p^

rei'V man

y

P6

REVIEW OF No. 90

OP
THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
WITH
OBSERVATIONS UPON THE ARTICLES
TO WHICH IT RELATES.
BY
THE REV. RICHARD PRETYMAN, M. A.
PKECENTOK OF LINCOLN.

OXFORD,
JOSEPH VINCENT:
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

IV
hitherto undisputed truths. Poison is but too often adminis
tered more successfully than its antidote : but, in my humble
opinion, this species of reply might be highly useful ; though
it is one upon which I should not myself have ventured, if it
had been probable that any deeply-read and able controver
sialist would condescend to have recourse to it.
It occurred to me, also, that the prefixing your Lordship's
name would secure some readers, at least, of the dedication ;
and therefore this appeared a ready and respectful mode of
conveying, and making public, the cordial thanks of one of
your own Clergy, for the truly episcopal part which your
Lordship has acted throughout this controversy : a part which
has been properly acknowledged by many, who have no
personal or local connection with your Lordship ; and which,
I am persuaded, all the wisest and best friends to our Esta
blishment will duly and gratefully appreciate.
Commendation would be impertinent; but I may say, in
general terms, that mild forbearance until the assertion of
authority becomes necessary, and watchfulness combined
with judicious interference, seem to be, more particularly in
these times, among the essential requisites for those who
hold the office of a Bishop. Your Lordship must forgive me
if I add, that recent events in Oxford have suggested this
remark. I have the honour to be.
With sincere respect,
Your Lordship's most obedient humble Servant,
R. PRETYMAN.
MaylW,, 1841.

INTRODUCTION.
The writer of the following pages is one of that numerous
body of Clergymen who, having neither sufficient learning nor
the inclination to enter into theological controversy, are
nevertheless disposed to examine and form an independent
opinion of the merits of the " Tracts for the Times." That
they are written by men of superior talents and attainments,
and exhibit proofs of profound study, is indisputable : and
their discontinuance, in compliance with the wish of the
Bishop of the Diocese, will probably, for the present at least,
detract but little from their circulation. Now, therefore, that
they have roused many into open opposition, and have been
called objectionable by some to whom the education of youth
for Holy Orders is especially entrusted, it is become almost
imperative upon every Christian Minister to inquire wherein
the opinions of either party differ from his own. And in
coming to this inquiry, one, at least, would say for himself,
in limine, that he strongly feels " how good and joyful a
thing it is for brethren to dwell together in unity:" where
fore, admitting that it is the right and duty of spiritual
pastors to put forth to the world that which they believe con
formable to the Word of God, and "good and profitable unto
men," he cannot but lament that, in these days of peril to
the Church of England, there should have arisen questions of
doctrine, which unsettle the minds of the unlearned, and

cause divisions among the wisest. Still more deeply does he
lament that the discussion of such questions should have been
carried tin in dogmatical and exclusive language ; and with a
spirit of acrimony and recrimination, which is as unlikely to
arrive at the truth, as it is foreign to the character of Chris
tianity. It is hoped, at least, that whatever may be the
value of the following observations, they will betray no sin of a
deeper dye than that of ignorance ; that they will be received
as the result of sincere attachment to the Established Church,
and an earnest desire to maintain among its members uni
form reverence and obedience to it : and should there be
found a tone of remonstrance or complaint, it will be, because
no other language can convey the sense which every faithful
Minister must entertain of an attempt, on the part of his
brethren, to teach what he believes conducive to error in
faith and practice.
And truly in religious, above all other controversies, the
positive circulation of error is not the only mischief which
generally ensues. Not to speak of the partial development
of any doctrine, the suppression of facts, the perversion of an
adversary's argument, or the misinterpretation of cited autho
rities, there is a way of stating the truth, which, by implica
tion, may virtually establish a falsehood ; and, since it may
be necessary to employ ambiguous terms in treating of ab
struse matters, it happens not unfrequently that the author
and his readers have a very different understanding of the
same words. This, surely, is particularly unfortunate where
the subject is of deep importance : and though it is natural to
expect clearness of expression in proportion to clearness of
intellect, it is certain that acute logicians are not always the
most intelligible writers: so that, without attributing any
obliquity of purpose, excellent divines may perhaps be justly
accused of stating their propositions correctly, yet so as to

mislead rather than instruct : for there is a way of intro
ducing a self-evident truth amongst positions which admit of
doubt, or a quotation from some undisputed authority, in the
middle of an argumentative sentence, so as to cause a prima
facie impression, that the whole passage ought to be assented
to upon the same grounds.
Moreover, some writings are not designed for general use,
and will be read only by persons of a peculiar cast of mind.
But whoever professes to elucidate the meaning of Holy
Scripture, to point out the errors of other churches, and to
shed a new light upon the doctrine of his own, is surely
bound to consider that such subjects are interesting to all ;
and he should therefore be the more careful to avoid misap
prehension. For if, for instance, in explaining the points of
difference between the Roman and Anglican Churches, much
that is superstitious and of late invention in the former should
be palliated, if not declared to be reeoncileable with primitive
practice, while extravagant praise is bestowed upon it, as the
faithful repository of so much that is pure and conformable to
Apostolic doctrine ; not only might the unwary put too
favourable a construction upon the character and tendency
of its principles, but such a writer would be open to the
suspicion of a leaning in its favour. And this would the
more probably happen, if, in the course of his remarks upon
the Articles of the Anglican Church, he should studiously
invite the reader's attention, not to the original sacred foun
tain from whence they derive their true Catholic sense, but
to the agreement which can be found in them with the tenets
of that very Church, whose corruptions were the sole cause of
their being formally compiled.
So, again, if common parlance and a vague conviction of the
inestimable value of Holy Scripture should have rendered
familiar a form of expression not strictly consistent with
b2

other claims to our respect, and should thus have created
what a nice observer of relative merits might term a pre
judiced veneration for it ; the person who rudely tears such a
prejudice from the minds of his disciples, may be the innocent
cause of some other standard of faith being exalted and fol
lowed in its stead ; and of lowering, to a fearful extent, the
estimation to which they, in their newly gotten wisdom, admit
the Word of God to be entitled.
How far any of these observations may be applicable to
men now aspiring to a prominent place amongst English
divines, time perhaps will shew. It will be attempted here
to prove only, that certain passages in the 90th Number of the
" Tracts for the Times " may reasonably offend a plain and
humble understanding. Its purpose, as distinctly stated, is
to shew that " there are " not " in the Articles propositions
or terms inconsistent with the Catholic Faith :" but in a
Tract of this sort, it would be unfair to expect a regular ex
position of any one of them. The author has made his own
selection ; and doubtless it is well calculated to effect the
object which he had in view. His observations upon religious
changes, and the necessity of seeking one auother as brethren,
are such as might be expected from an enlightened mind ;
breathing a spirit of unalterable attachment to the Catholic
Faith, and boldly stating the difficulties which must con
tinue to harass the Church of Christ in this her state of
warfare. There is however in one sentence, a seeming insinua
tion, that the particular school to which the author belongs
are the only " persons who profess to be disciples of the early
Church." It is under this title, at least, that they are put in
contradistinction to those who would " further a relaxation
of subscriptions ;" whence it might possibly be inferred, that
there is no alternative between belonging to the one party or
the other. But surely thei-e are many, by no means desirous

of any relaxation of subscriptions, and professing to be dis
ciples of the early Church, who, foij, that very reason, are
opposed to any class of writers who seem to be " furthering a
relaxation" of the plain sense of the Articles of the Church of
England. And, whatever may be thought of the new light
thrown upon them by the remarks we are now about to con
sider, it would be approximating to a Popish tyranny over
conscience to say, that concurrence with them is the test of
the justice with which that profession may be made.
§. 1. Holy Scripture, and the Authority of the Church.
Articles VI. and XX. — " Holy Scripture containeth all things
necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein,
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,
that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation  The
Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and au
thority in controversies of faith : and yet it is not lawful for
the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's
word written ; neither may it so expound one place of Scrip
ture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although
the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as
it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, besides
the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for
necessity of salvation."
In this first section, the author takes occasion to decide
that " our received version of the Scriptures is not, in any
sense, imposed on us as a true comment on the original text,
as the Vulgate is upon the Roman Catholics." -This, surely,
is liable to be mistaken for disparagement. It looks as if it
either ought to be, or would be, were it worthy of being so
imposed ; as if, therefore, the Roman Catholics had an advan-

tage which we have not. But let the reader be reminded,
that the Church of England does not assume the infallible au
thority over its members which is exercised by the Church of
Rome; neither is it accustomed to express itself in such
language as was adopted by the Council of Trent. And as to
the advantage of the Vulgate being imposed upon any one,
let us hear Taylor upon the subject. (^Liberty of Prophesying,
sect. iv. 7.) " No translation challenges such a prerogative to
be authentic, but the Vulgar Latin ; and yet see with what
good success : for when it was declared authentic by the
Council of Trent, Sixtus put forth a copy much mended of
what it was, and tied all men to follow it : but that did not
satisfy; for Pope Clement revives and corrects it in many
places ; and still the decree remains in a changed subject.
And, secondly, that translation will be very unapt to satisfy,
in which one of their own men, Isidore Clavius, a monk of
Brescia, found and mended eight thousand faults, besides in
numerable others which he says he pretermitted. And then,
thirdly, to shew how little themselves were satisfied with it,
divers learned men among them did new translate the Bible,
and thought they did God and the Church good service in it."
But to return to our version. The author adds, " It was
made and authorized by royal command, which cannot be
supposed to have any claim upon our interior consent." Most
true: but might it not hence be inferred, that its claims to our
reverence rest only upon the royal command! and that be
cause a royal command has no claims upon our interior con
sent, therefore the same may be said of that which was pro
duced only in obedience to it \ Let the reader, then, be re
minded, that this our version, ordered and authorized by
James the First, has claims upon our interior consent, inas
much as it is the joint work of forty-seven of the most learned
men of that day ; and its high character has since been rising

in proportion to the rational piety and critical acuteness with
which it has been studied by friends and enemies.. And after
hearing our author's faint praise, that " it contains no deadly
heresy or dangerous mistake," and his cold acknowledgment
of "its simplicity, majesty, gravity, harmony, and reasonable
ness," let the reader also hear the testimony of men, not in
ferior perhaps to any commentators of the present day, to the
fidelity with which it adheres to the sense of the original text.
" It is," says Dr. Gray, " a most wonderful and incomparable
work, equally remarkable for the general fidelity of its con
struction, and the magnificent simplicity of its language." And
so, again, Johnson, as quoted by Bishop Tomline : " Happy,
thrice happy hath our English nation been, since God hath
given it learned translators, to express in our mother tongue
the heavenly mysteries of his holy word, delivered to his
Church in the Hebrew and Greek languages : who, although
they may have, in some matters of no importance unto salva
tion, as men, been deceived and mistaken, yet have they
faithfully delivered the whole substance of the heavenly doc
trine contained in the holy Scriptures, without any heretical
translations, or wilful corruptions. With what reverence, joy,
and gladness, then, ought we to receive this blessing ! "
Our author proceeds with quotations to prove that, " in
the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day.
Scripture is not, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith."
This is indeed a startling proposition, for one who loves and
implicitly trusts to his Bible. One may seriously ask, it is
hoped, without offence, whether the author could not have
expressed his meaning in terms less likely to be misunder
stood ; less likely to shock the prejudices, the amiable, com
fortable, innocent, and useful prejudices of the vulgar ? If, in
the author's opinion, there is an absolute necessity that a
" Tract for the Times" should be explicit in condemning the

8
phrase " Rule of Faith," as applied to Scripture, one may
still ask, with submission, is there nothing in " the signs of
the times" to shew an absolute necessity for upholding Scrip
ture as the only source of religious knowledge, the ultimate
appeal in religious disputes, the invaluable gift of God to
which all mankind have an equal right? for encouraging the
general use and indefatigable study of it, as being (to use one
of the author's quotations from Taylor) " a full and sufficient
rule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect de
claration of the will of God," than which " we have no other I"
And this is a description of it to which the generality of
readers will surely think the sentence we are now considering
is a flat contradiction. For that "Scripture" is not "the
Rule of Faith," is a plain striking declaration ; and one can
conceive, that many a man, relying upon the authority of so
learned and talented a writer, and not stopping to inquire
exactly what was meant by the common understanding of the
phrase, would hereby feel his confidence in Scripture shaken.
We submit, that it is the duty of every writer to guard
against such a result. And it is no answer — at least, it is not
a kind or considerate answer — to say, it is not the author's
fault, if his readers will not observe the nice distinctions with
which he qualifies his paradoxical assertions upon such a sub
ject. But let us meet the author upon this question on a less
general view : and albeit, imparibus armis, let us endeavour
to shew that, in the common and simplest sense of the words,
Scripture is, on Anglican principles, the Rule of Faith.
There may be a difference of opinion as to the sense in
which any phrase "is commonly understood at this day."
And the difficulty which meets us in the outset, is, how to
catch either the author's own idea of the words " Rule of
Faith," or that which he attributes to others, when he speaks
of "the sense in which they are commonly understood."

For since the English divines to whom he refers us do cer
tainly apply the phrase to Scripture, we must suppose that he
also, in some sense, admits the application, " on Anglican
principles," to be just. He objects to it, however, as am
biguous, and of recent adoption. Now it is remarkable that
he begins with noting, " that in the Article not a word is said
in favour of Scripture being the sole Rule of Faith." But in
the next sentence, (as afterwards throughout,) the word sole is
omitted ; where he states, with implied disapprobation, that
" it is often supposed to be almost a first principle of our
Church, that Scripture is the Rule of Faith." Still here he
does not tell us in what sense ; neither does he stop to argue
against the principle ; but all he proposes to do is, to shew
that the apphcation of the phrase to Scripture is but " of
recent adoption." But, considering the conclusion he has come
to, it would have been perhaps more satisfactory, if, before he
proceeded to pass final sentence, he had favoured us with an
accurate definition of what it is that he so peremptorily con
demns : for we can only judge .of his meaning by reference
to what he calls a synonymous expression. And, in the first
place, we confess that the definition thus given does not
appear to us at all a common one. That is, when Scripture
is called " the Rule of Faith," we do not think that many
people will understand thereby, that " Scripture has no rule
or method to fix interpretation by." On the contrary, we
think most people understand, that a rule without any fixed
method of interpretation is no rule at all. Neither do we see
any force in the objection that the same phrase is sometimes
applied to the Creed : for we do not think that in calling
Scripture "the Rule of Faith," many people understand
thereby, that it supersedes the use, or invalidates the au
thority of the Apostles' Creed. On the contrary, we think
most people understand, with Bramhali, that " the Scriptures

10
and the Creed are one and the same rule, dilated in Scripture,
contracted in the Creed." And we cannot admit it to be a
proof of the ambiguity of any phrase, that it is applicable to
one thing as a summary, and to another as the authority
whereby the truth and value of the summary is established.
For should we be told that this summary is derived from
Apostolic Tradition ; we answer, that the only certain test by
which we can be assured that a Tradition is really Apostolic,
is its agreement with Scripture.
The author proceeds to say, " The ancient Church made
the Apostolic Tradition, as summed up in the Creed, and not
the Bible, the Begula Fidei, or Rule." A statement which,
we suppose, implies, that "professed disciples of the early
Church" ought to do the same. We therefore entreat the
reader to peruse attentively the fifth section of Taylor's
" Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying." We quote only
two short passages. " Here I first consider that Tradition is
no repository of Articles of Faith, and therefore the not fol
lowing it, is no argument of heresy; for besides that I
have shewed Scripture, in its plain, expresses to be an
abundant rule of faith and manners, tradition is a topic as
fallible as any other ; so fallible, that it cannot be sufficient
evidence to any man in a matter of faith, or question of
heresy." Again : " We are acquitted, by the testimony of
the primitive fathers, from any other necessity of believing,
than of such articles as are recorded in Scripture."
Now to return to our author's allusion to the Creed. What
does he mean by the " ancient Church V Does he refer to the
age of the Apostles, or to the second or third centuries ? Does
he assume it as a settled point, that what is called the
Apostles' Creed was actually drawn up by them ? We think,
with Bishop Tomline, {Int. to the Expos, of the Articles,) that
" those who first embraced the Gospel declared their faith in

