W-\ 'w ^^''^'' '
^iiJ': '-Mr f'! ' -

L tl*!!: . .- A ,«¦
p, "'"'^ r- Al ¦¦:'':

^¦^>'>'' ^-:.
•^ *. - », j' .• •>< ,' •

'5-

I'l' ',,

'' ifll

;i Ml

, .' 'M

"f

''¦ '^'i

' > t'

\ r'i

'^ ^

•' x'';

' -1 M
' '., Ft¥^i
' ¦
, ;n ,b 1
.
, ' "it *l\l
t
• '1
/ >
. ¦!
J'
v:l
('If
' iti
! . '
;;t >
ft 'I
. - ' -4,
.'-'¦•4'
• Iu,. ¦ '• ki
•Y*
¦^i
REMARKS ON
THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S
COMPARATIVE VIEW.

C. Bdltlwm, Pri„,„-; 

ON

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH'S
COMPARATIVE VIEW
OF
%f)t C|)urcJ)es OF
ENGLAND AND ROME,

THE REV. G. gJ^OVER, AM.
RECTOR OF SOUTHREPPS AND BILLINGFORD, VICAR OF
CROMER, AND CHAPLAIN TO HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
THE DUKE OF SUSSEX.

Nisi schisma csset, multi non haberent unde viverent.
Gnoims, Vol. pro Pace.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR 6ALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY,
PATEmfOSTEa-HOW. 1821-

REMARKS.

SECTION I.
My Lord,
A CONSIDERABLE period of time having passed
away since your Lordship's book, entitled "ACompa^
rative View of the Churches of England and Rome"
first appeared, it may not unreasonably be expected
of any one now stepping forward to offer his remarks
upon it, that some prefatory explanation should be
given of the motives by which he is led to undertake
that office, and of the reasons why, if necessary at all,
it was not undertaken sooner. These then, I beg re-
spectftdly to submit, are, on my part, as follows : —
When the " Comparative View " appeared, I lost no
time in obtaining it, and read it with an interest, ex-
dted not only by the importance of the subject, and
the value of opinions coming from such a quarter,
but also by the circumstance of having myself, but a
few months previously, travelled over a considerable
portion of the same ground, and published, at the
request of my Diocesan, a Sermon upon all the chief
points there handled. Whether that Sermon had, or
had not, any thing to do with calling forth your Lord-
B

ship's production, I will not presume to say. It is
sufficient both to myself and others, to know that the
subject of discussion is one of the very highest mo
ment, affecting on one hand the interests and well-
being of a very considerable portion of our fellow
christians and fellow subjects; on the other, the
character and even the foundations of our own esta
blished faith, and on hoth, the public peace and pros
perity of the universal Church of Christ ; and that if
the pictm'e drawn by your Lordship, either of the
Church of England or the Chm'ch of Rome, be cor
rect, that not only my own, but that of many great
and illustrious authorities, is most widely wrong.
This is of itself, I hope, an adequate apology for any
person, at any time, and under any circumstances,
coming forward with a plain and respectful avowal of
sentiments which he thinks himself able to establish ;
and I do not feel that he is farther accountable %o any
one, than for the manner in which this office is per
formed. Why I have not, individually speaking, done this
sooner, may be also thus accoutited for. I can never,
my Lord, without much pain, see clergymen of my
own communion involved in polemical discussions
upon points of their common faith. I need not in
form your Lordship how often, without having pro
duced one single benefit to the public good, we have
seen them carried on at the expense of that chai'ity
and forbearance, of which it should rather be our ob
ject, as it is our duty, to be exemplary patterns to our
flocks. Nay, even where they have begun in every
appearance of a desire only to edify and instruct each

other, how often have they ended in the bitterness of
sarcasm, and. the violence of iflvective ! In additii^a
to this general disinclination to a war of woids, there
was quite enough in your Lordship's own peculiar cha
racter, neither to justify any other person in so dioing,
nor to allow me, without the greatest deliberatioii, to
venture on such a contest. For no man can be itisen*
sible to the array of industry, of acutefiess, and of
learning, to which be must stand opposed, or that he
would have to do with an antagonist long trained and
severely disciplined to the conflict. My Lord, i may
personally observe, that I feel, with sufficient keen
ness, all these circumstances, and that they have been
eai?efully balanced in my mind. But, a love of truth,
aud justice, and charity between man and man, how
ever divided by different views of religious doctrine,
or by diffiarent forms of religious worship, impels me
forward, and a conviction that this cause may be im
portantly ^rved, if I can show, in the instance of the
parties now before us, that the distance between them
is not so wide as prejudice and misrepresentation are apt
to make it, nor so wide as your Lordship has undertaken
to prove it in ihe "Comparative View." Even if I fail in
aceompiishing this object, my ignorance, or want of abi
lity, may be exposed, but my motives are still unassail
able, and consistent with the profession I belong to.
But, this task would still have been unattempted,
had your Lordship remained merely in the situation of
life which you occupied when your book was written,
important as that situation is ; and I should never
have thot^ht of entering the lists against you, upon
eitiber this or any other sul^ect. But the case now
B 2

.presents itself under a very different aspect. Youy
opinions and statements have been again lately re-
published; and the very Government of the country,
the high authority of the State itself, has given them
its sanction, and, by the advancement of your Lord
ship's episcopal dignity, has in the strongest and most
unqualified manner, testified its own approval of the
spirit in which the " Comparative View " is written, and
even made itself responsible for the doctrines it con-
tainSi It has moreover, by elevating your Lordship to
the rank of a legislator, added a new weapon of power
to that of the pen, and placed you in a situation of
not merely entertaining in speculation, and recom
mending by the force of argument, opinions which I
believe to be inconsistent with the mild spirit of the
Gospel, and at variance with the principles of the Re
formation, as well as unsuited to the age we live in,
and unfavourable both to the real interests of our
Church and the prosperity of the State, but of carry
ing those opinions into practice, and giving them
effect by your influence and vote. Gladly, therefore,
as I should have seen some individual of greater
learning and greater influence, as well as possessed of
greater ability and better opportunities of research
than I enjoy, undertake the office of reviewing the
observations and statements which your book contains;
yet I cannot, as a clergyman, yielding to none of my
brethren, either in attachment to that faith of which
I am a minister, or in zeal for the prosperity of our
Sion, forbear entering my Protest, as I here do, against
the portrait you havegiven us of the Church of Eng
land; nor, as a fellow christian, against what I cout

ccSve to be both imfair and unwarranted charges
against the Church ofRome; whose members, from
the unfortunate situation in society which they hold
amongst us, are rather entitled to the most indulgent
consideration that their case can possibly admit of
Under the impression of these feelings I have taken
up my pen : It is under their influence that I shall
now submit to your consideration all that I have to
offer.

SECTION II.

THE great general subject of discussion then is,
your broad and sweeping assertions : First, that "the
Churches of England and Rome are, in respect to doc
trines, fundamentally distinct;" not only that they
differ in many single articles of faith, but that " the
faith qf the one is founded upon a different basis
from the faith of the other." * Secondly, that " the
rejection of tradition was the vital spirit of the Re
formation," or, as it is now qualified, " the rejection of
tradition as a rule of faith, and the authority of tradi
tion in ceremonies also."f This question, thus briefly
* See Comparative View, p. 2.
f That I may not here be guilty either of suppressing or mis
-stating his Lordship's words, I submit to the perusal of my readers
his whole note, containing the charge, against somebody, of a
twofold misapplication of expressions on a former occasion
used, and his more delibei-ate and enlarged exposition of the
ground he has now assumed. Whether I be the person alluded

6
stated, it is obvious to perceive, will lead us to a
consideration of nearly every important point of dif-
to, or not, I do not presume to say, but leave it for those to de
termine who may take the trouble to Compare what I said ill
my sermon before mentioned, with what is here urged. —
" I take this opportunity of noticing a very extraordinary
misapplication of what I said ahout tradition, in my letter to Mr.
Gandolphy. Speaking of the difference between tlie Romanists
and the Protestants, in regard to the foundations of their faith ;
I observed, at page 11, " The one party appealed to the Bible
alone;'' and again, at page 16, 1 said, " You will not be able to
" bring satisfactory evidence that we have inherited from the
" Apostles any other doctrines than those which are recorded
" in their genuine writings as contained in the New Testament.
" Hence it was that our reformers rejected the authority of tra-
" dition ; and this very rejection is that which constitutes the
" vital principle of the Reformation." When I said therefore,
that our reformers " rejected the authority of tradition, and ap-
" pealed to the Bible alone," it was manifest, that no other
tradition either was or even could be meant, than the tradi
tion wliich to the Church of Rome is a rule of faith. For
there is no other tradition of which the authority is capable of
being compared with the authority of scripture : whereas, the
authority of this tradition is always compared with the authority
of scripture. For the latter is called the Written Word, the
former the Unwritten Word ; and both of them, in the Church
of Rome, have equal authority. No reader, therefore, who re
flected on what he read, could possibly imagine that I was
speaking of a tradition of ceremonies, and attempt to confute
the assertion by an appeal to the thirty-fourth article. But
though the tradition of doctrines, and not the traditions of
ceremonies, was at that time the subject of enquiry, the asser
tion which I there made is still applicable to the tradition also of
ceremonies;unless the word "authority," which I used in both
of those passages, be suppressed, when the assertion is repeated.
As I notice this twofold misapplication, merely to prevent a re
currence of such errors, it is sufficient to state tliera without
mentioning names."

ference between the t\VQ churches, as we}| ^^ tljip
grounds upon which those differences rest, mi th?
limits to which they are extended. And I am happy
to observe, that it has been placed hy youy Lordship
on so clear a footing, and argued with so disti^pt and
lucid an arrangement, as to render the task of follow^
ing you through it, as far as you go, and of illustrat
ing the parts you have omitted, without causing either
interruption or confusion, more practicable than any
question of so complicated, and in some respects dif-
Jicult a nature, that I ever remember to have seen
handled. The defect will be my own, if any thing
in these remarks should appear not so.
It seems, however, necessary, before we proceed
further, to say a few words on the principal authori
ties to which you have appealed, as establishing the
facts and elucidating the arguments which you have
employed. These authorities happily lie within so
narrow a compass, that they need not detain us Jong-
They are the writings of Bellarmine, the decrees of
the council of Trent as officially declaring the dpc-
trines of the Church of Rome ; and the lectures qf
the college of Maynooth, as officially expressing the
system of divinity now taught in the United King
dom to the clergy of that Church. To these is also
added, the " Exposition of Catholic Doctrine, by
Bossuet." I shall begin with the council of Trent, as being
by far the most important; and readily admit
that its decrees, as far as they relate to articles of
faith, but no farther, are universally binding upon
the members of the Church of Rome. Not, however.

as emanating from that council, which has never been
acknowledged by a very considerable portion of the
Catholic church of Europe, to have possessed the pro
perties requisite to constitute a true general council ;
but, as Simon has observed in his Lettres Choisees,
" because such doctrines had existed before any as
sembly of bishops had been there convened." And
as they have not acknowledged its authority, so neither
are they bound by the strict and exact letter of its
decrees. A general agreement in the doctrines there
promulgated is all that has ever been conceded, whilst
in matters of discipline its control is entirely dis
avowed. I cannot, therefore, but wonder at the fol
lowing passage, which I find at the 37th page of the
" Comparative View," respecting it. " The council
of Trent was convoked by papal authority: three
legates of the Pope presided at the council ; and it
finally received the confirmation of the Pope, entitled
' Confirmatio Concilii,' which is annexed to the decrees.
Moreover, in every decree it is styled a general
council. It is styled also a ' council lawfully assem
bled in the Holy Spirit,' and consequently a council
free from the possibility of error. There was nothing
wanting, therefore, in this council to give it the cha
racter of infallibility, according to the principles of
the Church of Rome. And that councils thus general
in their convocation and celebration, are really infal
lible, is no where more strongly enforced than in the
theological lectures at the college of Maynooth."
Now I am siue your Lordship is not ignorant of
what is meant, both by Catholics and Protestants, when
speaking of a general council ; for we are taught by

every writer on. this subject, of whatever party, that
there are three points essentially requisite to consti
tute an oecumenical or general council, such as can
alone challenge canonical obedience, and in every one
of these the council of Trent was most notoriously
defective. These are, first, that it should be a general
convocatio, or summoning of representatives of all
Christian churches ; secondly, that there should be a
general celebratio,* or attendance ; and thirdly, that
its decrees should be generally approved and adopted.f
Now the two first are two of the points, and the only
two, mentioned in the passage you have quoted from
the lectures of Maynooth, as constituting a council
claiming to be infallible, " concilia convocatione et
celebratione generalia ; " and from which, though you
have not ventured to represent the council of Trent as
* His Lordship does not seem exactly to have understood
what is meant by celebratio, and has evidently mistaken it for a
pompous *' confirmatio concilii '' by the Pope. If he will con
sult the Orations of Cicero, he will find it to be very properly
and classically applied, by the ancient Christian fathers, to mean
universality of attendance, and it is most properly made a sine
qua non of a general council ; because the Pope might otherwise
issue a proclamation, convoke a few Italian cardinals as tvitnesses,
confirm any doctrine he chose to propagate by a papal bull,
and, according to his Lordship's conception, infallibility is thus
assured and eternally confirmed — See on this subject Brent's
preface to his Translation of the Council of Trent, and bishop
Jewell's letter appended to it, and Mosheim's account of the
reception of the Trent decrees by various churches still holding
communion with Rome.
+ The decisions of a general council, as well as all papal
bulls, are not binding upon any country or people where they
have not been duly promulgated, and this promulgation can
only be duly made by, and under, the sanction of the temporal
authorities of the realm.

10
really possessing either, you have yet confidently arro
gated for it that which Catholics themselves deny it.
Nay, my Lord, you may rest assured that the proper
ties you have enumerated for the Trent council, and
therefore inferred its infallibility, are not sufficient
to give authority even to a provincial synod. All you
have stated in its defence, and you are clearly not
unaware how important that defence is to your object,
is, that the Pope convened it, that three of the Pope's
legates presided at it, and that a Pope's bull confirmed
it. Now this might have properly enough depicted
the snug process of a consistory in the papal chamber,
but it no more measures the Catholic definition of a free
oecumenical council, than your Lordship's Concio ad
cierum upon reforming psalm singing, and extirpating
evangelical preachers from your see, is like the highest
authorities of the realm, lawfully and collectively en
joining a revision of our liturgy, and determining
the articles of our faith. The churches of France,
Hungary, and others, were perfectly therefore jus
tified, even upon' the principles of Roman commu
nion, in withholding their submission to its decrees.
But the simple fact of their resisting its regulations
of discipline, proves that their resistance extends to
the whole of its authority ; for if they had allowed it
to be even partially binding, they must have allowed
it to be so totally. There could be no medium. If
the character of a true general council be once con
ceded to it, the whole of its decisions, whether in
matters of faith, or doctrine, or discipline, would have
been equally and universally binding. But its whole
authority has been, and is still rejected, as it ought
to be.

11
With the same degree of accuracy as marks the
observations above quoted, you have fwfther added,
that " even in regard to discipline, the authority of
this council, though resisted in France, is maintain^
in the college of Maynooth." I can only meet this
assertion by a direct negative, resting upon the words
you have yourself quoted, for the council is there so
far from being spoken of as infallible, that it is sim
ply represented as of high value, and this too, because
with regard to doctrines it is a compendium of pre
ceding synods, as I before stated it; and with respect
to discipline, because it may be deservedly said to be
a manual for the clergy. I cannot help thinking, my
Lord, that some of the grave mathematicians and lo
gicians of Cambridge must have smiled, when they
saw or read of their professor of divinity arriving thus
easily at his wished-for conclusions.*
We will now pass on to Bellarmine, whose pre
tensions are admkably suited to accompany the coun
cil of Trent. Bellarmine was not only a Jesuit and
a Cardinal, trained, disciphned, and writing in the
very precincts of the Vatican, but the great tool and
* His Lordship's quotation from the Ecclesia Christi, to prove
the admitted infallibility of the Trent council, by the college at
Maynooth, is this : —
" Itaque maximo in pretio illud concilium habere debent
omnes clerici, cum ratione dogmatum sit veluti omnium praece-
dentione synodorum compendium, et ratione disciplinse merito
dici possit manuale sacerdotura, vel eorum qui sacerdotio sunt
initiandi." I should myself say precisely this, mutatis mutandis,
of several of his Lordship's divinity lectures ; and yet I am far
enough from thinking either those lectures or his Lordship infal-,
lible, as will be seen in the course of these pages.

12
instrument, employed by Paul the Fifth, to support
the tottering claims of papal usurpation, at a time
when they had become the imiversal object of resist
ance or attack, not only from Protestants but from
the members of Roman communion also. Such is
the man whose authority, for obvious reasons, you
have adopted in preference to any other ; and upon
whose learning, talents, and virtue, you have lavishly
scattered your eidogiums.*
Again, my Lord, I must leave to your own conscience
the decency, or justice, of quoting against another, an
authority to which he not only has never subscribed,
but has publicly, authoritatively, and repeatedly dis
claimed. It is scarcely possible, that you should not
have read the celebrated answers of the six Catholic
Universities to the questions proposed by Mr. Pitt, or
not have marked, amongst them, the terms in which
that of the university of Louvain, after protesting
against the anti-social tenets charged upon the adhe
rents of the Church of Rome, described the very man
whom you have stiU held up to your readers, as the
great oracle of Catholic faith and doctrine. " We
are not ignorant," say they, " that in the middle ages
some things were done not reconcileable with the doc
trine here laid down, and that the cow^rflry doctrine was
favourably heard at the court of Rome. But to Bel-
* See p. 4. — " We may appeal to Bellarmine as the most
acute, the most methodical, the most comprehensive, and at the
same time one of the most candid, among the controversialists
of the Church of Rome." Again, at p. 154, — " No author,
whether Romanist or Protestant, should write about scripture
and tradition until he has studied the works of Bellarmine."
7

13
tannine, the champion qf these proceedings, we must
answer in his own way, * these things have been done,
for their justice let those who did them answer.' " *
But supposing, my Lord, that you had never seen,
or had forgotten, the document just quoted, yet the
book entitled Ecclesia Christi, is one of those great
documents which you have mentioned as your own
official authority for the Catholic doctrines now taught
in Great Britain, and to which you have a hundred
times appealed. Now, if the authority of this book is
good, as to other points, which I shall not dispute, it
is good as to the authority of Bellarmine, and what is
the testimony it bears respecting him ? Before Bel
larmine, observes its author, it was commonly
taught that the Pope possessed a direct power over
the temporalities even of kings. Bellarmine refutes
this opinion, but teaches " that the Pope has an in
direct temporal power, by which, according to cir
cumstances, he can dispose of the temporal affairs of
Christians in order to their spiritual good." But the
arguments, adds he, " which Bellarmine advances, are
easily reftited." And he concludes by totally dis
claiming any such doctrine, as either professed or be
lieved by the Church of Rome. Such is the stress
laid by the Romanists on the Catholic authority of
Bellarmine. We have next to notice the work just mentioned,
comprising the divinity lectures at Maynooth, and
* This retort upon Bellarmine alludes to a passage of his own,
in his preface to his Disputations, when after inveighing against
a long series of what he calls heresies and schisms, he says,
« Hsec quidem facta sunt, de justitia ipsi auctores videant."

14
published under the title of " Tractatus de Ecclesi4
Christi ad Usum Theologiae Candidatorum." To this
authority, as far as I am acquainted with it, I cer
tainly have nothing to object. Its author is placed,
like your Lordship, in a high official situation, perhaps
even the most responsible that the members of the
Church of Rome have the privilege of appointing in
these kingdoms. In their present peculiar situation
it is doubly incumbent on them to see tlmt notliing,
for which they are not ftdly prepared to hold them
selves responsible, issue from that chair. Whatever
I may be inclined to say as to the axUiiority of the
council of Trent officially declaring the doctrines and
discipline of the Church «f Rome, I most readily
agree that your Lordship has a imost unquestionaljle
light to consider, if no remonstrance is publicly
made against any point therein insisted on, the theo
logical lectures now given in the College of Maynooth,
" as officially expressing (what we are highly cou-
oerned to know) the system of divinity now taught in
tiie United Kingdom to Ae clergy of that church." *
Tothis proposal, thus stated in yom-own words, I again
repeat t^at I most readily accede. But, in so doing,
I must beg to ask wheliier this stipulation should
ffiot be binding upon botli parties ? Wliether, if you
have a right so to urge it, when it may be supposed
to make for your argument, yom are not equally
fecund to respect and to admit its authority when it
makes against it? But at p. 217, whoever has read
the " Comparative View," must surely have been
* See p. 5. Comp. View.

