^n

A CALL TO UNION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH
REFOEMATION.

SERMON,
PEEACHED AT THE PEIMARY VISITATION OP CHAELES THOMAS,
LORD BISHOP OF RIPON.

WALTER FARQUHAR HOOK, D.D,

VICAR OF LEEDS,

AND CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THB QUEEN.

NOTES AND AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING COPIOUS EXTRACTS FROM THE REFORMERS.
PUBLISHED AT THE RKQUEST OP THE CLERGY.

THIRD EDITION.

LONDON ¦ J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
SOLD BY
D. A. TALBOYS, OXFORD ; J. CBOSS, T. HARRISON, AND MASON & SCOTT,
LEEDS, AND ALL BOOKSELLERS.
18.39.

[R. PSEBING, PBINTEB, LEEDS.]

TO THB
RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
CHARLES THOMAS LORD BISHOP OF RIPON,
HIS RESPECTED AND ESTEEMED DIOCESAN,
AND TO THE REVEREND THE CLERGY WHO ATTENDED THE VISITATION
AT LEEDS,
THIS SERMON,
HONORED BY THEIR APPROBATION, AND PUBLISHED
AT THEIB REQUEST,
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED
BY THE AUTHOR.
MDCCCXXXVm.

SEHMON,
&0.

ACTS, VII, 26,
SIRS, YE ARE brethren; WHY DO YE WRONG ONE TO
ANOTHER ?

It would be a work of supererogation if, in addressing
such a congregation as the present, I were to insist on the
important duty incumbent upon all who are commissioned
to preach the Gospel, and to act as the governors of the
Church of Christ, of maintaining the truth and the whole
truth as it is in Jesus — of declaring aU the counsel of God,
By the injunction of this duty, tbe highest of our mental
faculties and the most vigorous of our intellectual energies
are all enlisted on the side of religion, and our lifetime is
to be employed either in ascertaining the will of the
Almighty or in vindicating his ways to man. But so long
as differences shall exist in the capabilities and powers of
different minds, it will be scarcely within the circle of
possibility to avoid, in the discharge of this duty, some
diversity of opinion, and, in consequence, occasional
discussion and debate ; nor has it ever been the wish of the
Church to silence such discussion or to proscribe all
difference of opinion. Coincidence of opinion, even in
points which are not fundamental, is, of course, desirable,
but it is not to be laid down as one of the necessary terms
of communion. It is to a wish and endeavour to secure a
perfect coincidence of opinion that we may trace the forma
tion of many religious sects ; and on this account it is that

the persons composing each separate sect are coraparatively
few in number, while the sects themselves have, like
meteors, glared for a time and then sunk into nothingness.
The system of the Church has, on the contrary, always
been to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of
peace, by insisting, not on an identity of subordinate
opinion, but simply on an identity of principle. Within
certain prescribed limits she has always permitted a con
siderable latitude of opinion. Beyond those Umits are the
regions of heresy ; within them she permits her children
piously to inquire and fearlessly to discuss. Unless this
latitude were permitted, one of two things would inevitably
follow ; either all discussion would cease, and the result
would be a spiritual stagnation and apathy, than which
few things can be more injurious to the cause of truth, or
discussion would always lead to a breach of communion and
split us into factions and sects. By those who agree in
principle, certain data are assumed as indisputable, and so
long as those data are honestly acknowledged, much
difference of opinion is allowable, but in either advocating
or refuting an opinion under these circumstances no one
has a right to speak of his opponent as a heretic, since
heresy means, in fact, the denial of the acknowledged data.
Much confusion has been caused in the minds of men
by their supposing that the religionists of England are to
be divided, so far as principles are concerned, into two
classes only, whereas, in point of fact, we are divided into
three ; — the Churchman, who may, from his avoidino- the
errors of the two opposite extremes, be called both a
Protestant and a Catliolic ; the Romish Dissenter or
Papist ; the Protestant Dissenter or Ultra-Protestant,
And union among these can never be expected, by wise
and practical men, until, as distinct classes, two of them
become extinct by merging into the third ; that is, until
their distinct and distinguishing principles cease to exist.

The origin of this threefold division is to be traced to
the Reformation, and to the manner in which that great
movement was conducted in this country.
No view can be more erroneous than that which would
regard the English Reformers as men, who, having devised
a peculiar system of theology, were determined to supplant
the established system that they might put their own in its
place. Their object was simple, intelligible, and practical ;
it was to correct abuses in the existing Catholic Church,
which had come down to them from their ancestors, and of
which they were themselves the bishops and spiritual
pastors. Those abuses, — deviations from the real prin
ciples of the Church, — were gradually discovered, and, as
from time to time they were brought to light, it was the
endeavour of our Reformers gradually, and as opportunity
occurred, to supply a remedy by regular and canonical
means. From the commencement to the conclusion of
their holy work, they indignantly repudiated the idea of
their wish to overturn one Church and to establish another ;
a charge continually brought against them by the advocates
of Popery,* For example, in the reign of Henry VIII,
it was enacted that neither the King, his successors, nor
his subjects should apply to the Bishop of Rome for any
dispensation, faculty, or delegacy. This was the first
blow at the Papal usurpations in this country : but,
anticipating the kind of attack which would be made by
the partizans of Rome, and to prevent misconstruction
and misrepresentation, it is expressly provided that
" nothing in this act shall be interpreted as if the King
and his subjects intended to decline or vary from the
• Our Prayer Book identifies the Church before the Reformation
with the Church after the Reformation, in a singular manner : — " And
moreover, whereas St, Paul would have such language spoken in the
Church as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same ;
the service in this Church of England, these many years, hath been
read in Latin," &c, — Pref. to Prayer Booh.

congregation of Christ's Church in any thing concerning
the very articles of the Catholic faith* in Christendom, or
in any other things declared by Holy Scripture and the
Word of God necessary for their salvation,"^ In the
orders for regulating the pulpit in 1535, the clergy are
directed to pray for the Catholic Church of Christ, and of
this our Catholic Church of England our Sovereign Lord
King Henry VIII. is declared to be immediately under
God the supreme head.^ And Tonstal, in his Letter to
Cardinal Pole, explains very clearly the intention which at
this period of the Reformation existed : " To the charge,"
he says, " of the King's departing from the Catholic
communion, his Highness is much injured by the impu
tation ; for it has all along been his practice to adhere to
the unity of the Catholic Church, to maintain the ancient
doctrine, and to conform to tbe worship and ecclesiastical
government of the rest of Christendom." " It is true,"
he continues, " that he has rescued the English Church
from the encroachments of the Court of Rome, but if this
be singularity, he deserves commendation, for the King
has only reduced matters to their original state, and helped
the English Church to her ancient freedom."'' At the trial
of Lambert, in 1538, the Reformation had considerably
advanced, but still on the same principles ; for Day,
Bishop of Chichester, in the speech by which the trial was
opened, observed that the King had thrown off the
usurpations of the See of Rome, discharged some idle
monks, renounced the idolatrous regard for images,
published the Bible in EngUsh, and made some lesser
alterations in the Church, but that he was nevertheless
resolved to keep constant to the Catholic faith and
customs.* And in the spring of 1543, the act for the
advancement of true religion and the abolishment of the
• Note A. Collier, Eceles, Hist. ii. 84, 85.
2 Collier, ii. 100. 3 Collier, Kccles. Hist. ii. 136. i Collier, ii. 15].

contrary, declared it to be expedient to " ordain and
establish a certain form of pure and sincere teaching,
agreeable to God's word and the true doctrine of the
Catholic and Apostolic Church."*
The facts here stated are sufficient to shew that the
holy work of Church Reformation, if gradual, had still
been great and effectual even in Henry's reign ; in that of
Edward, our Reformers proceeded more rapidly and did
some things, perhaps, inconsiderately, but stUl the sarae
principle was professed. In his speech at the opening of
the Convocation we find the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Cranmer, exhorting the Clergy to advance further in the
Reformation, — ^but how.-' by throwing off some unprimitive
remains.^ And by the statute of 1547, which sanctioned
the giving of the Eucharist in both kinds, a reference is
made, in justification of the proceeding, to the coramon
use and practice both of the Apo.stles and of the primitive
Christians by ihe space of 500 years.^ In the King's in
junction against images, it is stated as a reason that "the
Catholic Church raade use of no representations of this
kind for many years."'' In the Act of Uniformity, after
alluding to the various Rituals and Liturgies at that time
used in England, it is affirmed that his Majesty appointed
the Archbishop of Canterbury, with several others of the
raost learned Bishops and Divines, to draw up an oflice for
all parts of divine service, and that in doing so they were
to have regard to the directions of the Holy Scripture and
the usages of the primitive Church.^ In reply to the de
mands of the Devonshire rebels. Archbishop Cranmer,
acting authoritatively, particularly insisted to them " that
the practice and belief of the Church of England was
agreeable to the decisions of the general councils, while tbe
decrees they (the rebels) talked of were raere stretches of
* Jenkyn's Cranmer, i. 36. 5 Collier, ii. 233,
6 Collier, ii. 236. 7 Collier, ii. 241. 8 Collier, ii. 263.

10

the Court of Rome to enslave the rest of Christendom."^
Again, in the answer of the King's Council to the Princess,
afterwards Queen Mary, in 1551, penned most probably
by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by Ridley Bishop of
London, it is averred " that the English Reformation had
recovered the worship to the directions of Scripture, and
the usage of the primitive Church." ^^ And when the
Prayer Book was translated and corrected and brought to
its present forra, it was recoraraended by the Clergy to the
laity in these words : " Here you have an order of Prayer,
and for the reading of Scripture, much agreeable to the
mind and purposes of the old fathers .•"* and as such it
was received by the laity ; it was received as " a verv
godly order agreeable to the word of God and the primitive
Church"^^ In Queen Mary's reign Cranraer offered to
justify the English Communion Service both frora the
authority of Scripture and the practice of the primitive
Church.i2 What, indeed, was his defence of our Com
raunion Service ? What his objection to the Mass ? Of
the first he asserted, " it is conformable to the order which
our Saviour Christ did observe and command to be
observed, and which his Apostles and the primitive Church
used raany years ; whereas the Mass in many things hath
not only no foundation of Christ's Apostles or the primitive
Church, but is manifestly contrary to the same, and con
taineth raany horrible abuses in it," " And when thev
the Papists, boast of the faith which has been in the
Church these thousand years, we will join them on this
point : for that doctrine and usage is to be followed ivhich
was in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And we
shall prove that the order of the Church set out at this
present by act of Parliaraent is the sarae that was used in
9 Collier, ii, 271, 10 Collier, ii, 311.
* Preface to the Prayer Book,
11 Collier, ii. 320, 12 Collier, ii. 347,

11

the Church fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they
never be able to prove theirs."* In like manner the
iraprisoned clergy, in that reign of terror, raade a sirailar
but raore extensive offer to justify the reforraed doctrine
and worship by scripture and antiqjdty, and this under the
highest penalties. Their expressions, indeed, are as strik
ing as they are strong — " If they failed in maintaining the
homiUes and service set forth in the late reign, or in proving
the unlawfulness of the Popish liturgic forms, and that,
by Catholic principles and authority, tbey were willing
to be burnt at the stake, or to submit to any other death
of ignominy or torture."!^ On the accession of Elizabeth
in 1559, a public and authorised disputation was held
between the abettors of Popery and the upholders of a
Reforraation. On the side of the Reformers the most pro
minent was Horn, Dean of Durhara, and he coraraenced
by professing at once the deference which his friends
acknowledged to be due to the authority of the Catholic
Church, declaring the willingness of the English Reformers
to refer the whole controversy to the Holy Scriptures and
the Catholic Church, but raaintaining at the same time that
by the Word of God they raeant only the canonical Scrip
tures, and by the custom of the primitive Church, the
general practice of Catholics for the first five centuries.^*
In the sarae sentiment did the laity concur when, in a
subsequent act of Parliament, the authority of the first
four general Councils was recognized.^^ We have heard
already the declaration of one sovereign at the comraence
raent of our Reformation, that it was not intended to set
up a new religion, but raerely to correct abuses in the
• Archbishop Cranmer's " Declaration eoncerning the Mass."
Works, IV, p, 2, 3, Jenkyn's Edit,
13 Collier, ii. 378,
!¦* Coll. ii. 416, Conf. Strype's Annals, Appendix, 1465, Burnet's
Records, ii. 474. 15 I, Eliz, c, 1, sec, 36, A,D, 1558,

12

Church, — and precisely the same assertion was made, at
its corapletion, by Queen Elizabeth. In ber reply to the
Roman Catholic Princes she proclaimed " that there was
no new faith propagated in England ; no religion set up
but that which was coraraanded by our Saviour, practised
by the primitive Church, and approved by the Fathers of
the best antiquity. "^^ Moreover the very convocation of
1571, which originally enjoined subscription to the Thirty-
nine Articles, confirraed at the sarae time the principle of
the English Reforraation, by decreeing that nothing should
be taught as an article of faith, except what is supported
by the authority of Scripture and Catholic tradition,^^
which principle is again authoritatively proclaimed in our
30th Canon, wherein it is affirraed that " it was not the
purpose of the Church of England to forsake or reject
the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any
such like Churches, in all things which they held and
practised, and that therefore it doth with reverence retain
those ceremonies which do neither endaraage the Church of
God or offend the minds of sober men ; — and only departed
from them in those particular points wherein they were
fallen both from theraselves in their ancient integrity
aad from the Apostolical Churches which were their first
founders."* I shall not detain you by pointing out how that
principle was still avowed and acted on when, in the reigns
of James I. and Charles II. , some further reforraations
were effected in our Church, but I proceed to show how
another principle was introduced araong the English
Protestants. The foreign Reformers were not placed under the
same advantageous circurastances as favored the proceedings
16 Coll. ii. 436.
17 Can. de Concionatoribus. Wilkin's Concilia, iv. 267.
• Canon 30. See note B.

13

of those who conducted the reformation of the English
Church. They were not generally the rulers and governors
of their respective churches. As abuses were discovered
they protested against thera, they called for reform, yet had
no wish or intention to separate. But in raost of the foreign
churches, the Bishops, instead of correcting, defended the
corruptions, and in process of tirae the anti-reformation
party succeeded in driving from their comraunion the
friends of a Reforraation. Thus the Protestants were
obliged, by circumstances, to form for themselves separate
and independent religious coramunions. But in doing so
they devised no regular systera, for they seem to have
regarded the measure to which they were compelled, as one
of only a teraporary nature, and having solemnly appealed
to a general council, they hoped that the tirae would come
when the Western Church would reform itself and receive
once again into its bosora those whom it had unjustly
expelled for advocating its true principles,* But it was
not long before, araong the less enlightened friends of the
Reforraation, a spirit of fanaticism was excited ; and
acting, like the raan who continued to whet and whet his
knife until at last there was no steel left in it, they wished
to abscind every ordinance, phraseology, and doctrine which
raight seem to connect thera even indirectly with Rome,
and desired new cereraonies, a new systera of theology, a
new theological vocabulary, a new Church, And they
were not long without a leader in a raan of vast raental
powers and of ardent piety, but of an austere teraper and
strong personal ambition, John Calvin, Instead of com
paring, like our own Reforraers and the early Protestants
of Germany, the existing system of theology with Holy
Writ and the traditional doctrine of the early Church, he
invented an entirely new systera of his own, to which, with
more than papal intolerance, he called for a prostration of
* NoteC.

14

the judgment, and he proceeded to the length of shedding
human blood to support it. Instead of seeking to reform
the Church, he was ambitious to build up a sect which
might serve'as a model to all other religious communions,
and over which he seemed wUling to usurp such authority
as to render it doubtful whether he did not intend to divert
to Geneva the appeals which had been formerly made to
Rome. When the persecutions of Queen Mary's reign drove
so many of the English abroad, there were some of our
countrymen who, first at Frankfort and afterwards at
Geneva, were prepared to decry the English Reformation
for not having proceeded far enough, and to embrace the
foreign system of the Swiss sect.* By Calvin our Prayer
Book was denounced as containing fooleries, only tolerable
frora the exigency of the tiraes, and it was determined to
supply its place by a ritual less accordant with the ancient
forra of worship, and more conformable to the Genevan
model. Instead of coinciding with our English CathoUc
reformers in their deference to antiquity, they referred,
when Scripture was ambiguous or doubtful, to the writings
of Calvin, and regarded as heretical all who refused to
receive his dogma as truth.
And thus when the persecuted Protestants-|- returned
to England, on the accession of Elizabeth, the English
Church was composed of three distinct parties, all animated
by distinct principles : those who wished not to adopt any
foreign system of theology, but merely to complete the
Reformation of their ancient national Church, by doing
what was absolutely necessary for the purpose, and nothing
more, those who were enaraoured of the Helvetic Reform
ation, and coraplained that our reformers had not gone far
enough : and those who, complaining that they had gone
too far, were adverse to the Reformation altogether.
* Note D. t Note E.

15

Many and bitter were the disputes that arose, and it
was not long before the bolder and more consistent of the
followers of Calvin separated from the Church, which they
regarded as semi-papistical, and formed independent con
venticles. As persons assuming to be the supporters of a
purer system of Reforraation than that which had been
adopted by our English Reforraers, they were known by
the designation of Puritans,* Their example was soon
after followed by those of the opposite extreme, who were
the advo cates of the discarded corruptions. These persons
entered clandestinely into a correspondence with the Pope
of Rome, who sent some Spanish and Italian Priests to
officiate among them ; and adopting another foreign sys
tem, that estabhshed at the Council of Trent, they formed
that schismatical sect from which the present EngUsh
Romanists or Papists are descended.-f-
This is a short sketch of the origin of those three
distinct classes of Christians, subject, of course, to a
variety of subdivisions, which we find in this country.
But although the bolder, more consistent, and perhaps
more conscientious of the Puritans quitted the Church, a
large party who erabraced their principles still conformed,
some from timidity, some from worldly considerations, and
some because they thought that the Church of England,
being only comparatively corrupt, i. e. less pure than some
of the foreign sects, they were not obliged to secede, and
might eventually cause their own principles to triumph in
the Church itself. These persons, assisted by the Puritans
from without, were continuaUy urging our Rulers, spiritual
" The name was probably given to them, in the flrst instance, as a
nick-name, by their opponents, and they afterwards gloried in it, aud
so assumed it to themselves. In a puritan libel, A.D. 1574, " A Letter
of Robert Johnson, to Goodman, Dean of Westminster," he calls the
Dean " a Papist, a Schismatic, and a Puhitane," printing the last word
in capitals, as if it were a term of reproach, which he retorted.
t Note F.

16
and teraporal, to greater measures of reforin ; and, com
plaining of the remnants and rags of Popery still preserved
in our rites, cereraonies, and ecclesiastical habits, tney
"inveighed against the estabhshed discipline of the Church,
and accounted every thing frora Rome which was not
frora Geneva."*
A contest between parties disagreeing in principle is
always a contest of life and death, a war of exterraination,
— for principles raay be broken, but can never be bent —
may be sUenced but can never yield. And so was it with
the Protestants of England. The contest was whether the
country should adhere to the principles of the English or
to those of the foreign Reforraers, aud the war was carried
on unremittingly frora the accession of Elizabeth to the
fatal termination of the reign of Charles, who died a
martyr for the principles of the EngUsh Reforraation, or
(which is the sarae thing) for the principles of the Catholic
Church, During the great rebellion the advocates of the
foreign system triumphed, and the Church, with the
Crown, was laid prostrate in the dust. But at that period
a raodification of their principle was introduced among
those who, in opposing the systera of English Reforraation,
had tiU then been united. Hitherto the question had been
whether the Bible was to be received according to the
interpretation of the ancient Church, or according to the
interpretation of the Genevan Sect. But when the
descendants of the original Puritans endeavoured to force
their systera upon the country as the one to be exclusively
established, they in their turn were opposed by founders of
new sects who regarded their own interpretations of Scrip
ture to be as irrefragable as that of Calvin, It was then,
and under such circumstances, that the real ultra-protestant
principle, which has ever since prevailed, as contrasted
with the principles of the Church of England, was brought
* Note G,

17

to Ught ; — that principle being not merely that the Bible
and the Bible only ought to be our religion, but also that
the Bible is to be understood by each person in that sense
which he is persuaded by argument to regard as the true
sense; and that he is then to unite himself with that
society of Christians with whora the same or similar argu
ments have been productive of the same effect. This
principle is, of course, subversive of union. For on these
grounds the only difference between the coldest Socinian
who acknowledges the truth of Scripture, and the highest
supra-lapsarian Calvinist, is a difference in their logic or
their powers of biblical criticism, — and while both parties
may argue, neither may consistently censure,* And thus
the Ultra-protestant party gradually split into various
hostile factions, and their divisions led eventually to the
restitution of the Church with the restoration of the
Monarchy. At the same time a change took place in the policy of
the Dissenters from the Church, The attempt had been
to supplant the Church and to supply her place by the
establishment of the Genevan systera. The experiment
was raade and it had failed. And the deraand was now,
for what they had themselves, in times past, veheraently
protested against, — a civil toleration. They asked for
theraselves that toleration which, when dorainant,-f- they
refused to extend to the Church, and a toleration was
obtained ; — a toleration which, just in itself, has been
peculiarly advantageous to the Church ; for it has enabled
her to do what before she was unable to do — without
breach of charity to insist upon the observance of her
principles, and to proclaira the most unwelcome truths ; it
has introduced that moral discipline among us which no
external powers could enforce. In vain did our Reforraers
appeal to the strong arm of the law to compel that confor-
• Note H. t Note I,

18

raity to the regulations of the Church which is now
rendered, according to the best of his understanding and
abiUty, by every clergyman of comraon honesty and
honor : the Church is now able to say, without any spirit
of persecution, " Assent to my fundamental doctrines,
and adhere to my internal regulations, or depart from ray
communion. However blaraeworthy I raay think your
conduct, for such a departure, you are no longer subjected
to teraporal penalties, and, therefore, as a raan not raerely
of religion but of honor, depart,"*
Our principle is thus reduced within a very narrow
corapass, inteUigible to the least enlightened mind. Every
conscientious English Clergyman acts on the principle that
while Scripture and Scripture only is his rule of faith, he
is, in the interpretation of Scripture, to defer to the Ritual,
Liturgy, Articles, and Formularies of the Church of
England : he is to proraote the glory of God in the
highest, peace upon earth, and good will araong men, but
to do so, not in the way which be raay imagine to be the
wisest, but according to the Regulations, Canons, Rubrics,
Custoras of the Church, To these he is bound by vows
the most soleran to conform.
And where are we to look for unity and union, if we
find it not here .'' And what terms of reprobation can be
sufficiently strong to designate the conduct of those who,
by causing discord araong brethren who in principle are
united, would thereby make rausic for our eneraies ? Alas !
in every coraraunity such persons are found to exist, whose
eleraent is strife, who live by faction, who, mistaking party
spirit for Christian zeal, in their contest for what they
allege to be truth, forget that Christianity is also a religion
of Peace and Love, At the present tirae such persons are
busy araong ourselves ; they avow their wish to prevent
• Note K,

19

a union among the Clergy ; in the bitterness of their spirit
they conceive that the cause of Truth can only be sup
ported by the forraation of hostile confederacies within the
Church ; they glory in their unholy endeavours to arm
brother against brother, and in the hope of waging a worse
than civil war with the deadly weapons of theological
hatred. Few in number, they would scarcely be deserving
of notice, if, by anonymous misrepresentations, which
ought never to be credited until they have been fully
examined, and by exaggerations which, frora their very
absurdity, ought to excite the scepticism of charity, they
had not partiaUy succeeded in inflaraing the passions and
exciting the prej udices of raany good and zealous, hut ill-
judging and mistaken men, who, instead of regarding
measures, respect persons ; who confound opinions with
principles, and, in their attachraent to phrases, forget the
trnth of things.
Now, such being the case, let us rip open the apple
of discord which the eneraies of peace would throw among
us and see what it actually contains ; let us briefly advert
to the subjects raost freely discussed araong us, and sure I
ara that when we perceive how the case really stands, all
moderate raen, all who are not far gone in party spleen, will
be ready to adrait that, if in opinion upon several points
we raay sorae of us differ, there can be no just ground, —
I do not say for the rancour which is soraetiraes exhibited
in these discussions, for this can under no circurastances be
justifiable, — but for the disturbance of that unanimity and
christian harraony by the existence of which we are cora
raanded to give proof that we are the Disciples of the
Prince of Peace,
Let us take, in the first place, the subject of Tradi
tion, and only assurae in charity that the disputants on
both sides are in their intention honest and conscientious
Churchmen ; men, that is to say, desirous of holding
b2

20
opinions in conformity with the principles of the English
Church. On the two great points which involve our coramon
principle we are aU agreed. We all of us hold, on the one
hand, " that 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 raan
that it should be beUeved as an article of the faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation;"* and we all
of us hold, on the other hand, that in all cases of difficulty
or doubt we are to take for our guide the Ritual, Liturgy,
Articles, and Formularies of the Church of England, But
here we are met by those who impugn our principle of
interpretation, the Dissenters, whether Roraish or Protes
tant, who very fairly deraand why more deference should
be paid to the English Church than to any of their own
sects ; to the English than to the foreign reforraers ; to
Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, than to Zuinglius, Calvin,
or Beza : to this objection other answers raay be given,
but I only know of one which is of any weight, and which
has always been adduced ever since the Reforraation by all
the divines who have adhered to the principles of the
English Reformers.-|- Looking to the principles upon which
the Reforraation of the Church of England was conducted,
to the strict regard our reforraers paid to the voice of anti
quity, to their avowed deterraination to adhere to the
unquestioned and unquestionable tradition of doctrine
* Article vi.
¦f To those who are desirous of seeing how invariably this rule has
been observed by our great standard writers, I may recommend "The
Judgment ofthe Anglican Church, posterior to the Eeformation, on the
sufficiency of the Holy Scripture and the authority of the Holy Catholic
Church, in matters of faith, by Jolm F. Russell, B.C.L. of St. Peter's
College, Cambridge." See also the incomparable Appendix to Bishop
Jebb's Sermons; Churton's " Church of England a Witness and Keeper
ofthe Catholic Tradition"; Poole's very learned Sermons on the Creed-
an admirable Discourse on Tradition, by Mr. Cartwright, Minister of
the Jews' Episcopal Chapel ; and Keble's Visitation Sermon.

21
universally received, they contend, and aifirm their readi
ness to prove, that in our Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and
Forraularies, is erabodied all that is essential of the tradi
tional doctrine of the Universal Church ; and that,
therefore, in deferring to them, we defer not to the
decision ofa few individuals, but to the tradition universally
received in those early ages when, on all subjects relating
to doctrine or to discipline, a strict correspondence was
kept up between all the branches of the Church Universal.
And this tradition they regard, not as the Roraanists regard
their falsified traditions, as supplementary to Scripture, as
conveying doctrines which are not contained in Scripture
(for they subscribe to the 6th of our articles), but merely
as confirraatory -of the true meaning of Scripture, whenever
Scripture is arabiguous or doubtful. Now this is, very
possibly, in tbe rainds of sorae, a bad answer to the
Dissenter, an untenable defence, and any one has a perfect
right to supply us with a better if he can. But surely
there is no ground for division, no ground here for
our splitting into parties and factions, no ground for
those fears which the wicked would suggest, and by
which the weak are irritated. If those who contend
for the authority of tradition contend at the sarae tirae
that all necessary tradition is preserved in our Church, the
very summit of their offending, so far as those who are in
the Church are concerned, can only be an error in judg
ment, a mistake in opinion. By all parties within the pale,
the same principle is recognized and acted upon ; and the
real debate is with those who are without the pale, who
ridicule, as inconsistent and absurd, the deference which
all clergymen acknowledge themselves bound to pay to the
authoritative documents of the Church of England,
So again with respect to the Sacraments,* On this
subject all raust adrait that the language of the Church of
• Note t.
b3

22
England is pecuUarly strong. In her holy jealousy for the
two divine ordinances of Baptism and the Supper of the
Lord, she withholds the title of Sacraraent, in the sense
she applies it to them, frora all other religious rites,
however sacred, however apostolical in their institution,
however rauch the subordinate raeans of grace. She
declares the Sacraments to be generally necessary to
salvation, and she defines a Sacrament thus necessary to
salvation, as " an outward and visible sign of an inward
and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ
hiraself, as a raeans whereby we receive the same, and a
pledge to assure us thereof," — a raeans to convey grace, a
pledge to assure the worthy recipient of its illation. Of
Baptisra she states the inward grace, of which it is the
means, to be " a death unto sin and a new birth unto
righteousness."* She quotes the 3rd chapter of St. John,-f-
in which the necessity of a new hirth is asserted, as a
chapter implying, on that account, " the great necessity of
Baptisra where it can be had" ; j in the Baptisraal offices
she expressly connects the regeneration of infants always,
• There is a very strong single proof of the doctrine of the Church
of England on Baptism pointed out by the present learned and pious
Bishop of Bangor, that in Article IX, where the English is, " there is
no condemnation to them that believe and are baptised," the Latin
runs, " renatis et credentibus."
t Bishop Kaye, in his Tertullian, p. 483, observes that the ancients
uniformly interpreted our Lord's address, in this chapter, to Nicodemus,
as relating to Baptism. This is also shewn by Wall, in his history of
Infant Baptism. Bishop Beveridge, as quoted by Bishop Mant;
observes, " What Christ means of being born of Water and of the
Spirit, is now made a question : I say now, for it was never made so till
of late years. For many ages together none ever doubted it, bat the
whole Christian world took it for granted that our Saviour meant only
by these words, that except a man be baptised according to his insti
tution, he cannot enter the kingdom of God : this being the most plain
and obvious sense of the words, forasmuch as there is none other way
of being born again of Water as well as of the Spirit, but only in the
Sacrament of Baptism." — Bishop JBeveridge's Worhs, i. 304,
t Office for Adult Baptism,

23

and of adults duly qualified, with Baptisra ; in the office
for Confirraation she does the same ; in the Horailies, the
Font is designated as " the Fountain of our Regenera
tion,*'* while it is insinuated that by Baptism we are
justified ;-|- and she teaches our chUdren in the Catechism
that they were at Baptism raade members of Christ,
children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdora of
Heaven, With reference to the other sacrament, she
asserts that the body of Christ is " given, taken, received,
and eaten in the Supper" ;J the Eucharist itself she styles
the Communion, (that is, the communication,) of the body
and blood of Christ our Saviour.§ And we are told that
those who are duly qualified spiritually eat therein the flesh
of Christ and drink his blood, || We are directed when we
receive the Eucharist to pray God to grant that we raay
" so eat the fiesh of his dear son Jesus Christ and drink
his blood that our sinful bodies raay be made clean by his
body, and our souls washed through his most precious
blood ;"^ and " that receiving the creatures of bread and
wine we raay be partakers of his raost blessed body and
blood."** And after communicating, we thank God for that
he doth " vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of
the most precious body and blood of his Son our Saviour
Jesus Christ.""!"}- In the catechism, raention is made of the
" outward and visible forni" of a sacrament, and in the
horailies we find an allusion to our " receiving our Lord's
raost blessed body and blood under the form of bread and
wine" ; JI and in the horailies, we are also exhorted to hold
• Homily for Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches, See also
Homily on Fasting.
t "After that we are baptised on justified," — Srd Part of Homily
on Salvation. t Article xxviii, § Exhortat. Communion Office. || Ibid,
IT Prayer of Humble Access,
*• Consecration Prayer, tt Post. Communion.
iX Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies,

24

that " in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony,
no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent";* and
we are told that the faithful " receive not only the outward
sacraraent, but the spiritual thing also, not the figure but
the truth, not the shadow but the body" ;t finally, our
chUdren are taught that the inward part of the Eucharist
is " the body and blood of Christ which are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's
Supper."! Now these expressions are so strong that raany
pious and well-meaning men have regarded thera as suffi
cient to justify their secession frora our coraraunion ; while
raore violent controversialists have not hesitated to denounce
the English Church for retaining them, as semi-popish, if
not absolutely papistical. They both censure our baptismal
office and affirra that our doctrine of the Eucharist differs
little, if at all, from the transubstantiation of the Roraan-
ist, or, at all events, from the consubstantiation of the
Lutheran, — dograas equally unphilosophical and unscrip
tural. The English Churchman, then, is here placed on
the defensive, and the defence is conducted in two ways.
Some persons admit (without questioning) the accuracy of
our opponents in their notions of sacraraental efficacy;
and, seeing the manifest and glaring inconsistency between
our services and those notions, regret that our reformers
retained the expressions objected to, but at the sarae tirae
contend that they do not of necessity bear the construction
which is generally placed on them, but admit of a restricted
meaning, raore conforraable with the view of the objector.
Others there are who receive these expressions in all the
simpUcity and fulness of their raeaning, and, thinkino- that
they are amply borne out by Scripture, maintain that the
EngUsh Reforraers, in the retention of thera, used a wise
discretion, and acted consistently on those Catholic prin
ciples to which they professed to adhere. These assume
* Horn, xxviii. f Ibid. { Catechism,

25

the offensive against our common objectors, and shew that,
in confounding, as do the foreign reformers, regeneration
with renovation, — a change of spiritual state, circurastances,
and relations, and an election to grace, with a subsequent
change of disposition, heart, and temper, — the objectors
are themselves in error ; and are equaUy unscriptural in
the very low notions they entertain of the grace conveyed
to the faithful in the other Sacrament, And thus, since no
one but a raan equally void of integrity, and regardless of
the sanctity of an oath, would presume to alter our
baptismal office or the Liturgy, to raake thera square
with his private views ; the only question among Church-
raen is whether the words v/e use in coramon will, or will
not, by fair construction, hear the interpretation wbich
some persons put upon them. If, after fair discussion, it
is found they cannot, — of course, those who think that the
expressions used in our offices are anti-scriptual will quit
our comraunion, and the discussion will then be one re
lating to principle, and the debate will be as to the raeaning
of the words of Scripture. Until it comes to this, — our
differences of opinion ought surely not to lead to disunion
araong ourselves.
Come we now to the doctrine of the Apostolica]
Succession. On this subject no controversy existed at the
time of the Reforraation. It was, at that time, as it had
been for 1500 years, taken for granted that no man might
presume to rainister in sacred things, unless he were first
appointed to the office by persons having authority to raake
the appointraent by their regular succession frora the
apostles. Upon this point no one is more eloquent or raore
decided than our reforraing Archbishop, Dr. Cranraer.*
Accordingly, when in the reign of Elizabeth the Thirty-
nine Articles were agreed upon in a convocation of our
clergy, the doctrine was assumed : " It is not lawful for
• Note M.