II
Jesuj, as the promised Messiah, in simple and general terms :
and there is no ground for supposing that the Apostles
required this declaration to be made in any one particular
form of words. No such formulary is transmitted to us ;
.... and there are still extant, in writers who lived near to
the apostolic age, several abstracts of Christian Faith, which
though they agree in substance, vary in expression." All
which is confirmed by Bishop Kaye, in his work upon the
writings of Tertullian : " he describes what he calls the one,
fixed, unchangeable rule of faith :  the inference,
therefore, to be drawn from a comparison of different passages
scattered through Tertullian's writings is, that the Apostles'
Creed, in its present form, was not known to him as a
summary of faith ; but that the various clauses of which it is
composed were generally received as articles of faith by
orthodox Christians :" and they are so received by us at this
day. But why ? Because, as Pearson proves, " all those
articles are certainly contained in the Scriptures." If they
were not, they would not be binding upon " Protestants."
Moreover we learn from our author, that " Laud calls the
Creed, or rather the Creed with Scripture, the Rule. Since
the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith; since the
agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two
regular precepts by which a divine is governed about the
Faith," &c. So then, according to Laud, the Creed would
not be the Rule of Faith, did not the sense of Scripture agree
with it. Will any one be bold enough to say, that Scripture
would not be the Rule of Faith, did not the Articles of the
Creed agree with it ? To which of the two, then, is the phrase
most applicable ?
Our author adds a long quotation from Field's work on the
Church, to shew that he makes many other Rules : and if
this be a specimen of a complete and decisive statement on

12
the subject, we confess ourselves lamentably dull of comprehen
sion. We attach, however, but little importance to the opinions
of the writer of the following sentence, though it be printed by
our author in Italics : " We do not make Scripture the Rule
of our Faith, but that other things in their kind are Rules
likewise ; in such sort that it is not safe, without respect had
unto them, to judge things by the Scripture alone." We will
not stop to quarrel with this negative style of making a
decisive statement, nor to comment upon those other things
to which we are to have respect, such as " the infinite
excellency of God ;" which no one doubts ; though few, we
think, would be satisfied with, or learn much from such a
definition of the Rule of our Faith : or, " all such things as
every Christian is bound expressly to believe ;" which leaves
open the great question of where they are to be found : or,
" that which the most, and the most famous in every age,
have constantly delivered as a matter of faith, as received of
them that went before them, in such sort ;" which leaves
open the whole question of the authority of Tradition. Our
present purpose is with the declaration, that " it is not safe to
judge things (i. e. matters of faith) by Scripture alone." And
here we take our stand. We ask our author, is it to such
writings as those that he would have us look for " Anglican
principles!" Is this the orthodox interpretation of the sixth
Article, " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation 2" Does he himself believe, with Taylor, that " the
Scripture is a full and sufficient Rule 2" or with Field, that " it
is unsafe to judge by it alone !" Perhaps we shall be told,
that he agrees with neither ; because neither have expressed
themselves correctly. Why, then, does he quote them both ?
Or perhaps we shall be told, that he agrees with both : for
some people can explain words so as to mean any thing. If,
then, he thinks that Scripture is "a sufficient Rule," why does

13
he go about to multiply authorities, in a work professedly
doctrinal, with a view of establishing objections to the common
use of a phrase, which conveys the sentiment he approves?
If he thinks it unsafe to judge matters of faith by Scripture
alone, why does he not point out its deficiency, and either
present us with a new interpretation of the sixth Article, or
shew us how that opinion is to be reconciled with such exposi
tions of it as he knows are generally received ? But we have
no right to question our author upon the grounds or even the
substance of his " interior consent ;" much less to speculate
upon the motives which have induced him to bestow so much
learned labour, in order to prove the ambiguity of a phrase
which every theological student has been long accustomed to,
and which most people, as we believe, understand in their
simple and correct sense. We conclude with recalling the
reader to the plain words of the Article ; and with reminding
him that Bishop Tomline, in his exposition of it, quoting
Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Basil, thus
expresses himself: "The ancient fathers always speak of the
Scriptures as containing a complete rule of faith and practice ;
and appeal to them, and to them only, in support of the
doctrine they advance." Again, " The next point to be
settled is the rule of our faith and practice : this is a subject
upon which there is a material difference between the Church
of Rome and the Church of England ; and to that difference
this Article is directed  We of the Church of
England afiirm that the Scriptures contain a complete rule of
faith and practice ; and we reject every doctrine and precept,
as essential to salvation, or to be obeyed as divine, which is
not supported by their authority."
These we conceive to be " Anglican principles :" and neither
by quotation nor by argument, by assertion nor by implication,
has our author been able to shake our conviction, that " in the

14
sense in which it is commonly understood at this day," that
is, the simplest sense, " Scripture is, on Anglican principles,
the Rule of Faith."

§. 2. Justification hy Faith only.
Aeticle XI. — " That we are justified by faith only, is a most
wholesome doctrine."
We ought, perhaps, at the outset, to have protested against
our author's habit of reciting detached portions of the Articles,
and of coupling portions of one with portions of another. It
maybe called a technical objection; but we think the practice
inconvenient, and more calculated to puzzle than assist persons
aiming to arrive at the plain sense of each Article, and the true
tendency and object of the whole. We desire also to with
hold our assent to the principle apparently laid down, that
the Articles are responsible for all that is to be found in the
Homilies ; that is, we think expressions used in the one, ought
not to be represented, and commented upon, as the exact
language of the other.
Here, as in the preceding case of Scripture, the word
" only" is made to bear the brunt of our author's remarks; and
the Article itself seems to us to offer the best explanation of
it. It runs thus : " We are accounted righteous before God,
only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by
Faith, and not for our own works or deservings ; wherefore
that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome
doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed
in the homily of Justification." Our author may or may not be
correct in supposing that the Article refers us to where the
Homilies call Faith "the sole means, the sole instrument of
justification." Perhaps the framers of the Article had the
following extract quite as much in view : " This saying, that

1.5
we be justified by Faith only, freely and without works, is
spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as
being unable to deserve justification at God's hands, 
and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our
justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood-
shedding." But be this as it may, we think the addition of
the above isolated expressions is calculated rather to mystify
than elucidate the simple meaning of the Article. It "furnishes,
however, an opportunity of shewing that other things justify,
in certain distinct senses which they can be made to bear ;
and it forms a convenient introduction to what might possibly
be considered an insinuation, that the doctrine condemned in
the Article is the doctrine of St. James. For no one, as is
justly observed, can possibly suppose that Faith is here put
in contrast either with our Lord's merits, or with Baptism.
But, says our author, " the only question is, what is that
sense in which works justify, so as not to interfere with Faith
only justifying 2 It may, indeed, turn out on inquiry, that the
sense alleged vdll not hold, either as being unscriptural, or for
any other reason : but whether so or not, at any rate the
apparent inconsistency of language should not startle persons;
nor should they so promptly condemn those who, though they
do not use their language, use St. James's." Does this allude
to any alleged sense in particular 2 Does it mean, that, whether
unscriptural or not, it is something in its favour to be couched
in the language of St. James? We know not who are the
persons likely to be " startled" at an apparent inconsistency,
which has caused as much religious controversy as almost any
other subject : nor do we think any persons ever were con
demned for using the language of St. James, though they may
have been for the use they made of it. And no one knows
better than our author, that language of all sorts is liable to
very different constructions : that the Romish doctrine of

16
justification by works, is not the doctrine of St. James, and
is the doctrine condemned in this Article : and again, that
that same language has been made to teach a doctrine
very different from both. So that we wish our author had
been more specific in telling us who are the persons he
alludes to, when he says, they should not be so " promptly
condemned." For taking into consideration the Article in
question, and the doctrine against which it is directed, and
the pains taken by our author to shew that Faith both is
and is not the sole means or instrument of justification ;
we repeat, that the above-cited passage might be thought
not only to contain a sneer against those who say " we are
justified by faith only," but also it might be considered a
defence of those who, in saying we are justified by works,
use the language of St. James in the particular sense against
which this Article is directed.
But to proceed. " Next we have to inquire, in what sense
Faith only does justify 2" Once more we confess we do not
understand our author ; for he says, " Faith, as being the
beginning of perfect and justifying righteousness, is taken for
what it tends towards, or ultimately will be. It is said by
anticipation to be that which it promises." What does he
mean by perfect or justifying righteousness of which faith is
only the beginning 2 Is the faith of a convert who dies imme
diately after his conversion less justifying than that of another
Christian older in the faith 2 If it be the beginning of, and
put for, something else which justifies, is that the sense which
one would choose for the purpose of illustrating its power of
"justifying only 2" But it is pleasanter, and we think safer,
to turn to Scripture, than to grapple with these subtilties.
Faith, no doubt, leads to the flourishing of other divine graces :
if it does not, it is not faith, for it is dead. And St. Peter
enumerates seven to be added to our faith ; but this does not

17
prevent his addressing believers, not as expecting, but as
" receiving the end of their faith, even the salvation of their
souls." (1 Pet. i. 9.) So that however it may suit writers to
say, we are justified by Christ, by baptism, or by works, or by
faith only, we are not " startled by the apparent inconsistency
of language," unless they seem to imply that St. Paul was
guilty of an omission when he said, (Rom. v. 1.) "being
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ." §.3. Worh before and after Justification.
Abticlbs XII. and XIII. — " Works done before the grace of
Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to
God ; forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ,
neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the
school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather
for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded
them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of
sin. Albeit good works, which are the fruits of faith, and
follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure
the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and ac
ceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a
true and lively faith."
The twelfth and thirteenth Articles are transposed, and
coupled with each other, as, we suppose, for the purpose of
bringing into contrast works before and after justification.
We are bound to follow this arrangement ; though we think
the twelfth Article would more properly have been connected
with the eleventh, and the thirteenth with the ninth.
We have, however, two objections to the representation
here made of the points in which these Articles contrast the
two sorts of works. The remark, that things are thus brought

18
into contrast which were never intended so to be, is of minor
importance ; it being, perhaps, mere matter of opinion, how
certain topics may be discussed in the fairest and most con
venient way.
One of the contrasts attributed to the Articles is this:
" Works before justification have the nature of sin ; works
after, are good works." Now on referring to the sentence
which speaks of "good works," every one will see that the
sense of it is complete without the word "good;" for works
which are " the fruits of faith, and follow after justification,"
must be good ; so that our author opposes, by way of contrast,
a broad and important position laid down in one sentence, to
an epithet in another which has little or nothing to do with
the sense of it. His other illustrations of contrast are plain and
pointed. Some works, he observes, " do not spring of faith ;"
others are " the fruits of faith." Some " are not pleasant to
God ;" others " are pleasing and acceptable to God." When,
therefore, some are said to "have the nature of sin;" and
others, by way of contrast, (for it is expressly stated that
" they are strongly contrasted with each other,") are said to be
" good works ;" would not any one suppose it must be meant,
that those which are good have not the nature of sin 2 and,
vice versa, that works before justification cannot be good
works, because they have the nature of sin 2 But this is not
the meaning of the Articles ; neither does our author say so :
and if we have sometimes to regret his obscurity, we thank
him for writing so guardedly that contradiction is unnecessary,
if not impossible. Hooker says somewhere, " the best things
that we do have something in them to be pardoned ;" and a
greater than Hooker has said, " when we have done all" we
are " unprofitable servants." The ninth Article, speaking of
original sin, says, " this infection of nature doth remain, yea,
in them that are regenerated:" the twelfth Article says,

19
"good works cannot endure the severity of God's judgment:"
our author, at the conclusion of this very section, says, " works
after justification are still liable to the infection of original
sin." We say, then, that a fallacy is imputed to the Articles
when they are represented as saying, that the having " the
nature of sin" is a point in which works before and after jus
tification may be contrasted with each other. They say no
such thing ; and their language in the very passages before us
implies the contrary, inasmuch as it is declared, that as the
one sort " have the nature of sin," so neither can the other
" endure the severity of God's judgment."
But the grand difference between them will appear more
plainly in the next objection which we have to make to our
author's mode of representing things. He quotes the Articles
thus : " Works before (justification) are not pleasant to God ;
works after, are pleasing and acceptable to God." We com
plain, that whereas the Article adds to the latter sentence
the words " in Christ," thereby shewing that the works are
not acceptable in themselves but in Christ, our author has left
out these last most important words : an omission which we
think alters the whole sense of the antithesis, and might lead
the reader into one of the main errors of Popery. If in
writing or reading carefully upon such a subject, we omit to
acknowledge that our works are pleasing and acceptable to
God only for the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall
soon begin to think we have merit of our own.
Next we have to ask, where does our author get his definition
of the phrase, "deserve grace of congruity?" He construes
the words " merentur gratiam de congruo''' thus : they " move
the Divine regard, not from any claim upon it, but from a
certain fitness or suitableness." And then he goes on to say,
" the Article denies that works .... in this way dispose
towards grace, or move God to grant grace." Now we do
c2

20
not think our author has construed the word correctly; at
any rate, we deny that the Article says a word about " moving
God to grant grace," or " disposing towards grace." Nor is
this what it asserts the school authors say. The word at
tributed to them, objected to by the Article, and studiously
kept out of sight by our author, is the word " deserve." And
to our humble understanding, what the Article denies is this :
that " works done before  are pleasant to God :" and
whereas the school authors speak of works which have not
exactly a just claim upon God's grace, " but a fair right to
expect it of His liberality," the Article proceeds to deny that
these M^orks can have any power towards making men, in
any sense, worthy, fit, or meet in themselves to receive the free
gift of grace. And further we must observe, that our author
is not content with forcing upon the Article his own version
of the expression which it quotes, explains, and condemns,
but he must needs throw the following slur upon its veracity;
" it asserts, with or without reason, (for it is a question of
historical fact, which need not specially concern us,) that
certain schoolmen maintained the affirmative :" but the affirma
tive of what 2 a certain something put into their mouths by
our author, and not contemplated by the Article at all. We
have seldom seen a more wanton imputation, nor a more
unwarrantable attempt to establish it.
The Articles being silent upon the subject of " an interme
diate state between that of justification and grace, and that
of neither," we should be silent, too, but for one expression of
our author ; where he speaks of " works done with divine aid,
and in faith, before justification :" language which we do not
understand, and cannot reconcile with the scriptural principle
previously established. For if Christ be the one only meri
torious cause, and " faith only" the appointed means of justifi
cation, how can there be faith without, or before, justification ?