15
alstonished to find that the very passage I have above
quoted on the subject of papal power, as given in the
lectures of Maynooth, for the purpose of being re-
futed and disclaimed, is still urged by your Lordship
as a doctrine of the Church of Rome ; and, as if the
council of Trent, which never asserted it, and the
lectures of Maynooth which have expressly denied it
to be any article of belief, had both at once lost their
official character, and even their existence, they are
passed over without the slightest notice; the Jesu
itical Cardinal of the Vatican is alone deemed worthy
of credit, and with a sneer of contempt at the above-
mentioned answer of the University of Louvain, as
I suppose it to be ; the long-spun note coacludes in
the following memorable words : " I should pijefer
this opinion of Bellarmine to the opinion of any imi-
versity in France or Spain."
The last authority I have to notice is the " Expo
sition of Catholic Doctrine, lay Bossuet;" a book
which certainly comes recommended to our attention
by no ordinary testimony as to its truth and accu
racy. For it conveys to uS, not simply the opi
nions of the individual writer, weighty as they
might even thus have been, as coming from the pre
ceptor to the dauphin and a bishop ; but these opi
nions, accompanied by the vouchers of the Pope him
self, two cardinals, thirteen Other arch-bishops and
bishops, and a long train of the higher orders of
the Roman clergy. Your Lordship's observation re
specting it, that " it is a work to which very great
deference is paid by the members of the Church of
Rome, &nd of which they have /a/e/t/ pubhshed an
English translation," is true, but it is not i^e wliole

16
truth. It is true that very great deference is most
deservedly attributed to it ; but it is further true that
it is so attributed because it draws a most opposite
picture of Catholic faith and doctrine from your own ;
and it may be true that a translation of it in English
has been lately published; but it is further true also
that it was translated, not merely lately, but within
a few years after its publication in 1670, and not
only into English, but into almost every language
in Europe. I have now before me an English trans
lation dated in 1686, and professing to be the second
edition, translated from ike fifth edition in French.
I mention this more particularly, because I shall have
occasion to notice how much it varies from the words
quoted by your Lordship, without stating from what
copy of Bossuet you have taken them, or whether
translated by yourself from the original, or by some
other hand.
Having thus stated the real character of those
authorities, to which we shall be so constantly ap
pealing as we go on, I have now only to say further
respecting them, that though I woiUd not have my
reader entirely lay aside the recollection of what has
been said, yet that I shall, for argument sake, give
to your Lordship the free benefit of whatever can be
proved by them, even by the council of Trent and
by Bellarmine.* And I do this, not as compelled to
bow to such authorities, but merely that every ground
of cavil upon that score may be avoided.
* There is one solitary exception which I feel it necessary to
make to this concession, and it is in the doctrine of the Italian
Cardinal respecting the potiier of the Pope. He was a tutored

1:7

SECTION lit.
There is still, however, one general observation
toore which I feel it indispensably necessary to make
in limine ; and it respects the manner in which your
Lordship has managed theSe authorities above-men
tioned, as well as other quotations, from whatever
quarter they are derived. Most writers are content,
without any alteration whatsoever, to give a quota
tion just as it stands openly recorded in the text
from which it is adopted. But not so your Lordship.
On the contrary, there is not one single passage, that I
can find, throughout your whole book, applied from
other authors, without being dressed and garnished
with the greatest dexterity, and marked by italics in
one place, and by large characters in another, as indica
tive of where the stress is requested to be peculiarly
laid ; as if the reader would be in perU of misconcep-»
tion without this aid.
And, indeed, he would very naturally, if left to him»
self, attach to many passages a very different construc
tion from what these lamp-posts, so thickly scattered,
are meant to lead him to. I wiU mention but one or
two instances, from which a fair idea of the rest may
easily be formed. In L. 4, c. 3, " De verbo Dei non
scripto," Bellarmine has observed, that " in the contro
versy between the Church of Rome, and those who
and paid agent of usurpation, and his opinions on this point
have been universally disclaimed. It would not be right, there^
fore, to compliment away both truth and justice.
C

18
differ from her, the latter assert that all necessary
doctrine, whether oi faith or discipline, is expressly
contained in Scripture ; whilst the former insists that,
besides the written Word of God, the unwritten also
that is, the divine and apostolical traditions, are re
quired. " Nos asserimus in Scripturis non contineri
expresse totam doctrinam necessariam, sive de fide
sive de moribus : et proinde prseter verbum Dei
scriptum, requiri etiam verbum Dei non scriptum, id
est, divinas et apostolicas traditiones." Now any
common reader, looking over such a passage, would
think that the principal stress of it lay on the two
words " expresse " and " necessariam ;" and still more
would he feel this, if he had read the context in Bel
larmine, or remembered the illustrations he has re
peatedly given of his meaning in the same work — that
he has in one place insisted, that though the baptism
of infants be doubtless a doctrine contained in Scrip
ture, yet it cannot be said to be expressly contained
there, because the administration of baptism to in
fants, as such, is no where, totidem verbis, recorded.
Again ; that the xvater is expressly directed to be
the matter of that sacrament ; yet it is neither di
rected to be previously consecrated, nor the sign of the
cross to be used in it ; one of these instances refer
ring to " fide," ox faith, the other to " moribus," or
customs.* But as this interpretation would have
been but ill-suited to the object for which this quota
tion was brought forward, and have amounted to no
more than has been said by our best Protestant wri-
* The places here quoted will be noticed again hereafter
more at largo. 7

19
ters,* we have the little word " non " on one side of
" contineri expresse," and the adjective " totam" on
the other, marked in italics, and the words immedi
ately following " necessariam," in characters " large as
life ;" and the attention is thus attempted to be fixed
upon words which have in fact very little comparative
importance in the place where they occur, whilst
those which are really important are left undistin
guished. In the same manner, whenever " ore " occurs in
Latin, and the word " mouth " or " oral " in Eng
lish, they are sure to be inscribed in italicks, or per
haps in capitals, in order to keep alive the notion of
what is called oral tradition, and which, by its ap
pellation, might be thought to be merely authority
handed from mouth to mouth, mere legendary stories
floating loosely amongst an interested and corrupt
priesthood, without any other basis on which they
rest. Whereas, it is well known that no such thing
is meant, nor, as I shall show hereafter, one single
doctrine maintained upon such ground. The reader
ofthe " Comparative View" may see an instance of this
management at p. 61, even where the passage is but
a quotation by Bossuet from St, Paul's Epistles.f
* See Hooker's Ecclesiasti car Polity.
f His Lordship has indeed, notwithstanding these Italian
guide-posts, told us from Bellarmine, that the Romish traditions
" are called unixiritten doctrines, not because they are no where
written, but because they were not written by the authors them
selves. They were written," he adds, " by the Latin fathers."
Now there are two points in these observations which require to
be particularly explained, and carefully remembered. The first
c 2

20

SECTION IV.
I COME now, my Lord, to the direct discussion of
the point at issue between us, and begin with your
first chapter, which aserts, and endeavours to prove,
that " the Churches of England and Rome are in
respect to doctrines fundamentally distinct, not only
as differing in many single articles of faith, but as
having the faith of the one founded on a different
basis from the faith qf the other, or, to change the
Js, that, by the term doctrines, is not always to be understood
either an article of faith, or even ani/ thing to be believed. It often
means no more than something taught to be observed and prac
tised. That the infant be signed with the cross in baptism is a
Catholic doctrine. Both the council of Trent, in its decrees,
and Bellarmine also, frequently thus use the words dogmata and
doetrina ; and in so doing, they are only following the authority
of very ancient ecclesiastical writers. St. Basil calls, not only
the use of the cross in baptism, but turning to the East in
prayer, the consecration by the priest of the bread in the Eu
charist, the benediction of the waters in baptism, trine immersion,
andthe confession of faith, by the name of dogmata, "sine scripto
traditione accepta ; " and St. Jerome reckons among doctrines
the fasting in Lent. When his Lordship was talking of the con
fusion of terms, he should not have omitted this distinction.
The other point is, that the Romanist does not confine his defi
nition of tradition to the volumes ofthe ancient fathers. Ancient
¦monuments, for instance, are testimonies which he calls tradi
tionary, and which he applies for the confirmation, though not for
the establishment of doctrines. A sepulchral inscription bearing
" orate pro anima " would be traditionary authority, that in the
church where it stood, and at the time of its date, prayers were
offered for the dead. An ancient baptismal font of but moderate
size would be traditionary evidence, not only of baptism, but of
baptism by sprinkling, in contradistinction to immersion.

21

metaphor, that the source from which the two
churches derive their articles of faith are not the

.same."

Now if this fact can be established, the whole
question of separation is at once determined, and for
ever : all hope of this great schism in the church of
Christ being ever healed is groundless : and all those
great men who have, from the very period of the
Reformation, risen up, from time to time, amongst us,
and bestowed their valuable labours on the object of
peace and reconciliation, might as well have been
engaged in the attempt to reconcile Christianity with
the Koran of Mahomet, the Vedas of Bramah, or
the Theology of Plato. Happily, however, it is a fact,
or, I shoidd say yet rather, an assertion which has not
been proved, and I have so much charity as to hope
that it never will be proved ; because, if om- founda-
tions are distinct, no superstructure can ever make us
approximate to each other. If our articles of faith
are not merely different, but derived from different
sources, we cannot have one faith, one hope of our
Calhng. The Church of Rome can no more be num
bered amongst Christian churches, or her members
be considered within the pale of that visible commu
nion upon earth to which its divine Founder has pro
mised his protection in this world, and limited his great
salvation in the next. This is a consequence which,
when I lopk back, and remember, that it was for so
many ages the daurch in which our forefathea:s wor
shipped, or look around me, and see who and what
are the living characters it involves, — or forward, and
reflect that it will, probably for ages to come, be the

22
church of millions of our fellow-citizens and fellow-
subjects, this, I again repeat, is a consequence which
I should tremble to contemplate, but from which
there would be no escaping if your Lordship's position
were correct. " For other foundation can no man
lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ;" nor any
building, entitled to the name of Christian, can any
man raise upon it, but such as shall be squared and
regulated by the great outlines proposed to us in his
gospel, nor even Avithout adopting them because they
are there revealed.
But let us see how this fundamental denimciation
is attempted to be justified and established, both with
respect to the difference of our doctrines, and of the
sources from which our articles of faith are said to be
derived. Every 'system of religion, whether it be
Christian, Mahometan, or Pagan, may be divided
into its doctrines, and its discipline; and its
doctrines will again be divided into such as
are primary or fundamental, and such as, though
they may be called doctrines, are yet but of
secondary importance. In all Christian churches this
subdivision has been universally acknowledged. Their
precepts are universally divisible into those capital or
fundamental points, denominated articles of faith,
and other truths or doctrines, which, being delivered
in Scripture, all men are called on to believe ; but
yet are of such a nature, as that neither error nor ig
norance, as to them, can exclude from the character of
being a Christian, and from salvation through Jesus
Christ. Bishop Burnet has admirably discussed this point

23
in his Commentary on our sixth article, and has given
us the following illustration, which I quote in his own
words : " It is a proposition of another sort that Christ
died for sinners than this, that he died at the third or
at the sixth hour ; and yet, if the second proposition
is expressly revealed in Scripture, we are bound to
believe it, since God hath said it, though it is not of
the same nature with the other," In discussing ftin-
damental distinctions in respect to doctrines, it is to
fundamental articles of faith that our inquiry must,
of necessity, be confined; and I here venture to
affirm, both as to articles and their sources, that
ihe Church of England holds not one single article
of faith that is not held by the Church of Rome in
common with us, and which both churches do not in
common, likezvise, derive from the written revealed
Word of God, as set forth to us in those books qf
Scripture which we both admit to be canonical.
This, my Lord, is the ground I mean to take, in op
position to what you have laid down as to fundamen
tal distinctions ; and, if I can make it good, all the
sophistry in the world about single and double sources
cannot confii-m yom* theory, or prove that churches of
England and Rome are not built on the same com
mon rock of our salvation ; or that, though differing,
alas! too widely, in their superstructure, they have not
one common foundation of their faith and hope.
In the first place, then, the Roman Catholic, I
was going to say, adopts and believes every article of
every one of our creeds ; but it would be more correct
to say, that we have adopted, and believe, every one of
his. For we found them at the Reformation consti-

24
tuting that part of his faith which there was no
ground for rejecting ; we embodied them in our own
Liturgy, of which they form, by far, the most im
portant features as a " confessio fidei ;" and declared^
by our fourth canon, that man who should " affirm
that they contain any thing repugnant to Scripture,
to be ipso facto excommunicated, and not to be re
stored but after his repentance, and public revocation
of such his wicked errors."
But it is not in our creeds only that our faith
is thus identified. It was most truly observed,
by that eminent Christian pastor. Archbishop Wake,
that "there is in the whole Liturgy of the
Church of England, nothing but what the Ro
manist would adopt, except the single Rubric re
lating to the Eucharist ; there is nothing in the
Roman Liturgy to which Protestants object, but what
the more rational Romanists agree might be laid aside
without violating the integrity of their faith.* " But,
my Lord, this question does not hinge upon any spe
culative opinion, however exalted; for we have the
plain evidence of historical fact respecting it ; and I
may therefore consider myself as Oh ti uh « Toih
So^H \oyiQo[/i.ei/o;, xXXcc n TrETrposJCTai Xiym^'f not as
calculating on probabilities, but as recording what has
really happened. " In the settlement under Queen
Elizabeth," says the excellent Bishop Jewell, in his
celebrated apology, " aU care imaginable was taken to
unite the whole nation in one religion, if it were pos-
* Letters to Mr. Beauvoir, printed in the Appendix to Mac-
clain's Translation of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.
t Liician de Historia scribenda.

25
sible; and whatever was in a former Liturgy that niiglit
exasperate or offend them was taken out ; by whidh
compliancies, and expunging of passages* before-
mentioned, the book was made so passable among the
Papists, that for ten years they generally repaired to
their parish churches without doubt or scruple, as is
affirmed not only by Sir Edward Coke in his speech
against Gamett, and his charge given at the assizes
held at Norwich, but by the Queen herself in a letter
to Sir Francis Walsingham, then Ambassador at the
Court of France, and is stated by Saunders in his
" Book de Schismate." We have here then, my Lord,
not reasoning, as I said before, but plain facts to guide
us; facts vouched for by unquestionable testimony, and
recording for us, not the partial but general, not the
momentary but long-continued conformity of a whole
body of people to the whole of our liturgy and service.
If then our churches be really and fundamentally
distinct, with respect to doctrines, not only differing
in single articles, but in the very basis of their faith,
and the source from which that faith is derived;
whether this conformity is to be accounted for by the
total absence of aU fundamental articles of faith from
our liturgy, our articles, and om* service ; or whether
the whole body of Roman Catholics, comprising more
than one-half the kingdom, were totally ignorant of
the principles of thdr own faith and commimion ;
or whether we are to believe that this conformity was

* This was particularly the case with some passages respect
ing the Eucharist. A long preamble against transubstantiation
,was also at this time withdrawn from our 25th article.
3

26
by the sacrifice of all conscience and principle what
soever, — ^are points which I willingly leave to your
Lordship's own sagacity to discover. But unless
some one of them can be proved, your fabric must
crumble into ruins. It is vain to urge, that " if the
Bible is the sole fountain of Christian faith to the
Church of England, and not the sole fountain of
Christian faith to the Church of Rome, the authority
admitted by the latter, in addition to the authority
of the Bible, must constitute an essential difference
between the two churches ;" because, in the first place,
an essential difference is not necessarily a fundamen
tal distinction ; and, in the next, I again repeat, and
vrill prove it hereafter, that every article of our faith,
and these are surely enough to constitute the foimda-
tion of any Christian church, is held, believed, and
maintained by Romanists, with no more dependance
on tradition than we place ourselves.
But having thus far settled the question about
fundamental distinctions, it is necessary, before we
can go on, to make some enquiries into that different
source, that addition to the authority of the Bible,
which your Lordship has broadly asserted to be relied
on by the Church of Rome as equal to Scripture, and
not only equal but independent of Scripture ; and
not only independent, but, in some cases, superior to
Scripture, and holding it in vassalage.* This au.-
thority, thus spoken of, is " Tradition ;" and, in order
that our enquiry may be as correct as possible, because
without being correct, it cannot be effectual ; I shall
* See Comparative View, pp. 25 and 30.

27
begin by your Lordship's very wise precaution as to
the settlement of terms, and endeavour to ascertain
what is precisely meant by tradition, before we discuss
its assumed authority, its application, and its use.
This is, in truth, indispensably necessary, for two
reasons, first, because we can only then judge whether
your assertion be well-founded, that " the rejection
of tradition as a rule of faith, and the rejection of its
authority in ceremonies also, formed the vital princi
ple ofthe Reformation ;" and, secondly, because one
of my great objects, as I stated at the close of the last
section, is to show, in opposition to this theory, that
as the Church of Rome does not absolutely rely upon
tradition as a rule of faith, nor derive from that source
one single article of her creeds, so does the Church of
England not absolutely reject it, but that as they are
identified in their foundations, so do they, in their
superstructure also, approximate much more nearly
than any one, taking his instructions from the " Com
parative View," would be led to conclude. For it would
be preposterous to be reasoning about the offices and
limitations of a thing of which we had not previously
acquired the most exact knowledge as to both its cha
racter and dimensions.
Now the great authority to which you have re
ferred us, and which you have yourself adopted, is
Bellarmine: and though I think the definition of
Chemnitz, as being a Protestant writer, and more
intimately acquainted than Bellarmine with the real
nature and bearings of Protestant doctrines, would
have been better for the purpose of those who are

28
6nly anxious of ascertaining truth ; yet I should have
had no objection to make even to the definition of the
latter, nor to your own account of it, had it been
neither interpolated by observations, nor abridged of
those illustrations which Bellarmine gives as he goes
on, and which render his meaning so clearly and fully
intelligible to the reader. As this is not the case, I
think it infinitely preferable to give, in my own trans
lation, the whole entire definition of Bellarmine,
than to squabble through successive pages, as I must
otherwise have done, with the objectionable interpre
tations of your Lordship. Bellarmine's definition of
tradition, then, is as follows — extracted from lib. iv.
c. ii. of his treatise " De Verbo Dei."
" Tradition is a general term, and signifies all doc
trine, whether written or not written, communicated
from one person to another. But it has nevertheless
been borrowed by theologians to signify only unwrit
ten doctrines. Thus Irenaeus says, " It so happens,
that they agree neither with Scripture nor tradition."
And Tertullian says, " If you require the law, you
will find no Scripture, hut tradition will be held out
to you as the authority." St. Cyprian says, " Re
member our admonition, that in offering the cup of
the Lord, the tradition of the Lord be observed, that
the cup, which is offered in remembrance of him, be
offered mixt with wine." Which passage Chemnitz
has falsely expounded as relating to written tradition,
for it is nowhere, in the whole range of the gospels or
in the epistles, written, that the cup should be offered
with its wine mixed with water. In the same man-