26
any man to take upon hira the office of public preaching or
adrainistering the Sacraments in the congregation before he
be lawfully caUed and sent to execute the same. And those
we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen
and called to this work by men who have public authority
given unto them m" — not by, but in — " the congregation
to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard,"* But
the point being settled that there are sorae persons in the
congregation or Church who have powers to ordain, the
question is who those persons are ? This was the question
in debate at the Reformation, and it is easily answered so
far as the Church of England is concerned, since it was
settled, before the Thirty-nine Articles were received, in
the ordinal in which it is afl^rraed :, "It is evident to all
raen diligently reading the Scriptures and the ancient
authors, that frora the Apostles' tirae there have been these
three orders of rainisters in Christ's Church, Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons,"-}- In the order for consecrating
Bishops, as well as in the Ordination Service, she speaks of
the offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as offices divinely
instituted ; and, if instituted by God, of course they cannot
be lawfully abolished. But it is a point not controverted,
that wherever these officers exist, the power of ordination
rests with the first, assisted by the second. And accordingly,
in legislating on this subject, the Church of England
ordains that " no one shaU be accounted and taken to be a
lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, araong us, or be suffered
to execute any of the ministerial functions, except he be
called, tried, examined, and adraitted thereunto, according
to our form of episcopal ordination, or hath had formerly
episcopal consecration or ordination. "l A more coraplete
answer to the question, who are they that have authority in
the congregation ? could not be given by a Church which
reverences Scripture and the ancient authors. And hence
* Article xxiii, t Pref. to the Ordinal. | Prof, to Ordinal,

27

it is, that while a Minister of the Roman Church officiates
araong us, upon the renunciation of his errors, without a
further ordination, a converted Presbyterian Minister is
unable to do so. The one has had, the other has not had,
episcopal ordination.
Now this regulation very naturally offends the various
self-appointed rainisters and teachers who have, of late
years, abounded in the land. They accuse the Church of
intolerance, bigotry, and illiberality, since they conclude
that she iraplies, by this regulation, the invalidity of all
but episcopal ordination : and in this conclusion they are
the rather confirmed when they find our Canons denouncing,
as ipso facto excoramunicated, not only those who affirm that
the Church of England is not a true and apostolical
Church,* or that the forra of God's worship in the Church
of England is corrupt-}- but also those who, not heing of the
Church of England, challenge to theraselves in England
the narae of true and lawful Churches.^ Under such a
reproach some of the merabers of our Church are impatient,
and deny that the conclusion must of necessity be drawn.
Others, rejoicing in everything to bear the scandal of the
cross, adrait the justness ofthe conclusion, but contend that
the Church is no raore to be blamed for this than a rairror
for the wrinkles or deformities it raay bring to view. The
Church injures no one by asserting the fact, for, if it be a
fact, a fact it is whether she asserts it or not. It either is
a fact that a society of believers, organized without the
episcopal order, is not a Church, but merely a sect not
organized according to apostolical and scriptural rule, as
our Church insinuates, or it is not a fact. It is open to
discussion whether it be a fact ,• there is no want of charity
in our declaring what we believe to be such. As raaintainers
of God's truth we are to declare it in this as in every other
instance, and in God's good time the truth will be known
• Can. ii, t Can. iv, % Can. xi.

28
and recognized, and those who have deserted it will
perceive that Christian unity is to be restored, not by our
yielding to them, but by their returning to us. As we raay
preach that faith in the Lord Jesus is necessary to salvation,
without denying the salvability of the heathen ; so none
will refuse to adraire and reverence and love the pious and
consistent Christian of every coraraunion, whether Roraish
or Protestant ; none — God forbid, — will doubt of his being
capable of salvation, though we raay still believe that in
raany respects he raay have fallen short of gospel truth.
But be this as it raay — it is a principle to be discussed with
those who are in principle separated frora us, — it is certainly
no j ust cause of angry dispute among ourselves, who have
declared our unfeigned assent and consent not only to our
Articles, but to our ordination oifices, — the first of which
declare that those only raay rainister in sacred things who
are duly ordained, and the second that those only are to be
considered by us as duly ordained who have received epis
copal orders. The only legitimate subject of discussion
araong us is, how are we to raeet the objection to our
principle as urged by Dissenters — a raere matter of opinion,
not a fair plea for division,
I will only advert to one point more, and hasten to a
conclusion, I allude now to the angry debates which
contentious men would raise araong us with reference to the
Cereraonies of the Church. On this subject, too, we are
in principle united. We all agree that forms and ceremonies
are in theraselves things indifferent, unless they have been
divinely prescribed, as in the case of the Sacraments, and
some of the Sacramentals. We are all of us also ag-reed in
admitting that when we have soleranly vowed as bishops,
priests, and deacons of the Church of England to adhere to
the forras and ceremonies, rubrics, usages, and regulations
of the Church of England, these ceremonies, relatively to

29

us, cease to be things indifferent. If we make a vow, we
are, of course, bound to keep it, and they, therefore, if such
there be, who think that they show their wisdora by a
studied disregard of the decent ceremonies of the Church,
do, in reality, only shew the little respect they have for
their declarations and oaths. But it is notorious, from
whatever circurastances, that since the reformation, the
ceremonies of the Church of England have been, in several
respects, altered, either by the introduction of new practices,
or by the neglect of old ones. For example, we find that
metrical Psalras are now sung as a regular part of our
service, of which they originally formed no portion.* This
innovation is one of ancient date, and I am not complaining
of it, but still it is an innovation, and like most innovations
it has gradually led to another of a very questionable
character ; I allude to the introduction of unauthorised
hymns of huraan composition. Another innovation since
the time of our reforraers is the use of extempore prayer
before or after the sermon. Now these are very serious
innovations, since they afford to an individual rainister more
liberty than the Church allows, and enable him to blend his
private opinions with the acknowledged principles of the
Church in such a raanner as to confound the one with the
other. Many other innovations of minor importance raight
easily be pointed out, such as the prevailing practice for the
rainister to turn in prayer to the people :-f in the days of
the reforraers, and for some tirae after, the rainister turned
from the people in prayer, to thera in exhortation, so that
even by his action the people could distinguish between his
address to them, and his address for thera and with them
to God ; — they were continually reminded, by outward
circurastances, of the holy duty in which they ought to be
engaged. The innovation in this respect has likewise led
to another, in that unsightly novelty a second pulpit, which
• Note N. t Note 0.

30
is now adopted in sorae sanctuaries, instead of the ancient
fald-stool or low desk.* Araong omissions, we may note
that the people (in consequence, perhaps, of the forraer
innovation,) too generally sit, instead of kneeUng, at prayer,
and seldora bow at the name of the Lord Jesus ;f while in
some places we find that the clergy no longer say the Com
munion Service standing at the comraunion table, and the
table is deprived of the candlesticks with which it is directed
that it should be adorned, j Antheras are frequently dis
continued, even in places where they sing ; except when
there is a Coraraunion the offertory and prayer for the
Church Militant are generally oraitted, and several portions
of the clerical habiliraents § have fallen into disuse.
There are more serious omissions to which I will not
now refer : such as the oraission of the daily prayers,
though every clergyraan is directed to have thera solemnized
in his Church ; such as the neglect of weekly Coramunions ;
such as the omission, when the Eucharist itself is adminis
tered, on the part of sorae of the clergy, to place the bread
and wine, with their own hands, as an oblation on the
altar, although at the last review of the Liturgy, a rubric
was expressly and deliberately introduced to corapel this
observance ; such as the neglect, on the part of others, to
give that Sacraraent with the words addressed to each
individual coramunicant ; for these are oraissions of too
serious a nature to corae under the head of mere ceremonies.
With respect to the other matters to which I have referred,
I am perfectly ready to adrait that raany of thera are, in
theraselves, of very little raoraent; but when we are
solemnly pledged to conforra to the cereraonies of the
Church of England, the tender conscience will be apt to
inquire what those cereraonies are to the observance of
which we are thus bound. Now some are of opinion that
* Note P. t Note Q. t Note R. § Note S,

31

they act suflaciently up to their vow, when they observe
such ceremonies as they find handed down to thera in the
congregation over which they are appointed to preside.
Others raay be of opinion that the ceremonies ought to
be observed precisely as they were originally appointed,
A third party are of opinion, to which I myself incline,
that they act in perfect consistency with their pledges if
they take things as they find them, merely guarding
against further innovations ; and if, as occasion offers,
they ret urn more nearly to the practice of the reforraers,
which they rejoice to think is the practice also of the
priraitive Church, But here again the Protestant Dissen
ters are prepared to upbraid us. Our ceremonies and our
ecclesiastical habits, and in great part our services them
selves, are the same as those which are used by the
Church of Rorae, and therefore they accuse us of being
papistical for retaining thera. Here, then, we are again
placed on the defensive, and how are we to defend our
selves ? Sorae persons regret that so raany of the old
cereraonies were retained by our reformers, but defend
them on the ground that they are not actuaUy sinful, that
ill practice they have been rauch simplified, and they very
properly conclude that it is better to observe thera, since
they are enjoined, than to corarait schism. Others, on the
contrary, defend us by acting again on the offensive : they
accuse the sectarians in general of a want of due reverence
for things sacred, a forgetfulness of the majesty of the
Deity, who is approached too often in terras of ecstatic
farailiarity, araounting almost to profaneness ; they appeal
to the Scriptures which, while revealing to us the loving
kindness of our God, would at the same tirae irapress our
minds with a raysterious awe of Jehovah ; and instead,
therefore, of apologizing for our observances, they express
their satisfaction that, by the soleranity of our services and

32
the decorum ofour ceremonies, the devotions ofthe Church
are discriminated from the ranting and raptures of raost
raodern sects. They may at the same tirae reverence our
particular ceremonies as the rehcs of priraitive devotion,
and regard, with a sentiment a-kin to piety, what acts as
one of the connecting links between us and our forefathers,*
At the same time they carry out the principle of the
English reformers, and perceive how the retention of the
ancient ceremonies disarras the Romanist of one of his
arguments. We tell the Romanist that our's is the old
Catholic Church of England — his, a new sect. And
when he points to his ceremonies, as a badge of his
antiquity, we can defy him to the proof, for, (more espe
cially if our rubrics be duly observed,) we have in common
with him the ancient cereraonies of the primitive Church,
and where he differs frora us, he alraost always differs on
matters subsequently introduced.
Now here is certainly roora for sorae diversity of
opinion, but surely, ray brethren, there caa be no roora
for that fierceness of controversy with which this subject is
soraetiraes approached. For whether we estiraate the value
of our ceremonies too highly or too meanly, in principle
we are all united ; — the ceremonies of the Church of
England must be observed because we are pledged to
observe them, and the ceremonies of the Church of
England only.
• Thus our great reformer, Archbishop Parker, in his speech to
the Convocation, speaks of our ceremonies : — " He had for exerting
himself not only the precedent ofthe late martyrs of the Reformation,
but of saints of the earliest antiquity ; that some of these in the first
centuries arrived iu this island, and have left us noble remains of their
piety and success ; and notwithstanding the instructions they left, and
the usages they settled, are partly worn out by time and superstition,
yet'many of them have had a more happy conveyance, and reached
down to the present age ; and that it appears our constitutions and
ceremonies are little different from what was theu established,"—
Collier, ii, 537,

33

I ara far from intending to say that in these differences
of opinion there is nothing of importance. If we were
assembled in Convocation, empowered to make further
reforms in our Church, or to discuss the need of them,
our opinions with respect to the value of tradition would
be important in the extreme ; so would be our opinions
concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments, and the relative
value of priraitive Ceremonies, if we were re-constructing
our Baptismal and Liturgical offices : nor of less impor
tance would be our opinions on the Apostolical Succession,
if the decision were to rest with us whether the Church
should recognize the ministerial functions of men not
episcopally ordained. But happily for us these questions
have been decided for us by the Church, and to the
decision of the Church, by the very fact of our being
Churchmen, we unaniraously bow ; — we receive her deci
sions as our coraraon principle. The principles of the
Church, as we have seen, form an insurmountable barrier
between us and the Dissenter, both Roraish and Protestant,
and render union with either of those parties impossible.
But to us Churchmen, surely our coramon principles, — if
we be not carnal men cherishing in our hearts bitter envy
ing and strife — must be a coramon bond of union. But
how can this union be preserved, unless, like the Church
itself, while we are firra to our principles, we are tolerant
towards the opinions of our brethren ? The rule of the
Church is indeed adrairable. If any clergyman, either
by his teaching or by his conduct, violate any principle
of the Church he ought to be accused to the Bishop, — to
receive such accusations is indeed one of the purposes for
which our Diocesan holds his court among us on such
occasions as the present — and if, after trial, the accused be
found guilty, he raay be excoraraunicated and deposed.
But the Church does not permit one preacher to pronounce
a j udgment, as it were ew cathedrd, on another, to anathe-
c

34
matize his opinions when he cannot canonically prove him
to be guilty of heresy, or even officially to attempt the
refutation of them ; for our 53rd Canon enacts, " If any
preacher shall, in the pulpit, particularly or namely, of
purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered by any
other preacher in the same Church, or in any Church near
adjoining, before he hath acquainted the Bishop of the
diocese therewith, and received order from him what to do
in that behalf," — he shall be liable to suspension ;* a regu
lation, this, obviously just and wise. We raay descend
from our otficial situation, and appear in the arena on equal
terras as controversialists, if in opinion we unfortunately
differ ; but in this case, the one controversialist is not
more infallible than the other, and if, pendente Ute, one
party takes upon hira officially to give sentence on tbe
other, what is this but a petitio principii as absurd as it
is intolerant .'' In very truth, if each individual preacher
were perraitted thus to erect hiraself into an infalhble Pope,
fulrainating his anatheraas to the right hand and to the
left, we should live for a tirae in a state of Ishmaelitish
discord, when our hand would be against every raan, and
every raan's hand against us, and at last we should sub
side into a despotisra and tyranny worse than Rorae ever
invented, or Geneva contemplated.
Needful it is to raake these observations, since as I
have hinted before, the worst part of the periodical and
(so called) religious press, are by their misrepresentations
inflaming the passions of weaker brethren in the ministry,
and are caUing upon them, under the pretence of speaking
out for the truth, to violate the laws of the Church, and by
turning it into the platforra of angry contention thus to dese
crate the pulpit, Reraeraber, brethren, that if the propaga-
tion of evangelic truth be one portion of our duty, it is no
• Note T.

85

less our duty, by the sacrifice of all personal considerations,
by the humiliation of our proud, the restraint of our angry,
the denial of our selfish passions — by the due control even of
of our better emotions — to preserve tbe unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace. Reraeraber, brethren, that our enemies
are many and mighty : the two extremes of Romanism and
Ultra-Protestantism are banded, together with Infidelity,
against us, and if, like Sampson's foxes, they are pulling
different ways, the brands which are attached to them have
one and the self-sarae object — our destruction. And is this
a time to divide pur house, and to form parties and factions?
Is this the season for discord .'' Remember, brethren, the
ties, the sacred ties, which bind us to one another : as men,
we are all under the same condemnation, we are all heirs of
the same corrupted nature, equally one and all children of
wrath : as Christians, we seek for reconciliation with an
offended Maker, through the atoning merits and the all-
prevailing intercession of the same crucified, the same
glorified Saviour, through the sanctification of the same
Blessed Spirit : we worship the same God, the Trinity in
Unity. We are brethren of the sarae household, with one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us
all ; rainisters of Christ acting under the sarae apostolical
comraission, pledged all to walk by the same rule, and to
speak the sarae thing ; bound all by the sarae vows, with
interests and pursuits, and duties, and privileges identical :
where, I ask again, can Christian unanimity and harraony
be found if we find it not here ? " Sirs, ye are Brethren,"
Oh wrong not one another. Sirs, ye are Brethren, and
your Master is praying in heaven that ye may be one even
as he is one with the Father; Oh seek not by your passions
to frustrate his work. Sirs, ye are Brethren, — as brethren
let us act cordially together, and gradually our differences
will lessen, our agreements will extend. Then shall we
stand a holy army, closely embodied together, prepared
c2

36

with redoubled vigor to prosecute our warfare against the
powers of darkness, — and then we shall find how sweeter
than (he ointment with which Aaron was annolnted, how
refreshing as the dews of Hermon, it is for brethren to
dweU together in unity ; — then the peace of God will rest
upon us ; that peace which the world can neither give nor
take away.

APPENDIX.

Note A, page 8,
"Although tbe wordKafloXiKoe properly signifies universal,
yet they phe ancient fathers] commonly used it in the same sense
as we do the word orthodox, as opposed to an heretic, calling an
orthodox man a Catholic, that is a son of the Catholic Church ;
as taking it for granted, that they, and they only, which constantly
adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic or Universal Church, are
truly orthodox ; wbich they could not do, unless they had believed
the Catholic Church to be so. And besides that, it is part of our
very creed that the Catholic Church is holy, which she could not
be, except free from heresy, as directly opposite to true holiness,"
Bp. Beveridge. Works ii, 197.

Note B, p. 12.
ON DEFERENCE TO TKABITION AND KESPECT FOE THE
FATHEllS.
Since a charge the raost preposterous, of deviating
from the principles of the Reforraation is brought against
those of our divines who defer to tradition, and, in inter
preting Scripture, have raore respect for the consent of the
fathers who Uved in and near to the apostolic age, than for
such coraraentators as Henry, Scott, &c, when opposed to
the ancient interpretation, it raay be well to refer to sorae
other documents in addition to those alluded to in the body
of this discourse. Reference is there made to the act of
c3

38
parliament which our reforraers* obtained to enable thera,
with the civil sanction, to condemn, as heretics, those who
propounded doctrines contrary to the canonical Scriptures,
and to the decisions of the first four general councils. And
we find that, on the authority here given, and with express
reference to the first four general councils, our Church
anathematized Socinianism in the year 1640 : —
" Whereas, much mischief is already done in the Church of
God, by the spreading of tbe damnable and cursed heresy of
Socinianism, as being a complication of many ancient heresies,
condemned by the four first general councils, and contrariant to
the articles of religion now estabUshed in the Church of Eng
land — it is therefore decreed," &c, — Can. iv. Sparrow's Collection.
How wisely our reforraers raade use of tradition and
the fathers may be seen also by a reference to the rules laid
down for the conference with the Roraish priests and Jesuits,
araong which we find the following :
" If they should shew any groimd of Scripture, and wrest it
to their sense, let it be shewed by the interpretation of the old
doctors, such as were before Gregory I. For that in his time
began the first claim of the supremacy by the Patriarch of
Constantinople, and shortly after was usurped by the Bishop of
Rome, the first founder ofthe Papacy and supremacy of that see,
by the authority of Phocas, the traitor and murderer of his Lord.
" And as for tbe testimony of tbe latter Doctors, if they
bring any, let them refuse them ; for that the most part of the
writers of that time, and after, yielded to the authority of the
Emperor and tbe Bishop of Rome.
" If they can shew no Doctor that agreed with them in their
said opinion before that time, then to conclude that they have no
succession in that doctrine from the time of tbe Apostles, and
above four hundred years after, (when doctrine and religion were
most pure.) For that they can shew no predecessor whom they
might succeed in the same. Quod primum verum. Tertull.
" If they aUege any Doctor of that antiquity, then to view
the place ; and to seek the true meaning ex prwcedentibus et con-
sequentihus ; or of other places out of the same Doctor, And to
oppose other Doctors Ukewise writing of the same matter, in case
the sentence of tbe said old Doctor shall seem to make against us,"
Strype's Whitgift, vol. i. p. 197, "
* When I speak of the English Reformers, I mean those great men
who were publicly, and by authority, concerned in the Reformation of
the Church of England, and not every private Englishman who happened
fo write against Popery in the 16th century, appenea

39

Well, indeed, would it be for the cause of truth, if the
self-appointed disputants in favour of the Reformation, in
their challenges to the Papists, would be guided by these
rules. The, so called, " Reformation Society" would then
be less injurious to the cause of the Reformation than it
now is, and the Papists, with the worst cause, would less
frequently come off triumphant.
We may now proceed to shew how, in regulating her
practice and defending her conduct, the Church of England,
whenever she has spoken authoritatively, has followed the
example of her illustrious reformers, and shewn her defer
ence to antiquity. It is well known that there were persons
who were weak and foolish enough to scruple at our use
of the sign of the cross. It is thus that in the 30th
Canon the Church of England vindicates her retention of
that cereraony : —
" Following the steps of our most worthy King, because he
therein foUoweth the rules of the Scriptures, and the practice of
the Primitive Church, we do commend to all trae members of the
Church of England these our directions and observations ensuing :
The honour and dignity of the name of the cross begat a
reverend estimation even in tbe apostles' time (for aught that is
known to the contrary) of the sign of the cross, which the
Christians shortly after used in aU their actions. The use of this
sign in Baptism was held by the primitive Church, as well by tbe
Greeks as the Latins, witb one consent and great applause. This
continual and general use of the sign of the cross is evident hy
the testimonies of the ancient fathers.
" It must be confessed that, in process of time, tbe sign of
the cross was greatly abused in the Church of Reme, But tbe
abuse of a thing does not take away the lawful use of it. Nay,
so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to
forsake and reject tbe Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany,
or any such like Churches, in all things tohich they held and
practised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England
confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which
do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of
sober men : and only departeth from them in those particular
points wherein they were fallen hoth fron themselves in their
ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches which
were their first founders.
" The sign of the cross in Baptism being thus purged from
all Popish superstition and error, and reduced in the Church of

40
England to the primary institution of it, upon those rules of
doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to
the Word of God, and the judgments of all the ancient fathers,
we hold it the part of every private man, both minister and
other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by pubUc
authority," — Canon xxx.
The Apology of the Church of England, referred to
in this canon, is the celebrated work of Bishop Jewell,
than which no book, excepting the Coraraon Prayer and
the Books of Homilies, has received a greater .share of
public sanction and authority in the English Church.
The whole plan of this work is an appeal to Catholic
tradition and priraitive consent against the innovations of
the Church of Rorae, and any selection of passages rather
diminishes the force of his whole train of reasoning. This
is plainly seen frora the outset of his work, where he states
the kind of charges brought against the Reforraers by the
Romanists :
" Tliat we have made a tumultuous defection from the
Catholic Church ; that we despise the authority of the primitive
fathers and ancient councils; that we have imprudently and
insolently abrogated the ancient ceremonies .... and hy our own
private authority, without the consent of a holy and general
coimcil, we liave introduced neto rites into the Church,. .. ."bnt
that they have retained all things as they were delivered to them
by the apostles, approved hy the ancient fathers, and have been
kept ever since, through all the intermediate ages to this day,"
Chap. i. sect, v. Translation hy a Person
of quality. A.D.lQ8b.
In answer to which he undertakes to prove " that not
obscurely and craftily, but bona fide, before God, truly,
ingenuously, clearly, and perspicuously, we teach the raost
holy gospel of God, and that the ancient fathers and the
whole priraitive Church are on our side, and that we have
not without just cause left them, the Roraish divines, and
returned to the apostles, and the ancient Catholic Fathers."
— Sect. 12. Accordingly every point of the Apology is
iUustrated by quotations of the words, and proofs of the

41

practice, of the fathers. In a latter part of his work, not
far from the middle, he returns to this point more
specifically :
" Though they, the Papists, have not the Scriptures on their
side, perhaps they will pretend tbey have the ancient doctors and
holy fathers, for that they have ever boasted that aU antiquity
and the perpetual consent of all times is for them, and that all
our pretences are novel, and were never heard of till within the
course of a very few years last past," — Chap, v, sect, i.
The way in which he enters upon his answer to this,
is very remarkable, as shewing the depth of principle
which he perceived to be involved in this adherence to
antiquity : " Now certainly there can nothing of raore
weight be said against religion than that it is new," — Ibid.
In what follows there are several challenges to the
Roraanists on this very ground, proving, as the very
learned writer of " Letters from a Reformed Catholic"*
says, how " the Modern Protestant and Romanists have
shifted positions,"
" Our doctrine, which we may much better call tbe Catholic
doctrine of Christ,f is not so new but that it is commended to
us by the Ancient of Days, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
in most ancient monuments, the prophets, and gospels, and
writings of the apostles, . . .But, then, as to their reUgion, if it
be so ancient as they pretend, why do they not prove it so from
the examples of the primitive Church', from tke old fathers, and
the ancient councils ? Why doth so ancient a cause lie desolate
and without a patron for so long a time ? Indeed, they — the
Romanists, — never want fire and swords; but, then, as to the
ancient fathers and councils, there is with them a deep silence."
Ibid, sect. 3,

" These plain and powerful Letters are published by Messrs,
Rivington, price 3d, They are generally attributed to the Rev, Edward
Churton, M.A. Rector of Crayke, and they are worthy of his high
reputation. t It was not because their doctrine was protestant, but because it
was catholic, that our Reformers and such Divines as Jewell, Nowell,
Hooker, and Andrews defended the doctrines ofthe English Reformation,
And in the declaration of faith which our Reformers directed to be
made by ministers, they were required to say of the Book of Common
Prayer, " that it is catholic, apostolic, and most for the edifying of
God's people," — Strype's Annals, vol. l,pt. i. p. 327,

42

Again :
" Why, then, should we trust tbem in relation to what they
pretend concerning the fathers, the ancient councUs, and the
Scriptures ? They have not, O good God ! they have not, on
their side, what they pretend to have; tbey have neither
antiquity, nor universality, nor the consent of either all times or
aU nations :* and of this they are not ignorant themselves, though
they craftUy dissemble their knowledge ; yea, at times, tbey will
not obscurely confess it ; and, therefore, they — the Romanists, —
sometimes wUl allege that the sanctions of tbe ancient councils
and fathers are such as may lawfully be changed ; for different
decrees, they say, wUl best suit the diiferent state of the Church
in different times." What foUows is most important in the
present state of the Romish controversy : — " And so they hide
themselves under the name of a Church, and by a wretched sham
delude mankind," Ibid.
" Thus," says Bishop Jewell, when defending the English
reformers, " have we been taught by Christ, the apostles, and
BY THE HOLY FATHERS, and WC do faithfuUy teach the chUdren of
God the same things, and for so doing are we to be caUed
heretics by their great high priests ?t Oh ! immortal God !
Have Christ and his apostles, and so many fathers, all erred ?
What, are Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gelasius,
and Theodoret, apostates from the Catholic faith ? Was the
consent of so many bishops and learned men nothing but a
conspiracy of heretics? Or that wbich was commendable in
tbem, is it now blameable in us ? Or that wbich was once true,
is it now, because it displeaseth them, become false ?"
Chap, iii, sect. 2,
He elsewhere aflBrms : —
" When they, the Papists, have thus left nothing unsaid
wbich can possibly be, though never so falsely and slanderously,
objected against us, yet at least tbey cannot pretend that we
have forsaken the Word of God, or the apostles of Christ, or
the primitive church," — Chap, iv, sect. 18,
Again : —
" We, the EngUsh Reformers, have approached, as nearly as
possibly we could do, the Church of the apostles, and the ancient
Catholic bishops and fathers, which we know was yet a perfect,
* He evidently alludes here to the Rule of Vineentius,
t Ultra-Protestants in these days, humbly imitating the high priest
of Rome, the Pope, have gone so far as to call those who do, as
Jewell tells us the English Reformers did, who teach the doctrine of
Christ, of the apostles, and of the holy fathers, heretics. It may be
well for them to see in whose steps they are treading, while an interesting
work might be published on the Popery of Ultra-protestantism,

43

and, as Tertullian* saith, an unspotted virgin, and not con
taminated with any idolatry, or any great or public error.
Neither have we only reformed our doctrine, and made it like
theirs, but we have also brought tbe celebration of the Saora^
ments and the forms of our public rites and prayers to an exact
resemblance with their institutions or customs," — Chap, vi, 15,
Nothing can be raore clear than this statement of the
intention of our Reformers, and of their principles of
Reforraation, I need hardly remind the learned reader that all this
is perfectly in accordance with the memorable challenge
of Bishop Jewell to the advocates of Romanism, After
enumerating the chief points of difference between the
friends of the Reformation and the advocates of the
Roraish corruptions, he boldly says, " If any man alive
were able to prove any of these articles by any one clear
or plain clause or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of
the old doctors, or of any old general council, or by any
example of the primitive Church, I proraised thera that I
would give over and subscribe unto hira." And he repeats
the challenge : " If any one of our adversaries be able to
avouch any one of all these articles by any sufficient
authority of Scripture, doctors, or councils, as I have
required, as I said before, so say I now again, I am
content to yield to him and subscribe," — Sermon on 1 Cor.
at Paul' 8 Cross, 1560,
We find a similar challenge made by Archbishop
Cranmer, a very short tirae before his death : — " Where
fore by your own description and rule of a Catholic faith,
your doctrine and teaching in these four articles cannot be
good and Catholic, except you can find it in plain terras in
the Scripture, and old Catholic doctors, which when you do
I will hold up my hand at the bar, and say guilty. And
if you cannot, then it is reason that you do the like, per
legem talionis." — (Answer to Gardyner. Works, iii, 42,)
* It is observable that what Bishop Jewell here quotes as a dictum
of Tertullian is in fact from Hegesippus apud Euseb. Hist, iii, 32,

44

I raay observe, by the way, that the principle on
which Cranraer acted was well understood by his contem
poraries, as appears, for instance, by the following verses,
by J, Parkhurst, prefixed to the edition of this work,
published in 1580 :
Accipe proeclarum, lector studiose, libellum,
Quem tibi Cranmerus scripserat ante rogos,
Hic docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxin,
Insistens, patres quas docuere, viis.
We find our divines still influenced by the same
principle in the reign of Jaraes I, when certain corarais-
sioners were appointed by the King to exaraine into the
conduct of Antonio de Dorainis, Archbishop of Spalatro,
Araong other things, in the course of debate, the Arch
bishop complained " that we had raade a schisra, and set
up a new altar against an old altar. We answered," say
the episcopal divines, in their account of what took
place, " That our altar was an old altar, conformable to that of the
primitive Church, and that all innovations were from them, (the
Papists,) and that herein we were content to be judged concern
ing those offices which we execute at the altar by the writings qf
the fathers, the first general councils and ancient liturgies, unto
which we did constantly adhere." — M. Ant. de Dominis, Ahp. of
Spalatro, his shif tings in religion, 1624,
But to return to the canons. The observance of the
ember days is enjoined in the 31st canon, because of " the
holy and religious exaraple of the ancient fathers of the
Church." In the 32d canon the office of deacon is
regarded as " a step or degree in the rainistry according
to the judgment of the ancient fathers and the practice of
the primitive Church?'
The Homilies so abound with references to the Fathers
that I shall only quote from them one passage : —
" Before all things this we must be sure of especiaUy that
this Supper be done and ministered, as our Lord and Saviour did
and commanded to be done, as the holy apostles used it, and the
good fathers of the primitive Church frequented it."— Horn, eon
cerning the Sacrament, part iii.