21
And our author expressly tells us he is not speaking of Jews
or Heathens, but of the difference between " habitual grace"
and " actual grace, or rather aid :" as if he would have us
believe that a Christian may be in such a state as to be aided
by God, and led on to be justified, for his works' sake, when
his faith has failed of receiving justification. Which, to say
the best of it,.looks like confounding them which are justified
with them that are sanctified. But this is fresh ground ; and
we think we have said enough to prove, that many people
might consider the whole tendency of our author's remarks in
this section, and especially those upon the intermediate state
he speaks of, as inimical to the scriptural doctrine laid down
in the Articles, that works without faith " are not pleasant to
God." §. 4. The Visible Church.
Article XIX. — " The visible Church of Christ is a congrega
tion of faithful men; in the which the pure Word of God is
preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to
Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are re
quisite for the same."
We have now to follow our author through his definition of
a definition : for this section professes to explain what the
framers of the Article meant by " the Visible Church of
Christ ;" and the explanation of that term is the only object
of that part of the Article which is here prefixed. In this
instance we have to thank our author for being unusually
explicit : for he states, fearlessly and distinctly, that the
Article is speaking of " the actually existing one holy Catholic
Church diffused throughout the world ; as if it were read, the
Church is a certain society of the faithful." Then follows an
accumulation of expressions gleaned from various writers ; not
as he would have it appear, in support of his own opinion of

22
the meaning of the Article, but simply proving that they used
the term in the same sense that he does. Differing in that
opinion from him as we do, we shall content ourselves with
giving our own reasons for that difference, without hazarding
a conjecture as to the bias or ultimate view which could have
led so acute a mind into what we think a strange and palpable
mistake. First, then, we observe, as we have had occasion to do
before, that had the whole of the Article been quoted, there
would have been less room for difficulty in arriving at its
meaning. For it concludes by declaring that the Churches of
Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome "have erred, not
only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in
matters of faith." We infer, therefore, from the whole, that
its object is twofold : first, to explain what sort of society
may be called the Visible Church of Christ ; and then to de
clare that the most celebrated of those Churches have erred.
First, by its description, it shews that it is not speaking of the
invisible Church, which comprises saints made perfect, in com
munion with Christ as the head, and with the faithful upon
earth as members one of another ; but of the visible Church,
which consists only of a congregation of faithful men : which
congregation cannot claim the title, unless in it the pure Word
of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered.
And then, lest so venerable a title and so holy a bond of con
nection should seem to warrant extravagant pretensions on the
part of such a society which is nevertheless composed of fal
lible men, the Article proceeds to state, that some of the most
ancient and most famous of those societies have erred. So
that before we can adopt our author's view of the question,
we must believe that the word " Church" is used in different
senses in these two sentences following each other; which we
think improbable.

23
Again, we think our author's definition is grammatically
objectionable. Had " the Visible Church of Christ" been here
meant to designate the " one holy Catholic Church diffused
throughout the world," we think the indefinite article would
not have been applied to the word congregation. But as the
word visible marks the distinction from the invisible Church,
so does the indefinite shew that there may be many con
gregations such as are here described.
And what do our author's quotations amount to ? We
deny not that " the Church" is a term often used by writers
of all ages and denominations to denote one universal body of
men, distinct from unbelievers in Jesus Christ ; and we pre
sume our author will not deny that it is often used for a par
ticular body of believers in one country, city, or house. And
it is manifest that such terms as " congregation" and " faithful
men" must apply equally to "the Church" in both these senses:
so that we are greatly surprised that the use of such expressions
should have been brought forward to decide which of the two
senses it must bear in any particular place. When a word
has more than one legitimate signification, we know of no
better interpreter than the context.
We are aware that Roman Catholics would consider these
observations as making a distinction without a difference,
because they allow of the term being applied to no church
but their own. We make no such exclusive claim : not
judging others ; but preaching, as we trust, the pure Word
of God, and duly ministering the Sacraments, according to
Christ's ordinance, to all of our communion. We believe,
moreover, that Christ hath other sheep which are not of this
fold. We think the time for their being brought into one
fold is not yet come. We think the framers of our Articles
contemplated many folds under one Shepherd, when they an
nounced the marks by which Christ's sheep might be known ;

24
the requisites mentioned to constitute what they call " cwtus
fideliumT §.5. General Councils.
Akticle XXI. — " General Councils may not be gathered to
gether without the commandment and will of princes. And
when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an
assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit
and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred,
in things pertaining to God."
One of our author's expressions in this section is, that a
Council is a " thing of Heaven." But we will not stop to
quarrel with his style of writing. Our business is, if not to
confute, to expose to the naked view of the reader, what we
think objectionable in his doctrine, whether avowed, implied,
or likely to be understood as such. And if by any of these
three ways we are to learn any thing of him here, it is this :
when Councils are a thing of Heaven, they are Catholic
Councils : when Catholic, they are CEcumenical, General, and
something more : all General Councils are not Catholic : the
same Councils are not wholly Catholic : Catholicity is a
quality of some, not a differentia belonging to a certain class
of them : the notion of a gathering in the name of Christ,
depends upon people's own ideas of its necessary conditions ;
as, for instance, whether it be necessary that the universal
Church, or the Pope, or Scripture, should agree with its de
crees : what this Article says, may be correct ; and yet
CEcumenical Councils may be infallible : and, lastly, St.
Gregory Nazianzen was of this opinion.
Now all this is so much to learn, that it is worth while to
look a little at how it is taught. In the first place, then, we
beg to observe, that in order to prove the infallibility of certain
Councils, (for this is the plain English of the circuitous ex-

25
pression, being "things of Heaven, their deliberations are
overruled,") no new arguments are used ; but our author
treads exactly in the steps of Bellarmine, the great Jesuit
champion of the Church of Rome. Here we are positively
told, " a promise does exist that they shall not err, in cases
where General Councils are not only gathered together accord
ing to the commandment and will of princes, but in the name
of Christ, according to our Lord's promise." And now let us
hear from Taylor, who it is that had previously made a similar
application of the text referred to, and also what is the plain
answer to the argument derived from it. In the first book of
the second part of the Dissuasive from Popery, the following
passage occurs : " Never any General Council did declare that
a General Council is infallible. Indeed, Bellarmine labours
greatly to prove it out of Scripture. His best argument is the
promise that Christ made, that when two or three are gathered
together in my name, I will be in the midst of them ; and, I
will be with you to the end of the world. Now, to these au
thorities I am now no other way to answer but by observing,
that these arguments do as much prove every Christian meet
ing, of any sort of good Christians, to be as infallible as a
Council, and that a Diocesan Council is as sure a guide as a
General." Our author, indeed, says, they must be gathered
together by princes, as well as " in the name of Christ ;" but
this will not affect Taylor's answer, unless it can be shewn that
Christ's promise also specified how they should be convened.
Next we come to this sentence : " The Article merely con
templates the human prince, not the King of Saints." We
beg to differ from our author as to this fact. We think the
Article does contemplate " the King of Saints," inasmuch as it
contemplates the notion of the assembly being wholly "go
verned with the Spirit and Word of God," and expressly de
nies that it is so.

26
Then follows, " While Councils are a thing of earth, their
infallibility of course is not guaranteed." Indeed! What
does " not guaranteed" mean to insinuate 2 Why not say at
once, their infallibility is out of the question 2 We need not
follow Taylor through his history of General Councils ; but,
as St. Gregory's opinion is quoted, and the first four Councils
of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon undoubtedly
enjoy the highest repute, it may be as well to apprize the
reader how far two of these were respected by the very person
we are referred to. In the sixth section of Taylor's " Liberty
of Prophesying," we find, " St. Gregory saith, the Constanti-
nopolitans corrupted the Synod of Chalcedon, and that he sus
pected the same concerning the Ephesine Council." Again :
" Pope Leo," " Gelasius," and " Bellarmine " say the same.
" In concilia Chalcedonensi qucedam sunt bona,, quoedam mala,
qucedam recipienda, qucedam rejicienda.'''' Again : as to its re
putation among those who lived immediately after it, Anasta-
sius says, " Quod autem ad concilium Chalcedonense attinet . . .
singuli ecclesiarum prwsides pro suo arbitratu in ea re egerunt^
Upon which Taylor observes, " So it was in Councils, par
ticularly in that of Chalcedon, that had a fate alterable, ac
cording to the age, and according to the climate ; which, to
my understanding, is nothing else but an argument that the
business of infallibility is a latter device, and commenced to
serve such ends as cannot be justified by true and substantial
grounds." Again : " If one Council be corrupted, we see, by
the instance of St. Gregory, that another can be suspected,
and so all : because he found the Council of Chalcedon cor
rupted, he suspected also the Ephesine ; and another might
have suspected more, for the Nicene was tampered foully
with : and so three of the four Generals were sullied and made
suspicious, and therefore we could not be secure of any."
Still, says our author, " When Councils are a thing of

27
Heaven, their deliberations are overruled." .... We say
nothing of the delicate manner in which he introduces his
steps upon this delicate ground; but we must ask a few
questions for further information. What is "a thing of
Heaven?" Is there any thing human besides that he would
call " a thing of Heaven ?" Is the term applicable to a number
of Christians collected together in prayer ? Does an CEcumenical
Council, or an assembly for the purpose of worship, best de
serve the title of " a gathering in the name of Christ ?" And
may not men err in worship ? Or may they err in worship,
and not in CEcumenical Councils? But when are Councils a
thing of Heaven ? Which are they 2 What meaning does he
attach to the term Catholic Council 2 What constitutes the
difference between a Catholic and a General Council 2 How is
it that Catholic are General Councils, and something more?
What is the first step to this climax, and what do we learn
when we arrive at it? Which of the General Councils are
wholly and which partially Catholic, and why 2 Is there any
particular Council which answers the author's own idea of a
gathering in the name of Christ ? If so, which is it ? By what
conditions is his notion of such a thing fulfilled ? Does he rely
upon the universal Church, or the Pope, or Scripture ? Is in
fallibility a quality of Catholicity, found in it at times, or the
differentia belonging to a certain class of Catholic Councils?
How, in short, would he describe Catholic or CEcumenical
Councils ? And does he himself believe in the infallibility of
all or any of them ? For our own parts, we know of no ex
ception to the rule laid down in the Article, that General
Councils may err : and we cordially agree with Taylor, where
he says, " the experience of it is notorious, that Councils have
erred ; and all the arguments against experience are but plain
sophistry."

28

§. 6. Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Belies, Invocation of
Saints.
Article XXII. — "The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory,
pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images as of
relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly in
vented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but
rather repugnant to the Word of God."
We agree with our author, that the doctrine here condemned
is the Romish doctrine ; and we only wish his admirers may
not rise from a perusal of this section with an impression that
there is no great harm in that doctrine upon these subjects.
We wish, for instance, they may not be persuaded, that the
only difference between the Roman Catholics and ourselves
upon the subject of Purgatory is, whether it be a place for
believers or unbelievers : that the sale of pardons by the Pope
was an unwarrantable extension, and a cunning abuse of power
vested in the Church, rather than an impious usurpation of
that which belongs to God alone : that there is a great simi
larity between the doctrine of our Homilies and that of the
Council of Trent, upon the subject of worshipping images and
relics : that the Jesuit, Bellarmine, perfectly agrees with
Bishop Andrews and our Homilies upon the principle laid
down upon the subject of invocation of saints : and therefore,
upon the whole, it is not the doctrine of the Church of Rome
but its abuse, which is a fond and censurable thing. We say
we wish this may not be the impression created by our author's
manner of handling these subjects; because, although (to
borrow his negative and cautious style) we do not say that
he would not disapprove of such a result, we do not see that
he has not endeavoured to produce it ; therefore we cannot
say whether he does not think it would not be very wrong
for such impressions to " be entertained as a matter of opinion

29
by a theologian now." We will proceed, however, with our
task as before : and should we misunderstand him upon any
point, our excuse must be the double difficulty which meets
us here, of discovering what is his own, and where we are to
look for what he will allow to be the Romish doctrine.
We begin then by saying, we had rather be reproached for
ignorance, than for mystifying our honest opinion ; and there
fore we confess the truth at once. We know of no other
doctrine upon these subjects, than that which is taught by the
Church of Rome, and that which is taught by the Church of
England. There are shades of difference, no doubt ; but we
do not allow the title of doctrine to the crude and fanciful
speculations of one or two writers who had no followers ;
neither do we acknowledge, that because the Council of Trent
condemned some shocking practices amongst members of the
Church of Rome, its doctrine is therefore different from the
Romish. Still less do we acknowledge that it cannot be that
which is condemned in the Article, because the latter was
drawn up before the Decree of the Council : as if it were not
notorious that the Romish doctrine is embodied in the Decrees
of that Council ; and as if established opinions might not be
contemplated and condemned before they assume the more
tangible shape of an authorized statement. This argument,
surely, is puerile : we beg pardon ; we mean, quite unworthy of
our author. But we will meet him upon the other ; and having
spoken of his chronological remark, we will look at the in
ternal evidence he produces. He says, " there are portions
in the Tridentine Statements upon these subjects which the
Article, far from condemning, by anticipation approves, as far
as they go." Here we must observe, that portions of State
ments may very consistently be approved, while the gist and
tendency of the whole may be a fair subject of censure, and,
if of sufficient importance, pointed out for condemnation.

30
Sorry should we be to think there were no portions of our
author's statements that we could approve. But we pass on.
He says, " the Decree enjoins concerning Purgatory thus :
" Among the uneducated vulgar, let difficult and subtle
questions, which make not for edification, and seldom con
tribute aught towards piety, be kept back from popular dis
courses. Neither let them suffer the public mention and treat
ment of uncertain points, or such as look like falsehood." Now
all this is very sensible ; but how does it appear that it is ap
proved by the Article ? for that is the only question before us
just now. Even admitting, for a moment, (which we are going
to shew is not the case,) that the Article and the Decree in this
passage speak of the same thing, it is called by the latter too
difficult and subtle for the uneducated vulgar : and can this
description be said to be approved, as far as it goes, by the
other, who calls it a thing repugnant to the Word of God ?
But they are not speaking of the same thing. The Article
speaks distinctly of the Romish doctrine of Purgatory; a
point by no means difficult, subtle, uncertain, or unsuitable to
vulgar ears, in the opinion of those who believe in it. The
Decree enjoins the doctrine of Purgatory to be preached ; and
it recommends silence upon certain subtle conceits to which
that doctrine gave rise. This would have appeared at once,
had our author given us more of the Decree. For by turning
to the history of the Council of Trent, we find that this De
cree states that " there is Purgatory, and that the souls de
tained in it are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful and
the sacrifice of the Mass." This was the doctrine which the
Bishops were commanded to preach; and the subtle and
difficult questions spoken of, were " the place of Purgatory,
and the fire, which it was impossible to find words to express
which might give satisfaction to all."
So, again, about images, our author quotes the Decree

31
thus : " Due honour and veneration is to be paid unto them :
not that we believe that any divinity or virtue is in them, for
which they should be worshipped ; or that we should ask
any thing of them ; or that trust should be reposed in images,
as formerly was done by the Gentiles, which used to place
their hope on idols." And this, also, we are told the Article
approves, as far as it goes. But does it say one word about
any honour or veneration being due to images at all ? Did the
framers of the Article, did any one, ever suppose that " the
Romish doctrine concerning worshipping and adoration of
images," was founded upon a belief that there was divinity or
virtue in them ? Is it not sufficiently idolatrous to bow down
to and worship an image, without believing it to be a God ?
and is it not notorious that the Romish doctrine allowed of
thus honouring the thing represented ? must not this therefore
be what the Article condemns ? And how can it be said to
approve of an injunction, as far as it goes, which disclaims
only a superstitious reason for doing the thing condemned ;
actually allows, and even commands the thing itself?
We think, then, we are justified in saying, the author has
failed to prove that the Romish doctrine spoken of in the
Article is not the same in substance as the Tridentine State
ment. And does not the very nature of the thing lead us to
suppose they must be the same ? In order to understand
expressions rightly, it is a great help to look at the circum
stances under which they were used. The Articles were
drawn up as a statement of what the Church of England
taught and believed when it had separated itself from the
Romish communion. The Decree of the Council of Trent was
drawn up as a statement of what the Church of Rome taught
and believed when it had been quitted by Luther and the
other reformers. It was, then, the Romish doctrine which was
chiefly opposed by the Articles ; the Romish doctrine which