29
ner almost aU ancient writers use the term tradition
for xmwritten doctrines, and in this manner we shall
henceforward uSe it.
" But a doctrine is called unwritten, not as being
nowhere written, but as being unwritten by its first
author, as in the instance of infant baptism. That
infants should be baptized is called an unwritten
apostolical tradition, because this is not found in any
book of the apostles, though it is recorded in almost
every work of the ancient fathers.
" But traditions have two distinct parts into which
they are divided ; the former being adopted with
reference to their authors, the latter with reference to
their matter. The former part is divided into divine,
apostolical, and ecclesiastical traditions. Divine tra
ditions are those which have been received from
Christ himself teaching the apostles, and are not re
corded in the sacred writings ; such are those which
relate to the matter and form of sacraments, of which
but few particulars are found in Scripture ; and yet it
is certain that Christ himself must have instituted
the essence. For this reason the apostle, 1 Cor. xi.
speaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist, said,
" for I received from the Lord that which I have
handed down (tradidi) unto you."
Apostolical traditions are properly said to be those
which were instituted by the apostles, not without
the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and yet are not re
corded in their epistles : such as the fast of Lent, the
ember weeks, and other instances, of which more
hereafter. But yet divine traditions are sometimes
called apostolical, and apostolical divine; divine

30
traditions are called apostolical, not, however, as
having been instituted by the apostles, but because
they were first dehvered by them to the Church,
having been previously received from Christ ; and
apostolical traditions are again called divine, not that
God himself was their immediate author, but that
the apostles had not instituted them without the Spi
rit of God. In which sense all the epistles of the
apostles are called divine and apostolical writings,
though some of their precepts are divine, and others
strictly apostolical, as is evident from 1 Cor. vii. " I
command you, yet not I, but the Lord." And again,
" It is I that speak, not the Lord."
Thus far I have, without deviation, followed Bel
larmine's definitions. He goes on with another
branch of tradition, called ecclesiastical, but which,
your Lordship has observed, " must be carefuUy dis
tinguished from the former, as totally different both
in quahty and in origin. For it is confessedly of
human origin, and described as such by the Romish
writers themselves." And as you have further stated
that " in this investigation we are concerned wholly
and solely with what are called divine and aposto
lical traditions," * I forbear to load my pages with
more than is absolutely required for a fair discussion
of our subject. I will only state, respecting those
ecclesiastical traditions, that they are described as
being composed of certain ancient customs, in other
places called traditiones morum, which, " whether
having begun with prelates or with people, have by
long usage acquired the force of law.
* See Comparative View, p. 7 — 9,

31
Having thus examined what tradition is, by an
authority admitted on both sides, and having, in your
Lordship's own words, prescribed the limits to which it
is confined in our present investigation ; namely, to
what are comprised under the heads called divine
and apostolical, we may now with great advantage
proceed to the investigation of those authorities by
which the " fundamental distinction" of the Churches
of England and Rome are said, in the " Comparative
View," to be confirmed. The first appeal there made
is to the decree of the fourth session of the council
of Trent ; and, . that no error may possibly be sus
pected as to an authority of such incalculable value,
it is ushered into the presence of your readers, decked
in its best attire, and armed with all the terrors of its
mighty thunder. We are assured, by a long note,
that " it is given not only from the original edition,
but an attested copy of that edition preserved in our
public library, where it is marked H. 9. 39* But,
my Lord, what I have to ask is, whether this be also
the text from which you have translated? I am not
going here to cavil about nice distinctions and criti
cal accuracies in the rendering of words, though
somewhat of this sort may be required hereafter ; but
my first appeal, both to the candour of your Lordship,
* " Our University, as the Dean loves to call it." See the
Pursuits of Literature, on the character of the late Dr. Jackson,
Dean of Christ Church. Why this parade of particularity is
made I know not. For the decree, as given from this attested
copy, differs not one single iota from the reading of the com
monest editions with which I have compared it.

32
and to the common judgment of my readers, is made
upon much stronger grounds. It is that by some
extraordinary inadvertence, the word by far the
most important to the point now at issue between us,
is entirely suppressed, and the decree thus made to
speak a language which it neither does, nor ever
meant to speak, but rather the direct contrary. It
will easily be observed, by a reference to the decree
itself as subjoined,* that I allude to the expression in
* " Sacro-sancta oecumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus,
in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata, praesidentibus In ea eisdem
tribus apostolicas sedis legatis, hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos
proponens, ut sublatis moribus, puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesii
conservetur : quod promissum ante per prophetas in scripturis
Sanctis, Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius proprio ore
primum promulgavit, deinde per sues apostolos tanquam fontem
omnis salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinae, omni creaturas
praedicari jussint: perspiciensque banc veritatem et discipli-
nam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus,
quae ipsius Christi ore et apostolis acceptae, aut ab ipsis apos-
tolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante quasi per manus traditae, ad nos
usque pervenerunt; orthodoxorum patrum exerapla secuta,
omnes libros tam veteris quam novi testamenti, cum utriusque
unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas, turn ad fidem,
turn ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel
a Spiritu Sancto dictatas, et continue successione in Ecclesia
Catholic^ conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverently sus-
cipit et veneratur." The decree then simply enumerates the
books of Scripture in the order they stand in the Vulgate, in
cluding nothing more or less than what is found in our own
Bibles, except the third and fourth Books of Esdras, and the
Prayer of Manasses, which are inserted by us, but entirely
rejected by the Church of Rome ; and then concludes in these
very important and remarkable words : " Si quis autem libros
ipsos integros,- cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia
Catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata editione haben-

which speaking of the gospel, " evangelium," it
describes it as being the source of all saving truth
and discipline of customs, " quasi fontem omnis et
salutaris veritatis et morum. disciplinae," which I find
rendered by your Lordship, not only wrong as to the
sense in other respects, but without any notice that
such a word as omnis is to be found in it. I had at
first thought it an error of the press, and actually pro
cured both editions of your book for examination, lest
I should be found urging a complaint without any
sufficient cause. But in both editions this unfortu
nate inadvertence equally appears. Now this word
will not be unappreciated in any part of our enquiry.
But here as it stands, or ought to stand, it makes all
the difference between j^our Lordship's argument and
my own being correct. It is like the omission of a
stUl shorter word in the Commandments, which, if but
inadvertently omitted, wotdd make our Bibles bid us
to steal, murder, and bear false witness against our
neighbour, instead of forbidding it. For, if your
Lordship's interpretation of saving truth, instead of
all saving truth, be admissible, and omnis be con»
strued to have no meaning ; it may easily be argued
that though the Church of Rome may derive some
saving truths from Scripture, yet the portion is so
small and insignificant as to be quite insufficient to
tur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones prae-
dictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit. Omnes
itaque intelligant, quo ordine et via ipsa synodus post jactum
fidei confessionis fundameptum, sitprogressura, et quibus potis-
simum testimoniis ac prassidiis in confirmandis dogmatibus, ef
jnstaurandis in Ecclesia moribus, sit usura,

rescue her from the general charge of appealing to
another source for the articles of her faith, or to give
her any title to the same foundation as our own.
Indeed, my Lord, there is nothing which the council
ef Trent may not easily prove ; for instance, that two
and two make six, or that six and six make four, by
such a process as you have applied to its construction;
but without this process, it not only gives no counte
nance to, but positively opposes, your doctrine oifun-^
da/mental distinctions^
Let us now look to the passages you have quoted
from Bellarmine.* In his 1. 4, c. 4, of his trea
tise, " De Verbo Dei," as you have mentioned, he'
declares that Scripture is veiy often so ambiguous
and perplexed that it cannot be understood, except
it be explained by some infallible authority." Now
the very expression, that Scripture is very often am
biguous, is alone demonstrative, that Bellarmine
does not consider it to be everywhere so. Again, in
the same chapter, alluding, first, to the words, and,
secondly, to the sense of Scripture, he says, " In
very many places we cannot be certain of its mean
ing, without the assistance of tradition."! But if it
* Ch. V. p. 16. The whole passage of Bellarmine runs thus :-
" Necesseestnon solum Scripturam posselegere, sed etiam intelli-
gere. At saepissime Scriptura ambigua est et perplexa, ut nisi
ab aliquo, qui errare non possit, explicetur, non possit intelligi.
f " Nee possumus plurimis in locis certi esse de secundo, nisi'
accedat traditio." As a fit parallel to the doctrine of this
Jiassage, objected to by his Lordship, I beg to place another from-
a Protestant of no ordinary share of celebrity and learning.-
" Quandoque sacrae literae adeo ancipites sunt ut etiam viri
prajudiciorum et affectuum expertes animi pendeant quaenanif
3

35
be only in very niany places that the aid of tradition
is reqiiu-ed, there must also be-, of necessity, very
many where it is not. Now, the only remaining
point is this, what are those places, and what is their
character and importance, which belong to this latter
class, and require no aids. In the first verse of his
Bible, the Catholic reads, " In the beginning God
created the heavens aiid earth;" Does your Lordship
suppose, that he turns round, and stops, and looks
for some further testimony^ from 'which he may be
instructed whether God did really create the world ?
When he reads that Christ Jesus came into the
world to saVe sinners, that he was born in Bethlehem
of Judea, went about doing good and preaching the
glad tidings of salvation to all them that believe ;
that he was afterwards nailed to the cross, buried,
and rose again from the dead, and finally ascended
into heaven ; when he is further expressly told that
he was bruised for our iniquities, and rose again for
our justification, and that he will come again at the
end of the world to judge the quick and the dead ; —
is it possible to suppose, for a moment, that he does
not comprehend, and receive, and believe these great
fundamental truths, without waiting to see what
the Apostolic Fathers have said concerning them,, or
sanctorum apostolorum et prophetarum fuerit sententia, donee
antiqua ac universalis Ecclesiae Christianae vel Synagogae Ju-
daicae, vel utriusque traditio dubium iis adimat." Grabe's De
dication of the Oxford Edition of Irenceus. By any man studi
ous of truth and charity this Preface of Dr. Grabe will be read
with unmingled satisfaction. It is only surpassed by the
« Votum pro Pace " of Grotius.
d2

36
without wanting or using any other authority what
ever, except Scripture, for his guide ? Certainly not.
It is not, therefore, with the fundamental articles of
our faith, that tradition is, in fact, concerned. It is
not in fundamental points, that the Catholic employs
it, and its employment can consequently never be
alleged as constituting a fundamental distinction
between the two Churches : and, in saying this, I
have, again, even Bellarmine himself expressly on
my side. In 1. 4. c. 11. ofthe above-mentioned work,
he says, " those things which are plainly necessary,
the apostles were accustomed openly to proclaim to
all ;" and, again, shortly afterwards, " I assert that,
whatever is necessary for all, and whatever they
openly proclaimed to all, these things the apostles
have left written also." *
I have now, I trust, sufficiently shown that,
as far as ftindamental articles of faith are con
cerned, the Churches of England and Rome are
neither distinct in principle, nor deriving those
principles from different sources. I will only fur
ther show, in conclusion of this topic, that, if the
Church of Rome had felt it necessary to have ap
pealed to the secondary assistance of tradition, even
in fundamentals, she would not have been without the
sanction of very high authority from members of om-
own communion, from men who were no bad judges
of what was " the vital spirit of the Reformation."
In Bishop Patrick's Treatise on Tradition, at p. 48,
* Ea quae sunt simpliciter necessaria Apostolos consuevisse
omnibus praedicare. Dico ilia omnia scripta esse ab apostolis
quae sunt omnibus necessaria, et quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgo
praedicaverant.

37
you will find these words : " It is calumny to affirm
that the church of England rejects all tradition, and,
I hope, none of her children are so ignorant as, when
they hear that word, to imagine that they must rise
up and oppose it. No. The Scripture itself is a
tradition ; and we admit that, and all other tradi
tions which are subordinate and agreeable thereto,
together with all those things which can be proved to
be apostoHcal, by the general testimony of the Church,
in all ages." In Chillingworth's Religion of Pro
testants, at p. 33, we also read as follows : " Though
the Church being not infallible, I cannot believe her
in every thing she says, yet I can and must believe
her in every thing she proves, either by Scripture,
reasoning, or universal tradition." Laud and StiUing
fleet maintained the very same doctrine in a thou
sand places.

SECTION V.

Having disposed, I hope fairly and effectually,
of one main pillar of your Lordship's theory, I now
proceed to consider your next charge connected with
it ; namely, that the Church of Rome holds and ap
peals to tradition as a rule of faith equal to, and in
dependent of. Scripture. Now as this is a plain
question of fact, no abstract reasoning on either side,
as to its probability or improbability, can be ad
mitted as of any value. I shall, therefore, at once,
recur to a consideration of the authorities you have

brought forward to support it. The first of these is
that very document, the decree of the fourth session
of the council of Trent, which we have been just re
viewing. And if the members of the Church of
Rome had before reason to complain of the omission
of one most important word, they have here quite as
much reason to complain of a most extraordinary
misconception of others, and a general misrepresenta
tion of the whole; a misrepresentation which not
only makes the decree in question say what it never
intended, but renders it a tissue of mere nonsense,
I aUude, first, to the interpretation you have given of
" disciplinamf in rendering what was intended for
discipline, in contradistinction to faith, by the term
" instruction ;" and, second, by still more absurdly
translating " morum " by the term " manners^ To
be sure, manners is a word, " per se," sufficiently
ambiguous to suit almost any purpose ; but the sense,
in which your Lordship has here given it, is no more
ambiguous than it is correct, for it is again and
again subsequently converted into " morals ;" just
as, but a few pages afterwards, we have, as a speci
men of free translation, " instaurandis in ecclesia
moribus," rendered by " the establishment of morals,
in the church ; " whereas it is obvious, beyond all
question, to any one acquainted with either the
history of that period, or the professed objects of that
council, that the expression alludes solely to matters
connected with church discipline — as the practice of
non-residence, the abuse of images and relics,
the limitations of papal authority, and a long train
of external rites and ceremonies \yhich were then in

89
dispute both as to their propriety and use. Moral
duties, properly so called, formed no part of the bu
siness of that council ; and you might as well impute
to it that it set in judgment upon the science of
hydraulics and geometry. Besides this, the plain
sense and position of the words clearly point out their
proper interpretation to be very widely different from
that which you have assigned them. There can be
no need to prove at large that " disciplinatn " may
mean " discipline ; " and as all religion is technically
divided, as I observed before, into matters ai faith
and discipline, there can be as little need to show
that when " fides et disciphna," or, what is just the
same, " Veritas et diseiplina " occur together in an
ecclesiastical document, as they do in the Trent
decree, the latter word necessarily requires to be ren^
dered as I have stated. And as to the reason why
" mores " should both here and elsewhere be rendered
by rites or ceremonies on one liand, or why rites
and ceremonies should be Latinized by " mores " on
the other, we have one single passage of Scripture
which may fully and decidedly explain it. In the
Acts of the Apostles, vi. 14, we read that Stephen
was charged at Jerusalem with preaching a doctrine
calculated to change the ritual which Moses had esta
blished. The words used in tiie original Greek
are, «AA«^£i t« ''EOri a, ¦TrajiiidDiii/ ^y-Tv Mwl'a-rif. Now
this word ''e9>i, so universally translated " mores," the
Latin Vidgate renders by " traditiones," as under
standing it, most correctly, to allude to the cere
monies of the law ; and the very adoption of such a
synonym is of itself a strong argument of the sens?

40
in which the Church of Rome, which adopts this
version, understands and applies tradition. Beza
renders it by " instituta," a word not quite so defi
nite ; but Erasmus has " ritus ;" and our own autho
rized version has customs, in the text, and " rites,'*
by a reference in the margin. The word " mores "
is in this express sense used in the Trent decree ;
and it is very important to observe still further, that
it is used, not simply as following the Vulgate, and
giving " traditiones," but as an exact and defined
term, strictly apphed to what is called, in the usual
language of the Romish writers, " traditio morum."
There is a passage in the Trent decrees, passed at
the 13th session, respecting the Eucharist, which
will still further illustrate this point. Speaking of
the impropriety of any person undertaking to admi
nister the sacrament who is not in fuU orders, it says,
" In sacramentale sumptione semper in ecclesia Dei
mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acci-
perent : qui mos, tamquam ex traditione apostolic^
descendens, jure ac merito retineri debet."* But,
my Lord, I am the more astonished, that one who
has told us that " no man ought to write about Scrip
ture or tradition who has not studied Bellarmine,"
* This passage is also, further important, as it gives an in
stance of what is often meant by Romish writers, and particu
larly by Bellarmine, when they insist upon tradition being " tam
de fide quam de moribus." Not meaning that the Eucharist,
or any other sacrament, rests upon the authority of tradition,
but that there are circumstances connected with it, that render
traditionary instruction needful, in order to its due and proper
administration. Another instance, given by Bellarmine, o? tra
ditiones defde, is, that " there are only four gospels."
7

41
should himself fall into these eiTors ; for that very
writer has clearly and explicitly defined the meaning
of such expressions. He has plainly told us that
" traditio morum," the tradition of rites or customs,
as our Bible has it, is that the sign of the cross be
described on the forehead at baptism, that certain
days should be observed as fasts, others as festivals,
and so forth.*
As " morum diseiplina " certainly therefore does
not mean "instruction of manners" or "morals," but
ceremonial discipline, let us next see whether, as
you insist, this decree has, in any part of it, asserted
or encouraged the doctrine that tradition is a rule of
faith equal to, and independent of. Scripture, or
whether the very opposite doctrine is not every where
visible throughout it. The passages which allude to
tradition are first, that in which, speaking of the
gospel, it says, " which having been promised afore
time by the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated by
his own mouth, and afterwards ordered to be ' pub
lished to every creature by his apostles," f as the
* Traditio ad Mores pertinens est quod signum crucis in
fronte pingendum est, quod certis diebtis jejunia aut festa cele-
branda, &c. L. 4. c. 2. De Verbo Dei non Scripto.
f The word of the Trent decree, " praedicari," I have here ren
dered by " published," as agreeing somewhat better with the
original than his Lordship's translation of it by " preached."
It is evidently a quotation from our blessed Saviour's charge, as
given by St. Mark, after his resurrection, and which both the
Vulgate and our own version have very inadequately rendered,
the former by praedicate, and the other by " preach," for the
original word is 'ivxyyiXiQTSs, evangelize, or send forth the

42
fountain of all saving truth and ceremonial discipline,
and observing this truth and discipline to be contained
in the written books and in the unwritten traditions,
which, having been received from the mouth of
Christ himself by the apostles, or from the apostles
themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
liave come down, as it were transmitted from hand
to hand, even unto us." Now, my Lord, in the
structure of sentences in all languages, at least as far
as I am acquainted with them, nothing is more usual
than the position of succeeding terms with their at
tributives not immediately subjoined but foUowing,
sometimes at considerable distance, and yet keeping
their natural connection, and indicating that con
nection by the observance of the order in which they
stand. If I say, " the ruined health of the drunkard
and the dilapidated fortunes pf the spendthrift may
at least teach others to be more sober and more pru-t
dent ; " there can be no doubt that by the attributive
" sober" I have ' reference to the word drunkard that
preceded it, and by " prudent" to the word spend-
tlirift. Let us only try the Trent decree by this plain
rule of criticism, and we shall see, as we go on, that
tlie whole is clear and natural, and perfectly con
sistent with the whole practice, as weU as doctrine, of
the Church of Rome. When we find veritatem et
glad tidings pf salyation. The word "praedicari" is indeed often
used by later writers of Latin to signify to publish, even in cases
where it is done by writing only, but not so our English word
" preach ;" and it is quite clear that our Lord never intended to
make the apostles responsible for personally and orally delive):-,
|ng their doctrines to every creature in the world.