45

We may observe, further, that on this same principle
of deference to the Fathers our present authorized transla
tion of the Scripture was conducted : one of the rules laid
down for the observance of the translators being : —
" When any word has several significations, that whioh has
been commonly used hy the most celebrated fathers should be
preferred," — Collier, ' Eccles. Biit. ii, p. 694.
Allusion is made in the preceding discourse to the
Hampton Court and Savoy conferences. The reader has
only to refer to the proceedings of the former conference
in Collier, ii, 674, to see how the English Bishops, true to
the principles of the English Reformation, defended all
our usages before King Jaraes on the authority of the
fathers and priraitive practice. And in the commission
for the Savoy conference, in 1661, the comraissioners are
appointed " to advise upon and revise the said Book of
Common Prayer; coraparing the sarae with the most
ancient Liturgies which have been used in the Church in
the priraitive and purest times." — Collier, ii. p. 877- At
the conference itself, to that part of the proposal that
prayers raay consist of nothing doubtful, or questioned by
pious, learned, and orthodox persons, the episcopal divines
reply, that
" Since it is not defined and ascertained who those orthodox
persons are, they must either take all those for orthodox persons
wbo have the assurance to afiirm thamselves such, and if so, the
demand is unreasonable. For some who deny the divinity of the
Son of God will style themselves orthodox, and yet there is no
reason we should part with an article of our creed for their satis
faction. Besides, the proposal requires an impossibility. For
there never was, nor ever will be, any prayers couched in such a
manner as not to be questioned by some people who call them
selves pious, learned, and orthodox. But if hy orthodox is meant
only ihose who adhere to Scripture, and the Catholic consent of
antiquity, they are not of opinion that any part of the EngUsh
Liturgy has been questioned by such," — Collier, U. p. 880,
It was from this respect for tradition that by the Puri
tans the Church of England was called " The Church of

46

THE Traditioners." Thus, in the celebrated "Protesta
tion of the Puritans," in 1573, the Puritan is raade to
protest : — " I have now joined rayself to the Church of
Christ" — raeaning a sect of Puritans —
" Which if I should now again forsake and join myself with
their traditions, I should forsake tbe union wherein I am knit to
the body of Christ, and join myself to the discipline of Antichrist.
For in the Church of the Traditioners (i. e. the Church of
England) there is no other discipline than that which bath been
maintained by the Antichristian Pope of Rome ; whereby the
Church of God hath always been afiUcted, and is until this day.
For the which cause I refuse them."
Strype's Life of Ahp Parler, \\.p. 281
I ara well aware that some persons venture to assert
that the Reformers had no such deference themselves for
tradition, but only employed tradition as a useful kind of
argument against the Romanists. Not to mention that this
is a gratuitous assertion, borue out by no ons single fact,
and not to insist upon the proof already given that a defe
rence to tradition and to the fathers has been always
manifested in all our authorized documents and debates, I
will now direct the attention of the reader to the private
writings of our reformed divines. Those writings are,
indeed, of no more authority than the writings of any
other author not pubhcly recognized by the Church, but
they are useful as serving to throw light on the sense
in which our services were understood by them. Even
Latimer and Hooper aflirmed that " they never advanced
any thing but what is agreeable to Holy Scripture and the
Catholic faith." — Collier, ii, 277, With respect to Arch
bishop Cranraer, the difficulty is to raake a selection from
his works, which abound with references to the Fathers,
In his celebrated answer to Smythe's preface, he thus
announces his rule of faith : " As for me I ground my
belief upon God's Word, wherein can be no error, having
also the consent of the primitive Church."  Works vol
Ui. p, 3,

47

These were araong his last words : —
"Touching my doctrine of tbe Sacrament, and other my
doctrine, of what kind soever it be, I protest that it was never
my mind to write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to
tbe most boly Word of God, or else against the holy Catholic
Church of Christ, but purely and simply to imitate and teach
those things only which I had learned from the sacred Scriptures,
and of the holy Catholic Church of Christ from the beginning,
and also according lo the exposition of the most holy and learned
fathers and martyrs of the Church.
" And if any thing bath peradventure chanced otherwise
than I thought, I may err; but heretic I cannot be, forasmuch
as / am ready in all things to follow tlie judgment of the most
sacred Word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church, desiring
none other thing than meekly and gently to be taught, if any
where (wbich God forbid) I have swerved from the truth.
" And I profess and openly confess, that in all my doctrine
and preaching, both of tbe Sacrament, and of other my doctrine
whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge those things, as
the Catholic Church and the most holy fathers of old with one
accord have meant and judged, but also I would gladly use
the same words that they used, and not use any other words,
but to set my hand to all and singular their speeches, phrases,
ways, and forms of speech, which they do use in the treatises
upon the Sacrament, and to keep still their interpretation. But
in this thing I only am accused for a heretic, because I allow not
the doctrine lately brought in of the Sacrament, and because I
consent not to words not accustomed in Scripture and unknown
to tbe ancient fathers, but newly invented and brought in by
men, and tending to tbe destruction of souls, and overthrow of
the old and pure religion,"
Appeal from the Pope to the next General Council.
Works, vol. iv, pp. 126, 127.
It may indeed be shrewdly suspected that had these
words been uttered in these days, by any of those high
churchmen who are the representatives of the English
Reformers, they would have caused the press to groan
with various anathematizing protests, and the platforra to
echo with eloquent declaraations on the revival of Popery
deviation from the principles of the reformation, &c. Sec*

• The absurdity of these uncharitable platform denunciations must
be apparent to every one. The Rev. Mr. A. arrogantly denounces the
opinions of the Rev, Mr: B, as popish, or tending to Popery Mr. B,
repels the eharge, and why should Mr. A, be more infallible than Mr,

48

But let us turn from one of our martyr-reformers to
another, to that unflinching high-churchman Bishop
Ridley :—
" In that the Church of God is in doubt, I use herein the
wise counsel of Vineentius Lirinensis, whom I am sure you wiU
allow, who giving precepts how the Catholic Church may be in
aU schisms and heresies known, writeth in this manner : 'When,'
saith be, ' one part is corrupted with heresies, then prefer the
whole world before that one part ; but if the greatest part be
infected, then prefer antiquity,' In like sort now, wben I
perceive tbe greatest part of Christianity to be infected with
the poison of the see of Rome, / repair to the usage of the
primitive Church." — Ridley's Life of Ridley, pp. 613, 614.
Again :
"For we have, (high praise be given to God therefore,)
most plainly, evidently, and clearly on our side, all the prophets,
aU the apostles, and undoubtedly all the ancient ecclesiastical
writers which have written until of late years past (usque ad
tempora neotericorum.) — Translation qf a Letter to his Brethren
in Captivity, Martyrs' Letters, pp. 29, 30,
What indeed was it that recoraraended Ridley in the
first instance to Cranraer ? "His well known acquaintance
with Scripture and the fathers." — Soame's His. of Ref.
iii, 28. And " the result of this honourable perseverance
in his studies was a gradual but firra conviction that
Popery was the religion neither of Scripture nor of eccle
siastical antiquity^ — Ib. iii, 28,
Nay, why were our reformers burnt .'' Let Bradford
give the answer': " To believe as the Word of God teacheth,
the primitive Church believed, and all the Catholic and
good holy fathers taught for five hundred years at least
after Christ, will not serve, and therefore I ara conderaned
and burned out of hand." — Martyrs'' Letters, p. 270,
B, when Mr. B. in his turn denounces the opinions of Mr, A, as
Socinian or tending to Infidelity ? For my part, I am free to confess
that I am opposed to the opinions maintained by those who call them
selves Low Churchmen, on this very ground : I believe it to be only
on account of their being bad Logicians, that they are not Socinians :
I believe that they ought to be, if consistent, both Dissenters and
Socinians. If they accuse Church-principles of tending to Popery,
we think that their opinions must lead logical and unprejudiced minds
to Socinianism.

49
Mr. Churton, in his very learned and judicious
Visitation Sermon, frora which this quotation is taken,
observes that " similar declarations are to be found in the
Letters of the Martyrs, Laurence Saunders to Stephen
Gardiner, p. 202-3, Robert Glover, a layraan, p. 535,
and Cariless, p. 614." — Churton^s 'Visitation Sermon, p. 25.
To this I wiU add the following very useful remarks
by Bishop Cheny ; whose character was aspersed raost
fiercely by the Puritans, but is defended by Strype,
(Annals i, i, 422.) Cheney was one of the six reformers
who, in the first convocation of Queen Mary's reign, being
then Archdeacon of Hereford, " undertook boldly the
cause of the gospel in a disputation against almost the
whole synod." The following extracts are from a sermon
delivered when he was Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
in Bristol Cathedral : —
"These new writers in matters of controversy, as Mr. Calvin
and others, agree not together, but are at dissention among
themselves, and are together by the ears. Therefore take heed of
them. Yet read them : for in opening the text, they do pass
many of the old fathers. And they are excellently well learned
in the tongues : but in matters now in controversy follow them
not, but follow the old fathers and doctors, although Mr. Calvin
denieth some of them." '' Scriptures, Scriptures, do you cry ?
Be not too hasty : for so the heretics always cried, and bad
the Scriptures. I would ask this question ; I have to do with
an heretic ; I bring Scripture against bim; and he will confess it
to be Scripture. But he will deny the sense that I bring it for.
How now ? How shall this be tried ? Marry, hy consent of
Fathers only, and not by others" " Good people, I must now
depart shortly. Keep, therefore, this lesson with you. Believe
not, neither follow this city, nor yet 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ; but follow
you the Catholic and universal consent." — Strype's Annals,i.pt.2,
pp. 278-280, For preaching thus, certain puritan Aldermen of the
city of Bristol complained of their Bishop, but the fact
that their complaint was disregarded only serves to shew
that in preaching thus he only preached, when in prosperity,
the doctrines of that Reformation, which, in adversity and
at peril of his life, he had maint.ained with such boldness.

50
From this circurastance we raay see that the High-
Church English Reformers and their disciples did not in
those days, any more than in these, escape the reproaches
of Ultra-protestants, and what follows will shew that the
teraper of Ultra-protestantisra was not one whit more
tolerant or Christian than it is now,
" There came unto Bernard Gilpin" (a confessor though not
a martyr of the Reformation) " a certaine Cambridge man, who
seemed a very great schoUer, and bee dealt earnestly with Mr.
Gilpin touching the discipline and reformation of the Church.*
Mr. Gilpin tould him that he could not allow that an human
invention should take place in the Church instead of a divine insti
tution. 'And how ? Doe you thinke,' saith the man, ' that this
form of discipline' (that of the Ultra-protestants or Puritans) ' is
a human invention?' 'I am,' saith Mr. Gilpin, 'altogether of
that mind. And as many as shaU have turned over the writings
of auncient fathers will be of mine opinion. I suspect that form
of discipline which appeareth not to have been received by any
auncient Chnrch." " 'But yet,' saith the man, 'latter men do see
many things which those auncient fathers saw not ; and the
present Church seemeth better provided of many ingenious and
industrious men.' Mr. Gilpin seemed somewhat moved at that
word, and replied : ' I for my part do not hould tbe virtues of
tbe latter men worthy to be compared witb the infirmities of the
fathers.' The other man made answer that he supposed Mr.
Gilpin to be in error in that point." — Life of Gilpin. Words
worth. Biog. iv. p. 122.
Many raen may at the present time be of " the other
raan's opinion," and despise " the auncient fathers," — of
course, I mean, after deep study of them; but they ought
not to accuse, as popish, and inimical to the principles
of the English Reforraation, those who tread in the steps
of Gilpin, and Ridley, and Cranraer, and a host of others
who raight be naraed. On the passage above quoted, Dr,
Wordsworth makes the following note, which, as eluci
dating our subject, I shall now transcribe : —
'' The Puritans seem to have been very little scrupulous in
exalting themselves and their partizans to the disparagement of
ha "J'^'lu ^° '"s'^^ce ofwhat will be shewn in a future citation to
when on?n»?.P''"?^°' °P'"'°" f'*"" Ultra-Protestants from the time
gonT fer enough'"'' ""^^ completed, that the Reformation had not

51

former ages, 'I have heard it credibly reported,' says Dr, Bancroft,
' that in a certain college at Cambridge, when it happened that
in their disputations the autboritye either of St. Augustin, or of
St. Ambrose, or of St. Jerome, or of any other of the ancient
fathers ; nay, the whole consent of them altogether is aUeged :
it is rejected with very great disdaine ; as what tell you me of St.
Augustine, or St. Ambrose, or of the rest ? I regard them not
a rush. Were tbey not men ? Whereas at other time when it
happeneth that a man of another humour doth answere, if it fall
out that he being pressed with the authority either of Calvin
or Beza shall chance to deny it ; you shall see some begin to
smile in commiseration of such the poor man's simplicity ; some
grow to be angry in regard of such presumption ; and some will
depart away, accounting such a fellow not worthy the hearing.'
Survey of the pretended Holy DiscipUne, p. 64, compare p. 329.
And Sir Francis Bacon, speaking of the same mal-content party
tells us, that they no more scruple to set themselves above the
first reformers and martyrs, than they did over the ancient fathers,
" as in aflfection they challenge the virtues of zeal and tbe rest ;
so in knowledge they attribute unto themselves light and per
fection. They say the Church of England in King Edward's
time, and in the beginning qf her Majestfs reign, was hut in
the cradle : and the bishops of those times did somewhat grope
for daybreak ; but that maturity and fulness of light proceedeth
from themselves," — Of. Ch. Controversies. Works, ii. p. 384,
Edit. 1753,
Such and so multiplied being the testimonies to the
principle on which our Reformation was conducted, and so
easily accessible to the student, as contained in the public
documents of the Church, and the most popular records and
memorials of the tirae, it does appear somewhat astonishing
that there should be found professed members of the Church
of England who think that they can consistently declaim
against the use of tradition, decry the appeal to antiquity,
and depreciate the Fathers ; nay more, they should go the
length of denouncing those who defer to the rule of primi
tive doctrine and primitive practice, as persons who have
departed from the principles of the English Reformation,
The want of information betrayed by these accusers,
discreditable as it is, is still more offensive when it is
found, as too frequently is the case, accorapanied with a
want of candour and a tone of insult towards those
d2

52
whom they cannot or will not understand,* Such contro
versialists are best characterised in the following extract
frora Mr, Palraer's Treatise on the Church, Strong as it
is, it is not too strong a protest against the practices
of which I complain ; and its statements of the true
position of the EngUsh Church are otherwise clear and
important, " Tbe various methods which these men employ in endea
vouring to prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church
may be classed under the foUowing heads : —
" 1. Systematic misrepresentation,
" We do not appeal in proof of Christian doctrine, to the
ancient Christian writers as in any way infallible. Our sentiments
on this head are well known: they have been repeatedly explained.
We bold that tbe doctrine of any father, however great and
learned he may have been, e. g. that of Augustine, Athanasius,
Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point where it contra
dicts Scripture. We consider all these writers as uninspired
men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors like other theolo-
gians.t Therefore it involves a studied misrepresentation of our
• An instance of this may be given in a work just advertised under
the title of " Revelation not Tradition." This title is evidently assumed
to imply thatthe advocates ofthe English Reformation elevate tradition
above the Bible, or that they place tradition on an equality vrith it-^
thereby insinuating a gross and uncharitable falsehood.
t This shews the useless trouble that some persons take, in these
times, who think that they can set aside the principle of deference to
antiquity, if, by cliance, they can detect any absurdity in the writings of
any ofthe fathers. The depth of scriptural learning and scriptural piety
to be found in the pages of the primitive fathers and martyrs of the
Christian Church will always excite the admiration, as it did that ofthe
English reformers, of all who consult their writings without prejudice.
Their excellence is, if possible, still more strongly attested by the fact,
that when they were assailed in the seventeenth century, by some
Protestants of real learning but perverted judgment, no charge of any
importance could be substantiated against them, and the attempt to set
aside their usefulness in deciding controversy was so triumphantly
refuted, that it has never been revived by any name respectable for
learning or talent. The appeal to their ¦writings can never, in fact, be
dispensed with, unless it can be shewn, not only that they /xbound in
erroneous private interpretations, but that they are incompetent moral
evidence to a question of fact, and cannot be considered as exhibiting to
us the faith and practice of tlie Church in their time. Such books as
have lately appeared in depreciation of the Fathers, written by men
ignorant of the languages in which the Fathers wrote, and utterly
unacquainted with Ecclesiastical History, are, indeed, fit only to be
regarded as Jesf-6oo*s in the leamed world; but the spirit of slavish
mockery which tliey breathe, still finds acceptance, as every thing else
does, which flatters the pride of reason and favours the indolence of
man.

53

meaning and principle, when we are met by assertions or proofs
that particular fathers have taught errors in faith or morality ;
that they were credulous; that their writings are in some
points obscure ; that their criticisms or interpretations of Scrip
ture are sometimes mistaken ; that they invented scholastic
doctrines, and were tinged with false philosophy; that tbe later
fathers were better theologians than the earlier ; that there are
fathers against fathers, and councils against councils, on some
points. This is all calculated merely to excite prejudice against
an appeal to the doctrine of the Church, by misrepresenting our
design and principle in making it. Our answer to all these
arguments is, that we do not appeal to the fathers as inspired
and authoritative writers, but as competent vritnesses of the
faitii held by Christians in their days. If they are not to be
trusted in this, they are not to be trusted in their testimony
to the facts of Christianity, and the external evidence of
revelation is subverted,
" 2. Pretended respect for Religion.
" Under this head may be classed that mode of argument
wliich rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the Christian Church,
under pretence that the word of God alone ought to be the rule
of our faith in opposition to all the doctrines of man ; that the
Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of faith, needing nothing else ;
that it must necessarily be plain in all essential points, and that
it is its own interpreter. The end of all this pretended reverence
for Scripture is, to obtain an unlimited liberty of interpreting it
according to our own reason and judgment, even in opposition to
the belief of all Christians from the beginning. But in asserting
this liberty to all men, it follows inevitably that no particular
interpretation of Scripture is necessary to salvation ; that Scripture
has no divine meaning; that it is not a revelation. In short,
tradition is thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the
Scripture, in order that men may be enabled to distort or misin
terpret, and to destroy that very Scripture,
" Tlie same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the
defence of the reformation, which infidels, unitarians, and other
enemies of the doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as a
plea for rejecting all appeal to the doctrines of the universal
Church, " The doctrines of the reformation" they say, " cannot
be defended if this appeal is allowed : popery must triumph."'
Excellent men ! They wUl maintain the reformation at aU
hazards : all evidence shall be pronounced worthless if it be opposed
to the interests of that sacred cause. But what is tbe end sought
by all this pretended devotion ? It is, that every man may be
permitted, without any check, to interpret Scripture in such a
manner as to subvert all the doctrines of the reformation, whether
positive or negative, to prove the reformation Uself needless,
d3

54
erroneous, bigoted, equally absurd as tbe system to which
it was opposed, and more inconsistent. I charge these men
with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was there a more daring
attempt to palm an imposture on the credulous and unthinking,
then this efi'ort of deists and heretics to set aside tradition under
pretence of «eal for the Reformation, They are the opponents
of tbe Reformation, They are the representatives of those
whom the Reformation condemned. They reject its doctrines,
they charge it with ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, errors as
gross as those of Popery, They have separated from its
reformed institutions, as anti-christian, and only exist by a
perpetual attack upon them. The Reformation bas no connexion
with these men ; its defence belongs exclusively to those who
maintain its doctrines, and adhere to its institutions ; and they
alone are proper judges of the mode of argument suited to ita
interests. " 3, Statements directly untrue.
" Under this head may be included tbe palmary argument
employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of the
Church Universal, namely, that it was the principle of the
Reformation to reject any such appeal ; and its principle was
' the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.' Nothing can be
more untrue than this assertion : the Reformation as a whole
acknowledged and appealed to tbe authority of Catholic tradition,
though it denied the infallibility of particular fathers and
councils. With equal veracity it is asserted that the Church of
England rejects tradition by ber sixth article of religion, when
it is manifest that her object is simply to maintain the necessity
of scriptural proof for articles of faith ; while our canons, our
ritual, and the whole body of our theologians, have so notori
ously upheld the authority of tradition, that it is a subject, of
unmeasured complaint on the part of those who disbelieve the
doctrines of the church.
" The nature of those various arguments testifies sufficiently
that the doctrine of the Universal Church is opposed to those who
employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of despair on
this point, which could have induced men to resort to perpetual
misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths. The
employment of those weapons by all sects, in order to prevent
any appeal to universal tradition, proves two points. First, as
the sole fundamental principle on which they all agree is, the
rejection of an appeal to the doctrines of thc Church as a check
on the interpretation of Scripture, and the assertion of an
unlimited right of private interpretation; this principle is the
source of all their divisions and contradictions, and therefore
must be radicaUy false. Secondly, the doctrine of the Universal
Church from the beginning must condemn that of aU modem

55

sects in every point in which they diflfer from our Catholic and
Apostolic Churches ; and therefore on every such point they
are in error, and misinterpret Scripture, and the Church is
in the right." — Palmer. Treatise on the Church, ii. 55.
To this I cannot refrain from appending the follow.
ing spirited remarks from another celebrated modern
author, the Rev, George Stanley Faber, whose learned
work " On Election" ought to be in the hands of every
one who wishes to distinguish Scriptural truth from both
Calvinistic and Armenian error,
" The principle, for which I contend, is so thoroughly
rational and so perfectly intelligible, that, to every honestly
investigating mind, it oannot faU most amply to approve itself.
Yet a member of the Anglican Church may be additionally
satisfied, when he learns that the principle before us is tbe
very principle adopted by that truly apostolic community.
" Renouncing the self-sufiicient licentiousness of that mis
called and misapprehended right of private judgment, which
dogmatically pronounces ujson the meaning of Scripture from a
mere insulated inspection of Scripture, and whioh rapidly
decides that such must be the sense of Scripture, because an
individual thinks that sucb is the sense of Scripture : renouncing
this self-sufiicient and strangely unsatisfactory licentiousness,
the Church of England, with her usual sober and modest
judiciousness, has always professed to build her code of doctrine,
authoritatively, indeed, upon Scripture alone, but hermeneu-
tically upon Scripture as understood and explained by
primitive Antiquity.
" Herein she has judged weU and wisely.
" Scripture and Antiquity are the two pillars upon which
all rationally-established faith must ultimately repose.
" If we reject Scripture, we reject the very basis of
theological belief. If we reject Antiquity, we reject all historical
evidence of soundness of interpretation.
" When in our inquiries after revealed truth the two are
combined, we attain to moral certainty : and in matters
which by their very nature admit not of mathematical proof,
moral certainty is the highest point to which we can possibly
attain." — Faber on Election, pp. 11, 13,
Again he says in another place :
" Among unread or half-read persons of our present some
what confident age, it is a not uncommon saying : That they
disregard the early Fathers : and that they rvill abide bv
nothing save the decision of Scripture alone.

56
" If by a disregard of the early Fathers tbey mean that
they allow them not individually that personal authority in
exposition wbich the Romanists claim for them, they certainly
will not have me, at least, for an opponent : And, accordingly,
I have shewn that, in the interpretation of the Scripture terms
Election and Predestination, I regard tbe isulated individual
authority of Augustine, just as little as I regard the insulated
individual authority of Calvin,
" But, if, by a disregard of the early Fathers, tbey mean
that they regard them not as evidence to the pact of tvhat
doctrines were or were not received by tbe Primitive Church,
and from her were or were not delivered to posterity ; they might
just as rationally talk of the surpassing wisdom of extinguishing
the light of history by way of more eft'ectually improving and
increasing our knowledge of past events ; for, in truth, under
the aspect in which tbey are specially important to us, the
early Fathers are neither more nor less than so many historical
witnesses. " Again : if, by An abiding solely by the decision qf
Scripture, tbey mean that, as a binding or authoritative rule of
faith, they will receive nothing save what is contained in
Scripture; no person, I suppose, who rejects that idle supple
mental tradition which the Council of Trent invites us to
receive with the same confidence as Holy Scripture itself, wUl
think of difi"ering from them : for the Bible, and the Bible alone,
is doubtless the rule of faith with all Protestants.
" But, if, by An abiding solely hy the decision of Scripture,
they mean that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal
system of that primitive Church which conversed with and was
taught by tbe apostles, they will abide by nothing save their
own crude and arbitrary private expositions of Scripture ; we
certainly may well admire their intrepidity, whatever we may
think of their modesty : for, in truth, by such a plan, while
they call upon us to despise tbe sentiments of Christian
antiquity so far as we can learn them upon distinct historical
testimony, tbey expect us to receive without hesitation, and
as undoubted verities, their own mere modern upstart specula
tions upon the sense of God's holy word ; that is to say, the
evidence of the early Fathers and the hermeneutic decisions of
the primitive Church we may laudably and profitably contemn,
but themselves we must receive (for they themselves are
content to receive themselves) as well nigh certain and infallible
expositors of Scripture."
Faber on the Primitive Doctrine qf Election, p. 184,

57
Note C, page 13,
LUTHERANS,
On this subject see Palme/s Treatise on the Church
of Christ, P. i, ch. xii, sec. 2, Having produced a variety
of proof to shew the principle on which the early
Lutherans acted, he says, " All these things prove that
the Lutherans did not voluntarily separate from the
Church ; and that, at all events, for a long time, they
desired to be re-united to its full communion," No small
number of Protestants, in succeeding ages, considered them
as having gone to very unjustifiable lengths, and raade
rauch too large concessions for the sake of peace ; but the
truth is, they were deeply and duly impressed with the
evils of separation, and its contradiction to the divine will ;
and felt that no obstacles, except those which arose from
certain, clear, and irrefragable necessity, ought to prevent
union, " It is clear that the Lutherans did not wish to separate
from the Church, and that they were ready to make concessions
to regain its communion. It would be, also, a great mistake to
suppose that Luther, or his party, designed to eflect a refor
mation of the Church :* they were driven entirely by the force
of circumstances to adopt the course they did; it was not
premeditated nor desired by them. They would have widely
altered the Lutheran system, which was a merely temporary
arrangement, if by so doing they eould have recovered the
communion of the Church. But the opposition of the Roman
see thwarted these designs, the Council of Trent rendered them
still more diflicult ; and, in time, the Lutherans forgot that their
system was merely provisional, pretended to justify it as
ordinary and sufficient, and lost their desire for accommodation
with the Roman and German Churches, PaJ»i«r,i.j(?^, 370,371,
* That is to say, they did not intend, as individuals, to reform the
Church, for which they could have no authority, but only to suggest to
the consideration of the Church the reformation which was unquestion
ably required, and which was accordingly effected in our own country
by the Church itself.