32
was confirmed by the Council. One main object of the former
was to shew wherein the true, primitive, or Catholic doctrine
differed from the Romish : one main object of the latter was
to shew wherein the true, primitive, or Catholic doctrine
differed from that of the reformers. If the one condemned,
the other was interested in disclaiming palpable corruptions :
so that if these corruptions were all that the Articles opposed,
there was no reason why they should not have been agreed to
by the Council of Trent. Looking, therefore, at the causes of
each party drawing up their own Statement, and at the fact
that a wide separation between them has continued ever since,
it is more than probable that the doctrine condemned by the
one, should be just the doctrine which was persevered in by
the other.
But we go further : we say that " the Romish doctrine "
cannot mean the doctrine of the Roman schools or schoolmen,
in contradistinction to that which was approved by the Pope
and the Council of Trent ; and this because they mutually
upheld, assisted, and, in the main, agreed with each other.
We know there were dissensions among the schoolmen ; that
some of them entertained very strange opinions, which were
not countenanced by the Pope and Councils : but our author
will not pretend to say, that the " Romish doctrine" means
such opinions as these ; generally metaphysical and con
tentious, always unauthorizedly put forth, and sometimes
authoritatively condemned. We know, too, there were con
tradictory decisions by Popes, contradictory decrees by Coun
cils : mix the three together, and their variations are infinite.
Where, then, are we to look for the "Romish doctrine?"
Surely, if so slippery and vague a thing can be fixed at all, it
must be where Schoolmen, Pope, and Councils agree. And
if it can be shewn they did agree upon the subjects mentioned
in this Article, it must be that doctrine which is there con-

33
demned by the name of Romish : and if it be the Council of
Trent which drew up the Statements, in agreement with the
Schoolmen and the Pope, the Romish doctrine upon these
points is the Tridentine. Let us see, then, whether these
things be so. Throughout the history of the Council of Trent
we find instances of the doctrine of the Schoolmen being
mentioned as agreeing with that of the Church of Rome : as
where Luther is said "to have forsaken the opinion of the
Schoolmen and of the Church of Rome in the matter of con
fession and of the communion ;" again, where it is said, the
Council had no difficulty " about the matter of original sin,
because it had been already handled by the Schoolmen." But
to be more particular.
Let us take the doctrine of Purgatory. The Schoolmen
were no doubt divided upon many particulars relating to it ;
but they all agree there is such a place. The decree of the
Council of Trent declares that there is Purgatory. The
Homily, which our author brings as his interpreter of the
Article, asks, " where is the third place which they call
Purgatory, and where shall our prayers help and profit the
dead 2" Does this look like believing in such a place at all 2
And if the Homily be, as our author considers it, the echo of
the Article, is it too much to presume that the Romish
doctrine there condemned is the Tridentine 2
Take the doctrine of Indulgences. Are we to presume the
Schoolmen differed from the Council upon this point 2 Did
they teach its abuses 2 We have no ground for supposing
any such thing. They differed amongst each other as to
whether they were " absolutions, or only compensations ;"
whether "they remitted the penalties imposed by the confessor
only, or all ; " as to their being " founded upon the merits
of Christ only, or of saints also ;" and probably upon many
other points. But "that the Church may grant them, was the
D

34
uniform doctrine of the Schoolmen." Agreeably to which, the
decree of the Council states, " that Christ hath given authority
of granting them to the Church ; that the use of them ought
to be continued as profitable for Christian people, and ap
proved by Councils." Is not this then the Romish doctrine con
cerning pardons mentioned in the Article ? If not, where is it
to be found 2 For it is recorded in the history above mentioned,
that the adversaries of Luther " laid for their ground- work the
Pope's authority, and consent of the Schoolmen ; and for the
same reason, the doctrine of remission of sins, of penance, and of
purgatory was set on foot ; the Romanists serving themselves of
all these common places for proof of Indulgences." We know
not therefore upon what authority our author asserts, that the
Bomish doctrine of Pardons, condemned in the Article, refers
only to " the remission of the penalties of sin in the next life
to be obtained by the Pope, with such abuses as money pay
ments consequent thereupon ;" seeing that the Pope and the
Schoolmen and the Council agreed that the Church had power
to grant Indulgences for the remission of Penance ; and " the
treasure of the Church," as was called the Fund of Merits,
whence these pardons issued, was one of the principal grounds
of difference between the Romanists and the Reformers.
Images have been already spoken of. We add here, that
the difference between Schoolmen upon this subject, was not
that any taught there was " divinity or virtue in them ; " but
whether they had not a claim to what was called " adoration,
relative besides objective ; as consecrated vessels and vestments
deserve a reverence, though they do not represent a saint."
But all agreed that honour was due unto them ; and so the Tri
dentine decree decided : and there is not the slightest pretence
for supposing that the Schoolmen taught or allowed of any of
the abuses which the Council condemned: absurd and dis
graceful practices, which our author, having enumerated at

35
great length, would fain have us suppose are dignified in the
Article by the name of " Romish doctrine." We doubt not
that in condemning the Romish doctrine concerning images,
the Article was designed to condemn not only the paying
them foolish and extravagant reverence, but the paying them
any honour at all. Our author seems to think otherwise:
and (again observing that the Homilies are Ms witness) we
wiU make use of the same words to establish our opinion
which he has given us to establish his. " What meaneth it
that Christian men, after the use of the Gentile idolaters, cap
and kneel before images, which, if they had any sense, should
kneel before men .... their makers and framers, by whose
means they have attained this honour, which else should
have been evil favoured and rude lumps of clay .... with
out shape or fashion, and so without all estimation and
honour? .... and if they say they exhibit such honour
not to the image, but to the saint whom it representeth, they
are convicted of folly." .... Again : " It is evident that
our image maintainers have not only made images and set
them up in temples, as did the Gentile idolaters their idols."
Again: " Our churches stand full of such great puppets, . . . .
you would believe that the images of our men-saints were
some princes, .... and the idols of our women-saints were
nice and well-trimmed harlots, .... having so many dumb
devilish vicars. (I mean these idols and painted puppets.)"
Once more: "True religion, then, and pleasing of God,
standeth not in making, setting up, painting, gilding, cloth
ing, and decking of dumb and dead images, (which be but
great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage, and wicked
idolatry to dally and play with.) .... But all these things
be vain and abominable, and most damnable before God."
Whereas, then, our author would have us believe, that the
Homilies only condemn the extravagant worship of images, it
d2

36
is to be observed upon this extract, the making and setting
them up are among the things pronounced vain, abominable,
and damnable. We ask, however, would such expressions as
are here quoted, have been used by any person who thought
any honour at all was due to images, or that they ought to
be placed in our churches 2 If the Article is to be judged by
the Homilist, surely by the Romish doctrine concerning
images, it must mean the making, setting up, and paying
them any honour at all, as well as painting, or decking, or
kneeling to them ; that is, it condemns the doctrine upon
this subject, of the Schoolmen, the Pope, and the Tridentine
decree. The doctrine concerning Relics is summarily disposed of as
akin to that concerning images. We must, however, protest
against our author's bold assertion, that "the Homilies do
not altogether discard reverence towards relics." The only
grounds assigned for this assertion, are two extracts upon the
subjects of miracles, performed at the tomb of Epiphanius,
and the discovery of the true cross. And to these we refer
the reader, confidently assured that he will be astonished at
the conclusion which our author draws from them ; viz. that
the Homilist, " without positively committing himself, evi
dently wishes the hearer to think he believes in both," and
therefore that " he does not think all honour paid to relics,
wrong." Now, upon this, we cannot forbear assuring our
author, though it is not our business to defend or explain the
Homilist, that the wishing a reader to believe what he dares
not openly assert, and the nice construction of sentences so
as not positively to commit himself to any decided opinion,
is not his style of writing : and since such things are here
attributed to him, as we think, unfairly, we may ask his
accuser, how he would like similar imputations to be cast
upon, and similar inferences to be drawn from his own Ian-

37
guage ? These extracts as they stand, in our opinion, warrant
no such observations; but should any reader of them incline
to our author's version, we entreat him to turn to the
Homily itself: for the fact is, we had rather not dwell upon
this matter, lest we should express ourselves too strongly
upon this instance of our author's mode of citing his au
thorities. With regard to Invocation of Saints, we were so taken by
surprise at our author's interpretation of the meaning of the
Article upon this subject, that we began to think we must
have been in error all our lives, in supposing that invocation
meant prayer. But upon referring to Johnson's Dictionary,
we find we were not mistaken : so that we have to complain
of our author's drawing an unwarrantable inference from plain
words, and transgressing the fair and common rules of in
terpretation, when he says he has shewn, that " not all in
vocation of saints is wrong." How has he shewn this ? How
has he even attempted to do so? What kind of invocation
has he proved is not wrong ? Truly, that of rhetorical apos
trophe, but no other. We say nothing of the conclusion
which lawyers invariably come to, when their learned adver
saries condescend to press a very weak point, or endeavour
to throw dust in their eyes by the introduction of irrelevant
matter : and if our author is disposed to amuse us by arguing
that the Article must allow of invocation of saints, because
the Homihst, after Terence, apostrophizes the elements, why
should we spoil the humour of it by gravely objecting non
sequitur ? We had rather laugh with him, and say, Dulce est
desipere in loco. But leaving rhetoric and the poets, we must
return to the Council of Trent. And here we complain, that
their common condemnation of offering sacrifice to saints, is
produced as a proof of the concurrence of the Homilist with
the decree. We are as unwilling as any one to think worse

38
of the Romish doctrine than it deserves : and we deny with
the Council, and with Bellarmine, the unjust aspersions which
must be fastened upon it by the idea, that, at the time our
Articles were drawn up, it sanctioned certain abominations
which were nevertheless commonly practised by Romish de
votees. We may see the evil practices to which a certain
doctrine leads, and hold it to a certain extent responsible for
them ; but we do not therefore say, the doctrine absolutely
teaches those practices : but should they become frequent
and notorious, is it fair to assume that the doctrine is ap
proved, because its consequences are reprobated on their own
account ? For thus it was, we apprehend, in the case before
us. While the Article briefly points out the true character
of the doctrine, the Homily inveighs at greater length against
the mal-practices consequent thereupon. And, although the
Homily and the Council of Trent concur in the condemnation
of sacrifice being offered to saints, they are wide as the poles
asunder in their opinions as to the lawfulness of invoking
them. Even in the extracts given by our author, one
sanctions the honouring them by the celebration of a few
masses ; the other reminds us that St. Augustine understands
by honouring them, the following their virtuous and godly
life ; who adds, moreover, " they are never to be invocated or
called upon." The Homilist adds for himself, " Invocation is
a thing proper unto God, which if we attribute unto the
saints, it soundeth unto their reproach ; " and then follow in
stances from Scripture to prove " they could not well bear it
at our hands." By Invocation, then, the Homilist means
Prayer: and it is invocation in the abstract, not merely
certain forms of address, which is here reprobated. Why
will not our author take the Homilist in this instance, as he
has in others, for his interpreter of the Article ?
And what says Bellarmine, who is also said to agree in

39
principle with the Homilist ? " We ought to ask nothing of
saints beyond the impetrating from God what is profitable for
us." Surely, when a man quotes such an opinion, so directly
sanctioning the practice of invocation, and tells us that the
author of it agrees in principle with our Homihst, he is bound
to shew where the Homilist recognises and approves that
principle. We defy our author so to do. And we say that the
Romish doctrine spoken of in the Article, is the doctrine of
the Court of Rome, of the Roman Schools, and of the Council
of Trent ; that very same doctrine wherein the Catholic
Prelates of Germany, no less than the Reformers, did differ
from the Court of Rome ; inasmuch as the former, without
any mental reservation as to any kind or form of invocation,
said of saints, " that they were to be honoured but with the
worship of society and love ; " and the latter taught that it is
not "repugnant to the Word of God, not contrary to the
honour of Christ, not a foolishness or fond thing, to pray unto
them, either with heart or voice." {Vide History of the
Council of Trent, b. iii. and viii.)
§. 7. The Sacraments.
Article XXV. " Those five, commonly called Sacraments,
that is to say. Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony,
and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments
of the Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt
following of the Apostles, partly from states of life allowed in
the Scriptures : but yet have not like nature of Sacraments
with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not
any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."
This section begins with saying, "This Article does not
deny the five rites in question to be Sacraments:" to which
we beg to add the observation that it says, they were " com-

40
monly called so ;" an expression which leads us to imagine it
did not approve of the term being applied to them : and
moreover, whereas it adds, they " have not like nature of
Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper," it leaves
it at least doubtful whether they can be properly considered
Sacraments at all. We know, however, that great latitude
has been given to the signification of this term. Beveridge
says, " it was used by the ancient writers of the Church for
any sacred or holy mystery, rite, or ceremony, every one
calling what holy thing he pleased a Sacrament : by which
means the number of things that have been called by this
name is very great and uncertain." Hooker also says, (b. v.
50.) " In the writings of the ancient Fathers, all articles
which are peculiar to the Christian faith, all duties of religion
containing that which sense or natural reason cannot of itself
discern, are most commonly named Sacraments." So that it
should seem to be the first duty of a writer upon this subject,
to state clearly in what sense the word is understood by him
self. And we confess, that after a most attentive study of
our author's remarks upon this Article, we know not whether
he considers the five rites in question Sacraments or not.
This is the more provoking, because Bishop Kaye, in his
account of the writings of Tertullian, after stating that " the
controversy between the Romish and English Churches re
specting the number of Sacraments seems in a great measure
to have arisen from the laxity with which the Latin Fathers
used the word Sacramentum^'' adds this note — " Now that the
word Sacrament has been strictly defined, the case is very
different, and the question between the two Churches re
specting the number of Sacraments becomes of great im
portance." We are therefore fortified by the high authority
of this perspicuous writer, not only in our opinion, that this
(to use a parliamentary phrase) should not be left an open

41
question ; but we are further encouraged to disagree with our
author, when he says, the Church acknowledges two defini
tions of the word ; and that it does not determine the number
of Sacraments. But we are anticipating his conclusion, and
must proceed in order.
The first remark then that we have to notice, is this : " We
may well believe that the Church has the power of dispensing
grace through rites of its own appointing :" for this is (to use
our author's phrase) what he evidently wishes us to believe.
But we profess to be plain and accurate; we therefore tran
scribe the whole passage, that the reader may judge for him
self, both of our author's meaning, and of his manner of
expressing it. " They are not Sacraments in any sense, unless
the Church has the power of dispensing grace through rites of
its own appointing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and
hallowing the rites or ceremonies which, according to the
twentieth Article, it hath power to decree. But we may well
believe that the Church has this gift." Now we know not
whether that branch of the sentence which follows the con
junction "or" be intended merely to explain in other words
" the power of dispensing grace," or to denote a somewhat
different property of the Church : but we are not called upon
to make any observations in this place upon the expression,
" blessing and hallowing a rite," unless it means the giving to
it " the power of dispensing grace;" because, according to our
author's widest definition, if there be no " grace given under
it, it is no Sacrament."
Since, therefore, our author offers for our belief the propo
sition, that the Church has this power or gift, it behoves us to
tell him we believe no such. thing. On the contrary, we be
lieve that as God is the sole fountain of all grace. He alone
has the power of communicating it ; we believe that He has
ordained certain observances in His Church, whereby and

42
wherein its faithful members may be assured of receiving the
same : but we do not believe that He has delegated to the
Church the power of dispensing grace through any other rite
than what He has himself prescribed. It is not our business
here to point out the consequences to which the attributing
such a power to the Church has led, and might lead again.
Suffice it to observe, that we consider this the root of eccle
siastical arrogance and tyranny, which has nourished up the
most dangerous and revolting tenets of Popery, and which
must directly tend to create a self-sufficient and domineering
spirit in any Church which thus confounds the instrument
with the cause, and clothes the ministerial office with pre
tensions to the distribution of divine gifts, independently of
divine directions.
But let us not be misunderstood. There is a wide dif
ference between appointing a rite, and appointing a form
in which that rite shall be administered : a distinction clearly
marked by our Articles, where, speaking of the Church,
they say, " it hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, but
not to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's word
written;" and again, that the Sacraments must be "duly
ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things
that of necessity are requisite to the same." Thus, water and
the name of the Holy Trinity are ordained by Christ, to be
used as requisite to Baptism ; and no one would say that
Baptism was a rite appointed by the Church, though it may
have decreed sprinkling, or immersion, or the sign of the cross
upon the forehead. So, again, Christ ordained that Bread
and Wine should be essential elements always used at the
celebration of this Supper ; and no one would say that the
Eucharist was a rite appointed by the Church, though it may
have decreed a peculiar preparation of bread, or a peculiar form
to be observed at the partaking of it "in remembrance of Him."