43
disciplinam closely followed by " libris scriptis, et
sine scripto traditionibus," nothing, to my mind, is
less questionable than that " libris scriptis" is meant to
be connected with "veritatem," and "sine scripto tradi
tionibus" with " disciplinam ;" in short, that Scripture
is to be considered as the source of truth, and tradi
tion of discipline. Assuredly there is here nothing
whatsoever asserted either as to the equality or inde
pendence of Scripture and tradition asaruleoffaith.
Next comes the passage which your Lordship has
laid so heavy a stress upon, and again and again re
ferred to. " FoUowing the examples of the orthodoj^
fathers, this council adopts and venerates with equal
feelings of pious affection and regard all the books of
the Old and New Testa,ment, inasmuch as one God
is author of them both, and also the traditions them
selves appertaining both to faith and ceremonies, as
dictated either orally by Christ himself, or by the
Holy Spirit, and preserved by uninterrupted succes
sion." Now the argument attempted to be drawn
from this passage, namely, that the Church of Rome
here teaches that tradition is a rule of faith equal to,
and independent of Scripture, is at once answered by
observing that faith is not even mentioned, but seems
to have been rather cautiously and advisedly avoided.
Had it said " pari fide," instead of " pari pietatis
affectu et reverentia," it would assuredly have proved,
that Scripture and tradition were placed as to belief
upon the same footing ; but even then it would not
have proved one atom about their being distinct and
independent. But the word " fide " is not only not tp
be found there, but the words that are found, are of
an import very different indeed. They are in f^ct

44
what you constantly find applied to the commonest
ceremonies of the Roman Church. They are applied,
and in the Trent decrees too, even to relics and images,
and may be found in our best Protestant writers applied
to almost any object held in high estimation and con
nected with sacred things. Mosheim, who is no Catho
lic, observes on the authority both of Eusebius and
Irenaeus, that great numbers ofthe first Christians kept
with the utmost care in their houses pictures or images
of the divine Saviour and his apostles, which they
treated with the highest marks of veneration and re
spect, " summis venerationis ac reverentiae signis."
Your Lordship, therefore, might as weU assert that
these images and pictures were another rule of faith
equal to, and independent of Scripture.
But if any doubt should stiU remain upon the lan
guage and meaning of this great document, upon
which so much depends, I am sure it must be quite
dispelled from every honest and unprejudiced mind
by a simple reference to the concluding sentences of
it, which your Lordship has, I must say, very unfairly
omitted to give with the rest. " If any one shaU
not adopt as sacred and canonical the books them
selves, with aU their parts, as they are accustomed to
be read in the Cathohc Church, and are found in the
ancient Vulgate, and shall knowingly and wilfully
contemn the traditions above-mentioned, let him be
held excommunicate." Now we have here the strongest
and most unequivocal distinction expressly stated be
tween the weight and deference claimed for Scripture
and for tradition. For whilst every member of the
Church of Rome is commanded, upon pain of excom
munication, implicitly to adopt for his rule of faith the

45
f9rmer, he is charged no further, than not to contetnn
the latter. He is not even commanded to place any
reliance on, or even to beheve it. AU that is required
from him, is not to treat it with knowing and deli
berate contempt. And this clearly proves also, what
is the character of those traditions thus mentioned.
It proves, as I before argued, that they are not of
the essence of articles of faith. In fact, the language
here used is neither more nor les.s, than that of om*
own thirty-fourth article on the same subject. It is
neither more nor less than " traditiones ecclesiasticas
quisquis privato concilia volens et data opera publice
violaverit." And let me now ask, whether the whole question
about the equality of tradition and Scripture as
a rule of faith, may not be considered as settled?
If any man can read this passage, and yet charge
upon the Church of Rome that, by this decree of the
council of Trent, Scripture and tradition are taught
to be of equal authority as to matters of faith, with
that man aU reasoning upon the sense and meaning
of language must be superfluous ; aU hope of produc
ing conviction vain and idle. As to tradition being
enforced as a rule of faith independent of Scripture,
there is not one word in the decree which either in
genuity or even mahce itself can torture into the
maintenance of such a tenet, and whether any other
authority can do so, which your Lordship has urged,
wUl now be examined.*
* I am induced, at the risk of repetition, here to remind my
reader, that though the great fundamental truths and doctrines
are all maintained by the Church of Rome upon the authority
of Scripture, as she inteupre^ it, yet that tradition is not un-

46
If'inding nothing about independence in ' th^
Trent decree, the next recourse of your Lordship
is to Bellarmine. He has observed, as you quote
at p. 11, " We assert that the whole necessary
doctrine, whether respecting faith or customs, is
not expressly contained in Scripture, and, therefore,
that besides the written word of God, there is also
required the word of God unwritten, that is, the
divine and apostolical traditions.* The Lecturer at
Maynooth has likewise said the same thing. But
neither the former nor the latter has said one word
in the passages given about either the equality or
independence of tradition and Scripture. Its neces
sity to a full and proper understanding of Scripture
is both there and elsewhere, under the qualifications'
I have pointed out, insisted on, and it is no more
connected with them in one sense, and may be even said to be
of the essence of the rite but not of doctrine. In baptism and
in the Eucharist, the consecration of the elements and the mode
of administration are of the essence of the sacraments, as far as
the ceremonial part can be so ; and as these are chiefly directed
by traditionary authority, they are apt to be confounded with
matters of faith, and especially as they are both said to be
necessary and to be de fde. But Bellarmine, in 1. 4, c. 7,
has very distinctly, with a reference to these points just men
tioned, explained what is intended by such expressions, " Etsi
non sit necessaria ad salutem observatio aliquorum, tamen neces-
sarium est ad salutem credere esse bene instituta et eos non
contemnere," to believe that they are wisely instituted, and not
to treat them with contempt. But we see here no attempt to
establish for these ritual observances the same authority of ob
ligation as is given in the great command, "Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
* Nos asserimus, &c. See a preceding note, where some ac
count of this quotation has been given.

47
than w! at is entirely and avowedly in unison with
the practice of our great Reformers, the usage of our*
ablest divines, and in no respect at variance with our
own articles. Nay, so far was Bellarmine from even
contemplating such a charge as you have brought
against him, that he says most trtdy of the difference
between the two parties On this point, " the question
is not Ivhat is the weight and authority of divine and
apostolical tradition, but tvhether any certain tradi
tion be truly divine and apostolical.* And still less
could he have looked forward to a bishop and a pro
fessor of divinity, who had praised his candour, his
learning, and his acuteness, charging him with sup
porting a tenet in the very teeth of. his own plain de
claration made in his comment on 2 Thess. ii. For
he there says, " therefore do We affirm that traditions
are a sort of explanation of the written word ; not
that they contain merely a bare exposition of it, but
because all traditions and ecclesiastical decrees are
contained in Scriptm-e generally though not parti
cularly." f But, my Lord, it pains me again to be
obliged to observe that your whole theory, here also,
depends upon a most strange misrepresentation of the
force of words. BeUarmine says, indeed, as you have
quoted, that Scripture is not " regula totalis," and

* Non est quaestio quanta sit vis divinae aut apostolicas tra-
ditionis, sed an sit aliqua traditio vere divina aut apostolica.
L. 4, c. 2.
t Idcirco nos affirmamus traditiones esse quodammodo ex-
plicationes verbi scripti, non quod nudam contineant ejus expo-
sitionem, sed quia omnes traditiones et ecclesiae decreta continen-
fur in Scripturis in universali ; sed in particulari non conti-
nentur.

48
he has explained in a hundred places how he considers
it to be not so, namely, that though it lays the found
ation of every doctrine in general terms, it does not
supply the forms and manner with which the church
has thought proper to surround them, and he says in
the place you have brought forward, in the same sen
timent, " from thence it happens that it does not
measure every thing, and, therefore, there may be
something concerning faith which is not contained
in Scripture itself." * Now that " mensuret " means
to measure, or be equal to any thing in all its dimen
sions, it is superfluous to prove ; and it is surely as
superfluous to demonstrate, that to " comprise," as
you have rendered it, is not exactly the same thing,
unless upon your Lordship's own principle of con
struction, that " veritatis" is the same as " omnis
veritatis," or " truth," as " all truth." The Scrip
ture comprises the doctrine of infant baptism, but it
does not measure it, as administered in our churches,
for it neither expressly mentions that infants are to
be baptized, nor recommends the sign of the cross to
be used in it.
But we have next the authority of Bossuet,
who says, according to your Lordship, " Our adver
saries should riot be surprized if we, who are so
earnest in collecting all that our fathers have left us,
do preserve the deposit of tradition as carefully as
that of the Scriptures." Now there would be nothing
in this to prove the equal and independent authority
of tradition as a rule of faith, if Bossuet had ever
* Quia vero non est regula totalis, sed partialis, inde illi
accidit, quod non omnia mensuret, et propterea aliquid sit de
fide quod in ipsi non continetur. L, 4, c, 12.

49
wi'itten it ; but in the translation of his work now
before me, the only one I ever saw, I can only say,
that the words " as carefully " are not to be foimd.
It simply says, " we preserve the deposit of tra
dition as well as that of the Scriptures," an expression
of very different import.
As then all these references, whether taken singly
or collectively, entirely fail of the object of substan
tiating the charge, I will now give you some high
Catholic and Protestant authorities, which being
placed by the side of each other, may show the
quantum of real difference between us upon this
long-controverted point *. Vincent of Lerins, in
his " Commonitorii Recapitulatio," a work of no small
celebrity in the Church of Rome, says, " I have al
ready observed that this is, and ever has been the
Catholic custom, namely, to prove the verity of their
faith by these two modes : first, by the authority of
the divine canon of Scripture, and next by the tra
dition of the Catholic Church. Not that the canon
alone is not of itself sufficient for the whole purpose,
but because people in general, interpreting Scripture
according to their own judgment, imbibe various er
roneous fancies and opinions." Dupin, who was, like
your Lordship, a professor of divinity in a royal college,
has not only in his Letters to Mr. Beauvoir expressly
* Diximus in superioribus banc fuisse semper, et esse hodie
catholicorum consuetudinem ut fidem veram duobus his modis
adprobet; primum divini canonis auctoritate, deinde ecclesiae
catholicse traditione. Non quia canon solus non sibi ad uni-
versa sufficiat ; sed quia pro suo plerique arbitratu interpretantes
varias ppiniones erroresque concipiant. £

.50
stated of tradition, " Articulos fidei novos non exhibet
sed continuat atque explicat eos qui in Sacris Litteris
habentur;" but in his Introduction to the Method o
studying Divinity, has publicly and authoritativel;
recorded the same doctrine. He says of the Old an(
New Testament, " Both these together comprise th(
Bible, or Holy Scripture, wherein aU the principa
truths are written, and to be informed of which w(
have nothing more to do than to consult this book.'
And the two great rules which he lays down as th^
basis of aU his instructions are, first, to read an(
study the Scriptures ; secondly, to hear tradition
and what he means by hearing tradition he explains
distinctly to be, " making a careful search into th(
faith of the earliest and primitive fathers, and int(
the definitions of general councils." Can your Lord
ship devise a better mode for the students of divinitj
at Cambridge?
It is useless to go on with Catholic authorities
of which a hundred might be easily urged o:
the same kind ; and it is the less requisite, as yom
Lordship has not found one that can be fairl)
said to contradict those already stated. But I wil
proceed with the great masters of Protestant divinitj
and leammg, of whom some very high authorities
have been before quoted. I shaU begin with Bishoj
Jewell, who says, in his Apology, " We have onlj
departed from the church that may err, and whici
we see clearly with our eyes has departed fi-om the
holy fathers, apostles, and Christ himself, and the
primitive and catholic church. And we have ap
proached as much as possibly we could to the

51
church of the apostles and, ancient catholic bishops
and fathers, which we know were yet perfect, and,
as TertuUian says, an ' unspotted virgin.' Neither
have we only reformed the doctrine of our church,
and made it like theirs in aU things, but we have
also brought the celebration of the sacraments, and
of our public rites and prayers to an exact resem
blance with their institutions and customs." This,
my Lord, fi-om such an authority as Bishop Jewell,
does not look much like the rejection of tradition
forming " the vital spirit of the Reformation." I shall
next refer you to Jeremy Taylor, the most resolute
and determined enemy of tradition with whom I am
acquainted, except yourself, and who, in the earger-
ness of supporting a false theory, is necessarily led into
some errors, which I shaU hereafter notice, respecting
it. But even he admits that " in our inquiries of
faith, we do not run to the Catholic church, desiring
her to judge our questions, but to her we run for
conduct, by inquiring what she believes, what she
has received from Christ and his apostles." So that
we have, even here, an appeal to Catholic tradition,
not for establishing but for confirming our doctrines ;
a distinction which your Lordship has more than
once found it convenient, and never hesitated, in the
" Comparative View," to confound. Again, he says,
" whatever can be made to appear to have been
taught by the apostles, and consigned to the church,
that is a law of faith." Again, on general councils,
he says, " we foUow them, because we think they fol
lowed the apostles, and were faithful witnesses of
their doctrine. What was, indeed, an excellent
E 2

52
benefit which we receive by the first and most ancient
councils which were near the fountain : they could
trace all the new pretences up to their original— they
discussed the doctrines in their provinces — they heard
what any one could say — they carried it to the gene
ral assembly — they compared it with the traditions
and doctrine of other churches, and, altogether,
were very well able to teU how the apostles had
taught the churches of their foundation ; and because
the first four general councils did, or are supposed to
have done so ; therefore they have acquired a great,
but an accidental authority, and are accepted by the
most part of Christendom, and made into human
laws of faith and the measures of heresy." *
The next I mention is the authority of that dis
tinguished scholar DodweU, who was also a Professor
in the University of Oxford, and never charged with
lukewarmness to the interests of the Church of Eng
land. In his preface to his Disputations on Irenaeus,
he has these strong words : | " Nor does any disad
vantage arise if we do acknowledge the authority of
that primaeval church, which flourished with miracles,
to be equal and the same with that of the canonical
books of Scripture."
* Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium. See the whole chapter on
tradition, where, for fear of admitting its authority, he asserts,
that the fourth commandment is entirely abrogated, and that the
Lord's day was not even instituted " in virtue of it ; " leaving us
in our rubric to pray God to incline our hearts to keep a law
¦which he states to have no existence.
•)• " Nee verd uUum sequitur incommodum si parem eandemque
iprimaevae hujus, quae miraculis floruit ecclesiae, librornmque
fcanonicorum auctoritatem agnoscamus."

53

SECTION VI.

The next remarks I have to offer, for they seem
most properly to belong to this part of our inquiry,
though your LordsHp has referred the subject to an
other, is on 2 Thess. ii. 15, " K-f ariiTt -n-af i^^oo-ek.'"
Hold fast the traditions which you have learnt, whe
ther by word or our epistle. In discussing this im
portant passage, your Lordship has first asked, " Did
St. Paul intend to include in those traditions any
portion of those which are ingredients of the Romish
rule of faith ? If he did not, the passage affords no
proof whatever that those things exist of which it
is designed to prove the existence." My answer is,
that not only this passage, but another also, namely,
uTTOTUTTwo-fi/ uyiaii/oi/Twi/ Xoytiivf the form pf souud words,
2 Tim. i. 13, either aUude to no less than to those
summaries of faith, those primitive regulae fidei
which were the foundation pf our present enlarged
creeds, which the Romanist never fails tp place in the
very front of his traditions, or they have been never
properly understood since they were written. Irenaeus
mentions the existence, and even gives the words, of
some of those creeds ; and every one of our great
writers upon the subject have held the words of Scripr
ture, I have mentioned, to have a reference thereto.
They were so understood by Bishop JeweU, by King,
by Pearson, by StiUingfleet, and last, though not
least, by Dr. Cleaver, the late exceUent Bishop of
St. Asaph, and Principal of Brazen-nose CoUege,
Oxford ; — ^a man, my Lord, to whose memory, aUow

54
me, whilst availing myself of his labours, to pause a
moment, while I offer, all that I can now render, the
humble tribute of sincere gratitude, and to say of it,
without reproach, " non pari sed omni pietatis
affectu et reverentia veneror." He was the friend,
the guide, and the patron of my early days, at a
period when I had no other, and his kindness to me
ended only with his meritorious life. As a sound
biblical scholar — as a zealous prelate of the Church
of England — and as the head of a college, which
his high character raised from comparative obscurity
to the very summit of academic fame, he had every
claim to the thanks and admiration of his country ;
and when summoned, as he was, fiiU of years, and
hope and honour, to his gTave, society lost in him as
valuable a member, and the Church of England as
firm a pillar, as ever contributed to the welfare of the
one, or the strength and ornament of the other. It
is in the foUowing words, in his admirable sermon
" on the Origin and Utility of Creeds," that, speak
ing of that propensity to disregard the authority of
past ages, and to elevate the sufficiency of reason,
which he so justly viewed as the most prominent and
dangerous feature of the times he lived in, he ob
serves, " It is no pleasant train of thought, which
is suggested by the continued solicitude of the apos
tles, lest their converts, and even the churches esta
blished by them, should swerve from the true faith.
A solicitude expressed in a variety of precepts : ' to
hold fast the profession of our faith without waver
ing ;' ' earnestly to contend for the faith which was
once delivered to the saints ;' ' to continue grounded

55
and settled in the hope of the gospel which they had
heard;' 'to hold fast the form of sound words;'
arid ' to hold fast the traditions which they had re
ceived.' It will occur," he adds, " that the two latter
of these precepts especially suggest to us the exist
ence of compendia or summaries, as the means then
in use and approved, to preserve the faith of Christ
from the prevaiUng attempts to corrupt it ; to hold
fast the form of sound words, uVoTUTrwo-tv ¦oyKx.ivovTuv
Xoyiov ; to hold the traditions which they had re
ceived * 7ra^a^oa-£if,' rather articles or institutes of
faith ; for so the ancients seem to have understood
this word from Irenaeus, who directly applies it to a
creed or confession." These, my Lord, are authori
ties, by the side of whom you can have no objection
to having your own name placed, except such as may
possibly arise from the opposition in which the opi
nions you have promulgated on this passage are found
to theirs.
But that we may not leave it to be decided by
mere names, aUow me respectfully to submit whether
the following arguments may not be considered as
giving almost a mathematical demonstration of the
correctness of the ancient and customary interpreta
tions, and of the error of your own. It is allowed,
as I have already intimated, by every one who has
treated, with any pretensions to learning or judg
ment, the history of our creeds, that they are expli
cations of formularies, framed by the apostles them
selves for the use of the churches which they founded;
and our Church has sanctioned that opinion by the
very name she attaches to the .apostles' Creed. It is

56
admitted on aU hands, both from the deductions of
reason, that there must have been, and from the tes
timony of antiquity that there were, such symbols
deposited with the first assembhes of Christian con
verts. For it is impossible to suppose that the mere
example and preaching of a few weeks or months
would be sufficient, without any further care or in
struction, without any further rule of guidance, to
confirm and keep steadfast in the faith a body of in
dividuals but just converted from the pompous ritual
of Moses, or the tempting mythology of paganism,
and especiaUy whilst surrounded by soHcitations to
error and inducement to relapses on every side. It is
equaUy improbable that the apostles would deem it
prudent to leave them thus destitute and exposed.
Again, it is no less clear that if any rules of faith
or discipline were left them, they would embrace, in
the purest and simplest form, not precepts about eat
ing and drinking each other's subsistence, and play
ing when they ought to work, as you have chosen to
interpret, vnth so much originality, the traditions
in question, for both heathen and Jewish morality
could have taught them this ; but the great leading
truths of Christian doctrine, those primary articles
of faith, which are of necessity to the salvation of a
Christian disciple, and ordained to be the badges of his
calling. Thus far we may safely reason, and the re
cords of antiquity prove that reasoning to be correct :
for, under the various denominations of " xwovi;,"
" jMaSi^fiaTa," " regulae fidei," " syUoge confessionum,"
and " symbola," those creeds, or confessions of faith,
may be traced in almost every ancient father of the

57
church, as derived from the time of the apostles,
differing, however, both in words and length, as
they were respectively drawn up by their authors,
and adapted to the circumstances and wants of
those assembhes for whose use they were designed.
Grabe, who has entered with great industry and
labour into these inquiries, in his Notes on Bi
shop Bull, concludes that all the articles of our
present Apostles' Creed, except three, " the descent
of Christ into heU," the " Holy Catholic Church,"
and the " Communion of Saints," were included in
the forms taught by the apostles themselves; and
that the reason why those ancient confessions of
faith, used by different churches, are found to differ
in words and phrases, is, that they were not written
with paper and ink, as the apostles delivered them,
but, as St. Jerome states it, " in the fleshly tables of
the heart."
It is next to be considered, whether the particular
church of Thessalonica was likely to be left without
this common advantage so generaUy bestowed on
others. Now Thessalonica was not only the capital
of Macedonia, but, as a Christian establishment, its
church was, as St. Paid tells us, an ensample to every
surrounding country. " For from you," says he in
addressing them, " sounded out the xvord of the
Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also
in every place your faith to Godward is spread
abroad." We have, then, in the very importance of
that church, a strong presumptive argument, that it
would not only be provided with every means of regu
lating its own faith and discipline, but further, with
the means of communicating it to other churches