58

Note D. p. 14,
THE PURITANS AND ULTRA-PROTESTANTS ATTACHED
TO THE FOREIGN REFORMATION, AND DISCON
TENTED WITH THE ENGLISH REFORMERS FOR NOT
GOING FAR ENOUGH,
As it is natural to suppose, there was a party in
England who, frora the beginning, wished to force the
Endish Reforraers to extreme measures, and in the
Marian persecution,
" Some of these going to Geneva, and other places, which
had embraced the model of Reformation settled by Calvin, they
became fond of those foreign novelties, and some of them at
Frankford, in the year 1554, began an alteration of tbe
Liturgy, and did what they could to draw others to them ; and
to these men Knox, the great incendiary of Scotland, afterwards
joined himself; and not long after one Whitehead, a zealous
Calvinist, but of a much better temper than Knox : not con
tented with this alteration, the fifteenth of November, 1554,
they writ letters in open defiance of the English Liturgy to
them of Zurick, who defended it in a letter of the 28th of the
same month."
" Grindal and Chambers were sent from Strasburgh to
Frankford to quiet these innovators, but to no purpose ; so
returning back again, the English, at Strasburgh, wrote to them
the I3th of December, all which procured no other regard for
tbem, but only to obtain Calvin's judgment of it, wbich being
suitable to their own, as there was no wonder it should, things
continued thus tiU the IStli of March following, when Dr.
Richard Cox entered Frankford, drove Knox out, and re-settled
the Liturgy there. Whereupon, in the end of August following,
Fox, with some few others, went to BasU ; but the main body
followed Knox and Goodman to Geneva, their mother city (as
Dr. Heylyn styles it), where they made choice of Knox and
Goodman for their constant preachers ; under which ministry
they rejected the whole frame and fabric of the Reformation made
in England in King Edward's time, and conformed themselves
wholly to tbe fashions of tbe Church of Geneva," &c.
Life of Jewell. WordswortKs Biography, iv. 37.
In answer to an address from the English at Frankfort
Calvin wrote thus in condemnation of the English Reformers :
" I cannot always think it profitable to comply with the
foolish waywardness of some few men," (i. e. the English
Reformers) " who are resolved to remit nothing of their ancient

59
customs. I cannot but observe many tolerable fooleries in the
English Liturgy, toleraUlis ineptias, such as you have described
it to me. By which two words, tolerable fooleries, I mean only
this, that there is not such purity and perfection as was to be
desired in it ; which imperfections, notwithstanding, not being to
be remedied at first, were to be borne with for a tmio, in regard
that no manifest impiety was retained in them. It was therefore
so far lawful to begin witb such beggarly rudiments that tho
learned, grave, and godly ministers of Christ might be encouraged
for proceeding further in setting out somewhat which might
prove more pure and perfect. If true reUgion had flourished till
this time in the Church of England, it had been necessary that
many things in that book" (the Book of Common Prayer)
" should have been omitted and others altered to the better."
He afterwards expresses his dislike of those who by being attached
to the Book of Common Prayer " are so much delighted with tlie
dregs of Popery." The answer and Judgment of that famous and
excellent learned man Mr. John Calvin, the
late pastor of Geneva, touching the Book of
England, after he had perused the same
faithfully translated into Latin hy Mr.
Whiltingham.
See also Heylyn's History of the Presbyterians,
pp. 15, 16.
" Some of the EngUsh exUes, who had been friendly enter
tained in Switzerland and Geneva, came home prepossessed in
favour of the model of these Churches ; and thus being dis-
aff"ected to our Book of Common Prayer, they would have gladly
set up a foreign establishment'' — Collier. Eccles. Hist. ii. 417.
" Upon Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the English
exiles at Geneva seemed wOling to make up the old difference
with their brethren, and moved towards a reconciliation. But
then their proposals are somewhat narrow and reflecting ; they
called the ceremonies trifles, they proposed the best reformed
Churches, that is, Calvin's Congregation, for the measure of
agreement," — Collier, ii, 412.
Hence arose the two parties alluded to in the sermon,
whom we may designate Protestants and Ultra-protestants,
meaning by Protestants those who were attached to the system
of the English, and by tbe Ultra-protestants those who were
attached to the system of the foreign or Swiss reformers, from
whom may be said to be legitimately descended the whole body

60
of Ultra-protestants, who reject aU Church authority, and put
forth, on every occasion, the maxim that " the Bible only forms
the religion of Protestants" ; wliUst, in fact, they invariably
adhere to the modern interpretation of some favourite commen
tator; such as Calvin or Beza, or, in later times, Scott or
Henry ; or (what is yet more convenient) to the exposition of
Scripture by some popular preacher of the day. The Puritans
continued to be supported by foreign influence ; for Beza pro
posed to Archbishop Grindal, " that the Church of England
should unite with the reformed Churches of France, Geneva,
and Switzerland in a common confession of faith. But the
English hierarchy thought it more advisable to stand on their
own bottom, than to incorporate their belief with foreign
systems, and make themselves responsible for every thing
defined by the reformed abroad." — Collier, ii. p. 512,
Beza mentions, in a letter to BuUinger, that the English
Church was, according to his notions, in a lamentable condition ;
that, as he was informed from some of the brethren there.
Popery was never thrown out, but rather transferred from his
Holiness to her Majesty, he formerly hoped that the dispute had
only been about caps and surplices, but now, to his great grief,
be finds tbe controversy goes much further, " Afterwards he
takes notice that Queen Elizabeth had so strong an aversion to
the Geneva Church, that she received the present of his Anno
tations without the least sign of its being welcome." — Collier, ii.
p. 503. Beza was perfectly correct in stating that the dispute
was more than a mere dispute about caps and surplices : the
dispute in reaUty involved a principle, — that principle being
whether the Church of 'England should " conform to the
government" of the ancient Church, or to that of the Genevan
sect : that point once conceded, other alterations would follow as
a matter of course. Hence the zeal on the part of tbe Puritans
to urge, and the determination on the part of tbe English
Reformers to resist, alteration in the ecclesiastical habits and
ceremonies. This was clearly perceived at the time. In 1562
the question relating to the rites and ceremonies was debated in
convocation. Among those who voted for the retention of the

61
old CathoUc rites stiU in use, Strype mentions the Dean of
Westminster and the Chaplains of the Archbishop, (our great
reformer. Archbishop Parker,) Peerson and Ithel, who were
themselves afterwards Bishops.
" These," he says, " bad a great deference for tbe reformation
of religion, as it was settled under King Edward ; and so were
for a strict and unaltered observation of the Liturgy and orders
of it as it then stood. But those who were for alterations, and
stripping the English Church of her usages then retained and
used, were such (as I find by their names subscribed) as had
lately lived abroad in the reformed churches of Geneva, Switzer
land or Germany ; and so out qf partiality to them, endeavoured
to accommodate this Church qf England to their model. But
the divines on the other side reckoned the wisdom, learning, and
piety of Cranmer and Ridley, and the other reformers of this
Church, to be equal, every way, with those of the foreign
reformers." — Strype's Annals, vol. i. pt. i. p. 504.
" Soon after another sort, or rank of tbe same sort arose,"
i. e. the Puritans, " that were not satisfied with the Reformation
of this Church, but would have it reformed again by tbe Word
of God, as they urged, disliking the discipline and government,
and ceremonies thereof; so far forth as it varied from the
Churches" (i. e. Protestant sects,) " abroad ; and out of great
admiration, chiefly of that of Geneva, crying out to have our
Church framed according to their model."
Strype's Annals, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 349,
" Tliese men," says the Biographer of the Reformers in
another place, alluding again to the Puritans, " were especiaUy
angry with the bishops and their order because they were the
chief opposers of their new discipline and preservers of King
Edward's Reformation, and therefore they did what they could
to pull up this hierarchy by the roots, as.gerting it to be Anti
christian and utterly unlawful to be exercised in the Christian
Church," — Strype's Parker, ii, 285,
Hitherto I have adduced a few out of tbe many passages
which might be quoted to shew the foreign origin and foreign
partialities of the Ultra-protestants, I shaU now proceed to
shew, what has abeady been made partially apparent, that the
complaint against the Church of England has been, from the
beginning, that it did not go far enough, — that, in other words,
the EngUsh Reformers were distinguished from the foreign
Reformers, by being High-Churchmen. Strype asserts that the

62
Puritans refused to conform " unless there were a further refor
mation."— Lj/'e qf Grindal, p. 65.* And we find tbe work of
our illustrious Reformers thus described by the historian of the
Puritans :
" The service performed in the Queen's Chapel, and in sun
dry cathedrals, was so splendid and showy that foreigners could
not distinguish it from the Eoman, except that it was performed
in the Enolish tongue. By this method most of the Popish laity
were deceived into conformity, and came regularly to Church
for nine or ten years, till the Pope, being out of all hopes of an
accommodation, forbad them, by excommunicating the Queen,
and laying the whole nation under an interdict."
Neal's Hist, oj the Puritans, i. 156.
This writer had discernment enough to see the object of the
EngUsh Reformers, though he had not the wisdom to approve it,
when he remarked that, " the English reformers wished to depart
no further from the Church of Rome than she from the primitive
Church." Neal, i. 56.
He was correct in this assertion for "sodeine chaunges,"
said our Martyr-Reformer, Bishop Ridley, without substantial and
necessary causes, and the heady setting fortli of extremities, I
did never love." — Martyrs'' Letter.^, p. 40, ed. 1564.
To the wisdom of the course adopted by the English
Reformers ample testimony was borne by Monsieur Rognie, the
French Ambassador, who declared, upon a view of our solemn
service and ceremonies, "if the reformed Churches in France
had kept on the same advantage, of order and decency, I am
confident there would have been many thousand Protestants in
that country more than there is." — Collier, ii. 677- But the
via media of the English Reformers was the great cause of offence
to the Genevan sect in England. For instance, in 1573 we find
our great Refonner, Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury,
under whose primacy our present Ritual and Liturgy were
arranged and tbe Thirty-nine Articles drawn up, writing, in
conjunction with the Bishop of London, to some absent Bishop,
to this eff'ect : —
" Sal. in Christo. These times are troublesome. The Church
IS sore assaulted; but not so much of open enemies, as qf pretended
' See also Annals, vol, ii, pt, 1, p. 274, where they are spoken of as
persons labouring for a still further Reformation."

63

favourers and false brethren, who under colour of reformation
seek the ruin and subversion both of learning and religion."
Strype's Parker, ii. 280,
" Tlio refusers of the orders of the Church, wbo by this
time were commonly called Puritans, were grown now into two
factions. The one was of a more quiet and peaceable demeanour,
who, indeed, would not use the habits or subscribe to the
ceremonies enjoined; as kneeling at the Sacrament, the cross in
baptism, the ring in marriage, but held the communion of the
Church, and willingly and devoutly joined in the Common
Prayers. But another sort there was who disliked the whole
constitution of the Church' lately reformed, charging upon it
many gross remainders qf Popery, and that it was still full of
corruption not to be borne with and anti-christian, and especially
the habits which the clergy were enjoined to use in their conver
sation and administration." — Strype's Grindal, p. 169.
That the same feeling continued to exist till the reign of
Charles I. may be seen from the Letter addressed by order of
the House of Commons, to " the reformed Churches" of Zealand
and Holland by the assembled divines, wherein it is admitted
that then " the contest was for a more thorough Reformation."
And tbe adherents of the English Reformation are described as
an " anti-christian faction, who have all along made it their
business to check the Reformation and cherish Popery" They
add, in order to inflame the Dutch against the exiled English,
" To make their aversion to you still more demonstrable,
abundance of these men have refused to own any of you as a
Christian Church, for being not prelatically constituted they con
ceive your ministrations want a lawful mission, which is essential
to Church governors. And as for ourselves we are sadly sensible
that in all these kingdoms they, (i. e. the clergy of the Church
of England) have prevaUed so far in promoting Popery and
discouraging religion that it would require a volume, rather than
a letter to relate aU particulars.
Rushworth's Collections, part iii. page 391,
In short, we may cite the authority of no less a person than
Henderson, who, in his controversy vrith Charles I. asserts
" that the Laodicean lukewarmness in the English Reformation
had been the constant complaint of many of the godly in this
kingdom." — Collier, n. 842,

64
Let this suffice to shew that whatever charges may be
brought against those, against whom, under the name of High-
Churchmen, an atteinpt is now made to raise a moral persecution,
they cannot, with propriety, be accused of deviating from the
principles of the English Reformation. Of the English Re
formers they are, in fact, the representatives, and it is precisely
on the principles of the EiigUsb Reformers that they oppose the
errors both of Romanists and Ultra-protestants, and uphold
" The Church op the Traditioners."

Note E. page 14.
PROTESTANTS,
The designation of Protestant is used in England as a
general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such,
however, was neither the original acceptation of the word, nor
is it the sense in which it is still applied, on the continent. It
was originally given to those who protested against a certain
decree issued by the Emperor Charles V, and the Diet of Spires
in 1529. — Mosheim, Book iv. 26. On the continent it is applied
as a term to distinguish the Lutheran communions. The
Lutherans are called Protestants ; the Calvinists, the Reformed.
' Tlie use of the word ainong ourselves in a sense different from
that adopted by our neighbours abroad has sometimes led to
curious mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his
zeal to support the Romanists, and not being sufficiently well
instructed in the principles of the Church of England, assumed
it as if it were an indisputable fact tbat^ being Protestants, we
must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation. Having consulted,
probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, he found that
one of the tenets which distinguishes the " Protestant," i. e.
the Lutheran, from tbe " Reformed," i. e. the Calvinist, is
that the former maintains, the latter denies the dogma of
consubstantiation.

65

It is evident that in our application of the word it is a
mere term of negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant,
he only tells us that he is not a Romanist, at the same time he
may be what is worse, a Socinian or even an Infidel, for these
are all united under the comnion principle of protesting against
Popery, The appeUation is not given to us, I believe, in any of
our formularies, and has chiefly been employed in political
warfare as a watchword to rally in one band all who, whatever
may be their religious differences, are prepared to act politically
against the aggressions of the Romanists, In this respect it was
particularly useful at the time of the Revolution, and, as politics
intrude themselves into all the considerations of an Englishman,
either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a powerful
and influential party in the State. But on the very ground that
it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and
unites in apparent agreement those who essentially difl'er, many
of our divines object to the use of the word. They contend,
with good reason, that it is quite absurd to speak of the Pro
testant ReUgion, since a religion must, of course, be distinguished
not by what it renounces, but by what it professes : they appre
hend that it has occasioned a kind of sceptical habit of inquiring
not how much we ought to believe, but how much we may-
refuse to believe ; of looking at what is negative instead of what
is positive in our religion ; of fearing to inquire after the truth
least it should lead to something which is held by the Papists in
comnion with ourselves, and which, therefore, as some persons
seem to argue, no sound Protestant can hold ; forgetting that on
tills principle we ought to renounce the Liturgy, the Sacraments,
tbe doctrine of the Trinity, the deity and atonement of Christ, 
nay, the very Bible itself. It is on tbese grounds that tbe
writers of tbe Oxford Tracts have scrupled to use the word, and
hence they have brought down upon themselves the outpourings
ofthe vials of wrath from all who are weak enough to prefer
words to things, and especiaUy from political divines, and men
who would make religion merely an instrument to serve their
political purposes. I make these observations the more freely
because I differ in this respect from the writers of the Oxford
E

66

Tracts. It is certainly absurd to speak ofthe Protestant religion, —
i. e. a negative religion, but there is no absurdity in speaking of
the Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a Pro
testant Church — the word Church conveys a positive idea, and
there can be no reason why we should not have also a negative
appellation. If we admit that the Church of Rome is a true
though a corrupt Church, it is well to have a term by which we
may ahvays declare that, while we hold in common with her all
that she has which is catholic, scriptural, and pure, we protest
for ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides, the word,
whether correctly or not, is in general use, and is in a certain
sense applicable to the Church of England ; it is surely,
therefore, better to retain it, only ¦warning our congrega
tions that when we caU ourselves Protestants, we mean no
more to profess that we hold communion with all parties who
are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her creeds
and formularies she designates herself not as the Protestant but
as the Catholic Church of this country, intends to hold com
munion with those Catholic Churches abroad which have infused
into their system the principles of the Council of Trent. Pro
testant is our negative, Catholic our definite name. We teU the
Papist that with respect to him we are Protestant ; we tell the
Protestant Dissenter that with respect to him we are Catholics;
and we may be called Protestant or Protesting Catholics, or, as
some of our writers describe us, Anglo-Catholics.

Note F. p, 15.
THE ROMISH SCHISM.
Of this schism the foUowing is a succinct and interesting
account :
" Now at such time as Button, Billingham, and the rest
of the Puritan faction had first made the schism, Harding and
Sanders, and some othera of the Popish fugitives, employed
themselves as busUy in persuading those of that religion to the
like temptation. For being licensed by the Pope to exercise
Episcopal jurisdiction in the realm of England, they take upon

67

them to absolve all such in the Court of Conscience, who should
return to the communion of the Church of Rome; as also to
dispense in causes of irregularity, except it were incurred by
wilful murther ; and finally, from the like irregularities incurred
by heresie, if the party who desired the benefit of tbe absolution,
abstain'd from ministering at the holy altar for three years
together, by means whereof, and the advantages before mentioned,
which were given tbem by the Puritan faction, they drew many
to them from the Church, both priests and people ; their numbers
every day increasing, as the scandal did. And finding how the
sectaries enlarged their numbers by erecting a French Church in
London, and that thoy were upon the point of procuring another
for the use and comfort of the Dutch, they thought it no ill piece
of wisdom to attempt the like in some convenient place near
England, where they might train up their disciples, and fit
them for employment upon all occasions. Upon which ground
a seminary is established for them at Douay, in Flanders,
anno 1568; and another not long after at Rhemes, a city of
Champaigne, in thc realm of France. Such was the benefit
which redounded to the Church of England by the perverseness
of the brethren of this first separation, that it occasioned the
like schism betwixt her and the Papists, who till that time
had kept themselves in her communion, as before was said.
For that the Papists generally did frequent the Church in these
first ten years, is positively aflirmed by Sir Edward Coke, in
his speech at the arraignment of Garnet, tbe Jesuit, and after
wards at the charge which was given by him at the general
assizes held in Norwich. In both of whioh he speaks on his
own certain knowledge, not on vulgar hearsay ; affirming more
particularly that he had many times seen Bedeti/ield, CornwaUis,
and some other of the leading Romanists, at the divine service
of the Church, who afterwards were the first that departed from
it. The like is averred by the most learned Bishop Andrews,
in his_ book called Tortura Torti, p. 130, and there asserted
undeniably against aU opposition. And which may serve instead
of all, we finde the like affirmed also by the Queen herself, in
her instructions given to Walsingham, then being her Resident
with the French King, anno 1570. In which instructions bearing
date on the Uth August, it is affirmed expressly of the heads of
that party, and therefore we may judge the like of the members
also, that they did ordinarily resort, from the beginning of her
reign, in all open places, to ihe Churches, and to divine service in
the Church, without any contradiction or shem ofmisliking.
" The paraUel goes further yet. For as the Puritans were
encouraged to this separation by the Missals and Decretory Letters
of 'Theodore Beza, whom they beheld as the chief Patriarch of
their Church ; so were the Papists animated to their defection by
a BuU of Pope Pius V. whom they acknowledged most un
doubtedly for the head of theirs. For the Pope being thrust on
E 2

68

by tbe importunity of the House of Guise, in favour of the Queen
of Scots, whose title they preferred before that of Elizabeth, and
by the Court of France, in hatred to the Queen herself, for aiding
the French Hugonots against their King, was drawn at last to
issue out this BuU against her, dated at Rome, Feb. 24, 1569,
In which Bull he doth not onely excommunicate her person,
deprive her of her kingdoms, and absolve all ber subjects from
their oaths of allegiance; but commands all her subjects, of what
sort soever, not to obey her laws, injunctions, ordinances, or acts
of state. The defection of the Papists bad before been voluntary,
but is now made necessary ; the Pope's command being super
added to the scandal which had before been given them by the
Puritan faction. For after this tbe going or not going to Church
was commonly reputed by them for a sign distinctive, by which
a Roman Catholick niight be known from an English heretick,
And this appears most plainly by tbe preamble to tbe act of
parliament against bringing or executing of Bulls from Rome —
13 Eliz. 2. Where it is reckoned amongst the eff'ects of those
Bulls and writings, That those who brought them, did by their
lewd practices, and subtile perswasions, work so farforth, that
sundry people, and ignorant persons, have been contented to be
reconciled to the Church qf Rome, and to have withdrawn and
absented themselves from all divine service, most godlily exercised
in this realm. By which it seems, that till the roaring of those
Bulls, those of the Popish party did frequent the Church, though
not so generally in the last five years (as our learned Andrews
hath observed) as tbey did the first, before they were discouraged
by the innovations of the Puritan faction.
Heylin's Historij of the Presbyterians.
Lib. Vi. p. 260,

Note G. p. 16,
ON THE CHARGE OF POPERY BROUGHT AGAINST THE
ENGLISH REFORMERS AND THE FRIENDS OF THE
ENGLISH REFORMATION,
Against those divines who uphold tbe system of the English,
as distinguished from tbe Foreign Reformation, it is sought to
excite the odium of the ignorant, by designating them as Semi-
papists, if not actuaUy Papists in disguise. Doubtless they wiU
rejoice to bear the scandal of the Cross, and to escape the woe
denounced upon those of whom all men speak well, Luke
vi. 26. See also John, xv. 19, They remember our Lord's

69
prophecy. Mat. x. 22, They care little if men " shaU
bate tbem, and separate tbem from their company, and
reproach tbem, and cast out their name as evil," Luke, vi,
22. They know that, " if the world hate them, it hated their
master before tbem." John, xv. 18; and they "marvel not."
1 John, iii, 13. But some consolation it is to know that they
share these reproaches with the English Reformers themselves, of
whom some of their opponents say that they are their masters.
We call no man master ; but, certainly, if history be not an old
almanac, the persecution which persons styled High-Churchmen
have to undergo, is inflicted merely because they act towards
both tbe Romish and Protestant Dissenters, precisely as the
English Reformers did, seeking neither unnecessarily to offend,
nor, by sacrifice of principle, to conciliate.
In notes B and D many passages are adduced, which fully
substantiate the assertion that the charge of Popery was brought
as vehemently against the English Reformers as it is now against
their representatives, the High Churchmen, We have seen how
they were thus accused by Calvin, and that Beza declared that
" Popery was never thrown out of the English Church, but rather
transferred from his Holiness to her Majesty," In the same Letter,
he remarks " that those few ministers who came up to the purity
ef ihe gospel are either thrown into prison or deprived both, unless
tbey solemnly engage to go to the utmost lengths of conformity,
and resemble Baal's priests, in their square caps, tippets, and
such sort of equipages,"— C0/&7-, ii p. 503, The authorized
version of Scripture was, as we have seen before, conducted on
a principle of deference to the primitive Church, But the
foUowers of the foreign Reformers not only translated the
Scripture on diff'erent principles, but so far were they from
wishing to circulate the Bible without note or comment, that
they published one in tbe early part of Elizabeth's reign, with
notes, intending to inculcate the system of Calvin instead of
that of the English Reformation, In 1560, says Collier, " the
English translation of Scripture, commonly caUed tbe Geneva
Bible, was pubhshed at Geneva, There are two episties prefixed
to the work ; one to the Queen, the other to the reader. These
e3

70
addresses charged the English Reformation with remains of
Popery, and endeavoured to prevaU with the Queen to strike off
several ceremonies,"— Co//ier, U, 471. The fact that they
omitted tbese addresses in a subsequent edition, only shews that
they found it impolitic to publish sucb charges, not that tbey
intended to withdraw tbem : for the Popery of our Reformers
was the very plea urged by the Puritans out of the Church to
justify their secession, and by the Puritans in the Church for
disobeying her regulations. The Protestation of the Puritans
against the English Reformation thus commences : —
" Being thorough persuaded in my conscience by the working
and tbe word of the Almighty, that these relics qf Antichrist be
abominable before the Lord our God ; and also, for that by the
power, mercy, strength, and goodness of the Lode our God only
I am escaped frora the filthiness and pollution of these detestable
traditions.. . .lha.Ye joined in prayer and bearing God's word
with those that have not yielded to this idolatrous trash, not
withstanding the danger for not coming to my parish church,
&c, therefore I come not back again to the preaching, &c.
of them that have received these marks qf the Romish beast."
" They (the English Reformers) are glad to strengthen the
Papists in their errors, and grieve ihe godly." " These popish
garments are now become very idols indeed, because they are
exalted above the word of the Almighty .... I come not to them
(the English Reformers) because they should be ashamed, and so
leave their idolatrous garments."
Strype's Life of Abp Parker, U. 283, 284.
So also among tbe demands of tbe (so called) millenary
petition, one was that " no popish opinion should be any more
taught or defended ; no ministers charged to teach their people
to bow at the name of Jesus." — Strype's Life qf Arbp. Whitgift,
ii. 480. In " The Plea of the Innocent" those who adhered
to the doctrines of the English Reformation, as distinguished
from the Puritans, are called " sycophantizing Papists, statizing
Priests.— /Si'rf. 479. In the " Prayer of the Refusers of the
Habits^' they assert that " those in power neglected that they
ought to have done, to the hindrance of the course of the gospel ;
and that the relics of Romish idolatry was stoutly maintained."
Strype s Annals, vol. i. pt. 2, p. 168, In a work by Beale,
which expressed the sentiments of the Puritans, Queen Elizabeth

71
.is spoken of as " a defendresso of beggarly, popish, and anti
christian rUes," and the ceremonies of the church are styled
"beggarly, popish, and anti-christian."— Strype's Whitgift, ni,
87. We may barely give tbe tities of some of the books which
were publisbed at the completion of the English Reformation
against our English Reformers ; one was styled "A view of Anti
christ, his laws and ceremonies in our English Church unreformed;
a clear glass wherein may he seen ihe dangerous and desperate
diseases of our English Church, being utterly ready to perish,
unless she speedily have a corrosive qf ihe wholesome words qf
God, his word, laid every what to her heart, to expulse those
colds and deadly infections qf Popery which ihe tainted
Policaries of Antichrist have corrupted her withal!' In this
book there is a table " of the displaying of the Pope and Popery
in our Church of England. The Pope of Rome writeth himself
Father of Fathers, and Head of the Church, The Pope of Can
terbury writeth himself, reverend Father, Matthew of Canterbury,
by tbe sufference of God," &c. Another book was styled " A
brief discourse against the outward apparel and ministering gar
ments of the Popish Church, i. e. the Church of England."
Another book was named " A view qf the Popish abuses yet
remaining." Thomas Cartwright seems to have set the example
in thus calling the English Reformers Papists, for he and his
brethren, " in dispute of tbe hierarchy, now begun commonly to
call these Popes, and tbe Archbishops of Canterbury, Popes of
Lambeth." — Strype's Parker, ii. 203. In 1572 a committee of
the House of Commons, desirous of furthering the views of the
Puritans, " thought it advisable that some of them should repair
with their bills to the Archbishop, and perhaps other of the
Bishops too  The Archbishop (our great Reformer Arch
bishop Parker,) sig-nified his dislike of it ; since the ordinary
course of redressing matters amiss in the Church did properly
belong io the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation." After some
discussion, the Arcbishop replied, " Surely you mistook the
matter : you will refer yourselves wholly to us therein.'' To
which Mr. Wentworth, whom Strype describes as a hot gentle
man, exclaimed, " No, by tho faith I bear to God, we will pass

72

nothing before we understand what it is. For that were to make
you Popes. Make you Popes who list, for we will make you
none," Strype's Parker, ii. 202. But perhaps the reader would
like to know what were the deeds of Popery for which our high-
church Reformers were styled, like their present representatives
Papists, and he will probably be surprised to bear that the charge
of Popery was then made against almost every thing which a
Churchman in these days reveres. Does the Churchman revere
the Book of Common Prayer ? " It is patched for the most part
out of the Pope's Portuise : it is an imperfect book, culled and
picked out of the Popish dunghill, the Mass Book, full of
abominations." Admonition to Parliament. Strype's Annals,
Fol. ii. pt. 2. 478. " Tbe public prayers and worship of
God, as it is by law in the Church of England established, is
false, superstitious, and Popish." Strype, Ibid. iv. 202. The
Communion Service is spoken of in the same language ; and the
reading of the epistle and gospel in that office is " utterly mis-
liked and called a Popish introit." Strype, ii. pt. 2. 479. " For
newly married persons to receive the communion is pronounced
to be Popish, because in Popish times they had a mass." Ibid.
480, Is confirmation valued as a holy ordinance ? It was
called " superstitious, Popish, and peevish." Ibid. Are Cathe
drals now supported ? They come under the same category.
Ibid. 477, There are no Churchmen in these days who do not
consider episcopacy to be at least an apostolical ordinance. But
it has been held that the names of Archbishops, Archdeacons,
and Bishops, Chancellors, &o. are drawn out of the Pope's shop,
together with these offices. And it was urged against our
Reformers, " that the government of the Church of Enoland, as
it is now established, is no lawful government, but Antichristian
and Popish.'' Strype, iv. 202.
The same charge of Popery was brought against the Church
of England and her Reformers at the Hampton Court Conference
Among other marks of Popery was our retention of the sign
of the cross.
" Whereunto the King's Majesty answered divers ways :  ¦
First, quoth ho, tho I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross in
Baptism, and the commendable use thereof inthe Church so long;

73

yet if there were nothing else to move me, this very argument
were an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by
order establish'd. For inasmuch as it was abused, so you say, to
superstition in time of Popery, it doth plainly imply, that it was
weU used before Popery. I wUl tell you. I have lived among
this sort of men (speaking to thc Lords and Bishops) ever since I
was ten years old ; but I may say of myself, as Christ did of
himself, tho ' I lived among them, yet, since I had ability to
judge, I was never of them; neither did any thing make me more
to condemn and detest their courses than that they did so
peremptorily disallow of all things which at all had been used in
Popery. For my part, I know not how to answer the objection
of the Papists, when they charge us with novelties ; but truly to
tell them, that their abuses are new, but the things which they
abused we retain in their primitive use, and forsake only the
novel corruption. By this argument we might renounce the
Trinity, and all that is holy, because it was abused in Popery ;
and (speaking to Dr. Reynolds merrily) they used to wear hose
and shoes in Popery, therefore we shall now go barefoot.
" ' Secondly, quoth his Jlajesty, what resemblance is there
between tbe brazen serpent, a material visible thing, and the sign
of the cross made in the air ?
" ' Thirdly, I am given to understand by the Bishojis, and I
find it true, that the Papists themselves did never ascribe any
power or spiritual grace to tbe sign of the cross in Baptism.
" ' Fourthly, you see that the material crosses, which, in the
time of Popery, were made for men to fall down before tbem,
as they passed by them, to worship them (as the idolatrous Jews
did the brazen serpent) are demolished as you desire.'
" ' The next thing which was objected was the wearing of
the surplice, a kind of garment which the priests of Isis used to
wear. ' Surely,' saith his Majesty, ' tiU of late I did not think it
had been borrowed from the heathen, because it is commonly
term'd a rag of Popery, in scorn ; but were it so, yet neither did
we border upon heathenish nations, neither are any of thera
conversant witb us, or commorant amongst us, who thereby
might take just occasion to be strengthen' d or confirm'd in
Paganism; for then there were just cause to suppress tbe
wearing it : but seeing it appear'd out of antiquity, that in the
celebration of divine service, a different habit appertaineth to the
ministry, and principally of white linen, he saw no reason, but
that in this Church, as it had been for comeliness and for order
sake, it might still be continued. This being his constant and
resolute opinion, that no Church ought further to separate itself
from the Church of Rome, either in doctrine or ceremony, than
she had departed from herself, when she was in her flourishing
and best estate, and from Christ her Lord and head."
Barlow's account of the Hampton Court Conference
in the Phenix, i. 166.