43
There is also a wide difference between the having power
to dispense grace after a fashion of our own, and the being
appointed its authorized channel in a particular course marked
out by its author. We deny not that the Church might have
had power to spread the overflowings of God's bounty, by
means of any ceremonies it pleased to decree ; even as a
tributary stream winds its own course, while receiving and
distributing the waters of a mighty river : but we say that no
such power has been given to it. We find it not in Scrip
ture, we acknowledge not the tradition of it, we admit not
the reasonableness of it. And differing as we do from our
author upon a subject of such importance, we wish he had
favoured us with the grounds upon which he would have us
come to a contrary conclusion. For though a proposition thus
broadly stated may be as broadly contradicted, we have too
much respect for our author not to feel that we are bound to
give our reasons for rejecting what he wishes us to believe ;
and this we cannot do, without a separate consideration of
every instance in which we imagine he attributes to the
Church the power in question ; for the same reasoning will
not apply to all.
To begin, then, with Matrimony : we say it is certainly not
a rite appointed by the Church, but instituted by God, who
"from the beginning made them male and female." This,
therefore, is not a case in point.
With respect to Penance, we doubt not that grace is given
to the penitent who, in faith, apply for pardon ; for it is one
of the promises of God. But had the Church decreed certain
punishments to be undergone, or certain ceremonies to be per
formed, in proof of penitence, could it therefore have been said
to dispense grace through a rite of its own appointing ? Or,
because one Church enjoins auricular confession to the priest
and private acts of mortification ; and another, for the mainte-

44
nance of its discipline, requires public acknowledgment of some
offences ; are we therefore to presume, that divine grace, pro
mised to Christian repentance, is. the certain consequence of
such compliance with human enactments ? If not, we think
it cannot be said that the Church dispenses grace through the
rite of Penance.
Still less can it be said to do so through the rite of Extreme
Unction, because no Protestant believes that absolution, or
any grace, is consequent upon the application of oil to the five
senses of a dying man.
Confirmation is an ordinance founded on apostolical prac
tice, consisting of prayer and imposition of hands. It must
be preceded by Baptism, being a ratification of the baptismal
vow, declaratory of the obligation which man had thereby
entered into, and of the grace which God had thereby im
parted. Imposition of hands is a solemn form of benediction
practised upon many other occasions ; and whatever efficacy
this rite may have, it is attributable not to the outward act,
which has no divine promise attached to it, but to the prayers
which are then offered. It has no claim peculiar to itself
upon any gift of grace ; and since we believe not that any
grace is thereby imparted other than, we trust, frequently
attends "the effectual fervent prayer" of faith in public and
in private, we see not how the Church can be said to dispense
grace through the rite of Confirmation.
Ordination is certainly not a rite appointed by the Church,
for Christ ordained ministers before he built his Church. A
form, therefore, of perpetuating their succession cannot be a
case in point. And though Romish writers have exalted
many other ceremonies even to the dignity of Sacraments, we
know of no other instance than the five above mentioned to
which our author could have alluded, when he said that the
Church has power to dispense grace through rites of its own

45
appointing. We have the more fully submitted our reasons
for dissenting from this assertion, because, however strenuously
we oppose what seems to us its obvious and dangerous signi
fication, we are equally anxious that nothing we have said
should seem to detract from the legitimate power and privi
leges of the Church. That it should appoint rites and cere
monies, we think no more than necessary for the securing that
every thing should be done " decently and in order :" and
that God should bless with His especial favour those who
thereby faithfully endeavour to promote the honour and ex
tension of His kingdom upon earth, we think it not presump
tuous to hope. But that such human observances should have
any claim of their own upon Him, we utterly deny : and we
say, that " the power of dispensing grace," if the expression
can be tolerated at all, in speaking of a ministerial privilege
delegated to a secondary cause, is limited to such rites as are
founded upon a divine command, administered according to
divine appointment, and accompanied by a divine promise
that reception of His grace shall be the fruit of the performance
of an outward act. The form of absolution used by our
Church at the visitation of the sick contains the most authori
tative language that our Liturgy any where puts into the
mouth of the priest : and, therefore, there perhaps it is the
more important to observe, that that ministerial power is ex
ercised, not in consequence of its being given by a rite ap
pointed by the Church, but in consequence of the authority
committed by Christ to the Apostles, and continued to their
successors according to Christ's appointment. The Church
only has directed a particular form of words, preceded by
prayer, and guarded by an express acknowledgment that
absolution is pronounced by virtue of the office previously ap
pointed, and previously empowered by Christ to dispense this
grace. The power, therefore, of dispensing it is not dependent

46
upon the administration of a rite, but upon words of Christ,
which would be equally effective without the intervention of
any rite whatever.
We come now to the assertion of our author, that our
Church acknowledges two definitions : that is, in order to
constitute what our Church calls a Sacrament, though there
must be an outward sign of an invisible grace given under it,
yet it need not be ordained by Christ. Agreeably to which
proposition he elsewhere tells us, " We do not strictly de
termine their number."
Now, in conformity with Bishop Kaye's remark already
quoted, we ask the reader, before we go into particulars,
whether he ever before had the slightest idea that the Church
of England attached to the word " Sacrament" any definition
other than is consistent with that which he finds in our Ca
techism ? We ask him, whether he could have believed that
any member of the Church of England, much less an author
of repute, would admit that that may be a Sacrament which
was not ordained by Christ ? We profess ourselves painfully
surprised at this novel and extraordinary attempt to unsettle
the fixed and just conviction entertained, as we believed, by
all our brother communicants, that our Church acknowledges
only two Sacraments in Christ's Church. And we view it as
a dangerous and most objectionable attempt ; because it tends
to establish a notion, that the notoriously different opinion
entertained by the Church of Rome is a matter of no im
portance, and rather justifiable than otherwise. We do not
accuse our author of any evil purpose ; but we call upon his
good sense to observe, and upon his candour to acknowledge,
that since the number of Sacraments actually was at the time
of the Reformation, and has ever since continued to be, one
of the principal subjects of difference between Roman Ca
tholics and Protestants, it must be considered unfriendly to

47
the Protestant cause to speak in defence of the tenets of the
Romish Church upon this subject ; unfriendly to the Church
of England, to teach that in its most popular and useful office,
compiled for the express purpose of instruction, it has not
given a proper answer to the natural and vitally important
question, " What meanest thou by this word Sacrament 2"
We ask him, moreover, whether he does not think that, with
the Church Catechism before his eyes, every person who un
derstands words in their plain and obvious sense, would say,
that the number of Sacraments is there defined? We will
even venture to ask him, whether he thinks it desirable that
that general opinion should be altered, or that people shoidd
be taught to look elsewhere for the elementary doctrines of
our Church ? He will tell us, perhaps, that every error should
be corrected ; a sentiment in which we concur : and therefore,
though we are by no means convinced of the necessity or the
wisdom of disturbing unanimity upon an important point, for
the sake of pointing out how one author admits that " in a
general acception" some may attribute a particular name to
things which others would not, yet we will endeavour to shew,
that the error lies not with those who believe, but with those
who deny, that our Church has determined the number of
Sacraments. And first we will notice the extract from the
Homilies, which is the only authority produced by our author
in support of his opinion.
The necessity of verbal accuracy always increases in pro
portion to the multiplication of things disputed ; and therefore
it is not surprising that, before corrupt interpretations gave
rise to corrupt practices, looseness of expression should have
prevailed, which subsequent writers would carefully avoid.
Accordingly, St. Augustine, with other of the Fathers, cer
tainly does in some places attribute a wide indefinite signi
fication to the word " Sacrament." But when it became

48
necessary for the course of his argument to state the truth
with more precision, " writing to Januarius, and also in the
third book of Christian Doctrine, he affirmeth that the Sa
craments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in
signification, so are they most few in number ; and in both
places maketh mention expressly of two, the Sacrament of
Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." And thus, the object
of the Homilist being to set before his hearers both sig
nifications of the term, in order that they might have a right
understanding of it, speaks of other things as Sacraments,
because, as the Article says, they were " commonly called
so :" but when he comes to the practical conclusion which he
wishes to impress, he takes especial care to mention by the
name of Sacraments, only two. And he says, " the Church
of England has retained other rites and ceremonies which
no man ought to take for Sacraments, in such signification
and meaning as the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's
Supper are." Therefore, whatever weight may attach to the
Homilies, in a question of strict propriety of language, there
is 110 direct evidence to shew that the Homilist himself ap
proved of the term being applied to any rite besides those
two : and we are disposed to think he used the term the more
unguardedly, because it was his intention, which he after
wards fulfilled, to apply it to the two only, when asserting
their comparative excellence over all other rites and ceremonies.
At all events, our author's opinion, to which we are objecting,
is founded only, as far as we know, upon the extract he has
produced from this Homily. Valeat quantum.
On the other side of the question, we refer the reader, first,
to the fifth book of Hooker's great work : where, in the 57th
section, discoursing upon " the use of the holy Sacraments,"
he evidently throughout speaks of them as things ordained
by God, of which there are only two ; and in no part of his

49
writings can we discover that he calls any other rite by that
name. But it may be well to give a few brief quotations.
" Respect the time of their institution, and it appeareth that
God hath annexed them for ever to the New Testament."
" They are heavenly ceremonies, which God hath sanctified
and ordained to be administered in his Church." " Sundry
the same effects and benefits which grow unto man by the
one Sacrament, may rightly be attributed to the other." " By
Baptism we receive Christ Jesus, .... by the other we re
ceive him also." In the sixty-first section, he says, " To ac
knowledge Christ's institution, the ground of both Sacraments,
I suppose, no Christian man will refuse." In the sixty-sixth
section, he tell us, St. Jerome calls Confirmation " a Sacra
mental complement ; a ceremony annexed to the Sacrament
of Baptism." He denies the charge brought against the
Church of England, that it " teaches men to think im
position of hands a Sacrament ;" and ridicules the idea that
"all things done by Apostolic example must needs be Sa
craments." In Bishop Heber's Life of Taylor, there is a passage strongly
indicative of the importance he attached to correct ideas both
of the dignity and number of Sacraments ; while it also proves
that he never contemplated any doubt as to what was the
true doctrine generally taught and believed amongst us.
After observing that Baptism was almost made of none effect
by limiting the gift of the Holy Ghost to Confirmation, he
adds — " To this objection Taylor himself was not insensible :
and he endeavours to escape from it, by a still more dangerous
admission, that Confirmation is really as generally necessary as
Baptism or the Lord's Supper ; which is, in fact, to contradict
the express doctrine of our Church, as formally to elevate it
to the rank of a Sacrament." Yet in that very discourse,
thus criticised by Heber, though led too far by his ardent

50
anxiety to revive the practice which had almost fallen into
disuse in his own diocese, Taylor tells us that the Fathers
called it a Sacrament, "in a large, symbolical, and general
sense." Commending the paramount excellence of Baptism,
he adds — " Thus it is also in the other Sacrament," the
Lord's Supper. Again : " It is true that imposition of hands
signifies all Christian rites except Baptism and the Lord's
Supper ; not the Sacraments, but all the sacramentals of the
Church." And in other parts of his writings, Taylor is a
powerful witness on our behalf In the fifth chapter of his
" Christian Consolations," treating of the subject in his own
peculiar style of imagery, he says, " The two Sacraments
are the outward signs by which prayer and hope have declared
their consent to a marriage." He explains a Sacrament in
general, to be " a token to confirm man's faith in the pro
mises of God :" thus implying, as indeed his argument ex
pressly proves, that it must of necessity be ordained of God :
for he speaks of His " condescension in thus obliging us to
take notice of His mercies in gross and sensible things." Then
instancing the tree of life as the first Sacrament during the
innocency of Adam, whom he there calls the Church ; and
then the rainbow, circumcision, the passover, and the brazen
serpent, all signs ordained by God, with a distinct promise
attached, he continues, " so under the New Testament we are
received and preserved in the covenant of grace by mysteries,
...... that we may be sanctified with the Church's two
breasts of consolation." " I stand," he says, "upon the number
of two, because they are put together. (1 Cor. x. 2, 3.) I will
not promise a precise testimony out of antiquity, which shall
say there are but two Sacraments under the Gospel, and no
more ; but learned men have produced out of the Fathers as
much as amounts unto it, to them that will not be contentious."
And after his general survey of Sacraments, having promised

to treat of each in particular, he mentions only the two,
Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. To all which we add, in
brief, that throughout the " Rule of Conscience," the "Worthy
Communicant," and the " Dissuasive from Popery," he speaks
only of these two as Sacraments, declaring that such " Sacra-
mentals" as have been invented by the Church of Rome
" estrange men's hearts from the true religion and trust in
God, while they think themselves blessed in their own in
ventions." (Book i. chap. 2. §. 10.)
In Bishop Hall's work, entitled "the Old Religion," we find
the following clear testimony. " So as the word Sacrament
may be taken from any holy, significant rite, there may be as
well seventy as seven : so strictly, as it may be and is taken
hy us, there can no more be seven, than seventy." " None
but Christ can make a Sacrament ; for none but he who can
give grace, can ordain a sign and seal of grace." " In every
Sacrament therefore must be a divine institution and command
of an element, that signifies ; of a grace, that is signified ; of a
word, adjoined to that element ; of a holy act, adjoined to
that word. Where these concur not, there can be no true
Sacrament; and they are palpably missing, in these five
adjections of the Church of Rome."
Jewel writes much to the same purpose : " We will grant,
without force and freely, that the holy Catholic Fathers have
made mention not only of seven, but also of seventeen sundry
Sacraments. But unto every necessary Sacrament of the
Church, two things specially are required ; that is, a sensible
outward element, and the words of institution ; . . . therefore
these five later, in proper use of speech, are not taken for
Sacraments of the Church."
Burnet, in the third book of his History of the Reformation,
tells us, " Cranmer was for reducing the Sacraments to two ;
but the popish party was then prevalent, and the number of
E 2

52
seven was agreed to." This then was a question upon which
the Romish doctors and the Reformers differed : a question to
which our Articles naturally pointed ; and if further au
thorities be wanting to explain the Anglican doctrine of Sa
craments, we can appeal to the lucid statements of Archbishop
Seeker and Bishop Tomline. We think, however, that we
have already produced evidence enough to warrant the asser
tion which, we are sorry to say, is at direct variance with that
of our author. For believing, as we do, that our English
Divines, beginning with Cranmer and ending with Kaye, all
saw the necessity of limiting the signification of the word
Sacrament by its strict and true definition, and that they all
used it in the sense plainly set forth in our Catechism, we
pronounce, without hesitation, that we do strictly determine
the number of Sacraments. Our author says we do not. Our
author says, " Christ has ordained two special ;" we say, " two
only, as generally necessary to salvation." Our author may
mean, that other five rites may be Sacraments. We say, and
we think the voice of the Church of England is with us, they
are not. §. 8. Transubstantiation.
Article XXVIII. " Transubstantiation, or the change of the
substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot
be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain
words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament,
and hath given occasion to many superstitions."
We really did not expect to find any Protestant writer, in
the nineteenth century, gravely telling us that our Articles
do not deny " every kind of change" in the substance of the
bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Yet such is the con
clusion to be drawn from our author's words ; for though he
does not give us his version of the words he has misquoted