58
also. And if any Christian assembly whatever had a
confessio fidei or -n-a.^aSocru;, it is impossible to suppose
that Thessalonica would be left without one. But,
my Lord, there is another argument, and I press it
upon you as a very strong one, that if they had not a
creed, what could they have to direct them ? You
have advanced the circumstance of the Epistle to the
Thessalonians being the first of aU St. Paul's writings ;
it is given in our bibles as belonging to the year 54.
Bishop Tomline places it probably in 52. But in
whichever year it was written, an argument of a di
rectly opposite tendency to your own arises from it.
Whether written in 54 or 52, it was stiU written
sometime before the date assigned by our ablest critics
to the very earhest of the gospels. Bishop Percy, in
his Key, seems to establish, upon no slight grounds,
the date of 61 for St. Matthew's ; and, I beheve, the
consent is now universal, that St. ]Matthev\f's was the
earhest. The Thessalonians then had no Christian
Scripture, at least that we know of, to guide their
steps into the way of truth, or to keep them safely
from the snares that every where surrounded them.
To suppose that the apostles would, under all these
circumstances, leave them entirely destitute of any
rule of faith whatever, except some paltry directions
about not " walking disorderly," is, I think, totaUy
incredible. Euchd has proved some of his theorems,
which did not admit of direct proof, by a " reductio
in absurdum." The theory of your Lordship brings
one to very much of this sort of conclusion, without
the merit of honestly pointing out the faUacy it
contains. I beg stiU further to submit, that so far from your

59
theory of the traditions, in this passage, nieaning
only a few trifling regulations, being sanctioned by
the context, as you would persuade, it is entirely
otherwise ; and that no commentator in Christendom,
of any value, can be found to sanction the interpre
tation you have given. But of this I shall say no
more. Another argument, however, still remains ; namely,
that the traditions alluded to, whatever they are, may
be contained in some other of St. Paul's epistles ; and,
if so, have at aU events long ceased to be apostolical
traditions. This is a very correct conclusion, sup
posing the premises to be so ; but I am yet to learn,
in what part of those epistles a regular " form of
sound words," such as I have stated to be intended
by iroi^aSoa-iti in 2 Thess. ii. 15, is to be found : and
until it be shown me, I shall be disposed, in common
with aU those great luminaries I have quoted, to be
lieve that such forms did exist ; that one of them was
distinctly referred to by the apostle; that they formed
the basis of our creeds ; that as those creeds are not
recorded expressly in Scripture, they are traditionary
documents; and that, by their adoption and their
titles, our Church has shown at once that the rejec
tion of tradition, even in matters of faith, was not
" the vital principle of the Reformation."
But we are now led into a stiU bolder train of ar
gument and assumption.
" Parva metu primo, mox sese attoUit in auras,
" Ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit."
For we are told at p. 68, that it is " in the highest
3

60
degree improbable that any doctrine, coming from
Christ and his apostles, should have been left unre
corded in the New Testament, and confided to the
future record of the fathers." I wiU only here say,
that it was not thus asserted either by those great
men who settled the forms of our worship, nor by
those who have commented upon and maintained their
Christian character in after times. We know it was
the language of Calvin, and of the Puritans in the
worst ages of our civil anarchy : it is the language of
the present day with aU those who deny the pretensions
of our hierarchy, and dispute the Christian character
of our Church estabhshment. But it has been lashed
and confuted through every page of his immortal
work by our venerable Hooker, and for ever overthrown.
Had your Lordship observed, that it is highly impro
bable that any necessary article of faith, any tenet of
faith or doctrine, necessary to salvation, had been
left unrecorded, you would have spoken the language
of that Church over which you have been caUed to
preside ; but you will find not one single expression
either in our articles, homiUes, or liturgy, which even
countenances the bare, unqualified language you have
used. When one of the first of these addresses us " on
the sufficiency of Scripture," * its words are, not that
Scripture contains every doctrine, but that " Holy
Scripture containeth all things necessary to salva
tion ;" and not content even with this, it goes on to
guard still further the expression it has used : " So
that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved
* See b. iii. c. 3, of the Ecclesiastical Politie,
6

61
thereby, is not required of any man to be believed
as an article of faith, or be thought requisite to sal
vation." * When our homily, on the same subject,
addresses us, the same cautious limitation is again
observed. " There is no truth nor doctrine, necessary
for our justification, and everlasting salvation, but
that is or may be drawn out of that fountain and weU
of truth." When our catechism addresses us on the
subject of our sacraments, what are the words in which
it speaks to us ? Aware that the term sacrament is
a term not scriptural, that it was applied to almost a
hundred different rites and ceremonies by the Chris
tian fathers, and that the difference with other
Churches might be a difference of terms, rather than
of substance, it wisely and prudently observes, that
" there are two only as generally necessary to salva
tion." f Now, my Lord, all this coincidence was not
matter of accident, but of deep and sound reflection.
It bespeaks that tone of charity and of moderation,
of which I can find so very httle in any part of the
" Comparative View."
But, not content with overlooking this universal
and charitable Umitation to articles of necessity alone,
in every instance we have adduced, you have further
ventured to appeal to our CoUects and Epistles in
support of your new, and less tolerant, system of
Divinity for the Church of England. ^ " Formal
* " The twentieth and twenty-first articles are," I use his
Lordship's own words, " no less decisive.''
t On the number of sacraments, see Archbishdp Seeker's
Lectures on the Catechism, and still more particularly Barrow's
Sermons. X See Comparative View, p. 42.

62
declarations, on this subject," you say, " we must
not, indeed, expect in collects and prayers." It is suf
ficient that they appeal to Scripture, and to Scriptm-e
alone. Thus the collect for the second Smiday in
Advent begins, " Blessed Lord, who hast caused aU
Holy Scriptures^ to be written for our learning ;" and
the Epistle, which is selected for that day begins,
" Whatever things were written aforetime, were
written for our learning, that we, through patience
and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope." I
caU this, my Lord, a very bold appeal, and one by
which either the ignorance of your readers must have
been largely presumed on, or, what no one can sus
pect, your own has been betrayed : for, with only a
few exceptions, our coUects were adopted fi-om the
Romish missal and breviary themselves. The collect
you have quoted is assuredly one of those exceptions.
It was introduced as a new one in 1549, and inserted
in the first book of Edw. VI. ; and the coUect that be
fore occupied its room was removed to the fourth
Sunday in Advent, where it now stands. But its
object had nothing to do with tradition, or the pur
pose for which you have dragged it into service, but
was entirely meant to countenance the use of Scripture
in our own language, and as a fit accompaniment to
the introduction of the custom of reading a portion
of it as lessons in the course of our public worship,
and to that point every expression in it clearly and
significantly alludes. As to the epistle you have
quoted, it stands, and has stood, is read, and has
been read by the Church of Rome herself for at least
eight hundred years, and occupied, in her missals, the

63
very place it now occupies in our own prayer books.
It stands thus recorded in a missal, at Holkham, of
the eleventh century, and it stands, stiU, as used at
the present day, in that very London missal you
have yourself quoted. So that upon your Lord
ship's own argument and showing, the Church of
Rome, as weU as the Church of England, " appeals
to Scripture, and to Scripture alone."

SECTION VII.

I MUST here, however relunctantly, again turn
my attention to the confusion of terms : for it is
with great truth that Hooker has stated, 1. iii. c. 3.
and your Lordship has given us a fuU opportunity of
witnessing the application of such statement, that
" a mixture of things by speech, which by nature are
divided, is the mother of all error. To take away
that error, which confusion breedeth, distinction is
requisite." When your Lordship was examining the
coUection of those passages of the Fathers, which
were, soon after the Reformation, coUected and
published with the Rhemish Testament, as the de
positaries of tradition, as you tell us, at p. 69, you
have done, and found that " they do not always re
late to doctrines, that those which do relate to doc
trines, relate, for the most part, to doctrines con
tained in the New Testament; and that the Fathers,
thus referred to, spoke of tradition,^ not in the con-

64
fined sense of an unwritten word, but in its more
extensive sense, which includes written as weU as
unwritten doctrines ;" might it not have occurred
to you, that you had formed an erroneous notion in
supposing that the Romanist did, any where, found
either any single article of faith upon tradition
alone, as you have so confidently asserted, or any
entire doctrine not connected with those customs and
ceremonies, which you have again and again told us
you had nothing to do with in an inquiry as to the
rule of faith ? Agaiin, the necessity of making, and
constantly keeping in view, a distinction between
mere dogmata, or things to be beheved, and articles
of neccessity, such as our Church contemplates,
in all the references above made, is the more indis
pensable, because what may be justly caUed doc
trines, may yet be a part only, and that a very
subordinate part of articles themselves, and are often
so blended with discipline as to render it not easy to
separate and distinguish ; but yet are, in neither
case, of necessity to salvation ; and, in both, within
that range of traditions, which our thirthy-fourth
article teUs us, " need not be alike in all places, and
which we acknowledge may be varied, even without
violating the unit-y qf faith." No fundamental dis
tinction, therefore, can be grounded upon accidental
differences like these. But the confusion of terms,
which I am most especiaUy driven to notice here, is
the term of rule of faith, which you liave so sys
tematically adopted. Now that the Scriptures are,
to Protestants, the sole source and foundation of
every article of faith we hold or inculcate, I am as

65
ready as your Lordship 4» maintain ; nor dp I yietd
to any man in my full and sincere conviction of the
purity of every part of our doctrine, and of the
apostoUc and primitive character of our discipline.
I embrace, " toto animo," the whole of our Church's
faith^ and no more ; and, in the same plain sense,
do I receive her articles, as that in which they are
understood by those of her children, who call them
selves most orthodox ; that is, I believe them to be
neither Popish, Calvinistic, nor Arminian, but strictly
Scriptural. Still aUow me to question, whether the
Scriptures can be properly said to be our " Regula
totalis'' The term Rule of faith; we have already
observed, was employed, in the earUer ages of Christ
ianity, by Christians of aU languages and churches,
not to signify the Scripture, but those creeds or
formularies in which their sense and understanding
of Scripture was embodied and declared,* These
creeds, therefore, increased in number and variety,
just as Christianity itself spread, and Christian
Gpmmunities were multiplied in the world. Indeed,
to contemplate Scripture, per se, as a Rule and
guide of faith, independent of aU interpretation,
requires an abstractedness of mind which is not
easily accomplished, and which, if accomphshed,
can never be acted on in practice. It is the
sense, therefore, in which Scripture is understood,
as weU as the Word itself, that is a ^' Rule of faith "
and action; for the difference between the creeds of
different individuals, or bodies of men, arises not
* It is needless to multiply quotations to prove this ; it will
abundantly be illustrated by a reference to King or Bingham.
F

66
'from the difference of Scripture, but from the sense
in which it is taken, or the authority relied ori for its
interpretation, or generaUy both. The Puritans re
jected, upon the plea that nothing but Scripture ought
to explain Scripture, and that even discipline was as
much to be sought for from Scripture as faith itself,
aU the authority of episcopacy, the use of the cross in
baptism, and the ring in marriage, the observance of
fasts, the degrees in our universities, with almost the
whole body of our offices, dignities, and caUings.
They declared themselves not only justified in so
doing, but commanded by the express charge given
in Deuteronomy : " Whatsoever I command thee,
take heed to do it ; thou shalt put nothing thereto,
nor take ought therefrom." The Calvinist said his
**Rule of faith" was Scripture explained by Reason,
and his Reason led him also to think bishops a very use
less and unprofitable incumbrance, and to cherish many
other tenets which I beheve your Lordship to be quite
as far from admiring as myself The Quaker pro
ceeded with as much consistency, at least, as any of
them, and setting out in perfect union with your
Lordship, by solemnly affirming that " Scripture gives
a full and ample testimony to aU the doctrines ofthe
Christian faith," and by declaring his firm consent in
that saying, " Let him that preacheth any other
gospel, than that which was delivered by the apostles
in the Scriptures, be accursed."* But he ended, under
the simplicity of this guidance, by sweeping away at
once bishops, priests, deacons, rites, sacraments, and
sabbaths, and in the full and conscieritious assurance
? Barclay's Apology.

67
that, as a " Rule of faith," Scripture taught "him to
do so. Every one of these are quite identified with
your Lordship as to principle, but they differ as to
the propriety of your being a Bishop. The rule of
faith, and the mitre, are not so easily reconciled.
Are not these plain and sensible proofs of what be
comes of Scriptm-e, if insisted on in the manner you
would urge ; but, if I have rightly interpreted her
conduct, or know any thing of her principles, the
Church of England, whatever some of her children
may have said on this point, in the heat of arguing
against Popery, during her arduous struggle for in
dependence, neither did, or ever intended, to reject
the aid of all ancient and primitive authority. Her
only inquiry upon any point that involved tradi
tion, whether of faith, doctrine, or discipline, was
not whether it was connected with tradition, and
therefore to be rejected, but whether that tradition
had apostolical authority for its basis, and the point
founded upon it was useful to the promotion of
piety, and the edification of its members. It is
therefore an inconvenient, because an inadequate
term, to talk of Scripture as a " Rule of faith "
among Christians, in any discussion which includes
a comparison of different systems or modes of reli
gious worship. In arguing with a Pagan, Maho
metan, or Hindoo, it would be both admissible and
correct ; but, unless the members of the Church of
Rome, as being, upon your Lordship's system, fun
damentally distinct from us, are also to be denied
the very name of Christians, to talk of the Scripture
as a " Rule of faith," in arguing with them, is bothin-
¦ - ' F 2 '^ ' ¦ -

6g
correct and inadmissible. As your Lordship, however,
has thought fit to assert and use it, we must go ou
to review it as we can. One advantage, indeed, may
attend its adoption, which is this, that in arguing
with other Churches, or with the Church of Rome
upon other grounds, the Scripture, or the sense of
Scripture, would have been the authority to which
we should have had to appeal : whereas, upon your
Lordship's present plan, both Scripture and the sense
of Scripture are entirely laid aside ; and the task you
have imposed upon yourself has been to prove that
the Church of Rome maintains articles of her faith
totaUy independent of Scripture, and consequently
quite independent of any sense or interpretation of
Scripture, and doctrines which she does not even
plead to have a recorded existence in the inspired
volume^ Whether she attaches one sense, and the
Church of England another, to the text of Scripture,
is not the question. It is simply this, " Does she
appeal to Scripture at all for the doctiines you charge
her with maintaining independent of it ; " or in short,
to repeat your own words, which must not be left out
of recollection, are the Churches " fundamentally
distinct, not only differing in single articles of
faith, but having the faith of one founded upon a
different basis from that of the other?"

SECTION VIII.

As we are now about to proceed to a particular
examination of doctrines, the points at issue cannot

69
Ibe too exactly ascertained. I have generally as
serted thus fer, that the Church of Rome does not
maintain any article of faith distinct from us, upon
the authority of tradition only. I have also asserted
generally that the Chm-ch of England does not
decline- to avail herself of any assistance fiom tradi
tion in establishing her doctrines, or in confirming
and explicating the articles of her creed. Your
Lordship asserts, without any quahfication what
soever, that " the rejection of tradition was the
vital principle of the Reformation." The correctness
of these respective positions will now be seen, as they
are exemplified in the particular articles of faith, or
doctrines, held by the two churches.
In your definition of tradition, at p. 8, after hav
ing most properly divided it into three kinds, divine,
apostolical, and ecclesiastical, you have with no less
propriety repeatedly warned your readers, that it was
with the two former alone that your inquiry was
concerned. " We are concerned wholly and solely
with what are called divine and apostoHcal traditions.
And it wiU be impossible to conduct with r recision our
present inquiry, unless this Rule of faith be kept
free from intermixture with any other kinds of tra
dition than those of which it is composed. We must
be careful to avoid the confusion which would arise
from a reference to the 34th article of our creed,
though that article relates expressly to tradition.
But it is evident that the term is there used in no
other sense, than that which is affixed by BeUarmine
to the third kind of tradition. This kind of tra
dition is called, as we have seen, ecclesiastical tradi-

70
tion." After quoting the words of our article, you
observe further, " Since then in this article traditions
and ceremonies are thus mentioned together, they
must necessarily be understood as having similar
meanings, and this exactly corresponds with the de
scription given by Bellarmine of ecclesiastical tradi
tion, or tradition which relates, as he says, to certain
ancient customs, consuetudines quaedam antiquae."
All this is very clear and accurate, and we shall soon
see how your Lordship has set us the example of ob
serving it. It is but at the interval of sixteen pages,
that your review of the application of tradition by the
Church of Rome to the establishment of her rule of
faith commences ; and I think any person not ac
quainted with the shifts that will sometimes be had
recourse to by desperate polemics, would be a little
surprised to see what are the preliminary principles
laid down. The first ground of argument assumed,
is that, wherever the couricil of Trent appeals to
Scripture and tradition for the establishment of any
article of faith, it means to place them on the same
level. The second is, that where the council has only
said that the Church professes to dehver an article of
faith " as instructed by our Lord Jesus Christ and his
apostles, and as taught by the Holy Spirit," that
" this description agrees exactly with tradition as a
rule of faith," and, therefore, that Scriptm-e is ex
cluded. Now, arguments thus urged, and conclusions
thus drawn, the members of the Church of Rome
may safely leave to their own futility. But, as a
clergyman of the Church of England, I cannot om.it
to notice them ; for if they are maintained as a< fit
3

71
T«le of Mjudii^tion by a prelate of pur own Esta
blishment, they ttiay be quoted and used, upon your
Lordship's express authority, by our adversaries, against
ourselves. For when the Synod of London, or rather
Cranriier* himself, formed our articles, they did in
some instances indeed urge the authority of Scripture,
and in others, as in that "On Justification," that " the
doctrine was most wholesome and full of consolation;"
but a very -great number, and those too of the very
highest importance, have no appeal whatever either to
"Scripture," " wholesomeness," " consolation," or any
thing else, but are simply declared to be articles of
the Church of England, or, in the language of the
Council of Trent, which " Holy Mother Church has
thought fit to decree."

SECTION IX.

Having at last cleared our way through so many
impediments and incumb*ances, we are arrived at the
examination of particular doctrines. The first in
stance you give is the Romish doctrine of Extreme
Unction. But as you begin by admitting that an ap
peal is made to Scripture as weU as to tradition, one
* It was ione «f the charges against Cranmer, and which he
seems to Jiave been unable to refute, that he caiased or permitted
our articles to be published, as coming from the synod of th,^
clergy, when tliey liad been admitted to no share in their forma
tion, or perhaps scarcely seen them previous to publication. See
-the.account of this in Burnet.