74
The mode of reasoning on this matter, adopted by his
Majesty, was referred to, and has received the sanction of the
Church of England in the 30th canon before quoted.
This charge bas, indeed, always been adduced to persecute
into silence those of our divines who have endeavoured to uphold
tbe principles of the English Reformers, wbicb, they contend,
are equally the principles of sound reasoning, Catholicism, and
Scripture. Of honoured names the Church of England holds
none more highly in honour than that of the judicious Hooker.
" Hooker may justly be regarded as the genuine lineal
descendant of the most enlightened English Reformers, and
possessing learning equal to that of any of them, with more
opportunities for meditation, and the accumulated advantage of
their labours and experience, he may, perhaps not improperly,
be considered as exhibiting in his writings a model of the true,
settled, most improved, mature, and Catholic principles of the
English Reformation. But these virtues did not screen him from
having many adversaries. At the time when Hooker wrote,
Calvinism, doctrinal as well as disciplinarian, had made con
siderable progress in England ; and Hooker's, unhappily for his
own peace of mind, were almost the only works of great extent
which were calculated to arrest the progress of the doctrinal
Calvinists. In the year 1509 a tract was published in 4to,
entitled A Christian Letter qf certain English Protestants,
unfaigned favourers of the present state of reUgion, authorised
and professed in England, unto that reverand and learned man
Mr. R. Hooker, requiring resolution in certaine matters of
doctrine, (ivhich seeme to overthrow the foundation of Christian
religion, and ofthe Church among us J expresslie contained in
hisfve books qf Eccles'iasticall Polity. This book is one of the
earliest productions of those mal-contents who were afterwards
called doctrinal Puritans. It is the doctrines of Hooker with
which they quarrel ; and they profess (in contradistinction to the
abettors of the Geneva discipUne J an unfeigned attachment to the
external establishments of the Church of England, The work
is further deserving of notice as exhibiting, I believe, the earliest
example, both in the matter and manner of tbe argument, of
those numerous publications in which some Calvinistic writers
have thoughtlessly and intemperately indulged themselves, from
the days of this Christian letter, and from Prynne, and Hickman,
downwards, to Edwards, and Toplady, and Bowman, and Sir
Richard HUl, and Overton. Can it be believed, tbe authors ofthe
letter in question tax the meek, the wise, the virtuous, the
saint-like Richard Hooker with betraying and renouncing the
doctrines to which ho had solemnly subscribed 'i They charge

75
him with designs of bringing back Popery. They accuse hiin of
a wanton attack on the memory of Calvin. They condemn him
of unsoundness of doctrine respecting grace, and freewill, and
justification and predestination, and the condilions of tho
Christian covenant, and the sacraments of the Christian Church.
It is curious to see the Thirty-nine Articles, the Liturgy, the
HomiUes, Bishop Jewell's Apology, Dean Nowell's Catechism,
and the writings of many others of Hooker's Protestant prede
cessors, solemnly cited against him, and confronted in due form
with extracts from the Ecclesiastical Polity, for the purpose of
convicting him of deserting and denying the principles^ of that
Church of which he was a minister, in whose cause he toUed day
and night, and in tbe defence of which, I believe, it may tiuly
be said, that it was God's good pleasure that he should die."
Wordsworth's Biography, iv. 269.
From the performance hero referred to, we may give the
following extracts very much in the temper and spirit of our
own times. " In all your books — reason is highlie sett up against Holie
Scripture, and reading against preaching, the Church qf Rome
favourablie admitted to be the House qf God : Calvin with the
Reformed Churches full of faults, and most of all they which
endeavoured to be most refortnedfrom conformity trith the Church
of Bome : allmost all tbe principall points of our English creede
greatly shaken and contradicted. If you do not sincerely, plainlie,
and trulie answer all these our necessary doubts and demandes,
what shall we have cause to think of these your tedious and
laborious writings ? Shall we do you wrong to suspect you as a
privie and subtile enemy of the English Church, and that would
have men to deeme her Majesty to have done ill in abohshing the
Bomish Religion, and banishing the Pope's authority. WiU you
bring us to Atheisme or Popery P — P. 43. " You make it — the
Sacrament,— a means conditional and no less required than faith
itself. And herein we are suitors unto you to tell us, whether
the condition of Sacraments make not for the additament of works
unto faith, in that whioh the EngUsh Church holdeth to be only
and properlio ol faith" — P. 28.
Even good Bishop HaU did not escape the charge.
Sanderson, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, in that part of the
famous Preface to his Sermons, bearing date July 13, 1657, in
which he shews the advantages which the Puritan writers gave
to the Romish party by tiie unsoundness of their reasonings
and their extreme intolerance, and the much greater prooress

76

which Popery was making in England towards the latter end
of the Commonwealth, through their incapacity, than it had ever
done before, remarks that
" They promoted the interest of Rome, and betrayed the
Protestant cause, partly by mistaking the question, (a very
common fault among tbem,) but especially through the necessity
oi some f ahe principle or other, which, having once imbibed, they
think themselves bound to maintain. Among those false prin
ciples it shall suffice for the present to have named but this one.
That the Church of Rome is no true Church. The disadvantages
of which assertion to our cause in the dispute about the visibility
of the Church (besides tbe falseness and uncharitableness of it)
their zeal, or prejudice rather, will not suff"er them to consider.
With what outcries was Bishop Hall, good man, (who little
dreamt oiany peace with Rome) pursued by Burton and other Hot
spurs for yielding it a Church ! who had made the same concession
over and over again before he was Bishop, (as Junius, Reynolds,
and our best controversy writers generally do,) and no notice
was taken, no noise made about it."
Page 79, edit. 1689, Wordsworth's
Biography, v, 305,
Bishop Hall himself says,
" I adventured to set my pen on work ; desiring to rectify
tbe opinions of those men whom an ignorant zeal had transported,
to the prejudice of our holy cause, laying forth the damnable
corruptions ofthe Romish Church, yet making our game ofthe
outward visibility thereof, and by this means putting them to the
probation of those newly obtruded corruptions whioh are truly
guilty of the breach betwixt us ; tbe drift whereof, being not well
conceived, by some spirits that were not so wise as fervent, I was
suddenly exposed to the rash censures of many well affected and
zealous Protestants, as if I had, in a remission to my wonted
zeal to the truth, attributed too much to the Roman Church, and
strengthened the adversaries' hand, and weakened our own. This
envy I was fain to take off by my speedy Apologetical advertise
ment, and after that by my Reconciler, seconded with the
unanimous letters of such reverend, learned, and sound divines,
both bishops and doctors, as whose undoubtable authority was
able to bear down calumny itself. Which done, I did by a
seasonable moderation provide for the peace of the Church, in
silencing both iny defendants and challengers, in this unkind and
illraised quarrel." — Wordsworth' s Biography, v. p. 305,
The name of Bishop Sanderson reminds me of a passage
from his works applicable to this subject with wbich I will

77
conclude thia note. Bishop Sanderson ia the author of " The
General Thanksgiving" in the Prayer Book, and therefore advice
from him will bc favourably received,
" But their opinion is, that the things enjoyned are Popish
and superstitious, and consequently unlawful to be used : and
this they render as the reason of their non-conformity. And
the reason were certainly good if the opinion were true. For the
Popishness first; unless we should sue out a writ de finihus
regendis, it will be hard to find out a way how to bring thia
controversie to an issue, much less to an end ; the term hath been
so strangely extended, and the limits thereof (if yet it have any) so
uncertain. If they would be intreated to set bounds to what they
mean by Popish and Popery, by giving us a certain definition of
it, we should the sooner either come to some agreement ; or, at
least, understand ourselves and one another the better, wherein
and how far we disagreed. In the mean time it is to me a
wonder, that if reason would not heretofore, yet the sad experience
of the iU consequents, so vis'ihle of late time, should not have
taught them all this while to consider what infinite advantage
they give to the Romish party to work upon weak and wavering
souls ; by damning so many things under the name of Popery,
which may to their understandings be sufficiently evidenced,
some to have been used by the ancient Christians long before
Popery was hatched, or but in the egg ; and all to have nothing
of Superstition or Popery in them, unless every thing that is used
in the Church of Bome become thereby Popish and superstitious.
Nor what great advantage they give to our newer sectaries, to
extend the name yet farther; who, by tbe help of their new lights,
can discern Popery, not only in the ceremonies formerly under
debate, but even in the Churches and pulpits wherein they used
to preach against Popery, and the hells wherewith they used to
call the people together to hear them. These are by some of
the cryed down as Popish, with other things very many, which
their Presbyterian brethren do yet both allow and practise ;
though how long they vrill so do, is uncertain, if they go on with
the work of Reformation they have begun, with as quick dispatch,
and at the rate they have done these last two seven years. The
having of godfathers at Baptism, churching of women, prayers
at the burial of the dead, children asking tlieir parents' blessing,
&c. which whilome were held innocent; are now by very many
thrown aside as rags of Popery. Nay, are not some gone so far
already, as to cast into the same heap, not only the ancient
hymn Gloria Patri (for the repeating whereof alone some have
been deprived of all their liveUhoods) and the Apostlea Creed;
but eventhe use of the Lord's Prayer itself? And what will
ye do in the end thereof ? And what would ye have us do in the
mean time, when ye call hard upon us to leave our Popery, and

78
yet you would never do us the favour to let us know what it is ?
It were good, therefore, both for your own sakes, that you may
not rove in iiifinitum ; and in compassion to us, that you would
give us a perfect boundary of what is Popery now ; witb some
prognostication or ephemer'ides annexed (if you please) whereby
to calculate what will be Popery seven years hence."
Bp. Sanderson, 2nd Preface to his Sermons.
" It is not my purpose, nor is this a place for it, to make any
large discovery of the cause of the mistake, tbe unsoundness of the
tenent itself, and how pernicious it is in the consequents. Yet I
cannot but humbly and earnestly entreat them, for the love of
God and the comfort of their men souls : as they tender the
peace of the Church and the honour of our religion ; and in
compassion to thousands qf their Christian brethren, who are
otherwise in gTeat danger to be either misled or scandalised: that
they would think it possible for themselves to be mistaken in their
principle, as weU as others, and possible also for those principles
they rest upon to have some frailties and infirmities in them,
though not hitherto by them adverted, because never suspected ;
that therefore they would not hasten to their conclusion before
they are well assured of the premises, nor so freely bestow the
name of Popish or superstitious upon the ojyinions or actions of
their brethren as tbey have used to do, before tbey have first and
thoroughly e.xamined the solidity of their own grounds. Finally,
and in order thereto, that they would not therefore despise the
offer of these few things to their consideration, because tendered
by one that standeth better affected to their persons than their
opinions." — Bp. Sanderson's First Preface to his Sermons.

Note H. p. 17-
SOCINIANS,
Of a truth, the Socinian, or " Unitarian," as he denomi
nates himself, meets with hard measure from his brethren among
the Ultra-protestants. He protests most loudly against Popery.
He takes the Bible and the Bible only for his guide. He affirms
that in the Bible, interpreted according to the best of bis abUity,
he cannot discover those great doctrines which we of the Church
of England know to be the fundamental doctrines of Chris
tianity. He is wrong, and we of the Church of England
anathematize him and refuse to regard him as a Christian.
And so do many of the Ultra-protestant sects who hold, in fact.

79

with us, the great fundamentals of Christianity, But on
their own principles, what right can they have to do so ? Of
what crime has hc, on their principles, been guilty ? At the
very most, ho can only bo guilty, as is stated above, of an
obtuseness of intellect which has led to bad logic or to bad
criticism. But, after all, for tbe Ultra-protestant to assert that
the Socinian interprets Scripture wrongly is only to beg the
very point in dispute. The Socinian says, " I receive Scripture
in what I believe to bc the true sense, and so do you ; — we differ
as to what thc true sense is, but this is only a difference of
opinion, and you have no more right to blame me than I have
to blame you." We of the Church of England, while we defer to
Scripture only, profess to receive Scripture as the Church always
understood it, and by public documents in general councils,
asserted its belief. We therefore have an arbiter to decide,
when two meanings can be attached to one passage of Scripture,
which to adopt, our object being not to ascertain what Scripture
can be made to say, but what the Lord our God actually means.
But for this, Ultra-protestants denounce us as papistical and
caU our Church the Church of the Traditioners. They therefore
are ex hypothesi excluded from this mode of arguing. We
rejoice to find that they agree with us whenever they do agree.
But we marvel when we hear them joining with us in censuring
" Unitarianism" as a heresy.

Note I. p, 17-
PERSECUTION BY ULTRA-PROTESTANTS,
A violent and popular outcry has often been raised against
the Church because, at the Restoration, those of the clergy
who refused to conform were ejected from their benefices. But it
wUl be well to see bow the case really stands. Seven thousand
English clergymen, having refused to take the Covenant at the
great RebeUion, were ejected from their livings, then- places
being suppUed by dissenting teachers. This most honourable
testimony to the clergy of the Church of England at that period

80

ought never to be forgotten. At the Restoration it was required
that all those persons who had thus become possessed of the pro
perty of the English Church should either conform to the
regulations of the Church or resign. Of aU the Puritan clergy
then in possession, only two thousand thought fit to resign rather
than comply. And these two thousand were ejected from what?
From their rights ? No, but from their usurpations. Five
thousand conformed and still retained possession of the Church
property, so that many of the previously ejected clergy of the
Church of England, who hoped, at the Restoration, to be
restored to their own, were sorely disappointed and cruelly used.
The treatment of the English clergy by the Presbyterians is
worthy of notice,
" The taking of the Covenant was now press'd close through
all the parliament quarters, whioh brought a terrible persecution
upon the loyal clergy. Those who refus'd to comply were turn'd
out of their houses, and not suffered to compound either for
personal or real estate. This rigour forc'd great numbers of the
clergy to quit their benefices, and retire to places under tbe King's
protection. These vacancies were partly supply'd by those
Presbyterians who had formerly been lecturers or chaplains ;
partly by young unqualified students from the Universities. To
whioh we may add, some refugees from Scotland and New
England ; who came in for their share of jsreferment. And
some of those Puritans, who had formerly declaimed so much
against pluralities, were now reconcil'd to the holding two or
three livings. As to the honest clergy, who refus'd to joyn the
rebeUion, or revolt from the church, they were sequester'd and
imprison'd ; and almost every way harass'd and undone. From
tbe year 1641 to six years forward, there were an hundred and
fifteen clergymen turn'd out of their livings within the hills of
mortality ; most of them were plunder'd, and their wives and
children set in tbe streets. By these barbarities at London, the
reader may conjecture the greatness of the calamity in the rest
of the kingdom,
" They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy
beside the Covenant: some of them were sequester'd and ejected
upon pretence of scandal and immorality. But to shew the
iniquity of their proceedings upon this head, it may be observ'd
first, that some of the crimes charg'd upon them were capital :
and therefore, since the forfeiture of their lives was not taken,
we may reasonably believe the proof was defective. Secondly,
the depositions against tbem were seldom taken upon oath, but
bare affirmation went for evidence. Thirdly, many of the

81

oomplainanta were apparently factious men who had deserted the
Church, and profess'd an aversion to the h'lerarchy. Fourthly,
many of tbese pretended criminals were ignorantly if not
maliciously charg'd with delivering false doctrine : For instance,
some were prosecuted for preaching that Baptism icashes away
original sin : And lastly, many were outed for malignancy ; that
is, for being true to their allegiance. In short, 'tis observ'd there
were more turn'd out of their livings by the Presbyterians in
three years, than were depriv'd by the Papists in Queen Mary's
reign ; or had been silenc'd, suspended, or depriv'd by all the
bishops from the first year of Queen Elixabeth to the time we
are upon. — Collier, ii, 828,
The Independents, wbo burned some hundreds for witch
craft, and hanged tbe Quakers in Massachusets, " proposed
more massacres than they executed. There was one of all the
Royalists or Presbyterians in the true Marat style of taking
two hundred thousand beads off at one stroke." — Disraeli's
Charles L iii. 295,
I do not refer to tbese things to revive angry and useless
disputes ; and I am perfectly aware that no Dissenters, whether
Romish or Protestant, would wish to revive a spirit of persecu
tion, now that the principle of toleration is fully understood, but
when attempts are so frequently made, by stating only one side
of tbe question, to make it appear that Dissenters were hardly
used by Churchmen in times past, it becomes necessary to shew
that we have it in our power, by an appeal to history, to
exhibit the other side of the picture, and to make it known
that the Uttle finger of an Ultra-protestant is thicker than a
Churchman's loins. I believe tbe first declarations in favor of
a toleration are to be found in ChiUingwortb and Jeremy
Taylor.
Note K. p. 18.
THE OXFORD TRACTS,
That tbe simplification of our principle aUuded to in tbe
text, has sometimes tended to narrow the mind, and that men
have been inclined to support the Church of England on
grounds and with feelings purely sectarian, may be lamented,
but can scarcely be denied. But stiU, generaUy speaking, the
r

82

simplicity of our principle has worked weU, and in every con
troversy its tendency is to bring Churchmen to an agreement.
For instance, at the commencement of the last century, the
tendency of Ultra-protestantism was to Socinianism. The
Ultra-protestant sects in Germany, and even in Geneva, had
become Socinian. Under the influence of Hoadley and the
then liberal party in England, an attempt was made to gain
a footing for this God-denying heresy in the English Church.
To believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, to worship the
Saviour, or to regard tbe sacraments as any thing more than
mere ceremonies, was represented as " flat Popery ;" to condemn
those who protested against these doctrines was considered " a
renunciation of the fundamental principles of the Reformation."
But the attempt failed, for every man endowed with common
honesty could understand tbe argument, " You may, if you like
it, leave tbe Church, but you cannot as an honest man continue
to act therein as a minister if you deny the truth of ber doc
trines, and it is impossible to doubt as to what her doctrines are
with reference to the Holy Trinity and the Deity of our Lord."
However liberal a man may be in the present day, he would
not dare to avow Socinian opinions, (knowing them to be such,)
and retain any official situation in tbe Church.
The tendency of the principle mentioned above to promote
unanimity and concord ainong Churchmen may be seen in ano
ther instance. In the middle of tbe last century it is not to be
denied that a religious apathy prevailed, both in the Church and
among the Sectarians, to a very considerable extent. We know,
both from their writings and their biographies, that there were
a vast number of orthodox clergymen steadily performing their
duty in their respective cures, but, from a variety of circum
stances, there was a vast number also too inactive. Discipline,
too, had relaxed. Bishops had been appointed whose political
sentiments accorded ill with those of the great body of the
Clergy, by whom they were regarded with suspicion and
jealousy. The episcopal government is paternal, and where,
from any cause, it cannot be administered with a paternal spirit,
any legal powers with which our Bishops may be invested, as

83

they cannot bc exercised without harshness, can scarcely bo
exercised at all. At this junctiu-e, a zeal almost amounting tS
enthusiasm was kindled in the bosoms of many devout and
excellent men, who felt called upon to blow the trumpet in
Zion, and to awaken the sleeping world around them to a sense
of their spiritual wants. The movement was simultaneous, or
nearly so, in the Church and among the sectarians.* But the
churchmen, uniting with the sectarians, and thinking that
excitement was the thing most needed, became attached to the
system of the foreign rather than to that ofthe English Reforma
tion. Many of the early Evangelicals, of whom it is impossible
to speak without feelings of affection, veneration, and re.spect,
were certainly guilty of many m-egularities, erring only from
their not having duly considered tbe subject of church discipline.
These irregularities " they gradually corrected, and the next
generation of " Evangelicals" assumed another attitude ; they
contended against the "orthodox," as the great body of the
clergy were styled, that tlieir views were strictly thoso of the
Eno-lish Church and the English Reformation.t The controversy
thus assmed a definite and tangible form, according to the prin
ciple already alluded to. The appeal to this principle led, of
course, to various explanations and various modifications of
extreme opinions. The spirit of deference to the authoritative
decisions of the Church of England was in his later years
encouraged by Mr. TVilberforoe, wben that highly-gifted, amia
ble, and pious man had become virtuaUy the leader of the
"Evangelical" party: and at length the moderate of that party
were found to be disputing with those who professedly adhered
to the principles of the English Reformers and the Catholic

* II is clearly shewn by Mr. Venn, (preface to Venn's Life,) that
the early " Evangelicals" in the Church were not indebted, even
indirectly, as it has been sometimes misrepresented, to the Wesleys or
Whitfield, for the sentiments by which they were influenced.
f In the two former editions ofthis Sermon I stated that Mr. 'Venn
had sometimes officiated in Dissenting Meeting Houses; Laving so
understood the expression of his Biographer, who speaks of his having
preached in unconsecrated places. 1 have been informed by his excel
lent grandson, that in making this statement 1 misunderstood the words
of his Biographer. I, therefore, take this opportunity to correct my
mistake.
f2

84

Church, which had been consistently maintained by sucb men
as Jones of Nayland, Bishop Home, and their successors, merely
about words. At sucb a time — wben all parties, having admitted
that Church principles ought to be carried out and uniformly
acted upon, were led to inquire, ' what are Church principles ?
is any party acting consistently upon tbem ?'— at such a time,
tbe celebrated Oxford Tracts made their appearance. The
reputed writers of the Tracts were men of ardent piety, who
had been attached to tbe " Evangelical" school, and it was
among the young men who bad been educated in that school
that tliey created a strong sensation. Hence, perhaps, the bitter
ness with which they are assailed by some of the older partizans
of that section in the Church. To those who, like the present
writer, had been educated strictly in the principles of the
English Reformation, and belonged to the old orthodox school,
they brought forward nothing new, and though we may have
demurred to some of their opinions, and have thought that, in
some things, they are in an extreme, we rejoiced to see right
principles advocated in a manner so decided, and in a spirit
so truly Christian, Against some of tbe pious opinions sup
ported in these Tracts, objections may occasionally be raised,
for perfect coincidence of opinion is not to be expected. I do
not, myself, accord witb all tbe opinions expressed in them, or
always admit the deduction attempted to be drawn from the
principles on which we are agreed. I think, too, that wbUe
manfully vindicating the principles of the English Reformation,
in their fear lest they should appear to respect persons too
highly, the writers of tbe Tracts do not appreciate highly
enough the character of some of our leading Reformers, or
make due allowance for the difficulties in which they were
placed. I mention tbese things the rather, since I am sure the
writers in question have no wish to form a party ; they have
no wish to check freedom of opinion within the boundaries
prescribed by the Church ; — their object is only to imbue the
public mind with those Catholic principles by the maintenance
of which the English Reformation was gloriously distinguished.
This cannot be done, unless on those principles opinions are

85

formed, aud from them conclusions drawn ; and at the very
time that we may combat a particular opinion, if we admit the
trutli of the principle on wbicb it is built, we only confirm
the principle, and impress it more deeply on men's minds, I
am not one of those who would say, " Read the Oxford Tracts,
and take for granted every opinion there expressed," but I
am one of those who would say, " Read and digest those
Tracts well, and you wiU have imbibed principles which will
enable you to judge of opinions." Their popularity will in
crease, since their arguments are not answered, or their state
ments refuted : — they are opposed simply by railing. And those
who judge of sucb things only by second-hand reports, and
garbled quotations, and anonymous misrepresentations in news
papers, wiU, of course, rail on,* May the day come when they
may be awakened to a sense of the danger of thus violating
the golden rule of charity ! In tbe mean time, the wise, the
candid, those who are not the mere partisans of religion, but
really religious, will themselves read the Tracts, — and if they do
read they will commend. They may censure particular opinions,
but they will commend tbe whole. At all events, tbe scriptural
Christian will be prgudiced in favour of tbe writers of the
Oxford Tracts, on seeing the fruits of the Spirit beautifully
exhibited in their conduct, love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness ; it would be well, indeed, if
their assaUants, in various magazines and newspapers, would
remember of what emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, are the
signs. The temper manifested by tneir opponents is as impolitic

• Perhaps there never was devised, by men who profess and call them
selves Christiuns, a system of attack more wicked than that whioh is
adopted by many who assail these Tracts. Ofthe persons who are sup
posed to write them, lies the most ridiculous are invented, industriously
circulated, and willingly believed. And when an attempt is made to refute
the Tracts themselves, false extracts are made, and they are represented
as asserting the very errors which they, in express words, reprobate 1
This is actually done by men who not only call themselves Christians,
but profess to be of the straitest sect of our religion. To those who
consult the Tracts to verify the quotations, the inference is obvious :
lies would not be told unless it were impossible to substantiate the
accusation by telling the truth. It would be well, indeed, if our brethren
would remember that to speak falsely, even for religion, is both popish
and unscriptural, 1-3

86
as it is too often profane. Fully aware that it is not by revUing
again, that they are to maintain the cause of a reviled and
crucified Master ; fuUy aware that it is by well-doing that they
are " to put to sUence the ignorance of fooUsh men," tho writers
of the Oxford Tracts, when assaUed as " popish fanatics," &c.
when their doctrines, instead of being refuted, are declaimed
against as " figments of the darkest ages of Papal superstition,"
&c. calmly reply, " Brave words, surely ! WeU and good, take
your fill of them, since you choose them for your portion. It
does but make our spirits rise cheerily and hopefully to be thus
encountered. Never were such words on one side, but deeds
were on the the other. We know our place and our fortunes ;
to give a witness and to be contemned ; to be iU-used and to
succeed. Such is the law which God has annexed to the pro
mulgation of tbe truth; its preachers suffer, but its cause prevails.
Be it so. Joyfully will we consent to this compact. And the
more you attack us personally, the more, for the very omen's
sake, we wiU exult in it,"
Note L, p, 21.
ON THE SACRAMENTS,
" In all ages the devil hath stirred up some light heads to
esteem the sacraments but lightly, as to be empty and bare signs,"
— Bp. Latimer in Ridley's Life of Bidley, p. 453.
1. Baptism. — So evidently does the Church connect Bap
tism and Regeneration that the Puritans in Queen Elizabeth's
time and the Nonconformists in the roign of Charles II. justified
their secession on the ground that " the Church clearly teaches
the doctrine qf real baptismal regeneration'.' — Nonconformist's
Memorial. Introduct. p. 39.
The Puritans particularly objected to our service for apply
ing John iii. 5, to " the baptizing in the font, that heing spoken,
as they said, only of the operation of the sjnrit. Puritan
Register, p. 97. They cavilled also " at these words used in
baptism, that Jesus Christ did sanctify tho flood Jordan and all

87

other waters to the mystical washing away of sin ; as though
we should attribute that to the sign which is proper to the word
of God in the blood of Christ ; and that virtue were in the
water to wash away sin." — " A vieto of Popish abuses yet
remaining.'' Strype's Annals, vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 480.
Allusion is here evidently made to our baptismal service
where it is expressly said that water is sanctified to the mystical
washing away of sin. The Puritans also objected to the Church
for teaching each baptized child to speak of himself as
" sanctified," which is done in the catechism.
Among the eight things at the Savoy conference charged
upon the Church as " flatly sinful and contrary to the word of
God," the fourth was " that ministers are obliged to pronounce
all baptized infants regenerate by the Holy Ghost." Collier, ii.
885. The Rev. Thos. Scott observes,
" Indeed, the Fathers, as they are called, (that is the teachers
of the Christian Church during some ages after the apostles,)
soon began to speak on this subject in unscriptural language" —
(i. e. according to Mr Scott's idea of what scriptural language is,
but he is no more infaUible than the Fathers, who were deep
students of Scripture) : and our pious reformers, from an undue
regard to them and to the circumstances of the times, have retained
a few expressions in the Liturgy which not only are inconsistent
with their other doctrine, but also tend to perplex men's minds
and mislead their judgment on this important subject. It is
obvious, however, from their words above cited, and many other
passages, (particularly the articles on the sacraments) that they
never supposed the mere outward administration of baptism to
be regeneration, in the strict sense of tbe word." — Essays by the
late Rev. Thos. Scott. Essay 12, p. 137-
This is certainly a curious sentence to be written by one
who had subscribed his unfeigned assent and consent to the
Prayer Book ; and Mr. Scott's ideas of piety must have been
pecuUar. According to his statement, our Reformers did not
beUeve baptism to be regeneration, but, yielding to "the
cUcumstances of the time" and " undue regard to the Fathers^'
they suffered what they did not believe to remain as the doctrine
of the baptismal office, though leading, as Mr. Scott would con
sider, to errors the most pernicious and fatal. This, a High-
Churcbman, who, true to the principles of the English Refor-

88

mation, has a dtte regard for the Fathers, would, I shrewdly
suspect, call impiety. From this charge I shall be happy to
vindicate our great reformers : and first of Cranmer. That his
private views were not, as Mr. Scott suspects, different from
those which he publicly avowed, may be seen from the ensuing
extract from one of his last and most elaborate works, the very
title of which betrays a reepect, whether due or undue, for the
Fathers, sufficient to shew, in addition to what has before been
produced, that whatever anathemas they deserve who in these
days have respect to the Fathers, it is presuming rather too
much on tbe ignorance and credulity of tbe public to accuse
them of deviating from the principles of tbe Reformation.
" A Defence of the true and Catholic Doctrine of tbe Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, with a Confu
tation of sundry errors conceming the same, grounded and
stablished upon God's Holy Word, and approved by the
consent qf the most ancient doctors of the Church, made by
the most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of
Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan.
" Although our camal generation and our carnal nourish
ment be known to all men by daily experience and by our common
senses ; yet this our spiritual generation and our spiritual nutri
tion be so obscure and hid unto us, that we cannot attain to the
true and perfect knowledge and feeling of them, but only by
faith, which must be grounded upon God's most boly word and
sacraments. " And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not
only set forth these things most plainly in his holy word, that we
may hear them with our ears ; but he hath also ordained one
visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another
visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine, to
the intent that, as much as is possible for man, we may see
Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste him with our
mouths, grope him with our hands, and perceive him with all
our senses. For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into
our ears, so likewise the elements of water, bread, and wine,
joined to God's word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ
into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.
" And for this cause Christ ordained Baptism in water, that
as sure as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be
washed with water ; so assuredly ought we to believe, when we
be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by
him we be newly born again spiritually, and rvashed from our
sins, and grafted in the stock qf Christ's own body, and bs

89

apparelled, clothed, and harnessed witb him in such wise, that aa
the Devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he none against
us, so long as we remain grafted in that stock, and be clothed
with that apparel, and harnessed witb that armour."
Cranmer's Works, ii, 302.
Ofthe force ofthis passage we have indirect evidence in the
fact that when the Religious Tract Society undertook the re
publication of the greater part of the " Defence," the passage just
quoted was carefuUy omitted, " Their extracts," says Mr,
Jenkyns, " are much too imperfect to convey a full and fair view
of Cranmer's tenets, especially as they do not include a remarkable
passage in his first book, illustrative qf his opinions on Baptism.'^
The passage alluded to is the one quoted above. Now it cannot
be supposed that the Religious Tract Society, &c. publisbed the
Tract in question, antiquated in style and controversial in manner,
as being in itself peculiarly adapted to those whom the Society is
intended to benefit. The object was, of course, to insinuate that
the principles of the Society are in accordance with thoae of the
English Reformers, But on one of tbe most important points,
the principles of tbe Tract Society, and those of Archbishop
Cranmer, are very decidedly at variance. On what principle,
then, can such an unnoticed omission be justified ; an omission
that leads the reader to infer that tbe Archbishop and the
Society are perfectly in union? When Bishop Sanderson's
advice is followed, and we have a clear definition of what Popery
is, perhaps we shall find this noted as a Popish transaction. For
although I am quite sure that truly pious Romanists would
disdain such an artifice as this, yet of simUar offences some of
their most distinguished controversialists have been guilty.
But if a yet stronger passage from Archbishop Cranmer is
wanted, it can easUy be produced,
" And when you say that in baptism we receive the spirit
qf Christ, and in the sacrament of his body and blood we receive
his very flesh and blood, thia your saying is no smaU derogation
to baptism, wherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, but
also Christ himsclf, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead,
unio everlasting life, as well as in tbe holy communion. For St,
Paul saith, Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum
induistis, As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ upon

90

them. Nevertheless this is done in divers respects; for in baptism
it is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy communion
in respect of nourishment and augmentation." — Works in. 65.
That they against whom, under the name of Higb-Churcli-
men, an attempt is made to excite tbe wrath of the irritable,
and the indignation of the ignorant, are infiuenced by the Spirit
of our English Reformers no better proof can be given than their
desire to circulate the authoritative documents of the Reformation.
Some tracts of great importance, under the title of " Tracts of
the Anglican Fathers," have been lately published, and ought to be
widely circulated. From Archbishop Cranmer's sermon on Holy
Baptism, the following extracts are made : —
" And the second birth is by the water of Baptism, which
Paul calleth the bath of regeneration, because our sins he forgiven
us in Baptism, and the Holy Ghost is poured into us as into
God's beloved children, so that hy the power and working of the
Holy Ghost we be horn again spiritually, and made new creatures.
And so by Baptism we enter into the kindgom of God, and are
saved for ever, if we continue to our lives' end in the faith of
Christ." — p. 1.
" When we are bom again by Baptism, then our sins are
forgiven us, and the Holy Ghost is given us, which doth make
us also holy, and doth move us to all goodness." — p. 7,
To this we may add the following parallel passage from one
of our Homilies ; —
" We must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice
which our High Priest and Saviour Jesus the Son of God once
offered for us on the Cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and
remission, as loell of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual
sin committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly repent and
turn unfeignedly to him again."
The second part qf the Sermon of Salvation. See also
The first Homily of thc Passion.
But to return to Cranmer,
" Baptism is not water alone, and nothing else besides, but
is the water of God, and hath his strength by the Word of God,
and is a seal of God's promise. Wherefore, it doth work in us
all those things whereunto God hath ordained it. For our Lord
Jesus Christ saith, " Go and teach all nations, and baptize them
in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
This God commanded his disciples to do. Wherefore, by the
virtue of this commandment, which came from heaven, even from
the bosom of God, Baptism doth work in us as the work of God.

