in judging of His words ; for they are
addressed to us as beings accustomed to the use of
language, and endued with reasoning powers. For
instance, when our Lord says (Mark x, 29, 30)
" There is no man that hath left house, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children,
or lands, for my sake and the Gospel's, but he shall
receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses,
and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and child
ren"  we cannot suppose that a man will receive
literally more mothers than he had before, or even
more brothers and sisters. We should understand
the language of the Sacred writings, I apprehend.

88
with reverence be it spoken, as we do the language
of other books.
Again, it is readily admitted that Prophecies
sometimes receive first a partial/ or as it may be
called typical, fulfilment: but thbn this does not
preclude their entire and exact accomplishment at
some other period. God forbid : hath He spoken
and shall He not perform ?
Thus some prophecies received a partial fulfil
ment in Solomon, Hezekiah, or Josiah, which yet
never were, or never will be, fully accomplished but
in our Lord Jesus Christ. So in Tract No, 83 it is
well observed that there have been several persons
raised up, who may be considered as Types or
Shadows of Antichrist, But still there is a real
personal Antichrist yet to be revealed, who shall
fulfil every letter of the predictions concerning him.
In like manner St. Paul tells us (Gal, iii, 29) that
those who are Christ's are Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise ; and therefore no
doubt we Christians may take comfort from the pro
mises given to Israel in the Old Testament, and may
apply them to ourselves, so far as they are appli
cable to our case. But this is not to shut out their
full and entire and literal accomplishment another
day. We are not to exclude the literal Israel, nor to
usurp the place of the natural branches. Who that
has ever read the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans can suppose for a moment that we ought ?
But we are not left in this case to general prin
ciples only and inferences deduced from them. We
have the sure word and exposition of the Holy
Apostle himself. In speaking of the restoration of

89
Israel in the chapter just referred to (Rom, xi), he
himself quotes as having reference to it the end of
the 59th chapter of Isaiah, (Rom xi. 26, 27), thus
surely attributing also to the Jews the magnificent
Prophecy which follows that passage, the 60th
chapter, and establishing their right to its glorious
promises. And who indeed can read that chapter, and apply
it to anything or any body else? What forced con
structions is one obliged to put upon it, to apply it
to the Christian Church, but what a clear and ob
vious meaning does it bear, what beauty and glory
shine from it, when we read it as applying to Jeru
salem and the Jews ! What unapproachable subli
mity of style does it exhibit ! For if any other
writer should heap together images as various and
splendid, they would be but images : some of them
would seem as mere bombast to our ears. But
here. He is speaking, who, whatsoever it may be
that He has promised, is able also to perform it ;
who can and will make of every glorious image a
far more exceedingly glorious reality.
We may speak strongly on such a subject; for re
member what St. Paul says, " What shall the re
ceiving of them be, but life from the dead ?" And
remember also what St. Paul had already seen of
the Christian Church and her history. He had seen
her under the personal guidance of divinely-inspired
Apostles, enjoying a state of light and purity and
holiness, such as she has never since attained : he
had seen her in a few short years spreading from
the remote province of Judaea into lUyricum and
Spain, and penetrating into the palace of the
Caesars ; he had seen thousands born to her in a day.

90
Yet in comparison with what was to be when the
Jewish people should be restored and united with
her, all this was as nothing. What he had seen was
indeed " the reconciling of the world," but the glory
of that future restoration could be compared to
nothing but to "life from the dead;" the greatest
change that the mind of man perhaps is capable of
conceiving. Which glorious change is also men
tioned in reference to the same subject in the mag
nificent Prophecy of Ezekiel in his 37th chapter.
In those parts of our Lord's discourses during
His abode upon earth which have been recorded,
we have not much of prophetic detail. Yet there
is quite enough to support this view of the subject.
When the Apostles, after His resurrection, asked
Him whether He would at that time restore again
the Kingdom to Israel, He told them that it was not
for them to know the times and the seasons, which
He, with whom a thousand years are as one day,
had put in His own power. But we do not find their
expectation discouraged; we hear of no rebukej
"Are ye yet without imderstanding ? Do ye not
yet perceive ?" or any thing of the sort. They are
left to enjoy their glorious hope, only they were not
curiously to inquire concerning the time of its ac
complishment. So again, when our Lord says
(Luke xxi. 24), that " Jerusalem shall be trodden
down of the Gentiles, till the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled," surely He intimates that when those
times are fulfilled, Jerusalem shall be restored, and
shall be trodden under ^oot no longer.
What is to set aside these plain declarations of the
word of Prophecy it is difficult to conceive. If the
Church however in all ages had interpreted them in