72
might not unreasonably have expected that all ftu-ther
inqiury, " quoad hoc," was at an end, and that your
Lordship would no more think of insisting upon a
doctrine confirmed, as the Romanist believes, no mat
ter whether rightly or not, by express Scripture, in an
argument whose object is to show that he adopts tra
dition as an independent basis of his faith. But no ;
this Herculean labour, or rather this toil of Sisyphus,
is stiU to be performed ; and because the Romanist,
in iadministering this rite, uses not merely oil, for
which he alledges the authority of James, chap, v.,
but oil blessed by the bishop as the matter, and the
words " per istam unctionem, &c." as the form, and
says he does this " ut ex apostolica traditione per
manus accepta ecclesia didicit," therefore, you say,
and pray mark the logic, " we may here see in what
manner the text of Scripture is put to the torture,
and made to speak whatever it may appear good that
tradition should make it speak." Now, my Lord, the
plain fact is, that Scripture is not made to speak at
aU, beyond the mere application of oil. The rest is
expressly attributed to tradition, or apostolic usage, as
distinct therefrom, and belongs exclusively to those
customs which you have so carefuUy inculcated upon
us, to consider as having nothing to do with this part
of your inquiry. It corresponds with many ceremo
nies pf our own chm-ch, for which I am not account
able, as a clergyman, to find either the express cus
tom, or the words employed, in Scripture. It is suf
ficient if they are not contrary thereto, and tend to
edification. The doctrines of Penance and Indulgences come
7

73
next, topics which, like the last, might have been
better spared, when we remember how nearly the
former coincides with our own injunctions, and how
purely the latter is a mere matter of discipline alone.
Penance, though neither so often enforced by argu
ment or in practice, as formerly, is yet a very impor
tant part both of the ecclesiastical doctrine, disciphne,
and law of the Church of England. Our Homilies and
our Liturgy both inculcate Penance and mortification
for sins as a doctrine, though not as a sacrament, and
both the right and usage of inflicting penitential
exercises, in a manner much more practical, is to be
found amongst us. Is not standing in a white sheet
in church, a punishment we can and do inflict, as
well as many others, even under the penalty of an
anathema, if not complied with ? And when it is
compHed with, is it not to be considered as a confes
sion of the offender's fault, as a token of repentance
and contrition, as a promise of amendment ? And is
not the very process that enforces it, expressly said to
be "pro salute animae," not for the good of society,
but for the benefit of the culprit's soul ?
But there is another part of this question to be
considered, and which very closely connects it with
the Romish disciphne of Indulgences, namely, that
the punishments thus, incurred may be commuted,
and an Indulgence and Absolution granted by the
bishop, upon the payment of a sum of money
called "Commutation money." In the year 1735,
the Bishop of Chester cited his commissary to the
Archbishop's court at York, to exhibit an account
of the money received for " Commutation of peni
tential exercises," and the account was accord-

74
ingly ordered to be rendered. Again, is it no .^-
dulgence, that whilst a poor man must wait during
three Sundays for the publication of his banns, and
present himself during canonical hours, publicly in
church, for the due celebration of his marriage, under
pain of the partner of his bed being no more than a
concubine, and his children incapable of inheritance
either of property or of honour ; the man, that can
afford to pay for it, may be indulged in the power of
immediately proceeding to the nuptial tie, and if he
can only pay a stUl further sum, may be sanctioned in
suspending all the regulations prescribed for others in
our Rubric, and without regard either to publication
of banns, or presence in the church of God, or canoni
cal hours, may have the solemn rite privately admi
nistered at home at the hour of midnight ? But let me
not be misunderstood : I am not complaining of these
things as abuses ; I am rather contending that they
belong to that authority, which every church may ex
ercise as far as is consistent with purity of disciphne,
without committing an atom of the fundamental cha
racter of its faith. I am using no other tone of ar
gument than what has been used by the most ortho
dox commentators of the Church of England. " In
ihe primitive church f says Burnet, " there were very,
severe rules made, obliging all that had sinned pub
licly, and they were afterwards applied to such as had
sinned secretly, to continue for many years in a state
of separation from the sacrament, and of penance and
discipline. But becaujse aU such general rules admit
of a great variety of circumstances, taken from men's,
sins, their persons, and their repentance, there was a

75
power given to all bishops by the council of Nice j to
shorten the time, and to relax the severity of those
canons ; and such favour as they saw cause to grants
was caUed Indulgence. This was just and necessary,
and was a provision, without which no constitution or
society can be weU governed." Our commination ser
vice distinctly and emphaticaUy regrets the present
departure from this godly dicipline, and declares the
denunciations against impenitent sinners to be only
adopted as a substitute, " untU the said dicipline
should be again restored." Penances and Indulgences
were, without doubt, the source of great wickedness
and corruption for a long series of years in the Church
of Rome ; but I can see no utility in these days, in
raking up old grievances for the purpose of present
aggravation, or in arguing from abuses which, as has
been feelingly said by a highly respectable priest of that
communion,* " you may dwell upon as you do upon
the ruins of our monasteries, but you have no right to
urge them as living evidence of our present faith."
The abuses of Penance are no where now manifest
amongst the Catholics of England ; and their In
dulgences have been publicly stated by one of their
own bishops, who has yet shown himself no friend to
change or relaxation, I mean Dr. Milner, to be
simply " the aUowance of meat on fasting-days to
cases of sickness, infirmity, and old age." Your
Lordship cannot be ignorant that the regulation of
these perverted powers of the Pope was one great ob
ject for which the Council of Trent was convened,
and that though it left the power of granting Indul-
* Rev. J. Bcrrington.

76
gences, yet it enforced the limitation,. and consigned
their character, solely to the head of church disci
pline. But it is not true that either in the tenets of Pe
nance or Indulgences, the Catholic relies solely, or
even chiefly, on tradition. It is not true, that the
council of Trent has so represented it. The Cathohc
believes, on the contrary, that he is authorized by our
Saviour's own recorded charge to his apostles, "Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained ; " in
believing such authority to be vested in the Church.
And he, moreover, believes himself sanctioned in the
practice of his discipline also by the recorded prece
dent of St. Paul, who, in 1 Cor. v. 4, speaking of a
person who had been guilty of the crime of incest,
says, in the words quoted by our own commination
service, " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with
the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such
an one unto Satan in the flesh, that the spirit may
be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus." And again,
in 2 Cor. ii. 6, and following verses, in aUusion to the
same person, he declares the punishment awarded to be
now mitigated or removed ; and adds, " if I forgave
any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes for
gave I it in the person of Christ." Both the doc
trinal and practical part, therefore, as well of Penance
as of Indulgence, is asserted by the Romanist upon
the written JVord of God.
The " Veneration for relics and images " ought also
surely to have been consigned to any other place than
to the pages of an inquiry, which declares that it has

77
nothing to do with any other traditions than those
which are used by the Romanist in establishing a rule
of faith, and which further adopts the Trent decrees
as its official organ. For those very decrees expressly
forbid to believe any divinity or virtue in them, for
which they ought to be reverenced ; and Bossuet, in
my translation at least, has told us, that " the
Church of Rome might, without the least alteration
in her doctrine, regulate these external practices."
The almost total disuse of such superstitions, at the
present day, might have prevailed with a more candid
inquirer to have said nothing, unless it were to notice
that disuse, on such a topic. It was said by Bishop
Jewell, " Let the Romanists visit our churches, they
will find there nothing to offend them except it be the
bareness of our waUs, and the simplicity of our wor
ship." The Catholic of this country may noxv say in
return, " Let the members of the established Church
of England visit om- chapels, they wiU find our waUs
as inoffensive as their own, and with the single excep
tion of a crucifix on our altar, nothing of that kind
which can distinguish our respective temples from
each other."
We are next introduced to " Purgatory:" but here
also you are obhged to admit, that an appeal is made
to Scripture for the source of that doctrine : and whor
ever has consulted either Chemnitz on the council of
Trent, or Burnet on our twenty-second Article, will
have found page after page employed by both in com
bating the various passages of Holy Writ, which the
Romanist aUedges to support it. Whatever, therefore,
may be the superstitions imputed to such a tenet, or

78
however little of sanction may really be given to it
in Scripture, it can never be brought forward as an
instance, to prove that tradition is employed by the
Church of Rome as a rule of faith, independent of
Scripture.
I But as there are so many reflections arising from
this subject, connected as it stands with others, and
particularly with prayers for the dead, I cannot for
bear offering a few observations upon it, though they
are not necessarily caUed for by any argument which
your Lordship has been enabled to draw from it.
The condition of the soul, from the moment of its
separation from the body, until it shall receive its
final doom of punishment or recompense, at the day
of judgment, is one of the most awful, but yet impe
netrable mysteries of our faith. Before the revelation
of that gospel which came by Jesus Christ, there ap
pears to have been but very little notion entertained
by the Jews of any intermediate state, and none
whatever of a distant general day of reckoning. The
strongest passage in the Old Testament, on this sub
ject, is that of David, wherein he says, " Thou wilt
not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer
thine Holy One to see corruption." But no intima
tion is here given of a future judgment, nor of the
degree of happiness or misery during the intermediate
state between death and resurrection. Warburton, it
is well known, denied even the knowledge of any
future state forming a part of the law of Moses.
With respect to the Heathen, it is not to be ex
pected that human reason, though improved to the
utmost, could throw any light upon a subject which

79
Revelation alone could enlighten. Under certain cir
cumstances indeed, and particularly the defect of
prescribed lustrations, the records of pagan mytho
logy supposed, that even those whose lives had been
free from any enormous crimes, were still doomed to
wander in misery and exile, for a season, before they
could be admitted to the habitations of the blest.
But, subject to these exceptions, the soul was gene
rally believed to be at once, on quitting the body,
consigned to its eternal and changeless abode. Wlien,
but one year after his decease, the shade of Anchises
visited his son, and said,
Congressus, nate, pete meos ; non me impia namque
Tartara habent tristesque umbrae, sed amoena piorum
Concilia Elysiumque colo —
the language which Virgil has assigned him, speaks
the sentiment of the philosopher as well as of the
•poet. It describes the two seats of bliss or misery,
- which were believed to be instantly awarded to virtue
and to vice, when removed from this life.
The revelation of the gospel has unfolded to us, in
sufficient clearness, a future day of general assize, in
which we shall aU appear at the judgment seat of
Christ ; but clouds and darkness are stiU spread over
the path that will conduct us thither, when we quit
this stage of being. Our blessed Lord promised the
penitent thief upon the cross, " To-day thou shalt be
with me in paradise ; " but paradise could not here
mean the last final abode of the righteous, because
our Saviour did not ascend thither himself tiU after
his resurrection. And when in Matthew xxv. he de-
. scribes the separation, at the last day, of the sheep arid

80
of the goats, and says, that " the one shaU inherit the
kingdom prepared for them from the beginning of the
world, the other shaU go into everlasting fire prepared
for the devil iand his angels," the portion of both is
spoken of as a future lot, as something that has not
yet been enjoyed or suffered. Again, in the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus, which is often quoted
as an argument that the soul is immediately con
signed to joy or misery, it seems to be forgotten that,
as being a parable, it is not bound to an entire and
strict verisimilitude in all its parts ; and that, besides
this, it would rather point to a period subsequent to
the resurrection of the body, inasmuch as the rich
man is represented as clothed in body, and capable of
suffering bodily pains and agony. The whole scene
is moreover laid in hell.
As to the condition of man in his intermediate state,
the apostles address us in a variety of expressions re
specting it, but in none so usual as those of rest or sleep.
St. Matthew teUs us that, upon the convulsion of na
ture, when it bore testimony to the importance of the
sacrifice at the crucifixion of our Lord, " many bodies
of saints that slept arose, and went into the holy city,
and appeared unto many." But this is no argument,
that their souls slept likewise. St. Paul describes
Christ risen, as having " become the first-fruits of
them that slept ; " but this also alludes most especially
to the resurrection of his body from the grave. The
soul, therefore, may be still conceived to be living in
the full enjoyment of its faculties and perceptions,
after its separation from the body ; but where, or
h'oxv, is the difficulty of the question to be solved.
St. Peter, in his first epistle, iii. 18, speaks of Christ

81
as having " been put to death in the flesh, but quiek-
ened by the Spirit ; by which also he Went Md
preached unto the spirits in prison." Now by this
passage, if literaUy interpreted, as it was by our
Reformers, for it was given in the Articles of 1552
as the explication of the descent of Christ into heU,
as weU as in the catechism set forth by Edward the
Sixth, and is still so apphed in the Metrical Creed,
printed at the end of the psalms in our Prayer Book,
—the Spirit of Christ is not only proved to have itself
descended into some abiding place of departed soids,
but to have found them there detained for some cause
and purpose, and reserved for some future period of
trial or release. On what authority the idea of Puri
fication hyfire was first adopted, it seems very diffi
cult to furnish any precise information ; but it is well
known, that the use and apphcation of that element,
as the instrument of lustration, has prevailed in
almost every age and country of the world. Even
water itself was considered as unfit for the purposes of
ablution amongst the Greeks, until it had been con
secrated and prepared, by plunging a flaming torch
into it. In 1 Cor. iii. 13, St. Paul teUs the converted
brethren at Corinth, that " whether any man build
upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones,
wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be made
manifest, for the day shaU declare it ; because it shall
be revealed by fire, and the fire shaU try every man's
work, of what sort it is." And again, " If any
man's work shaU be burned, he shaU suffer loss ; but
he hhnself shaU be saved, yet so as by fire."
I have now quoted sufficient to show the difficfflt
G

and abstruse hature of such a subject, as to aU the
particulars pf it. Happy would it be, if men could
learn to be content with the limits which Providence
has prescribed to the field of religious knowledge.
But such a question as this furnished too powerful a
temptation to the pride of learning, and the subtleties
of scholastic theology, not to cpnstitute an arena in
which every sciolist was willing to try his strength.
Accordingly, long previous to the assemblage of the
council of Trent, and the adjustment of our Articles,
it had formed a copious theme of disputation for the
schoolmen, in which every gradation of theory, frpm
the full enjoyment of complete beatitude, down to
entire torpor, and from thence to extreme suffering,
had been maintained. The veil which the Almighty
has been pleased to spread over this transition from
our earthly stage of existence, to that of eternity, had
been unwisely and even profanely attempted to be
torn away ; and every scrap and intimation of Scrip
ture, blended with much absurdity, borrowed from
other sources, had been pressed into the debate. And
amongst these, again, none were more bandied than
those which intimate a purification by fire. It is but
fair, however, to observe, that the generality of the
members of the Church of Rome were either entirely
regardless of these nice and absurd subtleties, or un
influenced by their decisions. The discussions, as to
the doctrine of Purgatory, which took place at Trent,
and are detailed by Sarpi, should be read by every one
who wishes to form a candid estimate of Cathohc
opinions upon it. The abuses to which the belief of
Purgatory had led, were too generally felt not to be

83
acknowledged ; and their correction was one of the
objects aimed at by the very convening of that assem
bly. The Pope's party, aujdous to maintain the
interests and authority of their master, wished that
some particulars as to the place and fire of Purgatory
should be stated, whilst others contended that it had
better be , omitted altogether. The Archbishop of
Laneriano, said, that " in the discussion of the Mass
it had been agreed, that the sacrifice was offered for
those who died with their sins still not entirely puri
fied ; and that no farther mention need be made about
it." And " in this sense," says Sarpi, " meaning a bare
acknowledgment of an intermediate state of purifica
tion, " the decree was made." Courayer, himself also
a Catholic, says in a note upon this passage, in his
translation, " those who wished to be more particular
in these points, wished at Trent, as they had done at
Florence, to make an article of faith of that about
which they could know nothing, since neither reason
nor revelation teach it." In the edition of our Arti
cles, pubhshed in 1552, these doctrines are not im
puted to the body of the members of the Church of
Rome ; and the article respecting them begins by
caUing the tenet it is about to censure, " the doctrine
of the schoolmen."
Withrespeetto " Prayers fo-rthedead," it isobserva-
ble that though so closely connected both with the
doctrine of Purgatory and with the Invocation of
Saints, not one word is said in our Articles against
them. Now if there be any tenet in the whole com
pass of Roman Catholic faith, which may be said to
be more dependant ontraditionfpr its authority than
G 2

84
another, and to rest less upon the sanction of Scripture;
it is this, and yet not one single word is to be found
in our Articles, as I have just stated, to deter us from
such a practice. In the first liturgy of Edw. VLthe
Psalms and lessons were foUowed by some other suf
frages, besides those we now have, in behalf of the
deceased ; but they were thrown out of the second
liturgy at the instance of Calvin and Bucer. Other
parts, containing prayers for the dead, were continued
tiU the last review ; and it is observed by Wheatley,.
respecting our burial office, that it stiU contains
expressions which may be interpreted in that sense,
and especiaUy as the principle has not been expressly
condemned. That it should not have been originaUy
condemned in our Articles, is, perhaps, to be accoimted
for from the circumstance of Cranmer, who chiefly
framed them himself, believing in their propriety and
efficacy. When the solemn mass and funeral service
was performed in London for Francis I. in 1547>
Cranmer and eight other bishops sung a requiem,
and the sermon was preached by Ridley, then Bishop
of Rochester. Nor does a single expression, from
which any censure of such a practice can be inferred^
appear in the first book of the Homihes, supposed to
be the composition of the great characters just men
tioned.. Even Calvin, says Grotius, " in hoc argu-
riiento suspensis incessit pedibus." Bishop Andrews,
sixty years afterwards, did not hesitate openly to
maintain that doctrine, and to denominate our burial
service an office for the dead. Thomdike, who was
Prebendary of Westminster, and buried in the Abb^
1672, wrote hi? own epitaph, whi^ is as follow* ^

85
** Hie jacet Corpus Herberti Thorndike, Prfebendarii
htgUB Ecclesi*, qui virus veram reform aiid* Ecclesias
lationem ac modum precibusque studiisqUe proce-
quebatur. Tu Lector reqtdem ei et beatam in Christo
ipesurrectionem precare." And as a proof that this
opinion was not connected with any attachment to the
Church of Rome, he bequeathed his property upotB
the express condition, of those who were to inherit it*
not mairying a Catholic, or the member of any other
religious persuasion than the Church of Englaridi
In fact, we had even very lately, upon th^ death of
the Princess Charlotte of Wales;, a Sermon preached
aind published by a venerable Bishop, now upon th^
bench, concluding with a prayer that God would
recrave her souL- — I will only add, then, that if this
usage, which forms a part of every ancient Christian
Liturgy in the world, and is adinowledg«d! or implied
in all the depositaries of tradition, but yet has very
little or no authority from Scripture, was recognized
by such men as Cranmer and Ridley, and Latimer,
was never, in any recension of our articles or service,
condemned or censured, but in some places supposed
to be stiU countenanced ; if it has been iii different
periods, since the Reformation, directly sanctioned by
high authorities of om- Church, it can certainly never
be inferred, from this point at least, that the auth<S^
rity of tradition was so absolutely rejected as* to ftMTftt
the " very vital principle of the Reformation." That
the practice of praying for the dead has geneifSUy,
and with very good reason, been abandoned, I have
no need to be informed. That it was gfddUalfy dis-
«0ttntena3iced through the process of the 'Re£&t&9^

86
tion, and ended with leaving but a few ambiguous
traces of its former existence, is sufficiently clear. But,
independent of any other cause, and quite unconnected
with any considerations of tradition, I conceive the
abuses to which it had led, and its immoral and irre-
hgious tendency, employed as it then was, were quite
sufficient, even though it had possessed stronger encou
ragement from Scripture, to have pointed out the pro
priety of its discontinuance. It can at no time, and
under no circumstances of society, be any additional
incentive to the practice of piety, to believe that bur
transgressions may be safely bequeathed to posterity
to set right, and be stiU pardoned to the intercessions
of others, though neither abandoned, nor repented
of to the last moment of our own Ufe. It is stUl
worse, if any persuasion be thereby fostered, and espe
ciaUy in times of ignorance and superstition, that
masses regularly instituted for this purpose, are the
most effectual medium of reconciliation with the
offended Majesty of Heaven ; and that these again
are to be rendered more effectual in proportion to
their frequency or contiriuance, and as they are bet
ter provided for by the extent of the means appro
priated to recompense their performance. There is
scarcely any vice of the laity, or corruption of the
priesthood, which we may not contemplate as possible
to arise out of such doctrines ; many, we know, did
arise from them ; and, as the end of aU rehgions or
dinances, and aU revealed truth, is the promotion of
purity, both of heart and manners, it is a sufficient
reason for omitting the observance of any non-essen
tial of our. faith, to find that, under certain contin-