91

For when we be baptised in the name of God, that is as much |[as]
to say, as God himself should baptize us. AVHierefore we ought
uot to have an eye onh' to the water, but to God rather, which
did ordain tbe Baptism of water, and commanded it to be done in
his namo. For he is almighty, and able to work in us by Baptism
forgiveness of our sins, and all those wonderful cfl'ects and opera
tions for the which ho hath ordained the same, although man's
reason is not able to conceive the same. Therefore, consider,
good children, the great treasures and benefits whereof God
maketh us partakers when we are baptized, which be these. The
first is, that in Baptism our sins be forgiven us, as Saint Peter
witnesseth, saying, ' Let every one of you be baptized for the
forgiveness of bis sins.' The second is, that the Holy Ghost is
given us, the which doth spread abroad the love of God in our
hearts, whereby we may keep God's commandments according
to this saying of Saint Peter, ' Let every one of you be baptized
in the name of Christ, and then you shall receive the gift of tbe
Holy Ghost.'
" The third is, that by Baptism tbe whole righteousness of
Christ is given unto us that we may claim the same aa our own.
For so Saint Paul teacheth, saying, ' As many of ye as are
baptized in Christ have put upon you Christ.' " p. 8.
" By this which I have hitherto spoken, I trust you under
stand, good children, wherefore Baptism is called the bath of
regeneration, and how in Baptism we be horn again, and be made
new creatures in Christ." — p. 9.
" But peradventure some will say, how can water work such
great things ? To whom I answer, that it is not tbe water that
doeth these things, but tbe ahnighty word of God (which is knit
and joined to the water) and faith which receiveth God's word
and promise. For without tbe word of God, water is water, and
not Baptism. But when the word of tbe living God is added
and joined to the water, then it is the bath of regeneration, and
Baptism water, and the lively spring of eternal salvation, and a
bath that wasbeth our souls by the Holy Ghost, as Saint Paul
calleth it, saying, ' God has saved us through his mercy, by the
bath of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, whom he
hath poured upon us plenteously by Jesus Christ our Saviour,
that we being made righteous by bis grace may be heirs of ever
lasting life.' This is a sure and true word." — pp. 11, 12.
" And wben you shall be asked, ' What avaUeth Baptism ?
you shall answer, Baptism worketh forgiveness of sin, it delivereth
from the kingdom of the devil and from death, and giveth life and
everlasting salvation to all them that believe these words of
Christ, and promise of God, which are written in the last chapter
of Saint Mark, his Gospel, ' He that will beUeve and be baptized
shall be saved, but he that will not beUeve shall be damned.' " —
Page 30.

92
We aU know that Bishop Ridley was recommended to the
notice of Cranmer by certain bigh-churcb quahfications, wbich
would in these days have had, vrith some partiea, a very contrary
effect ; " bis well known acquaintance with tbe Scriptures and
tbe Fathera." — Soame's Reformation, in, 28, In hia great and
leamed work against Transubstantiation, we find him arguing thus :
" Now on the other side, if, after the truth shaU be truly tried
out, it be found that tbe substance of bread is the material
substance of the Sacrament, although for the change of the use,
office, and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed, sacramentally,
is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in baptism is
sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet
the material substance thereof remaineth all one as before, &c," —
Enchiridion, vol. i, p. 72, Indeed, aU wbo are but slightly
acquainted with the works of our Reformers, must be aware that
this was their favourite argument against Transubstantiation :
" There is no need to hold tbe dogma of Transubstantiation in
order to believe that Christ ia imparted in the Eucbariat, because
be ia equally imparted in baptism, and yet no one contenda that
the water is transubstantiated," This great martyr declares,
" As the body is nourished by the bread and wine at tbe Com
munion, and the soul by grace and spirit witb tbe body of Christ ;
even so in Baptism, the body is washed with tbe visible water,
and the soul cleansed from all filth by the invisible Holy Ghost,
and yet the water ceaseth not to be water, but keepeth the
nature of water stiU. In like sort in tbe Sacrament of the
Lord'a Supper, the bread ceaseth not to be bread." — Wordsworth's
Life of Ridley, iii, p. 238. See alao Ridley's Life qf Ridley,
pp. 684, 669, 620,
" Like as Christ was bom in rags," says Bishop Latimer, " so
tbe conversion of tbe whole world is by rags, by things which are
most vile in this world. For what is so common as water ? Every
foul ditch ia full of it : yet we waab out remission of our sina by
Baptism, for like as he waa found in raga, so we must find him by
Baptism. There we begin ; we are washed with water, and then
the words are added ; for we are Baptiaed in the name of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, whereby the Baptism
receiveth its strength. Now this Sacrament of Baptism ia a thing
of great weight : for it ascertaineth and assureth us, that Uke as

93
the water washeth the body and cleanaeth it, so the blood of
Christ our Saviour cleanaeth and waahetii it from aU filth and
uncleanness of sin." — Latimer's Sermons, ii. 779.
" As therefore in Baptism" says Bradford, " is given to us
the Holy Ghost and pardon qf our sins, which yet lie not lurking
in the water ; so in the Lord's Supper is given unto us the Com
munion qf Christ's body and blood, without tranaubstantiation, or
including the aame in the bread. By Baptism the old man is
put off, the new man is put on, yea Christ ia put on without
transubstantiating the water. And even so it is in the Lord'a
Supper." Bradford's Sermon on the Lord's Supper, quoted in
Wordsworth's Life qf Latimer, iii. 236.
Dr. Wordsworth gives a similar quotaticffi from Cranmer's
answer to Gardyner, one of bis latest works : " I mean that he
is present in the ministration and receiving of that Holy Supper
according to his own institution and ordinance, like as in Baptism,
Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water or font, but be
given in the ministration, or to tbem that be duly baptized in
the water." — Cranmer's answer to Gardyner, p. 172. In the
Tracts of the Anglican Fathers, quotationa to the same effect
are given from Bishop Hooper, page 15.
And now having vindicated our pious Reformers from tbe
insinuation of Mr. Scott, that they sought the propagation of
doctrinea which they did not believe, and having shewn what
High Churchmen they axe in thia respect, I shall call before my
reader a witness whose testimony is valuable to the facts, — that
baptismal regeneration is the doctrine of the Church of England,
that it ia the doctrine of our Reformers, that the doctrine ia
scriptural, and that it is burdensome to some, — but not to thoae
who believe with the Church of England that tbe Scriptures
teach that regeneration is the inward grace of baptism,
" In tbe baptismal service, we thank God for having
regenerated the baptised hfant by his Holy Spirit. Now from
hence it appears that in the opinion of our Reformers, regenera
tion and remission qf sins did accompany baptism. But in what
sense did they bold this sentiment ? Did they maintain that
there was no need for the seed then sown in tbe heart of the
baptised person to grow up and to bring forth fruit ; or that he
could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation
of his soul after the divine image ? Had they asserted any such

94
doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened
person to concur with him. But nothing can be conceived more
repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this ; so far
from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this
very prayer, taught us to look to God for that total change both
of heart and life which long since their days has begun to be
expressed by the term regeneration. After thanking God for
regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray
' that he being dead unto sin and living unto righteousness may
crucify tbe old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin,'
and then declaring the total change to be tbe necessary mean of
his obtaining salvation, we add, ' so that finally with the residue
of the holy Church be may be an inheritor of thine everlasting
kingdom.' Is there (I would ask) any person that can require
more than this ? ^ does God in his word require more ? There
are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject, the
term regeneration and the thing. Tlie term occurs but twice in
the Scriptures ; in one place in refers to Baptism, and is dis
tinguished from the renewing of tbe Holy Ghost ; which, however,
is represented as attendant on it : and in the other place it has a
totaUy distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now the
term they use as the Scripture uses it, and the thing tbey require
as strongly as any person can require it. Tbey do not give us
any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without
experiencing all that modern divines [IJlira-protestant divines']
have included in the term regeneration; on the contrary, they
do both there and in the Iiiturgy insiat upon a radical change
of both heart and life. Here, then, the only question ia not
' Whether a baptised person can be saved by that ordinance
without sanctification,' but whether God does always accompany
the sign with the thing signified ? Here ia certainly room for
difference of opinion ; but it cannot be positively decided in the
negative ; because we cannot know or even judge respecting it in
any case whatever except by the fruits that follow : and therefore
in all fairness it may be conaidered only aa a doubtful point ; and
if he appeal, as he ought to do, to the holy Scriptures, they cer
tainly do, in a very remarkable way, accord with the expressions
in our Liturgy. St. Paul saya, 'By one Spirit we are all
baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or GentUes, whether
we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit.' And this he .says of all the visible members of Christ's
Body, (1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of tbe whole nation
of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, ' They were all bap
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the aea ; and did all eat the
same spiritual meat ; and did aU drink the same spiritual drink ;
for they drank of that spiritual Rock that foUowed them ; and
that Rock was Christ.' (1 Cor. x. 1, 4.) Yet, behold, in the
very next verse he tells us that, ' with many of them God was
displeased, and overthrew them in the wUderness.' In another

95
place be speaks yet more atrongly stUl : ' As many of you,' says
he, 'as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' Hero we
see what is meant by the expression ' baptized into Christ' : it is
precisely thc same expression as that before montioned, of the
Israelites being 'baptized unto Moses:' the preposition cie is used
in both places ; it includes all that had been initiated into his
religion by the rite of baptism ; and of thein universally does
the Apostle say, ' they have put on Christ.' Now I ask, have not
the persons, who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal
serrice equal reason to scruple the use of those different expressions?
" Again — St. Paul says, "Repent and be Baptized every one
of JOU for the remission of sins.' — (^Acts, ii. 38. 39,) And in
another place, " Baptism doth now save us.' — (1 Pet. iii. 21.)
And speaking elsewhere of Baptized persons wbo were unfruitful
ift the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, ' He hath
forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. — (2 Pet. i. 9.)
Does not this very strongly countenance the idea which oub
Reforsiers entertained. That the remission of our sins, and
the regeneration op our souls, is attendant on THB Bap
tismal rite ? Perhaps it will be said that the inspired writers
spake of persons who had been Baptized at an adult age. But
if they did so in some places, they certainly did not in others ;
and where tbey did not, they must be understood as comprehend
ing all, whether infants or adults ; and therefore the language of
our Liturgy, which is not a whit stronger than theirs, may be
both subscribed and used without any just occasion of off'enoe,
" Let me, then, speak the truth before God : though I am
no Arminian, I do think the refinements qf Calvin have done great
harm in the Church; they have driven multitudes from the plain
and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and have
made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in their
modes of expression ; and I conceive that the less addicted any
person is to systematic accuracy, tbe more be will accord with the
inspired writers, and the more he will approve the views of our
Reformers, I do not mean, however, to say that a slight
alteration in two or three instances would not be an improvement,
since it would take offa burthen from many minds, and supersede
the necessity of laboured explanations : but I do mean to say
that there is no such objection to these expressions as to deter
any conscientious person from giving his unfeigned assent and
consent to the Liturgy altogether, or from using the particular
expressions which we have been endeavouring to explain."
Simeon's Works, vol. ii. p, 259.
Whether Mr. Simeon may have written differently in other
parts of hia voluminous works, I am not sufficiently acquainted
with those works to be able to say, but I venture to quote this

96
as one of the most lucid expositions and one of tbe most scriptural
vindications of the doctrine of regeneration as held by our EngUsh
Reformers, and for holding which so much abuse is heaped upon
those who are designated High Churchmen, that has faUen under
my notice. Mr. Simeon shews that our services do unequivo-
caUy assert that regeneration takes place at Baptism, that they
are scriptural in doing so, and that those absurd conaequencea
wbich some persons would suppose to be connected with the
doctrine do not of necessity follow. He tells us that some
persons find this, the unquestionable doctrine of the Church,
such a " burthen" that tbey require some " slight alteration in
one or two places" ; and that in default of these alterations th^
are obliged to have recourse to " laboured explanations,''
Against these persons I wish to say nothing — if they can con
scientiously remain in the Church I rejoice to consider them aa
brethren. But they generally assume an exclusive respect for
Scripture ; yet, according to Mr. Simeon's showing, the expres
sions of Scripture, for he proves the expresaions of our Baptismal
Service, and thoae of Scripture to be identical, are a burthen to
them. In this inatance, then, we, who want no alteration, are
more scriptural than they are. If they can conscientioualy adopt
their " laboured explanations," tbey are perfectly welcome. But
what thoae peraona have a right to complain of, who receive the
expressiona of the Liturgy in their plain and aimple sense, who
labour after no " explanations," complain of no " burthen,"
would resolutely resist any " alteration," is this, that an attempt
is made to make it appear that they are the persons innovating in
the Church ; that they are opposed to the Reformers; that they
are unscriptural. Mr, Simeon perceived how the quarrel
commenced. By thoae attached to the foreign school of Refor
mation, regeneration is uaed in a aense different from that which
prevails among those who are attached to the principles of the
English Reformation. He would propose that we should yield
to tbe advocates of the foreign Reformation, or Ultra-proteatants,
To such a proposition we shall never assent, for our phraseology
ia that of the Church Universal, the other that merely of a sect
or party comparatively small, Tbe distinction between regene-

97

ration and renovation is clearly preaerved by those divines who
are attached to tho English Reformation, as may bo seen from
the following quotations from Bishop Betliell's work on Regenc-
tion, — a work wbich has long been regarded as a standard on
this subject. Following and referring to Waterland, he remarks:
" Regeneration is the joint work of water and the Spirit, or,
to speak more properly, of the Spirit only ; renovation is the
joint work of the Spirit and the man. Regeneration comea only
once in or through Baptism. Renovation exists before, in, and
after Baptism, and may be often repeated. Regeneration, being
a single act, can have no parts, and is incapable of increase.
Renovation is in its very nature progressive. Regeneration,
thougli suspended as to ita effects and benefits, cannot be totally
lost in the present life. Renovation may be often repeated and
totally lost,"
Afterwards he illustrates this doctrine by applying it to
four separate caaes,
"I, Grown persons coming to Baptism properly qualified,
receive at once the grace of Regeneration ; but however well
prepared, they are not regenerate without Baptism, Afterwarda
renovation grows more and more within them by the indwelling
of the Spu'it,
" 2, As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to them
instead of repentance, which they do not want, and of actual
faith, which they cannot have : and they are capable of being
born again, and adopted by God, because tbey bring no obstacle.
They stipulate, and tbe Holy Spirit translates tbem out of a state
of nature into a state of grace, favour, and acceptance. In their
case, regeneration precedes, and renovation follows after, and
they are the temple of the SpUit, tiU they defile themaelvea with
sin, " 3. Aa to those who faU off after regeneration, their covenant
state abides, but without any saving effect, because vrithout
present renovation : but this saving effect may be repaired and
recovered by repentance,
" 4, Witb respect to those who receive Baptism in a state of
hypocrisy or impenitency, though this Sacrament can only increase
their condemnation, stiU pardon and grace are conditionally
made over to them, and tbe aaving virtue of regeneration, wbich
had been hitherto suspended, takes effect wben they truly repent
and unfeignedly believe the gospel,
" This clear statement of tbe learned author contains an
accurate representation of the grace conferred, and the change
which takes place in Baptism ; and this is what is meant by
thoae Divines who maintain that regeneration is, in the strict

98

sense of the word, the inward and apiritual grace of Baptiam.
The identity, if I may so express myself, of Baptiam and
Regeneration, is a doctrine which manifestly pervades the writings
of the Fathers. It is moreover evident that they did not imagine
that Baptism produces any saving effect in adults without faith
and repentance, or, in other words, without some previoua
renewal of the inward frame. Nor do they appear to have
suppoaed any positive or active renewal of the soul takes place
in infants. Hence it follows that they must have main
tained this distinction between regeneration and renovation,
or conversion, which, in the present day, has been styled by
a strange fatality, a novel contrivance. Sufficient proofs, how
ever, of a positive kind may be collected from their own
writings, that they maintained this distinction."
Bp. Bethell on Regeneration,
pp. 14, 16.
2. Eucharist. — In producing the opinions of our Reformers
on the Sacrament of Baptism, I have accidentally brought for
ward their opinions on the Eucharist, and shewn that as private
controversialists they held in both inatances the doctrines which
as Reformers they propagated. The Commons, in 1549, broke
out into a dangerous rebellion, and to their articles of complaint
Cranmer wrote the answer. To tbe seventh article he makes
reply, (shewing that his notion of superstition and idolatry
was somewhat different from that whioh now prevails in certain
quarters,) " O superstition and idolatry ! how they prevail ainong
you! The very true heavenly bread, the food qf everlasting life,
offered to you in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, you
refuse to eat, but only at Easter ! and the cup of the most holy
blood, wherewith you were redeemed and washed from your
sins, you refuse utterly to drink of at any time. And yet instead
of tbese you will eat often of the unsavoury and poisoned bread
of the Bishop of Rome, and drink of bis stinking puddles, which
be nameth holy bread and holy water." Cranmer's Works, ii. 26.
The language of Cranmer, it is admitted, is not always so
strong as that of Ridley, but stUl it would be considered by
many in these days as savoring of Popery, in their undefined
use of that expression. In 1548 he published his translation of
Justus Jonas's Catechism, with some alterations and corrections
by himself. To the statementa therein made he professed to
the very last to adhere, and repudiated the idea of his having

99
deviated from the doctrine therein propounded (gee his Works,
ii. 440, iii. 13, 297, 344) From thia Catechism, therefore, I
select the following passages,
" Christ saith of the bread, ' This is my body' ; and of the
cup be saith, ' This is my blood.' Wherefore we ought to believe
that in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of
Christ. For God is Almighty (as ye heard in the creed.) He
is able, therefore, to do all things what he will. And as Saint
Paul writeth, he called those things which be not as if they were.
Wherefore, when Christ taketh bread and saith, ' Take, eat, thia
is my body,' we ought not to doubt but we eat his very body.
And when he taketh the cup and saith, ' Take, drink, this is my
blood," we ought to think assuredly that we drink his very blood.'*
And this we must believe, if we will be counted Christian
men. " And whereas in this perilous time certain deceitful persona
be found in many places, who of very frowardness will not grant
that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same,
for none other cause but that they cannot compass, by man'a
blind reason, bow this thing should be brought to pass; ye, good
children, shall with all diligence beware of such persons, that ye
suffer not yourselves to be deceived by them. For such men
surely are not true Chriatians, neither as yet have they leamed
the first article of the creed, which teacheth that God is Almighty,
which ye, good children, have already perfectly learned. Where
fore eschew such erroneous opinions, and believe the words of
our Lord Jesus, that you eat and drink his very body and
blood, although man'a reason cannot comprehend how and
after what manner the same is there present. For the wisdom
of reason must be subdued to the obedience of Christ, as tbe
Apostle Paul teacheth," — Tracts of Anglican Fathers, p. 38.
Again,
" Christ aaith, do this in remembrance of me. Here also
it is our duty to obey the word of Christ, and to do the thing
which he bath commanded us to do. Wherefore, good children,
doubt not, but there ia the body and blood of our Lord, wbich
we receive in the Lord's Supper. For he hath said so, and by
the power of bis word hath caused it so to be. Wherefore,
seeing Christ saith, " Do this as often as ye do it in remembrance
of me; it is evident hereby that Christ causeth, even at this
time, his body and blood to be in the Sacrament after tiiat manner
and fashion as it was at that time when he made his Maundyt
• " The body and blood of Christ which are vEniLY and indeed
taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper."— C/mrcA
Catechism. fThe Thursday before Good Friday.
G 2

100

with his disciplea. For else we could not do that thing which
bis diaciples did. But Chriat hath commanded us to do the selfsame
thing that his diaciples did, and to do it in the remembrance of
him, that is to say, to receive his body and blood, even so as he
himself did give it to his disciples. And let not tbe foolish talk
of unbelievera move you, wbo are wont to ask thia question, bow
can tbe priest or miniater make tbe body and blood of Christ ?
To the which I answer, that the minister dotb not this thing of
himaelf [alone] ; but Christ himself dotb give unto us his flesh
and blood, as hia words doth evident declare. Neither let
their arguments or reasons perauade you which say that the
Sacrament ought not to be received under both kinds, but under
one kind only. For Christ gave to his disciples both kinds, and
hath bid us that we also should do the same. And when he gave
tbe cup to his disciples, be added thereto this commandment, in
these express and plain words, saying, ' Drink ye all of this,'
Now we ought to obey God more then men ; we ought, therefore,
to receive the Sacrament under both kinds, as Christ commanded
us : and regard not the gaggling of them that speak against the
use of the Sacrament of both kinds, saying, it maketh no great
matter, whether ye receive it under both kinds, or one alone, and
that it pertaineth not the aalvation to receive it under both
kinds. But what ahall I dispute long in this matter ? Take
this for a conclusion, that it is only laudable and good to do that
thing which Christ hath commanded, and not to swerve from
the same. — p. 40.
" Furthermore, if any man ask ye, what availeth it, thus to
eat and drink ? ye shall answer, tbese words do declare what
profit we receive thereby, ' My body which is given for you' — ' My
blood which is shed for you, for tbe forgiveneaa of sins.' By the
which worda Christ declareth, that by this Sacrament and words
of promise are given to ns remission of sins, life, and salvation ;
for where forgiveness of sin is, there is also life and salvation.
Again, if a man will go further with you, and ask you, how can
bodily eating and drinking have so great streng-th and operation?
Ye shall answer, to eat and to drink doth not work so great
things, but this word and promise of God, ' My body which waa
given for you,' — ' My blood whioh was shed for you, for the
remission of sins.' Thia word of God is added to the outward
signs, as the chief thing in the Sacrament. He that believeth
these words, he hath that thing which the words promise, that
is to say, forgiveness of his sins.
"Besides this, if a man ask of you, who be they who do
worthUy receive this Sacrament ? ye shall answer, that fasting,
abstinence, and such other like, are profitable for an outward
discipline and chastisement of the body; but he receiveth the
Sacrament worthUy that hath faith to believe these words, ' My
body which was given for you' :—' My blood which was shed

101

for you,, for the remission of ains.' But he that believeth not
these words, or doubteth thom, he receiveth the Lord's Supper
unworthUy. For this word, 'given for you,' doth require a
faithful and believing heart," — pp. 43, 44.
To Bishop Ridley Archbishop Cranmer was indebted for the
alteration which took place in his opinions with respect to the
doctrine of transubatantiation ; the learned Ridley having dis
covered from the writings of Bertram that it was no primitive
doctrine. The opiniona of Ridley are therefore worthy of
consideration. Of Ridley his biographer states —
"He alwaya beUeved and maintained a real presence by
grace to faith, and not a mere figure only : and although there
were some English fanatics, such as John Webb, George Roper,
and Gregory Paske, who beUeved that the Sacrament was only
a bare sign of Christ's body, and nothing more than a remembrance
of it ; yet this was not the opinion of our martyrs." — Words
worth's Biography. From Foxe and Ridley, iii. 147.
What was the opinion of our blessed martyr, Ridley, may
be stated in hia own words :
" Thia remembraunce thua ordeined, as the author thereof is
Christ both God and man ; so by the almighty power of God,
farre pasaetb all kind of remembraunces that any other man is
able to make, either of himself or of any other thing, for whoso
ever receiveth this holye Sacrament thua ordeyned in remem
braunce of Christ, be receyeth therewith either death or lyfe.
In this I doo trust we aU agree. For Sainte Panic saith of the
godlie recovers in the tenth chapter of his first epistle to the
Corinthiana : The cuppe of blessing which we blesse, is it not the
partaking or fellowship of Christes Moud 9 And also be aaieth :
The bread which we breake (and meaneth at tbe Lord's table), is it
not the partaking or felloicshippe of Christes hodie ? Now the
partaking of Christea hodie and of his blonde unto the faitbfuU and
godUe, is the partaking or fellowship of life and of immortalitie.
Enchiridion, p. 69,
" The controversie no doubte whiche at thys day troubletb
the churche, (wherein anye meane learned man eitheir olde or
newe doth atand in,) is not whether the holie Sacrament of the
bodye and bloud of Christ is no better than a piece of common
breade or not ? Or whether the Lorde's table is no more to bee
regarded than tbe table of any eartblye man or noe ? Or whether
it ia but a bare sigue or figure of Christ and nothing elles or noe ?
Por all do graunt that St. Panics words do require, that the
breade which we breake, is the partaking of the body of Chriat.
And all also doe graunt bim that eateth of that breade or drinketh
g3

102
of that cuppe unworthUie, to be giltie of the Lordes death, and to
eate and drinke his owne damnation, because he esteemeth not
the Lordes bodie. All doe graunt that these words of St. Paule
when he saith (if we eate it avantageth us nothing, or if we eate
not, we want nothing therebye) are not spoken of the Lordes
table, but of other common nieatea." — Enchiridion, p. 7^-
Most clearly and unequivocally doea he declare the truth as
it is still held in the Church of England, at hia laat trial :
" My Lord, you know that where any equivocation (which
is a word having two significations) is, except distinction be
given, no direct answer can be made : for it is one of Ariatotlea
fallacies, containing two questions under one, the which cannot
be satisfied witb one answere. For both you and I agree herein,
that in the Sacrament is the very true aud natural! bodie and
bloud of Christ, even that which was borne of the Virgine Mary,
which ascended into heaven, which sitteth on the right hand of
God tbe Father, which shall come from thence to judge the
quicke and the deade, only we differ in modo in the way and
manner of being ; we confess all one thing to be in the Sacrament,
and dissent in tbe manner of being there, I, being fully by God's
word thereto perswaded, confess Christ's naturall bodie to be in
the Sacrament indccde by spirit and grace, because that whoso
ever receiveth worthilie that bread and wine, receiveth eS'eotuously
Christ's body and drinketh his bloud, that is, he is made
effectually partaker of his passion : and you make a grosser kinde
of being, enclosing a naturall, a lively, and a mooving bodie under
tbe shape or forme of bread and wine,
" Now this difi'erenee considered, to the question thus I
answere ; that in the Sacrament of the Aultar is the naturall
bodie and bloud of Christ vere et realiter, indeed and really, if
you take those tearmes in deede. and really for spiritually by
grace and cfficaoie ; for so everie worthie receiver receiveth the
verie true bodie of Christ ; but if you meane really and indeed, so
that thereby you wonld include a lively and a moveable bodie
under the formes of bread and wine, then in that sense is not
Christ's body in the Sacrament really and indeed."
Wordsworth's Biography, iii. 237,
Such, too, aro the opinions held by thoae divines wbo have
always upheld the doctrines of the English Reformation, under
the conviction that they are, happily, those of the Catholic
Church. " I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate
ni silence what we have by the Sacrament [of the Holy Eucharist]
and less to dispute of the mannrr how. * * * * ' This ia
hiy body,' and ' this is my blood,' being words of promiae which

103

we all agree that by tbe Sacrament Christ dotb really and truly
in us perform his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselvea
with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation, or else
by transubstantiation, the Sacrament itself be first possessed with
Christ or no ? A thing which no way can either furtber or
hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ
in this Sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of his omnipotent
power, which maketh it his body and blood to us, whether with
change or without alteration of the element such as they imagine,
we need not greatly to care or inquire."
Hooker's Eccl. Pol. book v. ch. Ixvii. 3 and 6.
" As to tbe inanner of the presence of the body of our Lord
in the blessed Sacrament, we that are Protestant and Reformed
according to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into the
manner of it with perplexing incfuiries; but, after the example of
the primitive and purest Church of Christ, we leave it to tho
power and wisdom of our Lord, yielding a full and unfeigned
assent to bis words. Had the Romish maintainers of transub
stantiation done the same, they would not have determined and
decreed, and then imposed as an article of faitli absolutely
necessary to salvation, a manner of presence, newly by them
invented, under pain of the most direful cursa, and there would
have been in the Church less wrangiiug, and more peace and
unity than now is." Bishop) Cosin's Histoiy of Transubstantiation.
In Tracts for the Times.
I may also bere make a citation from Nowell's Catechism to
shew how the subject was understood by him, who, when the
Reformation was completed, took what was then regarded as a
very moderate, if not a low view of the subject.
" Master. — It is very true that thou sayest. Now tell me
the order of the Lord's Supper.
" Scholar. — It is even the same whioh the Lord Christ did
institute, who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread
&c. This is tbe form and order of tbe Lord's Supper, which we
ought to hold, and holily to keep, till be come,
" Mast. — For what use ?
"Scho. — To celebrate and retain continually a thankful
remembrance of the the Lord's death, and of that most aingular
benefit which we have received thereby ; and that as in baptism
we were once born again, ao with the Lord's Supper we be always
fed and sustained to spiritual and everlasting life.