53
from the Article in Latin, he tells us it does not deny " every
kind of change."
Now why he should have written "mutatio" instead of
" transubstantiatio," which is the word used in the Article,
we know not ; any more than we know why he has given us
no translation at all of the words " panis et vini." Had he
translated them, he must either have followed or dissented
from the Article, in the insertion of the word " substance :"
and possibly he had his reasons for doing neither; for the
reader will observe it would not be necessary to insert it, if
the preceding word were " mutatio ;" but " transubstantiatio"
cannot be correctly explained in English without it. Ac
cordingly we find it in the Article ; and without speculating
upon our author's reasons for his elliptical mode of construing,
without following him through the gross instances he has
adduced of Romish credulity and scholastic jargon, and with- ,
out entering into any disquisition concerning " extension and
bulk in space, and a certain figure and due disposition of
parts," we will transcribe what he calls a " plain and unam
biguous statement :" " that the material elements are changed
into an earthly, fleshly, and organized body, extended in size,
distinct in its parts, which is there where the outward ap
pearances of bread and wine are, and only does not meet the
senses, nor even that always." This is the change to which
he tells us the Article opposes itself; and moreover, that " it
does not confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any
definition of the word substance, nor in rejecting it, rejects a
word." Upon all this we observe, first, lest the plain truth
should be swallowed up in our author's phraseology, that,
whether it be to be called " an abstract theory" or not, the
Article unequivocally declares that it is repugnant to Scripture
and to the nature of a Sacrament, that there should be any
change in the substance of the bread and wine in the Lord's

54
Supper. It is true, that it does not aim at any definition of
the word substance ; nor can we imagine why it should. But
when our author tells us, that in rejecting it, it does not reject
a word, we are fairly puzzled : if he means that the affirmation
or denial of a particular doctrine must not be taken for a
verbal quibble, we most assuredly agree with him ; but we
can hardly think this was the information he designed to
give us : if by " it" he means " the abstract theory of change
of substance," it is rejected totidem verbis: we cannot separate
the words " change" and " substance ;" and if he thinks there
is any sense in which that expression is applicable to the
elements in the Eucharist, if he thinks some change may
take place in them, and yet concurs in the condemnation of
the Romish doctrine, we can only wish that he had explained
himself more fully : if he means that things or persons are
changed, when applied to different purposes, or assuming a
different character, he is entering upon a subject totally ir
relevant ; and playing, not only with a word, but with the
understanding of his readers; much after the manner in
which the Romish doctors endeavoured to elude the ar
guments of their adversaries by adopting the word " conver
sion." For, says Taylor, " it is not denied there is a change
of use, of condition, of sanctification, as a table is changed into
an altar, a house into a church, a man into a priest, Matthias
into an apostle, the water of a river into the laver of regene
ration ; but this is not any thing of transubstantiation." (The
Real Presence, §. 12.)
With respect to what the Article denies or does not deny, "in
denying mutatio panis et vini," we have already said, these are
not the words we have to do with : and for a concluding state
ment of what this Article really opposes and really means, we
shall be forgiven, we trust, if we offer to the reader what we call
" plain and unambiguous" words. Bishop Tomline says, the

doctrine condemned is, " the change of the substance of bread
fijid wine into the real substance of Christ's body and blood
in the administration of the Lord's Supper." He adds, " this
doctrine is contradicted by our senses, since we see and taste
that the bread and wine after consecration, and when we
actually receive them, still continue to be bread and wine
without any change or alteration whatever."
The remainder of this section is devoted to two objections
against the note appended to the Communion Service. First
to the fact stated, and secondly to the reason given. The
words objected to are these : " the natural body and blood of
our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against
the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more
places than one."
It is allowed that Christ's natural body and blood are in
heaven, but he objects to the addition " not here ;" and says,
" the question is, how can there be any presence at all of His
body and blood, yet a presence such as not to be here ? How
can there be any presence, yet not local 2 Yet that such is the
meaning of the paragraph in question is plain from what it
goes on to say in proof of its position : it being against the
truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places
than one." Whatever may be thought of these questions
which our author is pleased to ask, we must beg the reader
to stop one moment, to look at his assertion and its proof;
because to say, that this must be the meaning of a paragraph,
which does not contain one syllable that can be tortured into
an admission of the presence of Christ's body and blood, and
to support such a misrepresentation of its meaning by words
of its own, which, as far as they go, imply the direct contrary;
this we confess does appear to us the boldest assertion and
the most illogical conclusion to which we have been as yet
invited. For the paragraph most expressly disclaims any re-

56
cognition of the " corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh
and blood ;" and distinctly tells us, " His natural body and
blood cannot be here, inasmuch as they are in heaven." Since,
then, the above questions do not arise out of any thing to
which we have subscribed ; since they are put by our author
as a theme for the exercise of reasoning powers, but involving,
as we think, an unprofitable inquiry into " the secret things
which belong to God ;" we may say, without disrespect, that we
leave them to be answered by hfmself; admiring the inge
nuity of his suggestions, and acknowledging that such phi-
sophy is too hard for us.
But here and there amongst his arguments he has said
certain things of Scripture, of our Liturgy, and of the doc
trine of the Catholic Church, which require some observa
tions : and though we may put philosophy aside, we must not
shrink from an explicit declaration of what we have been
taught and believe, concerning what is called the real pre
sence of Christ in the holy Sacrament. Our author says,
" that there is a real presence, Scripture asserts, and the
Homilies, Catechism, and Communion Service confess ;" but
the explanation before us adds, that it is philosophically im
possible that it should be a particular kind of presence, a
presence of which one can say " it is here," or which is " local."
Upon this we observe, that the kind of presence here denied
is neither more nor less than a bodily presence : it is simply
denied, in so many words, that " the natural body and blood of
Christ are here." And this neither Scripture asserts, nor do
our formularies confess. There is no more need of philosophy
to see the impossibility of Christ's natural body being in
many places at once, than there is to see that the same
substance cannot become Christ's body while it remains bread :
it is no more derogatory to God's omnipotence to say that
Christ cannot be bodily present, at the same moment, in

57
heaven, and wherever the Eucharist is celebrated ; than it is
to say, God cannot make truth a lie ; He cannot cause the
same thing to be and not to be at the same moment : it is
no more derogatory to the omnipresence of Christ to say, that
his natural body cannot be here because it is in heaven, than
it was of Him to say of Himself, " I came forth from the
Father, and am come into the world ; again, I leave the
world and go to the Father." It is no more necessary to
believe that Christ's natural body and blood are present in
the Sacrament, than it is to suppose they are present " where
soever two or three are gathered together in His name."
We think the strong expressions used by our Saviour,
recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, and that His words
of the institution of the Sacrament, must all be taken in a
figurative sense ; and feeling the sufficiency of what has been
so well said by others upon the question of Christ's bodily
presence, we will content ourselves with referring to Taylor's
excellent treatise upon this swbject, and with selecting from
other writers brief statements of what we ourselves believe.
The following are amongst the clearest passages of Taylor.
" We, by the real spiritual presence of Christ, do understand
Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the
hearts of the faithful, by blessing and grace ; and this is all
we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence."
Speaking of the sense of the words which the men of Caper
naum understood literally, he says, " we contend it is
spiritual ; so Christ affirmed it ; they that deny the spiritual
sense, and affirm the natural, are fo remember that Christ
reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual."
Again, in the sixth section : " That Christ's natural body is
now in heaven definitively, and nowhere else ; and that He is
in the Sacrament as he can be in a Sacrament, in the hearts of
faithful receivers, as he hath promised to be there, .... this

58
is the truth and the faith of which we are to give a reason
and account to them that disagree." In the ninth section :
" The words of Scripture that affirm Christ to be in heaven,
affirm also that he is gone from hence. Now if Christ's body
not only could, but must be every day in innumerable places on
earth, it would have been said that Christ is in heaven, but
not that ' he is not here.' Surrexit, non est hie, was the
angel's discourse to the inquiring women at the sepulchre ;
He is risen, he is not here : but if they had been taught the
new doctrine of the Roman schools, they would have denied
the consequent ; He is risen and gone from hence, but he may
be here too. And this indeed might have put the angels to a
distinction : but the women's ignorance rendered them secure."
" When Christ said, ' Me ye have not always,' and at another
time, 'Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world,'
it is necessary that we distinguish the parts of a seeming con
tradiction. Christ is with us by His Spirit ; but Christ is not
with us in body ; but if his body be here too, then there is
no way of substantial real presence, in which these words
can be true, ' Me ye have not always.' " In the eleventh
section : " When we speak of a body, all the world means
that which hath a finite quantity, and is determined to one
place." Hall, in his chapter on Transubstantiation, speaks to the
same purpose : " If it retain the true nature of a body, it
cannot be at the same instant both above the heavens and
below on earth, in a thousand distant places. He is locally
above." We know not upon what grounds our author has spoken
thus of the Catholic Church : " Now this is what the Catholic
Church seems to hold concerning our Lord's presence in the
Sacrament, that He then personally and bodily is with us, in
the way an object is which we call present." If he alludes

59
to the ancient Fathers, let him examine the twelfth section of
Taylor's treatise above mentioned; and let him pronounce
Bishop Tomline to be in error, when he tells us, " the idea of
Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist was first started in
the beginning of the eighth century." If he alludes to more
modern writers, we can only say we are acquainted with none
of any note and authority, who differ from the doctrine laid
down by Seeker : " Even to the unworthy communicant He
is present, as He is wherever we meet together in His name :
but in a better and most gracious sense to the worthy soul ;
becoming, by the inward virtue of His Spirit, its food and
sustenance. This real presence of Christ in the Sacrament,
His Church hath always believed."
We are aware that it would be improper to impute a belief
in transubstantiation to all who contend for the bodily presence
of Christ in the Sacrament. But we think the authorities
we have cited amount to a justification of the Rubric for the
language of which our author complains. And though we
cannot boast of perfectly understanding those philosophical
suggestions which we decline to investigate, it is clear that
their object is to shew the possibility of Christ's body being
at the same time in heaven, and " there where the bread and
wine are seen." He does not say, it is substituted for the
bread ; for indeed he is not here speaking at all of what we
receive ; but he is speaking of Christ's presence. He calls it
" real," " spiritual," and " sacramental," and so far we may
agree with him ; though, as Taylor says, whereas " by spi
ritually" they (i. e. the Romanists) mean "present after the
manner of a spirit," we mean " present to our spirits only ;"
that is, " Christ is not present to any other sense but that of
faith or spiritual susception." Our author however suggests, —
for though he gives us to understand it is the doctrine of the
Catholic Church, he does not venture to assert — that there is a

60
" personal and bodily presence :" and upon this we differ from
him ; and, moreover, we confess our inability to comprehend
his arguments. In justice, therefore, to ourselves and to him,
we commend the following assertions to the study of his more
intelligent readers. " He is really present, yet not locally."
" Their presence (i. e. of spiritual beings) has nothing to do
with the degrees of nearness." " The body and blood of
Christ may be really, literally present in the holy Eucharist,
yet not having become present by local passage, may still
literally and really be on God's right hand." " Christ's body
and blood are locally at God's right hand, yet really present
here ; present here, but not here in place, because they are
spirit." " We call it a sacramental presence. We kneel
before his heavenly throne, and the distance is as nothing :
it is as if that throne were the altar close to us." To our ears,
this last expression borders upon adoration of the Sacrament.
But it is carefully drawn up. We therefore let it pass ; simply
warning the unwary reader, that we are no nearer to that
heavenly throne when kneeling to receive the Sacrament,
than when kneeling in any other place ; and that the altar
close to us, neither is that throne, nor is it meant to repre
sent it.
There is yet one other expression to be noticed : and the
more just and good the sentiment, when rightly understood,
the more provoking it is to find it equivocally expressed.
Our author gives this advice to those who may be disposed
to charge him with "subtleties, refinements, and scholastic
trifling." " Let them but believe and act on the truth, that
the consecrated bread is Christ's body, as He says, and no
officious comment on His words will be attempted by any
well-judging mind."
At the conclusion of such a dissertation as we have here
been favoured with, some people might think a remark upon

61
the officiousness of commenting upon our Saviour's words
rather out of place ; but this is not the observation we wish
to make. Our object is to point out, that the most intolerant
advocate for transubstantiation would not wish to have his
doctrine propounded in plainer language than this : neither is
there? any thing in it which cannot be explained to the perfect
satisfaction of the Protestant : neither could total indifference
to what is usually considered the principal test of Protestant
faith, be more happily expressed. All depends upon the un
derstanding of the words " as He says." The nominal Chris
tian, with no religion at all, is content with just such a general
concurrence in all our Saviour's declarations, without inquiring
particularly into what they were designed to signify, or to
what special point they relate. The pious member of the
Church of England believes that Christ said of the bread,
" This is my body," in a figurative sense : the obedient
member of the Church of Rome understands these words in
their most literal signification. We think, therefore, that our
author would not have been called an officious commentator,
if, having selected this subject for an abstruse and lengthened
essay, he had concluded with a recommendation somewhat
less vague ; less likely to be mistaken for an admission, that
he had rather not speak positively himself, and sees no reason
why others should, as to what is the true meaning of those
divine words.

§. 9. Masses.
Article XXXI. — " The sacrifice of Masses, in which it was
commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick
and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas
phemous fables and dangerous deceits."
This passage is adduced as triumphant proof "that the

62
Articles are not written against the Creed of the Roman
Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken
into its system or not." We do not exactly see the distinction.
We cannot separate a Church from its Creed. A Creed con
tains many articles of belief. Some may be to be retained,
others to be renounced. Do not all who write against the
latter, write against the Creed 2 Or must writing against a
Creed involve its wholesale condemnation ? Was it the Creed,
or errors in the Creed, of the Church of Rome, which caused
the Reformation? Does the word "Reformation" import uni
versal hostility, or partial correction ? If there be errors in a
Creed, and those errors be exposed in a formal compilation of
Articles, is such a counter-statement of propositions to be be
lieved, directed against the errors of the Creed, or against
the Creed which contains the errors? Our author seems to
think this a question of importance ; but we are incompetent
to decide it. We actually do not know, at this moment,
whether these humble observations of our own are directed
against the ninetieth number of " the Tracts for the Times," or
against the " Tracts for the Times " which comprise the nine
tieth number. We think, however, that the Reformers would
not have quitted the Church of Rome, but for " errors which
it had taken into its system ;" and that articles of belief, in
some shape or other, are essential requisites in every Church :
we think, therefore, that those who rejected the religion of
the day, would naturally explain what they substituted in its
stead ; and that whether the particulars objected to be many
or few in number, it cannot be denied that those objections
are directed against the existing system. Such a newly com
piled summary of faith might possibly embrace subjects which
had hitherto not been mentioned ; there might be many points
on which it would agree with what had been already laid
down ; or, upon others, there might be reasons for adopting

63
language capable of being variously interpreted, according to
the private judgment of individuals. But nothing of all this
has happened in the case before us. "The one oblation of
Christ finished upon the cross " had neither been overlooked,
nor correctly explained by the Roman Church ; nor is it a
question upon which any doubt is allowable. There is no
part of the goodly frame of Christianity where the Mosaic
warning is more applicable : " Ye shall not add any thing
thereto, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." It is the
corner-stone of the building, which " the gates of hell shall not
prevail against :" the key-stone of the arch, under which the
pride of man must stoop, to gain an entrance into the " ever
lasting doors" which Christ has opened. We were therefore,
indeed, surprised at our author's insinuation, that the Article
purposely preserved a guarded silence upon the Romish in
troduction of a " continually recurring atonement in the
Mass." For as there may be further corruptions of a doctrine
in itself corrupt, so does it appear to us that this unhappy
truth is forcibly illustrated by the words we are now con
sidering ; where it is pointedly observed, that " blasphemous
fables" and " dangerous deceits " have grown out of the un
scriptural doctrine, that Christ is offered up as a sacrifice by
the priest, upon every celebration of the Eucharist. But,
says our author, "here the Sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken
of, in which the special question of doctrine would be intro
duced." True it is that the plural number is used ; and true
it is those " blasphemous fables," mildly called " certain ob
servances," did " involve certain opinions and a certain teach
ing." But what were those opinions and that teaching?
Much that was wrong, no doubt ; but one thing was, that
there is a sacrifice of Christ in every one of those Masses. And
are we to believe that the thing itself is not spoken of, because
its gross repetitions and concomitant abuses are condemned ?