87
gencies, impossible to be met by other means, it has
not answered that important end. The omission is
even imperative, if it be found to generally obstruct
it. The next point to which we are directed by the
course of your L(Hrdship's inquiry, is to the doctrine
ofthe " Invocation of Saints." But here again you are
compeUed to begin by admitting that, in the Trent
decree, not one word is said, on this subject, about
Tradition. It is therefore, like the rest, beyond the de
termined scope of your consideration, and is merely
dragged in " ad ceptandumf being totally unable to
prove one atom of your case. But though itmay fail on
oneside,itmayyetgive us some instruction on the other,
and show us that, though the Romanist cannot urge
the authority of tradition for enforcing it, we can
and do rely upon the authority of tradition for reject
ing it ; and therefore use tradition in forming our
"Rule of faith," even in caseswhere the Romanist does
not. There are many passages of Scripture which
teach us to believe that the saints in Heaven are not
insensible to what passes upon earth ; and are even
sometimes employed on objects that concern us. Our
article of the (areed which declares our belief in the
" Commnnion of Saints," has been constantly thus in
terpreted. " They," says Bishop Pearson, " who did
foretel the birth of John, the forerunner of Christ, —
who did annunciate unto the Blessed Virgin the con
ception of the Saviour of the world, — ^who sang a glo
rious hymn at the nativity of the Son of God, — who
carried the soul of Lazarus into Abraham's bosom —
they whoi at .the end of the world, shaU sever' the

88
wicked from among the just, and gather together the
elect of God, certainly have a constant and particular
relation to God's chUdren. They have a particular
sense of our condition ; for Christ assured us that
there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over
one sinner that repenteth." From these and many
other places of Scripture, though not mentioned by
the Council of Trent, the Romanist believes he has
sufficient authority for imploring the intercession of
those who are represented as perpetuaUy beholding
the face of their heavenly Father, and who, as they
are described to feel for, so will they be wiUing,
he believes, to use their efforts towards relieving, the
miseries of the sinner, and to become the channel or
vehicle of his prayers.
With respect to any idolatrous worship of saints, the
members of the Church of Rome have again and again
disowned it. " God alone we worship and adore," is
their constant, public, and authoritative declaration.
They are the exact words of the 12th section of the
book, entitled, " Roman Cathohc Principles," which
has so often been attached to and printed with
their prayer books. But we reply to this, that it is
forbidden us in Scripture even to crave the mediation
of saints and martjrrs ; because we are told that there
is but one Mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus. Now to this argument the Romanist
again answers : ** we fuUy admit this, and our doctrine
is no way at variance therewith. But when Pro»
t«stants and Romanists aKke admit the whole doctrine
of the Trinity, they must alike admit that the
Father and Son are both eqiud as touchiag their

89
godhead, and both one; and that Christ thejeforeis,
together with the Father, an object, per se, of direct
and immediate worship." In fact, our own collect for
the third Sunday in Advent so addresses him. " There
is nothing therefore," they add^ " der(^atory to his
honouf in imploring the saints to be the vehicle of
our prayers to the throne of his Supreme Majesty in
heaven." Nor again, they urge, can it be incon
sistent with this declaration of Holy Scripture, to make
the saints our intercessors with Christ, considered in
his character of Mediator, that he would present and
second our supplications with his Almighty Father.
Thus far, then, both parties are equally found ap
pealing to Scripture, and to Scripture only, in de
fence of their respective opinions; and what, then, is
the best and most rational method of determining a
question, which it is found Scripture alone does not
and cannot determine ? Surely that to which we
have so constantiy recourse in the interpretation of
our statutes or acts of legislature, to mark and trace
out the sense in which any doubtful expressions were
held and accepted by those who lived nearest to the
times when the instruments in which they are
found were ,enacted» and carefuUy to examine the
precedents, the " consuetudines regni," arising out
of them. And this plain course has been mosti
diUgently and carefuUy adopted by the great &.
thers and disciples of the Reformation on the point ia
question. AU the sources of tradition were ransacked^
the praetiee of ancient churches scrutinized and exa?.
Siined, and the result of their labours has beeui not
iadaed th,^ adopting * doctrine upon tr«^ip», Iw*

90
ascertaining, by tradition, that it had no sound fouhda-
tion. The very time and circumstances of its intro
duction, we beheve that we have accurately discovered.
And thus has the "Rule of faith " to the Church of
England been at least regulated and guided by the
decision which tradition affords.
The next point pressed upon our attention is
" Works of Supererogation," and which your Lordship
has defined to be " the supernumerary merits of the
saints, which constituted the treasure out of which
the Church of Rome was accustomed to draw its
indulgences for sin," p. 43. It is important here
to mark, for it is the only symptom of acknowledge
ment of a distinction between the abuses once exist
ing in their church, and the present faith of the
Cathohcs, which is to be found throughout your
pages, that this definition speaks only of a thing
that once existed, of something that did once con
stitute something, out of which something was once
accustomed to be drawn. But even this is but a sort
of charity for which little thanks are due. For
whilst you have felt the necessity and decency of this
caution in definition, you have, nevertheless, blended
works of supererogation with other doctrines, in-order
to bring them within the scope of your inquiry, and
laboured to prove them to be one of those teriets
which contribute fo the aggregate of your theory,
that the Churches of England and Rome are "funda
mentally distinct, not in many single articles of
faith only, but in their very bases themselves upon
which your faith is founded." " We have seen," you
observe, "that in the decree about Indulgences, no ap-

91
peal was made to Scripture" We see the doctrines
in our twenty-second Article, (in which, unfortunately
for your argument, " works of supererogation" are not
once either mentioned or alluded to,) rejected because
" they have no warranty of Scripture," and to which,
as the article was defective, you hiave added, " be
cause they have no other foundation than tradition
as a Rule of faith." And you have, at length, con
cluded, without coming to any conclusion at all, by
this extraordinary and mutilated sentence: " Now,
it has been shown in the preceding chapter, in Svhat
manner the decrees and canons of the council of
Trent, relative to those doctrines, appeal to the au
thority of tradition." And pray, my Lord, what
then? might the Catholic most justly ask; and,
as a minister of the gospel of peace and cha
rity, and as a clergyman of the Church of Eng
land, I ask that question for him. I ask your Lord
ship, what is the inference you would have us draw?
I ask you, as you have not done so, to point out to
me any authentic or authoritative document which
enforces " Works of Supererogation," as any article of
Catholic faith; which even prescribes them as a reli
gious precept, as I cannot find them so prescribed
in any decree of any council, as they are not even
mentioned by the council of Trent, nor in the Pro-
fessio Fidei which followed it. When you have done
this, we will entertain any inference you Avish us to
consider, and try how far such inference may go to
prove ws fundament ally distinct churches, or to esta
blish your position, that " the rejection of tradition
was the vital principle of the Reformation."
5

&2
We are now carried on to tiie doctrin^e of Seven
Sacraments, upon which point I have already
offered some observations. I have intimated, upon
high authority, that our difference as to the num-
l>er of sacraments is a difference chiefly of termst
though less easy to be reconciled, because, as the
word " sacrament " is not to be found in Scripture,
there is no authority sufficiently weighty to decide it.
It is, on both sides, either a battle of words, or an
appeal equaUy made to tradition only; neither of
which considerations wiU much help the theory of
your Lordship. I know, however, no writer of our
church who has more duly appreciated, or more clearly
expressed this fundamental distinction, as your Lord
ship chooses to consider it, than Barrow, and to his
sentiments and language I shaU refer my readers.
" The ancient translations of the Bible into Latin,
did usuaUy render the word [*vs-n^iov, by the word
sacramentum, whence every thing containing under
it somewhat of abstruse meaning, is by ancient wri
ters termed a Sacrament. TatuUian calls all Chris
tianity a sacrament of the Christian religion, and
Ehsha's axe the sacrament of wood; and St. Au
gustine speaks of the sacrament of bread, <rf fish, of
numbers, of the rock, &e." In short, he says, " de
varietate signorum quae ad res divinas pertinent, et
sacramenta appellantur, nimis longum est convenien-
ter disputare;" which shows to howsmaU purpose th«
disputes are, yea, on what small grounds the decrees
are, concerning the number, general nature, and
efficacy of sacraments ; for, where the name and
form of "sacrament is o| so large a»d amb^ous^

98
and indeterminate a agnification, there can be no
thing but confusion in the disputes concerning it."
Nothing, indeed, can be more arbitrary and absurd
than the limitation of the Church of Rome to seven
sacraments, upon the grounds assigned, viz. that the
world was created in seven days, and a whole string
of other equaUy trifling aUusions to the number
aeven. But, in arguing with Catholics, as to whe
ther there be two or seven sacraments, all reasoning
is at once stopped by the recollection that we do not
attach the same limitations to the word. Our cate
chism says, there are two only as generally necessary
to salvation; the Roman Professio Fidei teaches the
Catholic that " there are seven sacraments instituted
by our Lord Jesus Christ, and necessairy for the sal
vation of mankind," though not aU of them to every
one, " non omnia singulis ;" and if any one is dis
posed to imagine this distinction unimportant, let
him only remember that a whole class of society is,
in the Roman Church, admitted to one of her sacra
ments, from which the rest are as totaUy excluded, I
mean holy orders ; and, again, that those who have
been partakers of that, are as positively excluded
feom another. But, my Lord, even these obsan^ations
I feel to be irrelevant, as it is totally impossible to
apply your own argument, by any ingenuity, t© the
case you have undertaken to assert and prove, for tra
dition, as to the definition of a sacrament, is all that
both parties have to appeal to. It may prove that
^e Romanist uses it, but it can never prove that the
^Protestant rejects it, for every argument on both sides
must be drawn purdy from its sources.
6

94
We now come to the last of those doctrines which
your Lordship ranks as having been wholly rejected
by the Church of England, namely, Transubstantia
tion ; a doctrine which certainly forms a most promi
nent and characteristic feature both of the faith and
discipline of the Church of Rome. . And its import
ance is again incalculably heightened by the circum
stance of its having become the test of religious com
munion, rising in its consequences and effects into that
great barrier, which separates six miUions of Brisisli
subjects, not only from the established faith of their
country, but from the enjoyment of those civil pri
vileges, which would seem, as far as reason could
guide us, to be the unquestioned right of every mem
ber in every society, the inseparable condition of the
social compact, and least of all to be expected to be
withheld in a land, and in that land only, where the
principles of slavery and vassalage are proudly and
emphatically disclaimed. At present, however, we are
no further concerned with this doctrine, than to in
quire into the connexion it has with the adoption or
rejection of tradition as a rule of faith, and the spirit
of the Reformation respecting it. The first question
then is, upon what authority does the Church of
Rome maintain and promulgate this doctrine ? Is it
upon the authority of Scripture, or tradition ? Your
Lordship asserts it to be tradition. " We have seen,"
you observe, p. 44, " That the decree of the council of
Trent, which relates in particular to Transubstantia
tion, is prefaced by an appeal to tradition, but by no
appeal to Scripture." And again, " The decree of
the council of Trent which commands the worship-

95
ping of the Host, . lays no claim whatever to the au
thority of Scripture,; it appeals to tradition, and
to tradition alone," Now it grieves me, whilst I am
obliged to affirm both these assertions to be entirely
groundless. For in that Preface there is a direct
appeal to the institution of the Eucharist by Christ
himself; and it is but a few pages previously, that
in allusion tp this very Decree, and this very part of
it, you have yourself observed, that " the reason for
thus worshipping the Host is assigned in the follow
ing words : We believe that the very same God is
there present, whom the Eternal Father sent into
the world, and said, ' Let all the angels worship him.' "
Certainly the quotation, thus given as a sanction,
would have been more exactly consonant to Scripture,
if it had been " Let all the angels qf God worship
him ; " for then no one could have hesitated to say,
that it was implicitly adopted from the sixth verse of
the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews : but
as it is not given in the precise words of Scripture, it
might be supposed that this reason, thus assigned,
was adopted from some traditionary authority in pre
ference thereto. But, my Lord, like the little inad
vertences I have so often had occasion tp notice, this
alteration from Scripture is your Lordship's own
act and deed. The Trent decree has the exact words
of the New Testament itself, " Adorent eum omnes
angeli Dei : " " Let all the angels of God worship
him : " and there are but two ways of reconciling
your own inconsistency, and proving the correctness
of your assertion, and these are, . either by showing
that the sixth chapter of Hebrews is no part of Scrip-

96
ture, or that the assembled authffiitiea at Trent bflor-
rowed the quotation at second hand from some tra
ditionary source, without knowing from whence it
was derived.
Without saying more then on the Trent decree,
I may safely ask whether, when we compare the
bare words of Scripture with the literal sense
attached to them by the Church of Rome on one
hand, and with the figurative sense attached by
the Church of England, on the other, it is at aU,
primd facie, probable, that the Romanists would not
Msolutely adhere to the text in preference to any
interpretation whatever ; and whether a church, in
sisting that these words were not literaUy and strictly
to be taken in their obvious sense, would not be the
party most likely to appeal both to reason and to the
primitive authorities for the establishment of its own
opinions. " Take, eat, this is my body ; drink ye
aU of this, for this is my blood : " " Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you:" are passages much too strong
to be abandoned for quotations from secondary sources,
and aUusions to secondary opinions, by those whose
chief object it was to have them accepted without
quahfication and without reserve. The feet is, that
your Lordship has only mistaken Cathdics fm Pro
testants, and, to use a homely figure, " put the saddle
upon the wrong horse." Of this any pers(m may be
easily satisfied, who opens but the pages of any Ca
thohc writer upon this subject, and then compares
the manner in which it is there treated, with the man
ner in which it is handled by Aubertin and Dailfe,
StiUingfleet, Tillotson, or Burnet. The last of

97
these is in every man's hands, and I only beg to re
fer them to his Commentary on our twenty-eighth
Article. They will find him, line after line, and
page after page, combating the literal sense in whidi
the Romanist accepts the words of Scripture, and
founds upon them his doctrine of the Eucharist, not
only by the deductions of reason, and the laws of
natural phUosophy, but by ' laying open the whole
sources of tradition to our view, by tracing the
imagery of expression through the ritual language
of the Jews, and by producing afterwards a whole
systematic series of authorities from those fathers
whose works, your Lordship has represented as so
formidable to the student from their bulk, and so
little inviting to his studies.* But of which repre
sentation I must say, that it is happy for the Chm-ch
of England, that such lessons were not inculcated by
her bishops and professors at a time when she most
needed the exertion of all the strength and industry
of her children.
As to the spirit which animated the Reformation
respecting this doctrine, if there be any one subject
more eminently adapted than another to display the
triumph of moderation, forbearance, charity, and
wisdom, over the contrary passions, and to manifest
a feehng directly the reverse of that which unhap
pily breaks forth in every page of the " Comparative
View," it is that which we are now considering.
The Romish doctrine, as to the manner of Christ's
* " When we take into consideration the magnitude of the
mass in which we have to search, it is sufficient to deter us from
even making the attempt." Comp. View, p. 68.
H

98
presence in the Eucharist, was at that period con
nected, amongst those who held it, with a long train
of idle and degrading superstitions ; with processions
and prostrations, and mockeries of devotion, which
had superseded the aspirations of sober and genuine
piety. The Puritans, on the other hand, whose ob
ject was to strip the church of her wedding gar
ments, and to reduce this sacrament to the rank of a
bare memorial, had risen into considerable distinc
tion. The difficulty was to observe that just and
sound medium which reason might prescribe, and re
ligion sanction ; and whilst nothing of essentials was
conceded to either party, to maintain the spirit of
charity towards both. The subject, therefore, of the
presence in the Eucharist presents itself in reviewing
the language of our article upon it, as connected with
the history of the times in which it was drawn up,
under two distinct heads ; first, as to the doctrine
itself; and, secondly, as to the customs and discipline
arising out of it.
And this discrimination should be kept steadily in
mind by all those, whether members of the Church
of Rome or the Church of England, who would give
to this most important subject a fair and dispassionate
consideration. As to doctrine, they should begin by
recollecting that the term transubstantiation, like
that of sacrament, is not to be found in Scripture, and
therefore the adoption and use of such a term is of
mere human authority. And I say, that they should
begin by recollecting this, because men are often found
to be disputing about words, without first examining,
whether, by the use of such words, the same precise

99
things are meant by both parties to be asserted ; as
the Knights ofthe Party-coloured Shield are reported
to have hacked and mangled one another, till exhaus
tion of blood and strength had cooled their fury, and'
a short pause from the violence of conflict gave them
the opportunity of ascertaining that there was no
cause for quarrel.— The word " transubstantiation "
was first used, or at least authoritatively adopted, at
the council of Lateran, held in the time of Pope Inno
cent III. A. D. 1215. " A Lateranensi concilio nomen
est, post rem, post fidem Christianam annis plus mills
ducentis." * And as the period of its introduction is
ascertained, it is important to know what is strictly
understood by it. Is it that the bread and wine in the
Eucharist are so changed by the consecration of the
priest, and become so absolutely and naturaUy the
real body and blood of Christ themselves, that
Christ is personaUy and naturally broken, chewed,
and swallowed in his body, and personally and natu
rally drank in his blood; and that he is personally
present in the Eucharist, just in the same manner as
he is personally present at the right hand of God in
heaven? No: there is no Catholic that I ever met
with, that maintained any such thing, or believed
his senses to be thus imposed upon. Your Lordship:
has quoted one passage from the decree of Trent; f but'
you have not quoted several others which are evidently
meant to qualify and explain it. For, in the first
* Bishop Andrews contra Bellarmini Apologiam, 192.
t " Totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi
Domini nostri, et totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis
ejus." See Comp. View, p. 45.
H 2

100
place, it deplores the difficulty of expressing in words
the precise idea it would attach to the word " substan
tiation," * and also of defining the manner in which
Christ may be naturaUy present in heaven, and yet
substantially present in the Eucharist : Secondly, it
acknowledges the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to
be a memorial of his death : Thirdly, that this sacra
ment possesses this property, in common with others
that it is " a sign of a sacred thing : " Fourthly, that
there are various degrees of receiving it, and these
exactly according with the degrees of preparation and
faith brought to its reception.
In the book entitled " Roman Catholic Principles,"
ah-eady referred to, it is stated, in the eighth and ninth
sections, that " Catholics believe in transubstantiation,
but that Christ is not present in this sacrament accord
ing to his natural way of existence, but in a manner
proper to the character of his exalted and glorified
body. His presence is real, but sacramental. Not
exposed to the external senses, or obnoxious to cor
poral contingencies."
I might accumulate whole loads of Catholic au
thorities asserting, and without any imputation on
their orthodoxy, the same definition as to the man
ner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, in op
position to the gross and palpable manner which
* If by the word " substantiation,'' says Comayer, himself a
Catholic, " the council means only a spiritual though real pre
sence, it is certain that there is no contradiction between the
two manners of existence. But there is a very great contradiction
if the question be as to a corporal presence in the Eucharist, as a
body cannot be materially present in several places at the same
time, without destroying every idea we have of body.
6

101
have been so often imputed to them as a doctrine ;
but I shaU content myself with only placing by the
side of those already quoted, which fi-om their high
authority may weU be deemed sufficient, the ancient,
orthodox doctrine of the Reformation, and the lan
guage of those who occupied the front rank in fight
ing its battles. There is no point in the doctrines of
the Church of England more strenuously insisted on,
than the doctrine of the " Real presence" in the sacra
ment of the body and blood of Christ. It is insisted
on in the very strongest and unqualified terms in our
Catechism ; it is insisted on throughout the whole of
our public offices respecting it. Om* table stiU re
tains the name of altar, the bread and wine are stiU
denominated, before consecration, elements, and after
consecration, an oblation ; our partaking of them is
still called " eating of flesh " and " drinking of blood,"
and the whole service of our sacrament is a proper
sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. In every
place, and in every expression, we acknowledge the
doctrine of the council of Ephesus, that we are offer
ing unto God Tnv «vaijMa)4T(iv 3-u(ri«c
When Ridley stood before his accusers, and was
called on to give his deliberate sentiments on the
Eucharist, he said, " Both you and I agree herein,
that in the sacrament is the very true natural body
and blood of Christ; even that which was born of
the Virgin Mary, which ascended into heaven, which
sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, which
shaU come from thence to judge the quick and the
dead, only we differ in modo, in the way and manner
of being there. Now this difference considered, to
the question I answer, that in the sacrament of the

102
altar is the natural body and blood of Christ, vere et
realiter, verily and indeed, if you take these terms
for spiritually by grace and efficacy; for so every
worthy receiver receiveth the very true body and
blood of Christ ; but if you mean reaUy and indeed
so that thereby you would include a lively and move
able body under the form of bread and wine, then
in that sense is not Christ's body in the sacrament
really and indeed." * With this definition they knew
not how to quarrel, and dismissed him for future ex
amination. Bishop Andrews, who, hke Ridley, lived amidst
the heat and violence of contentions, observes re
specting the authority of Gauden, who died Bishop
of Worcester, I662,f as quoted by Bellarmine in his
Apology, " Though he says of the Eucharist, that
from being bread it becomes the body of Christ, we
do not deny it. For we do not deny that from
being an element it becomes a sacrament, and
that the sacrament cannot consist without the
matter of a. sacrament. But the Cardinal wiU
not aUow that from beiag bread it becomes Christ
productively ; and though he holds transubstan
tiation, he does hold desubstantiation. For tran
substantiation is an addition to that which before
existed ; but cannot be a production of that which
was there before." And again, in reply to another
authority urged also by BeUarmine, under the name
* See Life of Ridley.
f I mention this date because so nearly identified with the
date of the revision and final enouncement of our Articles and
Liturgy. And the quotations will be found at p. 192, 193, of
the Respon. 1 10 ad Bellarm. Apologinem. 7

103
of Cyprian, he says, ^' he affirms that the bread is
changed in nature, not inform" and we do not deny
this either. These authorities alone are well calcu
lated to show the nice shades of distinction which
marked the discussions of those times.
The foUowing facts may indicate the spirit which
actuated our reformers as to the point of doctrine
relative to this sacrament. In the articles of 1552,
a long detail of argument had been entered into on
the impossibility of Christ's body being in its human
nature at one and the same time in many places, a
tenet which it has been shown that the Trent decree
cannot be fairly said to maintain. This was accom
panied by a long and express declaration against the
doctrine of transubstantiation. But yet, ten years
afterwards they were again withdrawn. Nay, though
they appear in the original MSS. as it was subscribed
by the members of convocation in 1562, yet they were
forbidden by the " lawful authorities " to be printed ;
and the reason assigned by Burnet, is that " such an
express definition ofthe real presence, might drive from
the church many who were still of that persuasion ;
and that though this silence was not a proof of the
opinions of the convocation, it was a testimony to the
wisdom of that time in leaving a hberty for different
speculations, as to the manner of the presence."*
In confirmation of this desire, to soften or lull
to rest all austerities of religious difference as to
the nature of the Eucharist, two circumstances,
which occurred about this period, are particularly
deserving notice ; the first is, that when, on the ac
cession of Elizabeth, the bishops were convened to
*' See Hist, of Ref. vol. ii. p. 376.