104

" Mast. — Thou aayeat, then, that it is enough to be once
baptized, as to be once born : but thou affirmest that the Lord'a
Supper, like as food, must be often used.
" Scho. — Yea, forsooth, master,
'¦'¦Mast. — Dost thou say that there are two parta in this
Sacrament also, as in Baptism ?
" Scho. — Yea, the one part the bread and wine, the outward
signs, which are aeen with our eyea, handled with our hands, and
felt with our taste; the other part Christ himself, with whom
our soula, as with their proper food, are inwardly nourished,
" Mast. — And dost thou say that all ought alike to receive
both parta of the Sacrament ?
" Scho. — Yea, verily, master, for aith the Lord hath expressly
so commanded, it were a most high offence in any part to abridge
his commandment. " Mast. — Why would the Lord have bere two signs to be
used ?
" Scho. — First, he aeverally gave the signa both of his body
and blood, that it might be the more plain express Image of his
death which he suffered, his body being tom, his side pierced, and
all his blood shed, and that the memory thereof so printed in our
hearts should strike the deeper. And moreover, that the Lord
might so provide for and help our weakness, and thereby
manifestly declare, that as the bread for nourishment of our
bodies, ao hia body bath moat singular force and efficacy,
spiritually to feed our souls : and aa witb wine men'a hearta are
cheered, and their atrength confirmed, so with hia blood our soula
are relieved and refreshed ; that certainly assuring ourselves that
he is not only our meat, but also our drink, we do not any where
else but in him alone seek any part of our spiritual nourishment
and eternal life.
" Mast. — la there, then, not an only figure, but tbe truth
itself, of the benefits that thou haat rehearsed, delivered in the
Supper ?
"^'cAo.— What elae ? For aith Christ is the trath itaelf, it
ia no doubt but that the thing which he testifieth in worda, and
representeth In signs, he performeth also in deed, and delivereth
it unto us ; and that he as aurely maketh them that believe in
bim partakera of hia body and blood, aa tbey surely know that
they have received tbe bread and wine witb their mouth and
stomach. NowelVs Catechism.
I may add, in conclusion, that in one of our highest and
holiest offioea, the Communion Service of our Church, aa adminia-
tered to the Sovereign at his coronation, prayer is made that God

105

would bless the bread and wine, through which the oblation is
made, that by them, when thua blessed, we may be made
partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, The rubric and
prayer are aa follow ; —
" the queen 0FFER3 BREAD AND WINE,
" And first the Queen offers Bread and Wine for the Com
munion, which being brought out of King Edward's
Chapel, and delivered into her handa, tbe Bread upon the
Paten by the Bishop that read the Epistle, and the Wine
in tbe Chalice by the Bishop that read the Gospel, are by
the Archblshop received from the Queen, and reverently
placed upon the altar, and decently covered with a fair
Unen Cloth, the Archblshop first saying this prayer :
" Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, these thy Gifts, and
sanctify them unto this holy use, that hy them we may be made
partakers of the Body and Blood of thine only begotten Son
Jesus Christ, and fed unto everlasting life of Soul and Body :
And that thy Servant Queen Victoria may be enabled to the
discharge of her weighty Office, whereunto of thy great goodnesa
thou hast caUed and appointed her. Grant this, 0 Lord, for
Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate, Amen"
That this may be wrong and Popish in tbe opinion of some
persons. Is true, — but then we have to bear the charge in com
mon vrith tbe Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the Bishops
who took part in the service.

Note M, p. 25.

The words of Cranmer are : —
"The boly Apostle Saint Paul, good chUdren, in the tenth
chapter of bla epistle to the Romana, writeth on thia faahion,
'Whosoever ahall caU upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.
But how sbaU tbey call on bim on whom tbey beUeve not ?
How shaU they beUeve on him of whom they have not heard ?
How shall they hear without a preacher ? How shall they preach
except they be sent?' By the which words Saint Paul dotb
eridently declare unto us two lessons,
" The first is, that it ia necessary to our salvation to have
preachera and ministers of God'a most holy Word to inatruct us
in the true faith and knowledge of God,

106

" The second is, that preachers must not run to this high
honour before they be called thereto, but tbey must be ordained
and appointed to this office, and sent to us by God. For It Is
not possible to be saved, or to please God, without faith ; and
no man can truly believe in God by bis own wit (for of ourselvea
we know not what we should believe), but we must needs bear
God's Word taught us by others.
" Again, the teachers, except tbey be called and sent, cannot
fruitfuUy teach. For the seed of God's Word doth never bring
forth fruit, unless tbe Lord of tbe harvest do give increase, and
by his Holy Spirit do work with the sower. But God doth not
work with the preacher whom he hath not sent, as St. Paul saith.
" ' How shall they preach If they be not sent ?' Wherefore
it is requisite that preachers should be called and sent of God ;
and tbey must preach according to the authority and commission
of God, granted unto tbem, whereby they may strengthen men's
belief, and assure their consciences that God hath commanded
them to preach after this or that fashion. For else every man
should still be in doubt and think after this sort ; who knoweth
whether this be true which I hear the preacher say ? Who can
teU whether God hath commanded him to preach these things or
no ? And in case he teacheth nothing but truth, yet I am not
sure that God will work with me, as the preacher promiseth ?
Perchance these promises pertain to other, and not to me ? These
doubts, in the time of temptation, might trouble men's minds, if
we were not assured that our Lord Jesus Christ himself, hath
both ordained and appointed ministers and preachers to teach hia
holy word, and to minister his Sacraments ; and also bath
appointed them what tbey shall teach in his name, and what they
shall do unto us. Therefore he called them and sent tbem, and
gave them instructions what they should do, and speak to us In
his name, to the intent that we should give sure credence unto
their words, and believe that God will work with us according to
his words h-y them spoken. And be hath promised, therefore,
that whatsoever they should bind upon earth shoiUd be bound in
heaven ; and whatsoever they should loose upon earth, should be
loosed in heaven. Wherefore, good children, to the intent you
may steadfastly believe all things which God by his Ministers
doth teach, and promise unto you, and so be saved by your faith ;
learn dUigently, I pray you, by what words our Lord Jesus Christ
gave this commission and commandment to his Ministers, and
rehearse them here, word for word, that so you may print them
in your memories, and recite tbem tbe better when you come
home. The words of Christ be these : —
" 'Odr LORD JESUS CHRIST breathed on his Apostles,
AND SAID, Receive the HOLY GHOST : whose sins ye for
give, TIIEY arb forgiven UNTO THEM; AND WHOSE SINS YOU
reserve, they ARE RESERVED.'

107

" Now, good children, you shall employ yourselves not only
to rehearse these worda without book, but also to understand
what our Lord Jesua Christ meant by them; that when you shall
be asked any question herein, you may make a direct answer, and
that also in time to come you may be able to instruct your
children in the aame. For what greater ahame can there be, either
In the sight of God or of man, than to profess thyself to be a
Christian man, and yet to be ignorant in what place of Scripture,
and by what words, Christ commanded faith and forgiveness of
sins to be preached ? seeing that a Chriatian man ought to believe
nothing aa an article of his faith, except to be assured that either
It Is God's commandment or his word.
" Now, good childi-en, that you may the better understand
these words of our Saviour Christ, you shall know that our Lord
Jesus Christ, when he began to preach, he did call and choose
his twelve Apostles ; and afterwards, besides those twelve, he
sent fortli three score and ten disciples, and gave them authority
to preach the gospel. And a little before his death and passion
he made his prayer to his heavenly father for them, and for all
those that should believe through their preaching as It Is declared
In the Gospel of Saint John. Now It Is not to be doubted but
that Christ's prayer was heard of his heavenly father ; wherefore
it followeth, that as many as believed the preaching of Christ's
disciples, were as surely saved as If they had beard and believed
Christ himself. And after Christ's ascension the Apostles gave
authority to other godly and holy men to minister God's word,
and chiefly In those places where there were Christian men already,
which lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could no
longer abide with them : for the Apostles did walk abroad into
divers parta of the world, and did study to plant the gospel in
many places. Wherefore where they found godly men, and meet
to preach God's word, they laid their hands upon them, and gave
them the Holy Ghost, as tbey themselves received of Christ the
same Holy Ghost, to execute this office.
" And they, that were so ordained, were indeed, and alao
were called the Ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were,
as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration of God's
word (which our Lord Jesus Christ himself did first Institute)
was derived from the Apostles unto others after them, by impo
sition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles
time to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and
unction of the Apostles whereby they, at the beginning, made
Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the Church, even
to the world'a end. And whatsoever rite or ceremony hath been
added more than this, cometh of man's ordinance and poUcy, and
is not commanded by God's word.
" And on the other side, you shaU_ take good heed and
beware of false and privy preachers, which privily creep ipto

108

cities, and preach in corners, having none authority, nor being,
caUed to thia office. For Christ is not preaent witb such preachers,
and therefore doth not the Holy Ghost work by their preaching ;
but their word ia without fruit or profit, and tbey do great hurt
in Commonwealths. For such as be not called of God, they, no
doubt of it, do err, and sow abroad heresy, and naughty doctrine.
And yet, you shaU not think, good children, that preachera which
be lawfully caUed, have authority to do or teach whatsoever shall
please tbem. But our Lord Jeaua Christ hath given them plain
instructions, what tbey ought to teach and do. And if they
preach or do any other thing than is contained in their commission,
then it is of no force, nor we ought not to regard it [nor ought
we to regard it.] And for this cause our Saviour Christ did
breathe into his disciples, and gave them tbe Holy Ghost, For
where the Ploly Ghost is, there he so worketh that he causeth
us to do those things whioh Chriat hath commanded. And when
that ia not done, then the Holy Ghoat is not three. Wherefore
aU thinga which we shaU so speak or do, can take none effect,"
Cranmer's Sermon on the Apostolic Succession
and Power ofthe Keys. Anglican Fathers,
pp. 19, 23,
To this we may add the foUowing from Bishop JeweU : —
"Therefore, the ancient Father Irenaeus giveth ua this good
counaell : ' Ela qui sunt in ecclesia presbyteris, obaudire oportet,
qui successionem habent ab apostolia, qui cum episcopsetus suc-
cessione, charisma veritatis certum, secundum beneplacitum Patris
acceperunt ': it becometh us to obey those Priests in the Church
which have their succession from the Apostles, and together with
the succession of their bishoprics according to the good wiU of
God tbe Father have received the undoubted gift of the tmth." —
Defence of Apology, part ii. chap. 5, Mr, Vogan, from whose
able and argumentative visitation sermon I have taken thia quotas
tion, observes that " though Biahop JeweU in bis Defence aome
times appears to make little of the succession, this was only in
comparison vrith right faith, and under the view of the succession
being unaccompanied by right faith,"
One of the falsehoods propagated in these days is, that the
Reformers did not hold the divine right of episcopacy, but that
this doctrine was subsequently introduced. That our Reformera
were very generally of opinion, that where episcopacy could not be
had, ordination by Presbyters might, as a temporary measure, be

109
tolerated— juat as grace wiU be given to those who desire to
receive the Sacramenta, but from circumatancea are unable to do
so, — is not to be denied : and I am not aware that any Church
man of the present day would disagree witb tbem in the opinion,
although, among tbe Protestants abroad, there is not now the
same excuse for their want of episcopacy as there was in the
time of the Reformation, But tbe episcopal succession was as
sumed as a necessary doctrine of the reformed Church of England,
on the very first public occasion when our Reformers appeared in
defence qf the Reformation, after the acceasion of Elizabeth. At
the authoriaed conference between tbe friends of the Reformation
and the advocates of Romanism, to which allusion has before
been made, Dean Hom, in tbe name of the Reformers, observes,
" The Apostles' authority is derived upon after ages, and conveyed
to the Bishops, their successors.'' Hence be contends for their
apostolical authority to reform their Churches, without reference
to the See of Rome, tbe Bishop of that See being only the equal
of other Biahops, Collier ii, 418, The Puritans did not at first
declare themaelvea hostile to episcopacy, but aa soon as tbey did
so, the English Reformers asserted the authority of Bishops aa
of divine right, Biahop Hutton maintained tbe doctrine, before
Lord Burghley and Sir Francia Walaingham, witb preciaely the
same arguments as those which are now employed. See Strype's
Life of Archbishop Whitgift, in, 224, Dr- Bancroft, too, defended
the doctrine that Bishops were, jure divino, superior to the other
Clergy, even though tbe Puritans attempted to sUence him by
craftily bringing in poUtical considerationa, and by contending that
it was inconsistent with the Queen's supremacy, Strype's Whit
gift, i. 559, In sbort, the divine right of episcopacy was asserted
before it was questioned, for men did not question at first what
for 1500 years bad been undisputed ; and as soon as ever it was
questioned, it was immediately defended on scriptural grounds by
a Bishop, and by the Archbishop's Chaplain,

110

Note N. p 29.
The uae of the metrical Psalma was a conceasion made to
the feelings of the Ultra-protestants at an early period. They
form no part of our appointed services according to the rubric,
but, by one of Queen Elizabeth's injunctions, permiaaion waa
given to those of the parishioners who chose to assemble
before service commenced, or to atay after it was concluded, to
sing Psalms. It Is curious that we can name the precise period
when the singing of a Psalm between the end of the Litany and
the commencement of the Communion Service was introduced as
an innovation Into the Parish Church of Leeds. Under the
date I7O8, Thoresby in his Diary says,
" October 3. — Was much Interrupted in family course,
partly by guests and partly by a most severe cold which has so
absolutely taken away my voice that I was perfectly disabled
from some duties, as particularly singing, a new order of wliich
mas begun this day in the Parish Church, to sing a stave betwixt
the daily Morning and Communion Service (aa bas been long
done in London, &c.) and is more agreeable, making a greater
distinction, as there ought to be, betwixt the several parta." —
ii. p. 10.
The innovation was noted and complained of at an early
period. " At the Reforming of this Church," says Heylin, " not
onely the Queen's Chappel, and all Cathedrals, by many
Parochial Churches, also had preserved their Organs ; to which
they used to sing the appointed Hymns ; that Is to say, the Te
Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, the Nunc Dimittis, &c.,
performed in an Artificial and Melodious manner, with the addi
tion of Comets, Sackbuts, and tbe like, on the Solemn Festivals,
for which as they had ground enough from the boly Scripture, if
the practice and authority of David be of any credit ; so were
tbey warranted thereunto by the godly usage of the primitive
times, after the Church was once restored to her peace and free
dom. Certain I am, that St. Augustine imputes no small part of
his conversion to that heavenly melodie which he heard very
frequently in the Church of Millaine, professing that it did not
only draw tears from him, though against his wiU, but raised
hia aoul unto a sacred meditation on spiritual mattera. But Beza
having turn'd so many of the Psalms into metre, as had been
left undone by Marot, gave an example unto Slernhold and

Ill

Hopkins to attempt the like, Whoae version being left unfinished,
but brought unto an end by some of our English exUea whioh
remained at Geneva, there was a purpose of Imposing them upon
the Church by little and little, that they might come as close aa
might be In aU points to their mother city. At first, they sung
tliem onely In their private houses, and afterwarda (as beforesald)
adventured to sing them also In the Church, as In the way of
entertainment, to take up the time till the beginning of the
serrice, and afterwards to sing them as a part of the service itself.
For so I understand that passage In the Church Historian In
which he tells us that Dr. Gervis being then warden of Merlon
CoUedge, bad aboUshed certain Latine superstitious hymns which
had been used on some of the festivals, appointing the Psalms
in English to be sung In their place ; and that as one Leech was
ready to begin tbe Psalm, another of the fellows called Hall,
snatched tbe book out of his hands and told him that they could
no more dance after his pipe. But whatsoever Hall thought of
them, Beza and his disciples were perswaded otherwise. And
that he might tbe better cry down that melodious harmony which
was retained in the Church of England, and so make way for
the Genevian fashion, even in that point also; he tells us In the
same letter to Bishop Grindal, Ihat the artificial musick then
retained in the Church qf England,* was fitter to be used in
masks and dancings, than reUgious offices, and rather served to
please the ear than move the affections. Which censure being
passed upon it by so great a Rabby, most wonderful it was how
suddenly some men of good note and quality, wbo otherwise
deserved well enough of the Church of England, did bend
their wits and pena againat it ; and with what earnestnesa
they laboured to have their own tunes publickly Introduced Into
aU the churches, which, that they niight the better do, they pro
cured the Psalms in English metre, to be bound In the same
volume vrith the Publick Liturgle, and sometimes witb the Bible
also, setting them forth, as being allowed, (so the title tells ua)
to be sung in ail Churches before and after Morning afid Evening
Prayer, as also before and after Sermons ; but with what truth
and honesty, we have heard before."
Heylins's Hist, of P reshyterian.i, pp. 254, 255,
I am not contending for the discontinuance of the metrical
Psalma, for I deUgbt In congTegational singing, though I regret
that, in our parochial Churchea, they have superseded the
antiphonal chanting of the Psalms of the Day, We might
speak more strongly of the very novel introduction of unautho
rized Hymns, which, as the present Bishop of Peterborough
• Alluding to chanting and to our Cathedral Service.

112

remarks, " if they do not directly impugn our Liturgy and
Articles, may inculcate sentiments which are at variance with
every fair conclusion which may be drawn from our Liturgy and
Articles," may certainly be deprecated. But I intend not now
to condemn the practice, but merely to notice tbe fact, I feel
that I have no right to condemn, but I may notice an innova
tion, if it be only to shew who are the innovators, and to request
them, while living in a glass house, not to pelt so piteously,
as is frequently done, those of their brethren, who in regulating
the services of the sanctuary, are desirous of attending as strictly
as possible to tbe Rubric, although they may reverence the
Rubric not the less for its retention of ao much of primitive

Note O. page 29.
turning FROM THE PEOPLE IN PRAYER,
Among the things complained of by the Puritans in the
Convocation of 1562, this was one. They petitioned " that in
all parish churches the minister in Comnion Prayer might turn
his face towards the people." — Strype's Annals, i. pt. I. p. 502,
A petition to tbe same effect bad been previously made, and both
petitions were refused. What makea thia the more remarkable,
ia, that aa wUl be seen in the next note, the change had been
made at the end of Edward the Sixth's reign ; and, in order to
please certain foreigners, orders had been given to turn towards
the people in prayer. The order was reversed in Elizabeth's
reign, and we see from the above quotation that the practice of
turning fi'om the people, i. e. towards the East, was Instituted
by the Reformers who completed our Reformation. Of those
who petitioned that the minister might be compelled to turn to
the people, Strype remarks : " By tbe foregoing Articles we
may plainly perceive how much biassed these divines (i. e. thoae
who petitioned that the minister might tum hia face towarda the
people,) were (most of which seem to have been exiles,) towards
those platforms which were received in the reformed churches

113
lohere they had a little hefore sojourned" thus again ahewing tbe
foreign prejudices of Ultra-proteatanta, Other passages to tbe
same effect might be produced if it were worth while. The
foUowing extract is made, because it relates to aeveral points
aUuded to in this part of the discourse. In hia preface to the
Cyprianua Anglicua, Heylin thua deacribea the customa of the
Church of England before the Rebellion : —
" In tbe officiating of which acta of God's divine service,
the Priest or Presbyter is enjoined to wear a surplice of white
Unen cloath, to teatifie the purity of doctrine, and innocency of
life and conversation, which ought to be in one of that holy
profession. And this St. Jerome tella ua in the general, Religionem
Divinum alterum habitum habere in ministerio, alterum in usu
vitaque communi : that is to aay, that in the act of ministration,
they used a different habit from what they used to wear at
ordinary timea. And what this different habit was, be tells ua
more particularly in hia reply against Pelagius, who, it seems,
disliked it, and asked him what offence he thought it could be to
God, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or those of any inferiour
order, in Administratione Sacrificiorum candidi veste processerint,
did in the ministration of tbe Sacrament bestir themaelvea in a
white veature ; so he advers. Pelag. Lib. 2, witb wbich com
pare St. Chrysostom in his 83d Homily on St. Matthew's goapel,
for theEastern churches ; and hereunto tbe Cope was added in
some principal Churches, especially in the celebration qf the
fi/ewerf Eucbariat, Both wbich appear most evidently by the
first Liturgy of King Edward VI. compared with one of the last
clauses of the Act of Parliament, I Eliz. c. 2, in which it ia
provided, that such ornaments qfthe Church and ofthe Ministers
shall be retained and be in use, as were in the Church qf England
by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of
King Edward VI, But this vesture having been discontinued,
(I know not by what fatal negligence,) many years together, it
pleaaed the Bishopa and Clergy in the Convocation, Anno.
1603, to paas a Canon to this purpose, viz. "That In Cathe
dral and CoUegiate Churches, the Holy Communion shall be
administered upon principal Feast dayes, sometimes by tbe
Bishops, &c. and that tbe principal Minister using a decent
Cope, &c," — Canon 24,
" In that part of divine service which concerns the offering
of the people'a prayers to Almighty God, It waa required of tbe
Priest or Presbyter, firat, that in aU the dayea and timea
appointed, he uaed the prayera prescribed in the Public Liturgy
according to tbe Act of ParUament I Eliz. c. 2. And many
subsequent Canons and Constitutions, made in that behalf.
Secondly, " That he conformed himself to those rites and ceremo-
H

114

nies, wbich were prescribed in that book, and unto such as should
be afterwarda ordained by tbe Queen's Majesty, with the advice
of her Commissioners, appointed and authorised under the great
Seal of England, for Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan
of this Realm, as may be most for tbe advancement of God's
glory, the edifying of bis Church, and the due reverence of Christ's
holy mysteries and sacraments. -4nd thirdly, and more particu
larly, "That in his reading of the Prayers and Psalms he tum
his face toward the east, and toward the people in the reading
of the lesaons or chapters," as appears plainly by the Rubrick
which directs him thus, " That after the reading of tbe Psalma,
the Prieat shall read two lessons distinctly, that the people may
hear; the Priest that reads tbe two lessons standing, and turning
himself so as he may be best heard of aU such as be present."
The Psalms or Hymns to be indifferently said or sung at the
will of the Minister ; but tbe Hymns for tbe most part sung with
organs, and sometimes witb other musical instruments; both in
the Royal Chapels and Cathedral Churches. Fourthly. " That
he makes use of no other Prayers in the Congregation (and
therefore neither before nor after Sermon) than those which are
prescribed in the said Book of Common Prayer ; it being specially
provided in the act aforesaid, that no Priest nor Minister shall
use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of celebrating
the Lord's supper openly, or privately, or Mattins, Evening
Song, Administration of the Sacraments, or other open Prayers,
(that is to say, such Prayers as are meant for others to come
unto, or bear, either in common churches, or private chappels,
&o.) than ia mentioned or set forth in the same book. Fifthly,
" That all Priests and Deacons, shall be bound to say daily the
Morning and Evening Prayer, either privately or openly, except
tbey be lett by preaching, studying of divinity, or aome other
urgent cause." And Sixthly, " That the Curate that mlnistreth
in every Parish Church, or Chappel, being at home, and not being
otherwise reasonably letted, and shall say the same in the Parish
Church or Chappel where he mlnistreth, and shall toll a bell
thereto at convenient time, before he begin, and that such aa are
dispoaed, may come to hear God's word, and pray with him : so
as in some cases it may be said of the Priest, as the Father doth
of Christ, that he ia, os ipsum per quod loquimur, tbe very mouth
by which we apeak unto our Father which is in heaven."
Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 8.
Aa I have said before, the subject as to the Clergyman's
position during the prayers is of very little importance. But
since an outcry of Popery bas been raised, because one clergyman
In a new church has made his arrangements so as to be able to
comply with this regulation of the church, it is aa well to shew

115
that in this kind of Popery our Pious Reformers were very
obstinate, and that in observing this ceremony, we ahould be
following not only the Fathers of whom some persona seem to
think that they can have done nothing right, but also tbe Re
formers, whom tbe aame peraona regard aa if they had been
incapable of doing wrong. The action as a significative action
might be useful. When men aee the officiating miniater com
fortably supported by hia cushlona on hia elevated pulpit, and
fi'om hia easy position, to all appearance, reading to them instead
of praying to God, many of them will naturally think that if
cushions be not at hand on which to kneel, they may make
themselves aa comfortable as they can without kneeling, attending
to the words he reads to tbem, if he reads well, and forgetting
that he is engaged in the awful duty of prayer, if he reads
ill.

Note P. page 30,
READING DESK.
In thc royal injunctions atill in force (injunct, 22, Edw, VI,
and 18 of Elizabeth, A,D, 1559) it ia enjoined "that tbe LUany
shall be aung or aaid in the middle of the Church, before the
chancel door, at a low Deak," commonly caUed the fald-stool. It
is so atyled in the Coronation Service,
The use of the reading pew ia itself peculiar to the EngUsh
Church, and was introduced, not by choice, but neceaaity. In
the churchea of the primitive Chriatiana, it ia true that tbe ambon,
or ^rifia -yvtaaTaiv, ia described as a reading desk, but it corres-
ponda rather vrith our pulpit, and is called pulpitum by St,
Cyprian, The prayera were offered in the chancel ; the ambon
waa used for tbe reading of the epistles and gospels, and the
presbytera preached from it, Tbe bishop generaUy preached from
the steps of tbe altar, St. Chryaostom appears to have been the
firat biahop who mounted tbe pulpit, perhapa owing to the
inconvenient aituation of the chancel at Conatantinople. The
singera alao used to aacend the ambon when they took their part
h2

116

in the service. The origin of our reading pew, or reading desk,
is given in Wheatley, and I shall transcribe hia account. The
firat book of Edward VI. ordered " the prieat, being in the choir,
to begin the Lord's Prayer, called Paternoster (with which the
morning and evening service then began,) witb a loud voice. So
that then it waa the custom for the miniater to perform divine
service (i. e. the inorning and evening prayer, as well as the
communion office,) at the upper end of tbe choir, near the altar ;
towards which, whether standing or kneeling, he always turned
his face in the prayers : though whilst he waa reading the lessons
he turned to the people. Againat thia, Bucer, by the direction of
Calvin, most gTievoualy declaimed, urging that ' it was a moat
antichristian practice for the priest to say prayers only in the
choir, as a place peculiar to the clergy, and not in the body of
the church among the people, who had as much right to divine
worship as the clergy theinselves !' He, therefore, strenuously
insisted that ' the reading divine service In the chancel was an
insufferable abuse, and ought immediately to be amended, if the
whole nation would not be guilty of bigh treason against God,'
This terrible outcry, however senseless and trifiing, prevailed so
far that when the Common Prayer Book was altered in the 5th
year of King Edward, the following rubric was placed in room
of the old one : viz. ' the morning and evening prayers shall be
used in such placea of the church, chapel, or chancel, and the
minister shaU ao tum him as the people may best hear. And if
there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be referred to
tbe ordinary, and he or his deputy ahall appoint the place,'
This alteration caused great contentions, aome kneeling one way
and some another, though still keejilng in the chancel ; while
others left the accuatomed place, and performed all the servicea
in the body of the Church amongst the people. For the appeas
ing of this strife and diversity. It waa thought fit, when the
English service was again brought Into the Church, at the
accession of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, that the rubric
should be corrected, and put Into the same form in which we
now have it, viz. that ' the morning and evening prayers shall be
used in the accustomed place of tbe church, chapel, or chancel' ;

117
by wbich, for the generality, must be meant the choir or chancel,
which waa the accuatomed place before tbe second Prayer Book
of King Edward. For it cannot be supposed that thia second
book, which laated only one year and a half, could establish a
custom. However, a dispensing power was left with the
ordinary, who might determine it otherwise if he aaw juat cauae.
Pursuant to this rubric, the morning and evening service was
again, as formerly, read in the chancel or choir. But becauae
in some churches the too great distance of the chancel from tbe
body of tbe church, occasioned aometimes by the interpoaition of
a beUry, hindered the minister from being heard distinctly by the
people, therefore the Bishopa, at the solicitationa of the inferior
clergy, allowed tbem in several placea to auperaede their former
practice, and to have desks or reading pews In tbe body of the
church, where they might, with more ease to themselves, and
greater convenience to tbe people, perform the daily morning
and evening service. Which dispensation, begun first by some
few ordinaries, and recommended by them to othera, grew by
degreea to be more general, till at laat it came to be an univeraal
practice ; insomuch that tbe convocation, in tbe beginning of
King James tbe First's reign, ordered that in every church there
should be a convenient seat made for the minister to read service
in," — Wheatley on Common Prayer, p. 113.
Such is the history of our reading deaka. The chancela in
tbe old churchea were ao inconvenient that tbe Bishopa tolerated
the uae of a reading pew. But in building new churches, our
care, aurely, ought to have been ao to build the chancela, that
such inconvenience should no longer exist, and that we might
return to our proper place. And tbe fact is, that, in most of the
new churches, tbe clergyman is better heard from tbe chancel
than from the reading deak. Why then give ua a aecond pulpit ?
why not aend us back to the chancel ? I believe that the anawer
wiU be found to be nothing more than that the Paplata, wbo stiU
retain a portion of our Liturgy, officiate alwaya at the altar,
and that, conaequently, we should be accused of symbolizing
with Popery, — an argument as vaUd against tbe use of the
Scripture,
h3

118

Let it not be said that this is a subject of no importance.
I have already remarked that, confined in a narrow box, the
officiating minister cannot perform hia varioua offices as he ought
to do. With his face alwaya tumed to the people, — most of the
people, Ustlessly loUIng in their seats, seem to think he is reading
to THEM. Our Liturgy (including under that designation the
morning and evening service) is regarded ae one long prayer, to
be read by the clergyman, whereas it really consists of a great
variety of services. If considered as one long prayer, such as
diaaenting teachers utter before tbey deliver their discourses,
many faults may be found with our Prayer Book ; but when
regarded as a divine service of praise as well as of prayer, of
exhortation on the part of the minister, and of acclamation on
the part of the people, it ia equaUy instructive and sublime.
That it is, however, in fact, if not in theory, regarded as merely
one long prayer, may be inferred from the circumstance, that
we are accustomed to speak, not of a clergyman's solemnizing
divine service, but of his reading prayers. And, indeed, in the
new rival pulpits a clergyman does appear rather to be reading
prayers than praying.
Note Q, p. 30.
BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS.
The foUowing is our 18th canon.
" A Reverence and attention to be used in the Church hi
time of Divine Service.
" In the time of Divine Serrice, and of every part thereof, all
due reverence is to be used ; for it is according to the Apostle's
rule. Let all thinga be done decently, and according to order ;
answerably to wliich decency and order, we judge these our
directions following : No man shall cover his head in the Church
or Chapel, in the time of Divine Service, except he have some
infirmity ; in which case let him wear a night cap or coif. All
manner of persons then present shall reverently kneel upon their
knees, wben the General Confession, Litany, and other prayers
are read ; and shall stand up at the saying ofthe Belief, according
to the rules in that behalf prescribed In the Book of Common
Prayer : And likewise when in time qf Divine Service the Lord

119
Jesus shaU be mentioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done
by all persons present as it hath been accustomed; testifying, by
theae outward ceremoniea and gestures, their inward humility.
Christian resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord
Jesua Chriat, the true etemal Son of God, is the only Saviour of
the world, in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promisea
of God to mankind, for this Ufe, and the life to come, are fully
and wholly compriaed. None, either man, woman, or child, of
what calling soever shall be otherwiae at auch timea busied in
the Church, than in quiet attendance, to hear, mark, and under
stand that which ia read, preached, or ministered ; saying in their
due placea audibly with the Miniater, the Confession, the Lord's
Prayer, and the Creed ; and making such other answers to the
Publie Prayera, as are appointed In the Book of Common Prayer:
neither shall they disturb the Service or Sermon, by walking or
talking, or any other way; nor depart out of Church during the
time of Service or Sermon, without some urgent or reasonable
cause," So doea tbe Church of England authoritatively decide, and
that ber deciaion is strictly in accordance with that of her Re
formera is evident, because the Canon ia baaed on the foUowing
Injunction, which our pioua Reformers advised Queen Elizabeth
to issue in this behalf :. —
" Although Almighty God is all timea to be honored witb
all manner of reverence that may be devised ; yet of all other
times In time of Common Prayer the same is to be most regarded.
Therefore it is to be necessarily received that in time of the
Litany, and aU other CoUects and Common Supplications to
Almighty God, all manner of people shall devoutly and humbly
kneel upon their knees and give ear thereunto, and that whenso
ever the name qf Jesus shall be in any Lesson, Sermon, or
otherwise in the Church pronounced, that due reverence be made
of all persons, young and old, with lowness of courtesy and
uncovering tbe heads of mankind," (alluding to sermons out of
doors at Paul's Cross, &c.) " as thereunto doth neceasarUy belong
and heretofore hath been accustomed"
Injunctions by Queen Elizabeth, 1559.
Bp. Sparrow's Collections, 81,
To kneel in prayer, and to bow at the name of Jesus, is
not, therefore, Popish, unless our Martyr-Reformers were
Papists,

120
Note R. p. 30.
CANDLES ON THR ALTAR.
" And bere it is to be noted that such ornaments of the
Church and of tbe Miniatera thereof at all timea of their minis
tration shall be retained and be in use, as were In this Church of
England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the
Reign of Edward VI." — Rubric in Common Prayer Book.
Upon this Bishop Mant, In a note taken from Bishop Cosins
and Wheatley, remarks : —
" As to the " ornaments of the Church," mentioned in this
rubrick, it may be observed, that among others then In use, there
were "two lights" Injolned by tbe injunctions of King Edward
the Sixth, which injunctions were also ratified by the Act of
Uniformity that passed soon after the Reformation, to be set upon
the Altar, as a slg-nlfioant ceremony to represent the light which
Christ's Gospel brought into the world. And this, too, was
ordered by the very same Injunction which prohibited all other
lights and tapers that used to be superstitiously set before Images
or shrines, &c. And these lights, used time out of mind in the
Church, are still continued in most, if not all. Cathedral and
Collegiate Churches and Chapels, so often as divine service is
performed by candle light; and ought also, by this rubrick, to be
used in all Parish Churches and Chapels at the same times."
Some Clergymen have due regard for these ancient and
decent ornaments of the altar, in the hope that they may lead
the people to look with more reverence on the Sacrament of
the altar, and excite a spirit of thankfulness for the glorioua
and heavenly light of which they are emblematical. They
may be In error, but tbey can hardly be charged with Popery,
except by thoae Ultra-protestants who regard the English
Reformers, who inserted this rubric, as Papistical, and a true
son of the Church of England will gladly bear the charge if it
be applied equally to our Martyr-Reformers.
I speak of tbe Communion table aa an Altar, finding that
it is repeatedly so spoken of in the coronation office, which,
having been sanctioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his
Suffragans, will not be considered papistical by any true

121

membera of tbe Church of England, It appears from the
following paaaage, that our great Reformera did not foreaee
the revival of Popery by the retention of this word,
"Tlie Sacrament ofthe Lord'a Supper, they (the Reformera)
called the Sacrament of the Altar, as appears plainly by the
statute, 1 Edward VL, intituled ' an Act against such as apeak
unreverently against the Sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar' : for which,
consult the body of tbe Act Itself; or, secondly, by Bishop
Ridley, one of tbe chief compilers of the Common Prayer Book,
who doth not only call it the Sacrament of the Altar, affirming
thus, that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the natural body and
blood of Christ, &c., but in his reply to an argument of the
Bishop of Lincoln, taken out of St. Cyril, be doth resolve it
thus, viz. ' The word Altar in Scripture signifieth as well the
altar whereon the Jewa were wont to off'er tlieir bumt sacrifice
as the table of the Lord'a Supper ; and that St. Cyril meaneth
by this word altar, not the Jewish altar, but the table of tbe
Lord, &c. Acts and Mon. part 3, p.p. 492 and 497. Thirdly,
by Bishop Latimer, his fellow martyr, wbo plainly grants ' that
the Lord'a table may be called an Altar, and that the Doctora
caUed it so In many placea, though there be no propitiatory
sacrifice but only Christ,' part 2. p. 85. Fourthly, by several
affirmationa of John Lambert and John Philpot, two leamed and
religioua men, whereof the one suffered death for religion, in the
reign of Henry VIIL, and tbe other in the fiery time of Queen
Mary. Thia aacrament being called by both the Sacrament of
the Altar, in their several timea ; for wbicb consult the Acts and
Monuments, commonly caUed the Book of Martyrs,"
Heylin. Cyprianus Anglicus, Pref.