91
any other way, and entertained different views on
the subject, that would of course make one pause.
One would gladly receive her judgment if possible,
and if it did not contradict or offer violence to
the words of her God. How then stands the case
with respect to Ecclesiastical Tradition on these
points ?
We find that one ancient writer of great reputa
tion, St. Jerome, supports the spiritual interpretation,
as he calls it, of the Old Testament Prophecies.
And if St, Jerome had stated that this was the inter
pretation generally received in the Church, and
handed down by those who had gone before him,
his testimony would indeed be a formidable obstacle
against the reception of any other view. But the
very reverse of this is the case. He expressly says,
in putting forth his opinions, that he is departing
from the interpretation of many that had gone be
fore him ; so many that he does not reckon them all
up, but contents himself with giving the first and
last names, in one part at least of the series. And
to have a chain of older Fathers against one in the
days of Jerome was indeed a serious matter, when
so very few links, comparatively, carried one back
to Apostolic times. And in fact, in this very
case, Jerome mentions as one of those opposed to
him, Irenseus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple
of St, John,
He says, referring to that literal accomplishment
of prophecy expected by the Jews :
" Quod et multi nostrorum, et praecipue Tertulliani liber
qui inscribitur de spe fidelium, et Lactantii Institutionum
volumen septimum poUicetur, et Victorini Pitabionensis
(al- Pictaviensis) Episcopi crebrse expositiones, et nuper

92
Severus noster in Dialogo, cui Gallo nomen imposuit. Et
ut Grsecos nominem, et primum extremumque conjungam,
Irenseus, et Apollinarius, "
To show in some degree what his system of Inter
pretation is, one may as well just mention that in
this 36th chaper of Ezekiel, the Mountains that are
addressed in verses 4, 6, &c, he interprets to mean
Prophets and Apostles ; the Valleys are Churches
in a state of depression and persecution, as they
were, he says, under Dioclesian and Maximian, and
so on. So again, on the prophecy concerning Gog
and Magog in chapter 38, after setting aside what
he calls "terrenum sensum, et Judaicas atque aniles
fabulas, quae noxiae sunt ;" and also the opinion of
some other interpreters, that a war of Spirits is pre
dicted ; he says,
" Quse nos omnia lectoris arbitrio concedentes, non tam
aliena damnare, quam Ecclesiasticam explanationem affir-
mare conabimur. Gog Graeco sermone Soixa, Latino
tectum dicitur. Porro Magog interpretatur, de tecto.
Omnis igitur superbia et falsi nominis scientia quae erigit
se contra notitiam veritatis, his nominibus demonstratur.
Ista sunt tecta de quibus et Esaias loquitur in visione
contra vallem Sion : ' Quid tibi factum est nunc, quoniam
ascendistis omnes in tecta vana' (Esa. 22). Tectum que in-
terpretabimur Haereticorum principes, et de tecto, eos qui
illorum suscepere doctrinas."
Where we may observe not only the strangeness
and incredibility of his own unauthorised exposition,
but also that he does not venture positively to con
demn the literal interpretation, but leaves it to be
adopted by the reader after all, if it pleases him.
What appears to me, however, worthy of particu
lar notice is his Commentary on Matth. xvii. 11, 12.
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias

93
truly shall first come and restore all things. But
I say unto you that Elias is come already." Now,
certainly our Lord appears here to assert that the
prophecy of the coming of Elijah spoken by Malachi
was to be taken only in a spiritual sense ; and that it
had been already fulfilled, though Elijah himself
had never come, but only another in his spirit and
power. One would have expected then that Je
rome would have made such a passage a strong
hold, and an occasion of triumph over his adversa
ries. For if we are to look for no more than a
spiritual and mystical fulfilment of the plain and
straightforward prophecy of Malachi (iv. 5), the
case may be the same with other prophecies too.
But now what says Jerome ? Thus the text of
St. Matthew and his commentary upon it stand in
the edition of his works published at Paris in 1706 :
" At ille respondens ait illis : Elias quidem venturus est,
et restituet omnia. Dico autem, vobis quia Elias jam venit.
" Ipse qui venturus est in secundo Salvatoris adventu,
juxta corporis fidem, nunc per Johannem venit in vir-
tute et spiritu."
— " He who is to come personally, in the reality of the
body, at the second advent of the Saviour, had now come
in spirit and power, in the person of John."
Such is Jerome's commentary on the passage, and
thus does he teach us that the prophecy of Malachi
has not yet received its entire fulfilment, and that
we are to expect Elijah himself in person still.
It appears to me as though Jerome had been
guided almost by a special Providence to bear wit
ness to the true meaning of this Prophecy, in order
to counteract in some degree the errors which by
his spiritualizing system he was encouraging.