64
Suppose a man were to hold up to ridicule continual pil
grimages to Canterbury with " certain observances" to make
the walk more painful, would it therefore be said that he did
not speak of one pilgrimage to Canterbury ?
But how does our author go about to establish the idea that
the Article omits the question of the Sacrifice of the Mass?
His first quotation from Burnet proves only what is sufficiently
notorious, the introduction of many and solitary masses. From
the Homilies he proves the " massing" was " dumb" and
" mummish." And from Bull, in addition to his other two
authorities, he proves that the priests made it a source of
gain. And hence he would have us conclude, that the
Article reprobates nothing else relating to the Mass.
For evidence on the other side we refer first to the Article
itself, its title and contents. Arid whereas our author infers
from them, that it was directed only against such " masses"
as are there pronounced " blasphemous and dangerous ;" we
contend it was directed against the Romish doctrine, that " the
priest did offer Christ." Doubtless, the more commonly it
was pretended to be done, the more "commonly it was said"
of them that they did so ; the more commonly it was said,
the greater the veneration, and the greater the gains they
derived. But it is clear, at least, that private and solitary
masses never could have been in vogue, had not the people
previously been persuaded there was then " an offering up of
Christ." It is not denied, that the authoritative voice of the
Roman Church proclaimed the Sacrifice of the Mass to be a
real Sacrifice of Christ ; whether commemorative or pro
pitiatory, we shall come to presently ; but that it is a real
Sacrifice of the body of Christ by the priest, every member of
the Church of Rome has been, and is now, as far as we know,
bound to believe. But there can be no plainer contradiction
to this than the title and words of our Article ; declaring that

65
that sacrifice was " once made" and " finished upon the cross,"
"and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone."
Or perhaps the Liturgy uses stronger language, in calling
Christ's " one oblation of himself once offered," " full, perfect,
and sufficient." Or Scripture may be thought plainer yet :
"Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more." " For in
that he died, he died unto sin once." " This man, after He had
offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right
hand of God." So that, judging from the circumstances which
gave rise to, and the wording of the Article, as confirmed by our
Liturgy and Scripture, we think that the doctrine which our
author says is not here spoken of, as it imperatively required, so
has it undoubtedly received, a plain and ample contradiction.
Next we turn to the Homilies, always upheld by our
author as the true interpreters of the Articles. And since
he has quoted them upon this subject for a particular purpose
of his own, which really does not bear upon the point at
issue, we will ask him, was it fair to suppress such passages
as these? "For (as that worthy man St. Ambrose saith) he ¦
is unworthy of the Lord, that otherwise doth celebrate that
mystery than it was delivered by him. Neither can he be
devout, that otherwise doth presume than it was given by the
Author. We must then take heed, lest, of the memory, it be
made a sacrifice.'''' Again : " Herein thou needest no other
man's help, mo other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing priest,
no mass, no means established by man's invention.'''' These sen
tences occur within a few lines of those quoted by our
author; and surely if, as he insists, the Homilies are to be
connected with the Articles, here is direct proof that it was
the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, no less than its
abuse, which the framers of our Articles intended to mark for
condemnation. Our author refers to another part of our Communion

66
Service, and introduces it to our notice thus : " Again in the
offering of the sacrifice." Now we would not be thought
captious ; but will many readers be found to approve of this
expression, as describing any part of our form of administering
the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Would it pass un
noticed anywhere ? If not, surely it must be deemed peculiarly
objectionable, in a treatise of this sort, upon this very subject,
by a writer who knows and weighs so well the force of every
word. We know that prayer and praise and thanksgiving
and " a broken spirit" are sometimes called a sacrifice ; but in
that figurative language the word is equally applicable to the
whole of the service. The definite article seems to limit the
word to its stricter sense : and " the offering of the sacrifice"
thus put abstractedly, as a distinctive mark in the performance
of a rite, is a phrase which seems to allude to some particular
act. Assuredly our author could not mean the sacrifice of
Christ; but we regret that he should have fallen into this
coincidence of expression with those who do mean it : because
" the ancients called the whole Communion ' the Sacrifice of
Praise,' as our Church here doth ; whereas the Romanists only
call it 'a sacrifice,' without any other addition." (Dean Comber,
as quoted by Mant.)
The Council of Trent, too, is again appealed to, and we are
favoured with an extract to shew that it condemned " bargains
of payment for celebrating new masses," " the mingling with
the organ or the chant any thing lascivious or impure," and
" a set number of masses and candles." In the concluding
paragraph of the section, "it is conceived that the Article
before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against
its being an offering, though commemorative, for the quick
and the dead for the remission of sin ; (especially since the
decree of Trent says, that the fruits of the bloody oblation are
through this most abundantly obtained ; so far is the latter

67
from detracting in any way from the former.") Now it
appears to us, that the only design with which these very
irrelevant quotations from the Council of Trent can have been
pressed into our author's service, is to make two impressions
upon the reader's mind: 1. That the Council drew up its
decree for the purpose of condemning the same mal-practices
against which the latter part of the Article is levelled :
2. That the Mass may be an offering for the quick and the
dead for the remission of sin, without detracting in any way
from the merits of the one oblation upon the cross. And
hence we can imagine two other conclusions would speedily
follow : that there is a great similarity of views between the
framers of our Articles and of the decree ; and that the doc
trine of the Sacrifice of the Mass is not incompatible with the
doctrine of the Church of England. Premising, therefore, that
the decree quoted by our author was an after-thought, directed
against practical abuses, and drawn up for the instruction of
those who had power to correct them, subsequently to the au
thoritative announcement of the doctrine ; we think it our duty
to lay before the reader the account, in brief, of what actually
did take place at that same session respecting the doctrine of
the Mass. " It was divided into nine heads, which contained in
sum — That though Christ offered himself but once upon the
cross. He offered to God the Father his body and blood, under
the bread and wine, and gave them to his Apostles, com
manding them and their successors to offer them. Because the
same Christ is sacrificed in the Mass without blood, who was
sacrificed on the cross with blood, this sacrifice is propitiatory,
. . . and God remitteth all sins, the offering and (by the priests)
the offerer being the same who formerly offered himself upon
the cross, only in a divers manner ; so that this of the Mass
doth not derogate from that of the Cross  And the
Synod doth not condemn as private and unlawful, but doth
f2

68
approve those masses in which the priest doth communicate
alone, (which use is common,) in regard the people doth com
municate spiritually. And it doth add nine canons, anathe
matizing him that shall say, that a true and proper sacrifice is
not offered to God in the Mass ; or that shall say, that Christ
by these words, ' Do this in remembrance of me,' hath not
instituted priests, and commanded them to offer; or shall say,
that the Mass is a saprifice only of praise or thanksgiving, or
a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and not
propitiatory, and that it doth help him only that doth receive
it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead ;
or shall say, that the Sacrifice of the Mass doth derogate from
that of the Cross ; or that the masses in which the priest
alone doth communicate are unlawful." (History of the Council
of Trent, book vi.)
The fellowship of our Article with this decree, is as the
fellowship of light with darkness : and if our author tells us
the doctrine of that Council is not the doctrine of the Church
of Rome; we ask him, where are we to find it 2 If he tells
us, the doctrine of that particular decree could not be the
doctrine contradicted in our Article on account of its date ; we
ask him, why does he produce a subsequent decree, in order to
l)rove its partial concurrence with part of our Article ? If
the Council of Trent be capable of proving that the Romish
Church disapproved of " avarice," " irreverence," "filthy lucre,"
" lascivious or impure music," it is also capable of proving
that the Romish Church authoritatively taught that their
priests offered up their Saviour in the mass, and that private
and solitary masses were lawful and effectual. This, then, as
far as we know, is the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass ;
and whoever believes that the Article before^ us does not
speak against it, must believe that there is no contradiction in
saying, the offering of Christ once made is the only satisfaction

69
for sin, and yet a true and proper sacrifice for sin is con
tinually offered in the mass : he must believe, that Christ
being made a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek,
after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at
the right hand of God ; and yet that he gave to his Apostles,
and to a perpetual succession of priests, power to offer him up
again whenever they pleased.
§. 10. Marriage of Clergy.
Article XXXII. " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not
commanded by God's law, either to vow the estate of single
life, or to abstain from marriage."
We rejoice in agreeing with our author, that there is lite
rally no subject for controversy in these words. But in giving
us to understand that " our Church has power to oblige her
Clergy either to marriage or celibacy," he has started a ques
tion, not likely indeed to be of any importance in itself, but
involving a principle which is worthy of consideration.
As usual, he has given us no positive opinion of his own.
We are to be guided on the subject of matrimony by the
Homily on Fasting, and the Article on Traditions. There we
find that " the Church may lawfully, for just causes, alter,
change, mitigate, recede wholly from, or break ecclesiastical
decrees or orders, made and devised by the authority of man,
when they tend either to superstition or impiety." " Traditions
and ceremonies may be changed according to diversities of
countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be or
dained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private
judgment willingly and purposely doth openly break the
traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not re
pugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved
by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly." No

70
doubt can be entertained of the truth and wisdom of all this.
The only question is, whether, under these or any other
general propositions, the Church has now the power of pro
hibiting the marriage of its Clergy.
It is to be observed, first, that the authority of the Church
extends not to the ordering of any thing repugnant to the
Word of God. Its interference now must rest upon one of
two things : either its decree must be a revival or continuance
of an universal custom of the primitive Church ; or it must be
required bj' the mischievous prevalence of some bad practice.
The marriage of Clergy is a subject upon which the Word of
God can hardly be said to be silent ; for we learn incidentally
that St. Peter and Philip the Evangelist were married ; that
St. Paul claims for himself the privilege of marrying, as other
Apostles did ; and foretells that, " in the latter times, some
shall depart from the faith, .... forbidding to marry." Ac
cording, therefore, to Scripture authority, " marriage is ho
nourable in all," and the forbidding it is a sign of departing
from the faith. Although a decree to that effect could not,
strictly speaking, be called repugnant to the Word of God,
the Church which prohibits its ministers from marrying, pro
hibits that which God allows. There is no early tradition in
favour of such a decree ; on the contrary, it was unknown for
several centuries : and as to its being required for the sup
pression of superstition or impiety, it is notorious matter of
history that, by the forced celibacy of Clergy, superstition has
been aided, while immorality has been promoted. " Indeed,"
says Taylor, "the scandal was so great, the stories so in
tolerable, their adulteries so frequent, their lusts so discovered,
and the accidents so ridiculous, that the Clergy became the
contempt and jest of buffoons and drunkards, and the pity
and shame of wise and sober men." (Bule of Conscience,
Rule 20.)

71
It accords neither with our principles nor our taste, to put
an hypothetical case for the purpose of braving lawful au
thority, whether in Church or State ; nor will we add any
thing upon the general proposition, that such power is vested
in the Church, while there remains so little probability that
our Christian liberty will be invaded.
§.11. The Homilies.
Article XXXV. — " The second Book of Homilies doth con
tain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these
times, as doth the former Book of Homilies."
We heartily subscribe to the observation of our author,
that we may approve the doctrine of a book, without being
pledged to every sentence it contains. Moreover, we think
that this is all we are called upon to do by the Article be
fore us.
The illustration of this subject, given in the former part of
the section, (if, indeed, it needed any at all,) we certainly
should have thought sufficient : and our author seems to be of
the same opinion. He has nevertheless favoured us, in ad
dition, with sixty-seven quotations, " decidedly opposed," as
he says, " to the views of certain schools of religion, which, at
the present moment, are so eager in claiming the Homilies to
themselves." Where these schools are to be found we really
do not know ; but judging from the Tract before us, if fre
quent appeals to the Homilies be one of their characteristics,
we may suppose our author to be one of their disciples.
Perhaps, in our turn, it may be allowable for us to add one
quotation from the Homily against Contention ; " decidedly
opposed," not to one school more than another, but indiscrimi
nately to all soi-disant founders of new schools, all lovers of
sectarian appellations. "Too many there be, which, upon

72
the ale-benches or other places, delight to set forth certain
questions, not so much pertaining to edification, as to vain
glory, and shewing forth of their cunning ; and so unsoberly
to reason and dispute, that when neither part will give place
to other, they fall to chiding and contention  What
would he (St. Paul) say, if he heard these words of contention,
which be now almost in every man's mouth 2 He is a Phari
see, he is a Gospeller, he is of the new sort, he is of the old
faith, he is a new-broached brother, he is a good Catholic
father, he is a Papist, he is an heretic. 0 how the Church is
divided !  There is but one faith ; and how then can
we say, he is of the old faith, and he is of the new faith ?"

§.12. The Bishop of Bome.
Article XXXVII. — " The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdic
tion in this realm of England."
Why it should be said that "hath" means " ought to have,"
or how this is proved by the addition of the latter words in
the thirty-sixth Canon and the Oath of Supremacy, is quite
beyond our comprehension. That the framers of the Article
would willingly have taken the oath, we have not the smallest
doubt : but why force words to mean more that they express ?
It is clear that a man may have that which he ought not to
have, and that he may not have that which he ought to have.
We like to be accurate. The Article says simply, the Bishop
of Rome hath no jurisdiction here : the Canon and the Oath
go further, and say, he neither hath nor ought to have : we
go further yet, and add, we trust he never will have. Still
we must vindicate the politeness of this sentence, in confining
itself to the announcement of a simple fact.
Our author proceeds thus : " Anglicans maintain that the
supremacy of the Pope is not directly from revelation, but an

73
event in providence." We rather think Anglicans maintain
nothing at all concerning the supremacy of the Pope. They
deny it altogether. There was such a thing; and while it ex
isted, no doubt it was " an event in providence," hke every
other usurpation. But it has ceased to be : therefore, as our
author logically predicates of " powers," that " when they
cease to be, they cease to have a claim ;" so we say, when the
Pope's supremacy ceased to be, it ceased to require any defi
nition of what it is. We are surprised that so careful a writer
should not pay more attention to the tenses.
But we think he has made a still more serious mistake. He
calls " the Bishop of Rome the Head of the Catholic world."
We know of but one Head of the Catholic world, even our
Lord Jesus Christ. But admitting that no such impious
rivalry is intended by the assumption of this title, we contend
that the supremacy of the Pope-cannot consistently be denied
by those who thus distinguish him. It had just before been
said, " Each Church is independent of all the rest ;" and now
the Bishop of Rome is styled the head of all. Either this
is a manifest contradiction, or the headship attributed to the
Pope is purely personal ; for there may be one sovereign over
many cities independent of each other, but no one of such
cities can be head over the rest. If, then, the Bishop of
Rome be the head of the Catholic world, but all other Churches
be independent of the Church of Rome, the particular Church
over which he presides as Bishop can have no share in his
pre-eminence. But whence is it derived ? Papists will agree
with our author in the title, but not in its derivation. They
style him Head of the Catholic world, because they say he is
head of the only Church to which any portion of the Catholic
world belongs ; the only true Church of Christ, planted by
St. Peter, and spread throughout different countries ; but not
so spread as to have independent branches. Our author says.

74
there are many independent Churches; yet the Bishop of
Rome is head of all. The latter doctrine actually seems to
exalt him more than the other. But how does it exalt him
in our author's estimation ? " Only in rank, not in real power."
And so matters are compromised. The title, to satisfy one
party; its emptiness, the other. But we are not so easily
pleased. We knew that, whatever compliments might pass,
no real power could be attributed to the Pope, throughout
the Catholic world, by those who had taken the oath of su
premacy. But it is impossible to detach certain ideas from
certain words ; and even Jesuits, with all their devices, and
the perfect command which they have over slippery language,
have not found it so easy to silence the scruples of stubborn
good sense, as they have to satisfy their own consciences.
Can any spiritual person be superior, or equal, to "the head
of the Catholic world 2" Would the Bishop of Rome himself
expect to be called so in the University of Oxford 2 We have
lately heard objections in Parliament to the titular acknow
ledgment of Roman Catholic Bishops. And if Her Majesty's
government saw no harm in this designation of the Pope, how
would it suit the ears of the episcopal bench 2 Or take the
case of temporal distinctions. How would the Emperor of
Austria and his faithful minister, or any of his good subjects,
approve of the Emperor of Russia being styled the head of
the continental world? It would require an able diplomatist
to content Prince Metternich with the explanation, that the
expression applied only to rank, and not to real power. And
this seems to be a case in point. For it is the title we object
to, notwithstanding all its qualifications. Why should su
periority of rank be given to the successors of St. Peter, which
was neither claimed nor enjoyed by himself? In early days,
the Bishop of Constantinople disputed the point of precedence
with the Bishop of Rome; and perhaps the Courts of St.