Note S, p. 30,
CLERICAL HABILIMENTS,
In the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, we find that our
Reformera applied to the civU authority to enforce tbe regulation
of the Church thus :—
" In tbe miniatration of theLHoly' Communion in Cathedral
and CoUegiate Churches, the principal Minister ahaU use a Cope
with GoapeUer and Epistoler agreeably."
Queen Elizabeth' slAdvertisements.
Bp. Sparrow's Collection, p. 124.

122

And thus it is ordained in the 24th Canon :
" Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that
administer the Communion. In aU Cathedral and CoUegiate
Churches, the Holy Communion shall be administered upon
principal feast days, sometimes by the Bishop, If he be present,
and aometimea by the Dean, and at sometimes by a Canon or
Prebendary, the principal Minister using a decent Cope, and
being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistoler agreeably, accord
ing to the advertisements published Anno. 7 Eliz."
The use of the cope would doubtleaa now be conaidered " fiat
Popery," — why more so than that of the surplice, it Is difficult
to say. Both were placed under tbe same category in the days
of our Reformers, and the surplice equally witb the cope waa
declared to be " a patch of papistry," — Strype's Parker, i. 330,
Our Reformera contended for and inaiated on the uae of both,
— " tbe cope in the ministration of tbe Lord's Supper, and the
surplice in aU other ministrations." — Strype's Annals, i. pt. i. p.
320, Wben tbese habits feU into disuse I know not, but so late
aa the year 1681, we find the following entry In Thoresby's
Diary, Thoresby being then a Non-conformist, " Die Dom, In
the forenoon went to the Minster (Durham) ; was somewhat
amazed at their ornamenta, tapers, rich embroidered copes, vest
ments, &c," — Diary, i. 75, I need scarcely remark that if in
other Minatera and Catbedrala this canon ia transgreaaed, it was
strictly observed at Westminster by the Archbishop of Canter
bury, the officiating Bishops, and the Prebendaries, at the
coronation. Why tbey should offend againat tbe canon by not
uaing their copea, on ordinary occasiona, it ia difficult to say, for
it cannot be more popiab or superstitious to use them at one time
than at another. But my object in aUuding to the circumstance
ia not to advocate the revival of what might offend weaker
brethren, but to ahew that a due attention to tbe decent and
orderly ceremoniea of tbe sanctuary, aa it is, certainly, not
unscriptural, so it ia strictly in accordance witb tbe principle a
and practice of our Church and her Reformers.
The mention of Durham reminds me of a transaction wbicb
occurred with respect to that Cathedral in the reign of Charles I.,
so very like what Is almost daUy occurring in our own times,

123
that I will extract the account given of it by Collier, as it wiU
at the same time let the reader see what ceremonies were in uae
before the great RebeUion. The exaggerations In the charges
made againat the Dean of Peterborough are auch that one
might almoat suppose oneself to be reading a paragraph in some
popular religious newspaper of the day,
" One Smart, a Prebendary of Durham, complained to the
parliament, against Dr, Cosins, Prebendary of the same Church,
and Dean of Peterborough. Cosins was charged with superstition
and illegal proceedings against the complainant. The Articles of
Superstition suggested that Cosins set up a marble altar, with
cheruhins, in the Cathedral of Durham J That this, with tho
appurtenances, cost two thousand pounds. That this ornamental
furniture, which be calls appurtenances, was a cope, the repre
sentation of the Trinity, and God the Father in the figure of an
old man. There was likewise said to be a crucifix, with a red
beard and blue cap. The Dean was further accused for lighting
two hundred wax candles about the altar on Candlemas-day ;
for forbidding tbe singing of any psalms before and after sermons ;
for making an anthem to be sung of the Three Kings of Cologne,
Gaspar, Balthazar, and Melchior ; and for procuring a conse
crated knife only to cut the bread at the communion. That
Smart, above mentioned, declaimed with some vehemence in the
pulpit against these innovations. His text was, I hate all those
that hold qf superstitious vanities, hut thy law do I love. That
for this freedom he was imprisoned by the High Commission at
York, and kept under durance four months, before any articles
were exhibited against him. That from hence he waa removed
to the High Commission at Lambeth ; and that after having been
harass'd a long time, be was remanded to York, fined
five hundred pounds, and ordered to recant ; and that refusing
to make this submission, he was further fined, excommuni
cated, degraded, and deprived. This complaint foi-med into a
hill, was laid before tbe House of Commons, and afterwards
carried up to the House of Lords. That Smart waa called the
Proto-Martyr oi England, in these latter days of persecution by
Bouse, wbo carried up tbe Bill to the Lords, and that a large
reparation was made to the complainant. Thus far Fuller. But
that thia Historian was mis-informed, appeara by his own letter
to Dr, Cosins, in which he owns hia miatake, and promiaed to
make tbe Dean satisfaction in his next print.
" I shall give the Reader matter of fact from Dr, Cosins
his letter upon this subject. To be brief, Wben Smart's Bill
of complaint waa carried up by Rouse, a Member of the Com
mona, to the House of Lords, Cosins put in fuU answer upon

124

oath : That his anawer waa entered upon the rolls of Parliament,
made good before the Lords, both by himself, and by tbe very
witness that Smart and his son-in-law produced againat him.
That upon this, Glover, Smart's Lawyer, told him at the Bar of
the Houae of Lords, he was ashamed of his complaint, and
could in conscience plead no longer for him : That after this the
cause came on no more : That many of the Lords declared
publickly that Smart bad abused the House of Commons witb a
groundless complaint against Cosins : And that by an order from
the Lords delivered to him by the Earl of Warwick, he had the
liberty to go where he pleased, and never heard any more from
tbem. The answer Cosins gave in upon oath, and made good
before the Lords, was to this effect :
" (1st.) That the Communion Table in the Church of
Durham, which the Bill of Complaint calls the Marble Altar,
with Cherubina, waa not aet up by Cosins, but by the Dean and
Chapter many years before he was Prebendary of that Church :
And that Smart was then one of that Chapter. (2ndly.) That by
the public accounta atanding upon the Regiater, the charge did
not amount to above the tenth part of what was pretended.
(3rdly.) That tbe Copes used in that Church were furnished long
before Cosins his time : And that Smart, the complainant, waa
Prebendary when they were bought, and aUowed hia ahare of
tbe charge. (4thly.) That Cosins never approved the Picture
of the Trinity, or the Image of God tbe Father, in any figure :
And that to his knowledge there was no such representation in
the Church of Durham. (5thly.) That the Crucifix, with a
Blue Cap, and a Golden Beard, mentioned in the Bill of
Complaint, was nothing but the Top of Bishop Hatfield's Tomb,
which had stood in the Church above two hundred and fifty
years : and that there was no such figure upon any of the Copes,
as is reported in Fuller's History, (6thly,) That by the
Statutes of that Church, to which Smart was aworn no less than
Cosins ! by these local statutes, the treasurer was to provide a
sufficient number of wax lights for the service of the quire during
the winter season. That there was never above two fair candles
set upon the Communion Table. That there ia no more candlea
used upon a Candlemas night, than in the Christmas Holidays :
And that the number of tbem was lessen'd or increased in propor
tion to tbe congregation. 7thly, That Cosins never forbad
singing the Metre-Psalma in the Church, but ua'd to aing theni
himself with the people at Morning Prayer, (8thly.) That he
was so far from directing the singing an Anthem to tbe three Kings
of Cologne, that at bis first coming to Durham Cathedral he
ordered this superstitious hymn to be cut out of the Old Song
Books belonging to the Choristers School, That no such anthem
had been sung in tbe quire during hia being there, nor ao far as
his enquiry could reach for three score years before, and

125
upwards, (9thly,) That the Knife used for cutting the Bread
at the Communion was never conaecrated, (lOthly,) That in
Smart's Sermon there are aeveral propositions, not to be
reconciled either to the Lawa of God, or his Church, or the
Statutes of tbe realm. That Cosins reported some of these
paaaagea, and appeal'd to the Lords for the justice of the
censure pass'd upon him. And lastly, that the complainant bad
swelled the account of what he suffer'd ; that be never paid hia
fine : that the value of his church preferments, lost by hia
obstinacy, was over and above made good to him by the con
tributions be received upon the score of his lying under censure.
But that the Parliament gave him no damages, nor ordered
Cosins, or any other peraon Smart complained of, to pay him a
farthing by way of reparation." Collier, U. 798.
It ia, indeed, very evident to the student of ecclesiastical
history, that there were many ceremonies, of which there was a
traditional observance in the Church, though enforced by no
rubrical directions, from the period of the reformation to that of
the rebellion, which,' because merely traditional observances,
could not be revived at tbe restoration, the ceremonies of the
Church having been suspended for so many years. I do not
know that the revival of them was to be desired, but I am only
speaking of the fact. For Instance, at the Hampton Court
Conference, the Bishop of Winton alludes to certain common
practices, such as " kneeling on tbe ground, and lifting up of our
hands, the knocking of our breasts" whioh he says are " cere
monies significant, tbe first of our humility coming before the
mighty God ; the second of our confidence and hope ; the other
of our sorrow and detestation of our sins." — Phenix, i. 165,
When young Prince Charles was going to Madrid, the decencies
of religion were carefully attended to, and the directions given to
the chaplains, even at a time wben Abbot was Archbishop, who
was inclined to Puritanism, were as follows : —
" 1. That there be one convenient room appointed for prayer
the said room to be employed, during their abode, to no other use,
" 2. That it be decently adorned Chapel-wise, with an Altar,
Fonts, PaUs, Linen Coverings, Demy-Carpets, Four SurpUces,
Candlesticks, Tapers, ChaUces, Pattens, a fine Towel for the
Prince, other Towels for the Household, a Traverse of Waters
for the Communion, a Bason and Flaggons, two Copes,

126

"3. That Prayers be duly kept twice a day. That all
reverence be used by every one present, being uncovered, kneeling
at due time, standing up at the Creeds and Gospel, bowing at
the name of Jeaus.
" 4. That the Communion be celebrated in due form, with
an oblation of every communicant, and admixing water vrith the
wine, the Communion to be as often used as it shall please the
Prince to set down : smooth wafers to be used for the Bread.
" 5. That in the Sermons there be no polemical preachings
to inveigh against them, or to confute them, but only to con
firm the doctrine and tenets of the Church of England by all
possible arguments either in fundamental or moral pointa ; and
eapecially to apply themselves in moral lessons to preach Chriat
Jesus crucify'd.
" 6. That they give no occasions (or rashly entertain any)
of conference or dispute, (for fear of dishonour to the Prince, If
upon any offence taken, he should be required to send away one
of them :) But if the Lord Ambassador or Mr, Secretary wiah
tbem to hear any that desire some information, then they may
safely do it,
" 7- That they carry the Articles of our Religion in many
copies, the Books of Common Prayer in several languages, store
of English Service Books, &c," Collier, ii, 726,
I merely quote this passage in confirmation of what I have
said, that there were many traditional observances received from
our Reformers, which, after tbe restoration, fell into disuse. It
is certain that if a young prince were In theae days to go into
foreign parts, no such directions for divine worship among his
household would be given, and perhaps some may think that
auch splendour is better omitted. There ia no doubt but that
attention to outward circumstancea may often render men mere
formalists. And it ia lamentable when such is tbe case. But
sometimes, too, it happens, that, by the neglect of externals,
principles are themselves forgotten. It ia not quite certain in
these days whether if a young prince went abroad he would be
attended by any chaplain, or be directed to worship God at all.
Neither the English Reformera nor the Lutherans, (the Protes-
tanta strictly so called,) were hoatlle to tbe ancient ceremonies, or
to tbe ancient ornamenta of the Church. Of the Lutherans it has
been remarked, " that all their Churches, and especially their
Cathedrals, are not to be distinguished from many in the midst

127
of Rome, on account of their varioua paintinga, exalted crucifixes,
and frequent imagea, AU veneration, however, is absolutely for
bidden to be paid to them, which tbey atrlctly observe, though
they own that they look upon them aa convenient for notices and
romembrancea of our Saviour's Passion, and of the devotions of his
Saints ; and, in sbort, use them no otherwise than we do our prlnta
and plcturea, in our BIblea and Common Prayer Books," — North-
Im/Iis Topogr. Descript. p. 128, It is, indeed, notorious, that
although the mob at our Reformation, instigated by religioua
demagogues, did much injury to our Churchea, tbe imagea of
the saints were removed from them, not by our English
Reformera, but by Cromwell and his partlzana, Thia aort of
fanaticism ia to be traced entirely to the Calvinists, Anabaptlsta,
and aectariea of that clasa, " It ia a matter of fact," saith a
late ingenioua author, " that crosses and pictures of our Saviour
were left standing, wben there was no such apparent hazard of
their being abused ; as appears from the paintings of our
windowa in many of our Churchea, We are not against the
historical use, but the idolatrous abuse of images." — Britons
no converts to Popery. Even at the present time, in many
Lutheran Churches, candles are Ughted, and a crucifix placed,
on the altar. Queen Elizabeth retained a silver crucifix on
the communion table, in her chapel, until, at the instigation
of Sir Francis KnoUys, it was broken by Peach, her fool.
Against her retention of this ornament, several of our Reformers,
in my opinion wisely, protested. The use of the crucifix Is not
of ancient date, and it is very easily abused to the purposes of
superstition ; I am glad, therefore, that we are well rid of it, —
but thia was not entirely effected before the great Rebellion,
Archbishop Williams waa tbe bitter opponent of Laud, and yet
of hia chapel we find tbe following deacription : — " Besidea bis
altar, moat richly fumished, there are to be seen goodly pictures,
which cannot but strike the beholders with thoughts of piety and
devotion at then entrance ; as the picture of the Passion, and
likewise of the Holy Apostles, together witb a fan- crucifix set
up in painted glass, in the East window, just over the holy
table,"  PocUington's Altar, Christ, p. 83. To these facta I

128

simply refer to shew that when men in these days declaim
against, not the erection of a crucifix, but even tbe ornament
of a cross, as proofs of a spirit hostile to that of our Reformers,
and of an inclination to Popery, they speak in utter ignorance
of hiatory. All these things may be wrong, and let them ao be
proved, but against them the authority of our Reformers cannot
be quoted, — no — nor even that of the Lutheran Reformera.

Note T. p. 34.

The 53d Canon runs thus :
" If any preacher shall, in the pulpit particularly, or
namely of purpose. Impugn or confute any doctrine delivered
by any other preacher in the same Church, or in any Church
near adjoining, before he hath acquainted the Biahop of the
Dloceae therewith, and received order from bim what to do in
that case, because upon such public dissenting and contradicting
there may grow much offence and disquletness unto the people ;
the churchwardens or party grieved, shall forthwith signify the
same to the aaid Bishop, and not auffer the said preacher any
more to occupy that place which he hath once abused, except he
faithfully promise to forbear all sucb matter of contention in the
Church, until the Bishop hath taken further order therein ; who
ahall with all convenient apeed so proceed therein, that pubUc
satisfaction may be made in the congregation where the ofi'ence
waa given. Provided, that if either of the partiea offending do
appeal be ahaU not be suffered to preach pendente lite."
In tbe former Editlona of thia Semion I thought it neceaaary
to notice a breach of canonical Discipline In a quarter where we
should expect to find the observance of the Canons impressed upon
the minds of young men preparing for Holy orders. The senti
ments there expressed, I do not retract, but as my wish is to call
to union, it aeema unneceasary to continue, in a Third Edition, a
reference to an unfortunate controversy, which, it is my hope,
wiU never be revived.

129
In concluding tbese notea I wish to observe that my
intention has not been to bring chargea against those who may
differ fi-om me in opinion, and yet are united with me in a deaire
to adhere to th^ principles of the Church, But I have been
desirous of pointing out the erroneous position in whioh we are
at present placed by those wbo would divide ua into High-
Churchmen and Low-Churchmen. I have shewn that the
Engliah Reformers contended for the principles, and resolutely
maintained the practices, for defending and maintaining which
thoae who are now styled High-Churchmen are assaUed as
Papists. If they, then, were to assail their opponents as persons
hoatlle to tbe spirit and principles of the English Reformation ; as
persons who, with reapect to baptism especially, are wont to use
a language which they acknowledge to be different from the
language of the prayer book, however much we might regret the
circumstance, it would not be a matter of much surprise to
any one. But it is notorioua that such, at the present time, ia
not the case. Those who are called Low-Churchmen are the
assaUants, and in assaUing High-Churchmen, they are in fact
assaUing our High-Church Reformers, and fighting the battles
againat them in favour of their old enemies, the Puritans,
Surely, then, it is not much to ask, for the sake of peace, that if
those wbo are on the strong side refrain from attacking, those
who are, confesaedly, so far aa the Church and the English
Reformera are concerned, on the weak side, should be equally
forbearing. There are among them many pioua and good men,
whose only fault ia that tbey take, vrithout examination, the
premlaea afforded them in the falsehoods invented by certain
newspapera and magazines, and then hastily draw conclusions
which would not be falae were the premises correct. But with
whom are these persons uniting in order to defame the repre
sentatives of our very High-Church Reformers ? Let them look
to tbe cold, worldly theologians, who are seeking to Inflame
their passions, merely to further the party purposes of worldly
policy, I vrill not name them. But it is notorious that against
those whom they are pleased to denominate High-Churchmen,
are joined in one band the most cold and calculating of our

130

divines, wbo regard the Church as little more than a state engine,
together vrith others whoae truly evangelical views ought to
unite tbem with tbe very men to whom tbey are oppoaed, even
though on aome points of opinion tbey may differ. With reapect
to such combinations we may tmly say witb an old writer, " if
sucb public mischiefs be presaged by astrologers from the
conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, though the first of these be
a planet of most sweet and gentle influence, what dangers, what
calamities, may not be feared from these poUtical conjunctions !"
For my part, I bate party names, which often make a dia-
tlnction between persona where there ia no difference. I believe
that, in real principle, a more united body of men never exiated
than the Clergy of England at the present time, and the attempt
to make tbem suppose themselves at variance cannot certainly
be of God. But if men will divide us — be it ao. And If I
am ranked among the High-Churchmen, I shall be perfectly
contented. I am content to be what the Fathera of the Church
Universal were ; I am content to be what our pious Reformers
were ; and if the opprobrious epithets which were applied to
them be applied to us, we shall glory In the tribulation, and
rejoice to bear tbe scandal of the cross. Only let it be clearly
understood what a High-Churchman, according to the present
signification of tbe term, is ; let it be understood that whUe the
Low-Churchman is contending for the temporalities of an
Establishment, the High-Churchman looks to the spiritualities
of the Church ; that wliile the Low-Churchman is a mere
Establishment-man, the High-Churchman ia prepared to sacrifice
all the advantagea of an Establishment, rather than compromise
an Iota of God's truth ; that while the Low-Churchman defera to
acts of the English Parliament,'^ the High- Churchman defera to
* Our's is sometimes, wickedly, called by the Papists " An Act of
Parliament Church," and it is to be feared that the principles of some
High-Establisliment men and Low-Churchmen, in this respect, assist
the cause of Popery. Not long ago, I saw the announcement of a
sermon to be preached in a Church in behalf of the Moravian missions.
The preacher seems to have had some little douljt in his mind whether
he could, consistently, plead, in Church, the cause of a dissenting
Institution, and certainly, in doing so, he violated the canons of the
Church of England. But to satisfy his own mind, and to anticipate

131
the Church In Council ; that wbUe the Low-Churchman inter
prets Scripture according to the tradition of men,— a tradition
which can be traced back only to a Calvin or an Arminius, the
High-Churchman interprets Scripture according to the tradition
which may be traced back to the Apostles themselves, which
tbe Church Universal has regarded as, in Its origin, divine, and for
adhering to wbich our Church waa called, in the time of our
Reformers the Church of the Traditioners. In short let me
conclude with the worda of Biahop Horsley : —
" Upon these topics," says that great divine, alluding to the
Apostolical Succession, &c. " the clergy of late years have been
more sUent than is perfectly consistent with their duty, from a
fear, aa I conceive, of acquiring the name and reputation of High
Churchmen. But, my brethren, you will not be soared from
your duty by the idle terror of a mere name, artfully applied
in violation of the tme meaning of the word to entrap tbe
judgment of the many, and bring the discredit of a folly long
since eradicated, upon principles which have no connexion with

objections, he stated in the advertisement that " the Moravians are
declared by Act of Parliament to be a true Protestant Episcopal
Church !" It would not be to Acts of Parliament that a High-Church
man would refer on such a subject, but to the Gospel. And certainly
the Irish members will rejoice to find that the Parliament, in which
they have such influence, is invested, in the opinions of some Protestants,
with authority to decide on what are, or are not, true Protestant
Episcopal Churches. They will, perhaps, wonder to find the English
Parliament invested with a power similar to that which is exercised by
the Pope, and will wonder the more at finding those persons who thus
defer, in ecclesiastical matters, to Parliament, complaining, when
Parliament taxes us to support the College at Maynooth, and constitutes
the Romish Church as the Established Church of Canada. But
supposing, for the sake of argument, that an Act of Parliament is, in
matters ecclesiastical, an infallible authority, and that the respectable
society of the Moravians is " a true Protestant Episcopal Church," —
still this does not prove that it is entitled to the support of Churchmen ;
for this "true Protestant Episcopal Church" may be here in England
in a state of schism, and it is in a state of schism if it sets up altar
against altar. If it be pretended that the Moravians, because pro
nounced by an Act of Parliament to be a true Protestant Episcopal
Church, do not essentially differ from us, that very circumstance only
renders their schism the more unj ustifiable. And a Scriptural Christian,
or High-Churchman, will fear to handle the word of God deceitfully,
or to speak of schism, as anything but a sin. It is not with any feeling
of unkindness towards the quiet and respectable denomination of
Moravians that I write thus, I would only refer them, not to Acts of
Parliament, but to the unadulterated Scriptures, where they will find
that as there is oue Spirit, so also there is one body. I would refer
them to John xvii, 21, 23 ; to 1 Cor. i, 10, 13 ; Col. iii. 15 ; Ephes. iv. 4;
und to Churchmen I must add Rom. xvi. 17.

132

it. You promote the stratagem of your enemies, you are
assisting in the fraud upon the public, and you are acceaaaries to
the injury to yourselves, if you give way to a dread of tbe
imputation. To be a High Churchman, in the only sense which
the word can be allowed to bear as applicable to any in the
present day, God forbid that this should ever cease to be my
public pretension, my pride, my glory ! To be a High Churchman
in the true import in the English language, God forbid that ever
I should deserve the imputation. A High Churchman in the
true sense of the word, is one that is a bigot to the secular
rights of the Priesthood ; one who claims for tbe Hierarchy,
upon a pretence of a right inherent in the sacred office, aU those
powers, honours, and emoluments, which they enjoy under an
establishment; which are held indeed by no other tenure than at
the will of the Prince or by the law ofthe land. To tho Prince, or
to the law, we acknowledge ourselves indebted for all our secular
possessions ; for the rank and dignity annexed to the superior
order of the clergy; for our secular authority; for the jurisdiction
of our courts, and for every civil effect which follows the exercise
of our spiritual authority. All these rights and honours with
which the priesthood Is adorned by the piety of the cIvU magis
trate, are quite distinct from the spiritual commission wbich wo
bear for the administration of our Lord's proper Kingdom, They
have no neceaaary connexion with it ; tbey atand merely on the
gTound of human law, and vary, like the rights of other citizens, aa
the lawa which create tbem vary. And in every Church, con
nected like our Church, with the state by an establishment, even
spiritual authority cannot be conferred without the consent of the
supreme civil Magistrate, But in the language of our modern
sectaries, every one is a High Churchman, who is not unvriUIng
to recognise so much as the spiritual authority of the Priesthood;
every one, who denying what we ourselvea disclaim, any thing
of a divine right to temporalities, acknowledges, however, in
the aacred character, somewhat more divine than may belong to
the mere hired servants of the atate, or the laity, and regards
the service, which we are thought to perform for our pay, aa
something more than a part to be gravely played in the drama
of human politics. My reverend bretlnen, we must be content
to be High Churchmen according to this usage of the word, or
we cannot at all be Churchmen. For he who thinks of God's
ministers as the mere servants of the state, is out of the Church,
— severed from it by a kind of self-excommunication. Much
charitable allowance is to be made for the errors of tbe laity upon
points to wbich It ia hardly to be expected they should turn
their attention of their own accord, and upon which, for aome
time past, tbey have been very imperfectly instructed. Dissenters
are to be judged with much candour, and with every possible
aUowance for the prejudices of education. But for those who
have been nurtured in the bosom of tbe Church, and have gained

133

admiaaion to the ministry, if from a mean compliance vrith the
humour of the age, or ambitioua of the fame of liberality of
sentiment, (for under a specious name, a profane indifference is
made to pass for an accomplishment,) tbey affect to join in tbe
disavowal of tbe authority which they share, or are silent when
the validity of their divine commission ia called in question; for
any, I hope tbey are few, wbo hide thia weakness of faith, this
poverty of religioua principle, under tbe attire of a gown and
cassock, tbey are, in my estimation, little better than infidels in
masquerade." Bp. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of St. David's,
in the year 1799, pp. 34, 37-

R. rBBBina, miNTBB, LKBBS.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
1, A SERMON preached at the Primary Visitation of the
Right Rev, George TomUne, D.D. Bishop of Winchester,
July 3, 1822.
2 An ATTEMPT to DEMONSTRATE the CATHOLICISM,
of the CHURCH of ENGLAND ; a Sermon Preached
at the Consecration of the Right Rev. Biahop Luscombe,
March 20, 1825.
3, A LETTER to the late Earl of Liverpool on the " Unitarian
Marriage BIU,"
4, The SOCIETY for PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOW
LEDGE RECOMMENDED to the SUPPORT of
CHURCHMEN; a Sermon preached at Coventry,
July 9, 1830.
5. THE LAST DAYS OF OUR LORD'a MINISTRY; a
Courae of Lecturea delivered during Paasion Week, 2nd
Edition,
6, QUESTIONS and ANSWERS on CONFIRMATION,
lOih Edition,
7. TWO PLAIN SERMONS on the CHURCH and the
ESTABLISHMENT. 3rd Edition.
8. FIVE SERMONS, Preached before the University of Oxford.
9. The CATHOLIC CLERGY of IRELAND ; their Cause
Defended ; a Sermon preached for tbe Irish Clergy.
10, PRIVATE PRAYERS. 3rd Edition.
These prayers are derived almost exclusively from ancient sources ;
the business of the Compiler having chiefly been to adapt them for
modern use, and the purposes of private Devotion.
II. A BOOK of FAMILY PRAYER ; 2nd Edition.
The object of this Publication is to adapt to tho purposes of Family
Prayer the Morning and Evening Services of the Church.
12. An INAUGURAL DISCOURSE, preached at Leeds,
April 16, 1837. 2nd Edition.
13, A FAREWELL SERMON, preached at Coventry, June 4,
1837. 3rd Edition.
14. A LETTER TO HIS PARISHIONERS, on the USE of
THE ATHANASIAN CREED, with Scripture Refer
ences. 4th Edition.
15. HEAR THE CHURCH ; a Sermon preached in the Chapel
Royal, St. James's,
EDITED BY DR, HOOK,
1, DEAN COMBER'S FRIENDLY and SEASONABLE
ADVICE to the ROMAN CATHOLICS; with Notea
and Preface, by Dr, Hook, 4tb Edition,
2. EARLY DAYS and PROFESSIONAL LIFE of BISHOP
HOBART ; with Preface, by Dr. Hook,

3 9002 08561 5814