94
I venture to call this interpretation the true mean
ing of the Prophecy the more readily, because I had
been led to think it so upon an examination of the
several passages in the Old and New Testament in
which the coming of Elias or Elijah is referred to,
independently of the Tradition which appears to
have been handed down in the Christian Church
upon the subject.
Let me throw out one or two hints on the point.
How can we explain Mark ix. 12 ?
" Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things ; and
how it is written of the Son of Man that he must suffer
many things and be set at nought."
This seems surely to mean that Elias should
restore among the Jews the true doctrine concerning
the Messiah, which doubtless the ancient Prophets,
so far as they were permitted to see and understand
it, had formerly taught ; namely, that He should not
only be revealed in glory, but first in sufferings.
They spake of the sufferings of Christ, as well as of
the glory that should follow : but this doctrine had
been lost, and Elias was to restore it.
Now does it at all appear that John the Baptist did
this? Each of the Evangelists gives some account of
the subjects of John's preaching, but to this point we
find, I think, but one allusion. (Joh. i. 29.) If the
promulgation of this doctrine was to be a leading ob
ject of his ministrations, whence this silence ? And
again, even if he proclaimed it, how can he be said to
have restored it ? His testimony concerning it must
surely have been only neglected or misunderstood.
Else how is it that even the Apostles to the last were so
unwilling to admit the thought that their Lord was to
be exposed to shame and suffering ? It seems to have

95
been so contrary to all their views of the Messiah
and his work, notwithstanding that some of them had
been disciples of the Baptist, that they were scarcely
capable of admitting such an idea into their minds.
And so it is with the Jews to this day ; and if
Elijah be indeed to come, this doctrine, so far as we
can see, or may venture to speak upon such things,
will be one of the first and great lessons that he will
have to teach them.
If then the declaration recorded by St. Mark re
fer merely to John the Baptist, I know not how to
explain or understand it ; but if to Elijah, all seems
clear and plain.
And I cannot help observing also the form of ex
pression in Matthew xvii. 13. " Then the disciples
understood that He spaJce unto them of John the Bap
tist:" not, understood that John the Baptist was
Elias. When we look at all these things, and at John's
own declaration, "I am not Elias;" may we not
well understand our Lord to have spoken in a typi
cal form when he said, "Elias is indeed come."
That John did not bear the name of Elias is clear,
and therefore we must supply something to explain
this declaration. The question is, what must we
supply ?
But I throw out these things for consideration,
and hope that on such a subject I have not been
speaking irreverently or too positively.
In the last two or three pages I have been
going in part over ground which has been already
taken up before me by my very learned friend
Dr. M^Caul, in two Sermons on the Conversion
and Restoration of the Jews, published by him in

96
1837, These Sermons were preached on occasion of
his taking the degree of Doctor in Divinity, de
creed to him extra ordinem by the University of
Dublin, in testimony of their sense of his high at
tainments in Hebrew and Rabbinical learning, and
of the value of his labours in promoting Christianity
among the Jews, He has since been appointed by
the Archbishop of Canterbury Preacher of the War-
burtonian Lecture on Prophecy at Lincoln's Inn,
And these things I mention, because I believe them
to show that both the University and the Most Rev,
Prelate look favourably on Dr, M^Caul's principles
of Interpretation, and to a certain extent at least
admit the truth of them.
As however I had followed out the train of
thought which I have set down above, and had ex
tracted most of the passages from Jerome, on occa
sion of a discussion on these subjects which arose a
few years back, before Dr. M^Caul's Sermons were
published, I have given my view of the subject here
as an independent argument of my own.
And now. Rev, Sir, having brought this long ad
dress to a close, I can only beg of you to bear with
it, and to receive it favourably, I commend yourself
and your labours to the blessing of God ;
And remain. Rev, Sir,
Yours with much respect and esteem,
THOMAS PELL PLATT.
October 1839.

pRtSERVAT\OM PROJECT
SUPPORTED, ft< ^