Petersburg and Rome might differ upon the question now.
There might, with equal justice, be a third claimant : but we
think there is too pure a spirit of Christian brotherhood in this
country, we are sure there is too much meekness in the man,
to make it possible that such a title as we are now considering,
should be thought of for or by our own Primate. The want
of unity between the " Metropolitan, Patriarchal, and Papal
systems," pointed out by our author, is the very reason why it
is unnecessary to fix upon any one, as the head of the three ;
for " primacy of order," is required only in the same society.
But this is not a matter to be argued according to rules of
heraldry. Ours is a grave objection, upon religious grounds,
to a religious title. And feeling, as we do, all due respect for
rank and station, but attaching far more importance to a right
understanding of the thorough independence of the Church of
England, de jure et de facto, we have said thus much, perhaps
more than enough, to establish these two positions : The
Church of England is a portion of the Catholic world ; and in
no sense whatever is the Bishop of Rome the head of it.
Next we come to a sentence which we notice, merely lest
by passing it over it should be supposed we understand it.
In defending the English Church against the charge of schism,
our author says its "joining, and breaking from Rome, were
accidents in its history; involving, indeed, sin in individuals,
but not affecting the Church as a Church." We have not
the slightest idea what is the sin, or who are the individuals
here alluded to. But we are grateful for the intelligence
kindly given, that " in releasing itself from the Roman su
premacy" at the Reformation, our Church " did not thereby
commit that special sin which cuts off from it the fountains of
grace." And we always thought that " accident in its history"
considerably " affected it as a Church."
In the concluding paragraph we are favoured with an exposi-

76
tion of the Oath of Supremacy. It means, we are told, " in
other words, there is nothing in the Apostolic system which
gives an authority to the Pope over the Church, such as it
does not give to a Bishop." But is there any thing in it which
gives as much ? For we must suppose the Church Catholic is
here spoken of. We ask, then, were not the Churches of Rome,
Corinth, Ephesus, Crete, and many others, governed by their
respective Bishops under the Apostolic system ? was there not
then, as now, but one Catholic Church, of which all these were
branches 2 and was any individual clothed with the same power
over the Church Catholic, which was given to every Bishop over
his own portion of it 2 Our author has not directly advanced
the affirmative; but it is the fair inference from his words.
We do not profess to be good interpreters of this negative
style : but if any one were to tell us, he did not pay one
labourer wages such as he did not give to another, we should
conclude he paid them both alike. Therefore, since it is here
said that no authority is given, such as is not given to a
Bishop, the expression before us appears to teach that there is
something in the Apostolic system which gives to the Pope
episcopal authority over the whole Church Catholic, or over
the Church of England ; for " the Church" in this place may
mean either. It cannot mean the Church of Rome, because
our author goes on to say, " it is altogether an ecclesiastical
arrangement" to distinguish it from Apostolic ; the latter
of which episcopal authority in his own Church certainly
would be. There is, then, some authority given to the
Pope over the Church, not to be found in the Apostolic
.system. Naturally we proceed to ask, what is that autho
rity 2 The answer is somewhat long. " It is altogether an
ecclesiastical arrangement ; not a point de fide, but of expe
dience, custom, or piety, which cannot be claimed as if the
Pope ought to have it, any more than, on the other hand.

77
the King could of divine right claim the supremacy ; the
claim of both one and the other resting, not on duty or
revelation, but on specific engagement." Here, then, in the
middle of a long periphrasis, we detect the word " supremacy;"
as if being unwillingly brought from its hiding place, it still
sought concealment in a crowd. But at last we have some
thing tangible ; and if the web be successfully unravelled, these
are its detached threads : the Apostohc system gives to the
Pope no other than episcopal authority over the Church : the
authority he has, is given him by ecclesiastical arrangement :
it is expedient, customary, or an act of piety, to give it to
him : his claim is not that he ought to have it, but he has it ;
just as the King's claim to the supremacy is not of divine
right, but possession : there is no moral or religious obligation
to assign the supremacy to the one more than the other :
any Church, but for the specific engagement of its oath, might
allow of the interference, and even acknowledge the supremacy
of a foreign prelate. Was there ever such a tissue of
propositions put forth by an expounder of the Articles of the
Church of England 2 We will not be tempted to argue the
question of the divine right of Kings ; but lest it should be
said there is no scriptural ground for attributing to our
Sovereign the authority in ecclesiastical matters, which is so
well described in the former part of this Article, we observe,
that under the Jewish theocracy, their priests were subject to
their kings ; and in none of the precepts of the New Testament,
enjoining " submission to the King as supreme," is there any
exception made of ecclesiastical things or persons. For the
rest, as we admit neither the premises nor conclusions, it
may be right to state, in brief, what are our views upon the
subjects to which these propositions relate. We think there
is nothing in the Apostohc system which gives to a Bishop
the right to interfere in any Church but his own. What is

78
here called an ecclesiastical arrangement, we call an intolerable
tyranny ; expedient only for the success of priestcraft ; which
grew into custom by slavish sufferance, the fruit of cunningly
imposed ignorance ; if submitted to at all from a sense of
piety, it was that mistaken, mischievous, and unhappy sense
of it, which being bowed down by the iron yoke of bondage,
had for a long time no knowledge, no principle, and no strength
to obey God rather than man : we think that the Pope ought
not to have the supremacy in this, or any other realm,
subject to other dominion than his own ; that it is agreeable
both to reason and to Scripture ; and therefore that there is a
moral and religious obligation to assign the Sovereignty of the
Church to the Sovereign of the State ; that if members of our
Church had not entered into any specific engagement to that
effect, it would still be their duty to allow of no encroachment
from, and to disclaim all obedience to the Pope, or any other
foreign prelate.
Our author proceeds to sum up the whole in these words ;
forgetting his gallantry, though meaning to avow his allegi
ance : " We find ourselves, as a Church, under the King now,
and we obey him ; we were under the Pope formerly, and we
obeyed him. ' Ought ' does not, in any degree, come into the
question." The facts of obedience here stated, are beyond
dispute, and would require no comment but for their con
cluding accompaniment. It will be remembered, that at the
very beginning of this section it was observed, that our author
travelled out of his road to prove, that " hath " means " ought
to have," and that his reason for that digression was by no
means obvious. It would appear now, that he did so for the
purpose of giving the Article a flat contradiction. He said
before, that the Article affirmed the Bishop of Rome " ought
not to have" jurisdiction here : now he says, "'ought' does not
in any degree come into the question." But why not 2 The

79
answer must be found in the drift of the whole passage, which
seems to be this : We obey those under whom we happen to
find ourselves, and have no right to question the propriety of
our situation. This we cannot agree to, for thoughts are free.
And if we had the misfortune to become subjects of an
usurper, strict obedience would be perfectly compatible with
a persuasion that he " ought " not to have the rule over us.
Nay, more, when the legitimate Sovereign was wicked enough
to attempt to change the religion of his country, and weak
enough to devise the establishment of Papal jurisdiction in his
dominions, it was the duty of his subjects, as a Church, to
resist such a transfer of spiritual authority. But our author
seems to forget, that when the English Church was " under
the Pope," the light of the Reformation had not exposed the
deformities of the Papal system. Now that it has become
convinced of the unscriptural character of that system, it
" ought " under no circumstances to submit again to its
control. Though Csesar may waive his right " to the things
that are his," we must nevertheless " render unto God the
things that are God's." " Ought," therefore, does so far come
into the question, that whatever civil changes may be per
mitted by Providence, to raise' or depress the outward glory
of our national Church, its creed " ought " not to vary with
the humour of the reigning Prince : nor " ought " it to ac
knowledge the supremacy of any one whom it cannot obey
consistently with the commands of its heavenly Master.
There are fundamental errors in the faith and discipline of
the Church of Rome, which, had we never experienced the
scourge of its temporal dominion, " ought " to fix our unalter
able aversion to its pretensions, upon the firm basis of attach
ment to religious truth. It is not merely because "acci
dents in our history " have placed us under Protestant Rule,
but because we "ought" to hold the Protestant Faith

80
dearer than our lives, that we abjure the supremacy of the
Pope. Conclusion.
Our author anticipates, with evident self-complacency, that
the tenor of his explanations will be considered anti-pro-
testant ; and we are not disposed to rob him of his triumph.
There can be no question about the " drift " of his Tract.
Whether, with all his grammatical refinements and judicious
separation into parts, after all the process of coupling, ex
tracting, dividing, and transposing, he has succeeded in at
tempting to shew that the Articles will fairly bear his meaning,
must be left to others to decide. He admits here, that it " is
notorious they were intended for the establishment of Pro
testantism :" we contend that it is " an evasion of their
meaning to give them any other than a Protestant drift."
And this charge being suggested by himself, is, as usual'
neither admitted nor denied. For there follows, by way of
answer, a long and laborious defence of what he calls their
Catholic interpretation, with an attempt to prove that they
were purposely drawn up without any definite meaning at all
upon many of the most controverted points. We have already
given our opinion upon every instance he has selected for
illustrating his particular views ; and his concluding observa
tions contain but little new matter.
One sentence in the first division of his answer seems open
to an objection we have had occasion to make more than
once. He says, " Nor do we receive the Articles from their
original framers, but from several successive Convocations after
their time; in the last instance, from that of 1662." Now
we do not know that the date is of any material consequence :
but few people will read the above without supposing they

81
are to understand by it, that our Articles have been frequently
altered at successive Convocations. We complain, therefore,
that it insinuates that which is not true. Upon comparing
them with the marginal text in the second volume of Burnet's
Collections, published with his History of the Reformation,
any one may see that our Articles have not been altered since
the year 1562.
We are disposed to allow to " the Declaration prefixed to
the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all," the merit of
wholesome advice, backed by royal authority. We wish,
therefore, that our author had spared his sneer, and followed
its recommendations. Whereas he has discovered that " its
enjoining the literal and grammatical sense, relieves him from
the necessity of referring to the known opinions of their
framers ;" we wish he had discovered also, that it not only
relieves him from the necessity, but, in so many words,
deprives him of the liberty of " putting his own sense or
comment to be the meaning of the Article." Whereas he tells
us, " its forbidding any person to affix any new sense to any
Article, was promulgated at a time when the leading men of
our Church were especially noted for those Catholic views
which have been here advocated ;" we observe, that " Catholic
views" is a vague term, appropriated to himself by every con
troversialist : but as to the sense of the Articles here ad
vocated, we can state distinctly that we think it new ; and
we know of no time when the leading men of our Church even
thought of it, much less sanctioned or offered it for general
acceptation. Speaking of Melancthon, our author says, " whose Catholic
tendencies gained for him that same reproach of popery which
has ever been so freely bestowed upon members of our own
reformed Church." This almost invites a parallel between
that eminent Reformer and the school which has produced

82
the present Tract: and Mosheim is referred to, in order to
prove that he considered many things indifferent which ap
peared of the first importance to Luther. Melancthon was
unquestionably a man of peace ; exerting the great strength
of his intellect and learning, not in sophistical attempts to re
concile truth with error, but in the amiable though almost
equally hopeless task of speeding the progress of light without
wounding the prejudices of those who preferred obscurity.
His merits and his feelings are faithfully portrayed in the ex
pressive language of the learned translator of Mosheim.
(cent. xvi. cap. 2.) " His love of peace and concord, whidi
was partly owing to the sweetness of his natural temper, made
him desire with ardour that a reformation might be effected
without producing a schism in the Church, and that the ex
ternal communion of the contending parties might be pre
served uninterrupted and entire. This spirit of mildness and
charity, carried perhaps too far, led him sometimes to make
concessions that were neither consistent with prudence, nor
advantageous to the cause in which he was engaged. It is,
however, certain, that he gave no quarter to those more dan
gerous and momentous errors that reigned in the Church of
Rome, but maintained, on the contrary, that their extirpation
was essentially necessary, in order to the restoration of true
religion." Yet in a note (part ii. c. 1.) we find the following
account of one of his compositions. " To speak plain, Me-
lancthon's love of peace and concord seems to have carried
him beyond what he owed to the truth : .... he speaks of
the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist in the very
strongest terms that the Roman Catholics use to express the
monstrous doctrine of Transubstantiation : .... he approves
of that canon of the mass in which the priest prays that ' the
bread may be changed into the body of Christ." It is true,
that in some subsequent editions these obnoxious passages

83
were left out, and the phraseology that had given such just
offence was considerably mitigated. In another place of the
same chapter, Mosheim offers the following apology for the
early Reformers in general : " It ought not certainly to be a
matter of surprise, that persons long accustomed to a state of
darkness, and suddenly transported from thence into the blaze
of day, did not at first behold the objects that were presented
to their view with that distinctness and precision that are
natural to those who have long enjoyed the light. And such
really was the case of the first Protestant Doctors, who were
delivered from the gloom of papal superstition and tyranny."
The obstinate adherence of Luther to the conceit of consub-
stantiation is well known ; and the above extracts, relating to
his great friend and coadjutor, to both of whom the Pro
testant world must ever look up with reverence and gratitude,
may suffice to shew, that the Church of England has not
modelled her Articles after the creed or writings of any par
ticular individuals ; but is opposed to the errors of Popery,
whether tolerated or condemned by the Lutheran and other
reformed Churches : and this may be offered incidentally as
an additional reason why we should take those Articles in
their own plain and literal sense; attributing the compre
hensive character of their expressions, neither to a compliance
with received notions, nor to the laxity of their tenets, but
to a Christian spirit of moderation, and a desire to " give no
offence to any one."
When, therefore, we are told that the " reproach of Popery,"
which has been so freely bestowed upon others, was also cast
upon Melancthon, we might refer to some of his concessions
to justify, to a certain extent, the accusation. But we mean
nothing uncourteous when we add, that there need not exist
the slightest similarity in the talents, character, views, or cir
cumstances of two persons, who may be justly chargeable

84
with the same fault. Not only might there be excuses for the
one which could not be pleaded by the other, but the doing
the very same thing under different circumstances might be
proof of being actuated by totally opposite principles. To
cleanse the Augean stable of Rome was a task scarcely less
Herculean than to overthrow the strongholds of Paganism ;
and a Philo-Romanist Reformer was not a more anomalous
character than a judaizing Christian. Yet that which might
be allowed to either in other times, might not be granted now
with safety or with reason. What was then given up in a
spirit of accommodation, might be asked for now from an
inclination to apostacy. What then was wise, might now be
suspicious. Acquiescence which was useful then, might now
bring danger nearer home. What was attributable to ignorance
or inattention then, might now be the result of deep know
ledge, and a deeper policy. Obscurity which then proceeded
from a natural cause, might now be spread around by artificial
means. For as the mist of the morning introduces the
brilliancy of sunshine, so did the indistinct beginnings of the
Reformed Religion lead to the establishment of the true Pro
testant Faith. But to court the return of undefined theology,
intricate disputations, and scholastic philosophy, is as though
we acknowledged that the light we have enjoyed is less con
genial to our temperament, than the thickening gloom to
which night invariably succeeds. POSTSCRIPT.
Twenty-six Pamphlets relating to " The Tracts for the Times"
have been put into my hands since this has been sent to the press,
not one of which I had seen before ; and I beg to state this fact,
because I find amongst them ^^ Strictures on No. 90, by a Mem
ber of the University of Oxford," upon a plan precisely similar
to this, which I ignorantly thought no one had already adapted. It. P.

YALE
BRITISH HISTORY
JPRESERVATION PROJECT
BUPPORT€D BY NEH

71) '1

I V.

m'ti

>W,a

-•f a

V. I