104
settle again the doctrines of the reformed Church,
which had been so violently interrupted during, the
reign of Mary, and had agreed upon such articles of
religion as they thought necessary, amounting to
twelve, a declaration was issued, by royal authority,
stating them to be " set out by the order of both arch
bishops, metropohtans, and the rest of the bishops,
for the unity of doctrine, to be taught and holden
of aU persons, vicars, and curates, &c. and to be read
twice every year in the church for the instruction of
the people." But it is curious to observe, that not
one single word about transubstantiation or the real
presence is to be found in them, though the tenth is
expressly directed to " the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ," and insists upon the cup being
given to the laity, as it had been for more than 600
years after Christ. The second circumstance is, that
Pope Pius the Fourth now also offered, by his envoy
Parapalia, to the Queen, to confirm, by his own au
thority, the Liturgy of the Church of England, and
to permit the use of the sacrament under both forms,
provided she would acknowledge the primacy of the
Roman Cathedra, and continue in union with that
church. Transubstantiation, therefore, did not then
form either the chief ground, or even a principal fea
ture, of the separation of the two chm-ches ; and if
any thing more be necessary to prove this, it may be
found in the fact already noticed, that Catholics con
tinued for ten years afterward to communicate with
us, and that several of our bishops held the Romish
doctrine, as may be seen by a reference to the " Addi
tional Notes appended to Nichols's Comment on the
Book of Common Prayer."

105
In fact, there has never ceased to be amongst our
own clergy, even amongst the best and brightest
pillars of our faith, very considerable differences of
opinion respecting this awful mystery. Bishop Over
all, who was appointed to draw up that part of our
catechism which treats of sacraments, held the Eu
charist to be a proper sacrifice solemnly offered to
God upon the altar, before it was received by the
communicants ; and was accustomed to use the first
prayer in the post communion office, between the
consecration and the administering, even when it
was otherwise ordered by the public Liturgy. Bishop
Hoadley's view was to reduce it to a bare memorial.
Bishop Cleaver has, with great force and application
of learning, insisted upon its being " a feast upon a
sacrifice." Is it not equaUy matter of wonder and of
regret that a point of doctrine thus necessarily specu
lative from its very nature, and thus leading the best
and wisest of mankind to different conclusions, should
have become the touchstone for trying how far sub
jects of the same empire are fit to enjoy the same
civil rights of society, when one might not unreason
ably have thought it insufficient even to prevent them
from joining in religious communion. And, in truth,
if the doctrine of transubstantiation could be detached
from the circumstances connected with it, it would
be found again, as it once was found, to be so, for
there is not one single prayer in the office of our
communion, nor one single act of worship, in which
the Romanist may not freely and fuUy join. It may
not go with him the whole length of his own service,
but, as far as it does go, it is free from objection,
even upon the principles of his own faith ; for the

106
last and concluding advice of the Trent Catechism
is, that he should satisfy himself with those general
declarations in which our own catechism and office
are as abundant as his own, and refrain from unprofit
able inquiries. " Quid hoc sit fide cognoscendum
est : quomodo fiat, curiosius non inquirendum."
But let me not be misunderstood as exhorting
him to do so. The act of communicating in a public
rite of such high and solemn importance is not, and
should never be considered, as an isolated act of
worship. It is, or ought to be, the test of entire
communion; and though I am unwilling to throw
out imputations against any body of men, conscien
tiously worshipping their God, in sincerity and sim
plicity of heart, yet I cannot help saying that the
conduct of the Catholic is, in the instance before us,
not only an admirable refutation of all the calumnies
and dark insinuations about hypocrisy and mental
reservation, with which he has been branded, but a
much more edifying pattern of Christian virtue than
that of some other sects, who do not scruple to qualify
for place and honours, by partaking of a rite of which
they believe but little as to its efficacy, and care stiU
less as to its particular designation. My Lord, I
have been led into this length of argument on the
doctrinal part of the Roman Eucharist, almost insen
sibly, but yet not without some faint hope that, out
of those who may chance to peruse these pages, some
may perhaps be induced, by the historical facts stated,
or by the hints thrown out in the course of this in
quiry, to a more charitable contemplation of the
differences by which we are divided.
The second part to be considered is the discipline

107
iX customs arising out of it, and, under this head,
all that part of Catholic worship which has been so
often censured as superstitions and idolatrous, is to be
undoubtedly included. It has nothing whatever to
do with the fundamentals of religion, and ought to
have had no place in your Inquiry into the Bases of
English and Romish faith. The Catholic, believing
in transubstantiation to the very utmost limits of that
doctrine, might stiU, without any diminution of
faith, omit or refuse to prostrate himself before the
altar, or to form any part of such public processions
of the host, as are still practised in some countries,
and were once practised in England. Whether the
council of Trent therefore had, or had not, appealed
to Scripture upon this head, would have been quite
immaterial to bur pui-pose. I have shown that it did
so appeal, but the total absence of such an appeal
would have been so far from contributing any
thing to your Lordship's argument, that it would
only have served, according to your own doctrine,
to have placed the two churches in closer identity
with each other. It comes strictly within the limits
of the authority decreed by our 20th Article to
be vested in the Church, viz. the power of decree
ing rites and ceremonies, and still further assert
ed in our 34th Article, which tells us that " it is
not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all
places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have
been diverse, and may be changed according to the
diversity of countries and men's manners." Nor
can it be denied that this part of Romish discipline
has been most materially and beneficially altered, even
.since the framing of our Article directed against its

108
abuses. The superstition of the people is no more
tempted or fed byidle pageantries, towhich that Article
so pointedly alludes, and an important portion of the
differences that originally divided us is thus already
removed. My Lord, I cannot forbear here allud
ing to a most uncharitable and disingenuous interpreta
tion, which you have laboured in the very outset of
your work to attach to an expression of BeUarmine,
who, speaking of ecclesiastical ceremonies or tradi
tions, says, that when enacted by the authority
of the church, " vim legis habent," meaning that
they have the force of those ecclesiastical laws or
regulations which, just as our own Article informs us,
may not be infringed without incurring censure. This
expression, however, in one place of the "Comp. View,"
has been quoted and marked in italics, as of most
tremendous import, and in another been interpreted
into " a law which cannot be changed." Now I had
humbly conceived that the character and quality of
any law was, that it might not only be changed, but
entirely abrogated by the same authority which
enacted it, or, in subordinate cases, by those to whom
such office was delegated and entrusted. We have
" a lawful authority" claiming to regulate many acts
of our ecclesiastical discipline, without any appeal to
Parliament. The Church of Rome entrusts stiU
more to her supreme head sitting in consistory, and
issuing his edicts from the papal conclave. We have
just seen that Pope Pius IV. proposed to ratify
the Liturgy of our Church, and to allow the cup to
the laity, in the eucharist, and that the integrity of
Romish faith and communion would not be considered
violated by so doing. Still more, therefore, might the

109
same power be competent to regulate less important
charges. It is not, therefore, the ordinance of an
ecclesiastical rite by a general council, that makes it
perpetuaUy binding, for the most important ceremo
nies of the Christian Church have been often altered
without any council at aU being convened; and should
the Church of Rome feel it necessary or expedient to
remove the crucifix from her altars, order the host to
be no more exhibited by the priest as an object of
adoration, andreducethereceiving ofthe holysacrament
to the same simplicity which signalizes our own ad
ministration, your Lordship will find no enlightened
Cathohc who will not readily tell you that this may
be all done mthout convening Christendom to dcihber-
ate upon such a regulation. If your Lordship wUl
but consult the pages of Mr. Eustace, instead of con^
firiing your attention to monkish legends, and to stories
of other times^ you wiU find what graduaUy has been
done, and what is now doing in this way, even in the
neighbourhood of the Vatican itself ; and if, instead of
brooding over abuses and calumnies long since vanished,
and again and again refuted, you would but open your
eyes and ears to what is on every side presented to
your view in the improved spirit, enlarged charity,
and unshaken loyalty of the Catholics of this country
at the present day, you would see to how small a com
pass your book might have been reduced, with more
credit to yourself and benefit to your readers.
I mustnot, however, quit this subject of the Eucharist,
without some notice of your concluding observations
on the " Sacrifice of the mass," and your confident as
sertion, that " the CouncU of Trent made no attempt

110
even to establish this doctrine on the authority of
Scripture, but that it was merely declared to be ac
cording to the tradition of the apostles (juxta aposto-
tolorum traditionem.) * Now I am not astonished,
after aU I have gone through, at such an assertion be
ing made, but I should be much astonished if any
person who has read these pages, can be disposed to
take it upon such authority. I was not myself so dis
posed, and upon turning to the decrees mentioned, I
found the first chapter, and it is a pretty long one, be
ginning with the title " De Institutione Sacrosancti
Missae Sacrificii," employed entirely from beginning
to end, in tracing that "Eucharistic sacrifice" as
they caU it, through the whole range of Scripture,
beginning with the offering of the paschal lamb re
corded in Exodus, and ending with St. Raid's Epis
tles ; and even in the second short chapter, which is
only intended to point out its object, and concludes
with the words you have quoted, there are stiU two
references to Scripture, viz. to the 4th and 9th chap
ters of the Epistles to the Hebrews.

SECTION X.

We have now, my Lord, travelled, and I hope not
unsuccessfuUy, through all those doctrines which you
state to be whoUy rejected by the Church of England
as not warranted by Scripture, and maintained by the
Church of Rome, as founded on the authority of
tradition. I may, therefore, be said to have already
considered whatever your Lordship has produced as
* Comp. View, p. 46.

Ill
the best and strongest proofs, that the Romanist
holds tradition as a " rule of faith, independent of
Scripture," and, therefore, rests his doctrines upon a
different basis from our own. We have examined
the quotations brought forward to substantiate the
charge, and reviewed the accuracy of the conclusions
attempted to be drawn. What may be the impres
sion made upon the mind of my reader, is not for me
to anticipate or determine. AU I can say is, that I
leave it with confidence to the decision of his sober
judgment, and to the candour of the wise and gPod*
But I am now lead, by the course you have adopted,
to the consideration of a fresh class of doctrines, viz.
those which the Church of England has retained in
name, but changed in substance. These are, the doc
trines of Original Sin, Free-wiU, Justification, and Good
Works. The question of tradition is here for a time
suspended; but if I were disposed to put so foolish and
unjustifiable an argument, I might, with qxute as much
correctness as your Lordship has done respecting the
decree of Trent, insist that our Reformers rested, at
least the three first out of these doctrines, not upon
Scripture, for it is no where quoted or referred to in
the Articles concerning them; but the first, upon
nothing but the sole authority which ordained it,
" sic vult Ecclesia ;" the second, upon a homily; and
the third, upon the general appearance of nature. But
having no object in contemplation but justice, truth,
and charity, I proceed at once to submit the whole
subject to your Lordship's more grave and deliberate
consideration. The ninth article, which relates to " Original Sin,'*
you say is that which least differs from the Church of

112
Rome, and you have left it without pointing put any
specific difference whatever. What that difference
really is I am too ignorant to detect, and as " de non
apparentibus et de non existentibus eadem est ratio,"
I should, according to general principles, be justified
in believing, that no such difference did exist at aU,
But then am I not told by a professor of divinity in a
sister University, and by a bishop of my own Church,
that the doctrine of Original Sin is one of those,
which, " though our Church has retained in name, it
has yet changed in substance." In a difficulty like
this, 1 know no better method than simply to place
together the authoritative language of both Churches,
In the decrees of the sixth sessjion of the Council of
Trent, the whole body of the doctrines above men
tioned are aU considered as connected with each other,
and comprised in no less than thirty-three succeeding
canons. Those, however, which particularly respect
Original Sin, are the fourth and the fifth, and all that
they declare is, thatthe free control over his own actions,
" liberum arbitrium," is not lost and extinguished to
man by the sin of Adam. Our own article goes no
farther than to say, that " man is very far gone from
original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined
to evil." Here, my Lord, is no opposition either of
name or substance; they are both perfectly compatible,
and I believe both perfectly true. If your Lordship
considers the Church of England as teaching other
wise — that all control over our actions is entirely lost
and gone, so that man is now doomed, as the Trent
decree itself expresses it, " veluti inanime quoddam
nihil omnino agcre mereque passive se habere ; " I am

113
happy to say, that I have not learnt the interpretation
of my church's faith from such a master, and I will
never subscribe to such a doctrine.
And this directly leads me to the tenth Article, viz.
on Free-will, which you say is in open opposition to
the Church of Rome. Now the words of our Article
are that "the condition of man, after the fall of
Adam, is such that he cannot turn and prepare him
self by his own natural strength and good works to
faith and calling upon God. Wherefore, we have no
power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to
God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing
us, that we may have a good wiU, and working with
us when we have that good will." What, my Lord,
can I say, how can I keep that moderation of speech
and thought, which I am most sincerely anxious to
observe throughout every part of this discussion, and
which I am bound to observe towards a person of
such rank and dignity in my own church, whilst I
am bound, on the other hand, at every step, by the
higher obUgations of truth and duty, to expose the
errors and the falsehood of your extraordinary state
ment. The words just quoted in our Article are not
only not openly opposed to, but they are the very
counterpart, and almost a literal translation of the
Trent canons. I have given in the note * the original
words, and the rendering wiU not be incorrect, as fol
lows : " If any one shall say that man is able, with
out the inspiration of the Holy Spirit preventing
* " Si quis dixerit, sine prceveniente Spiritus sancti inspira-
tione, atque ejus adjutorio, hominem credere, sperare, diligere,
autpoenitere posse, sicut-oportet, ut ei justificationis gratia con-
feratur ; anathema sit." Canon S, sess. 6.
I

114
him, arid working with him afterwards, to believe,
hopcj love, or repent, in such a manner, as that the
grace of justification may be conferred upon him,
let him be anatheima." " If any one should say that
the free-will of man, having been excited and im
pelled by God, co-operates nothing by its own
assent to Almighty God thus exciting and eaUing
it, whei'eby it may dispose itself and make ready
to obtain justifying grace, and that neither can
it dissent if it would, but continues like a thing,
totally inanimate, inactive, and merely passive,
let him be anathema." * Such is the language,
plain, impressive, and unequivocal, in which those
Canons, asserted to be openly opposed to the Church
of England, instruct that unassisted man can do
nothing that is good, but that he may yet do much
through the preventing grace and assistance of Al
mighty God. That our own doctrine is openly opposed
to this, no labyrinth of words will ever convince me;
no weight of authority, not even your Lordship's,
wiU ever induce me to believe.
The last of these points is the doctrine of " Justifi-
feation and good works," which your Lordship has not
inconveniently joined together. And here also you
tell us that our Articles relating thereto are decidedly
at variance with the doctrines of the Church of
Rome, And the proof you offer us is this. " The
. * " Si quis diXerit, liberum hominis arbitrium a Deo motum,
et excitatum, nihil cooperari assentiendo Deo excitanti, atque
Vocanti, quo ad obtinendam justificationis gratiam se disponat,
ac praeparet; neque posse dissentire, si velit, sed veluti in
anime quoddam nihil omnino agere, mereque passive se habere ;
anathema sit." Canon 4, sess, 6

115
thirteenth Article declares that works done before
justification, camiot possibly be good, works, but that
they have rather the nature of sin." And this, you
continue, is positively denied in the seventh canon of
the sixth session of the councU of Trent. Now what is
this positive denial ? The canon in question says not
a word about works before justification being good.
It says this, and this only: "If anyone shall say
that all works, with what intention soever they may
be done before justification, are yet tery sins de
serving the hatred of Almighty God ; or that the
more earnestly any one struggles to dispose himself
for grace, so much the more grievous is that man's
sin; let him be anathema." * Would then your Lord
ship teach us that the best actions of man, and done
under the pm-est motives, unless done under a state of
justification through Christ likewise, are only posi
tive augmentations qf guilt, and that every endeavour
after righteousness wiU only sink the miserable being,
thus struggling for salvation, deeper and deeper into
the abyss of hell ? For it is thus only that any de
cided and positive opposition of doctrine can be made
out between us ? I trust it is not your deliberate wish
thus to represent us. I have not been accustomed to
hear of you as an abettor of the harshest doctrines at
tributed to Calvin; but I wUl venture to say that no
blind disciple of predestination arid election ever went
ferther than your Lordship's eagerness of oppositioh
* " ^i quis dixerit, opera oncinia, quae ante justificationem
fiunt, quacumque ratione facta sint, vere esse peccata, vel odium
Dei mereri ; aut, quanto vehementius quis nititur se disponere
ad gratiam, tantd eum gravitis peccare; anathema sit." Ca
non 7, sess. 6.
I2

116
to the Church of Rome seems, in this instance, to
have carried you. Again, you observe, our twelfth
article says, " that good works foUow after justifica
tion ;" whereas, according to the tenets of the Church
of Rome, there must at least be some good works
which precede justification. For the ninth canon of
the sixth session asserts, that "man is not justified by
faith alone." And " that the doctrine of the Church
of Rome, on this subject, may be better understood,
I wiU quote," you say, " the very words of the canon.
' Si quis dixerit, sola fide impium justificari, ita ut
inteUigat nihil aliud requiri, quod ad justificationis
gratiam consequendam cooperetur, anathema sit.' "
Now, unfortunately for your argument, not one syl
lable in this quotation, garbled as it is, either appUes
to works done before justification, or to any works at
all. Both the sixth and eighth chapters preceding
the canon, would have clearly shown you that the
po-operation here required, is the co-operation of
God's grace, working by faith, and disposing us for
the reception of his mercy. The first of these is
entitled " Modus Preparationis," and states its doc
trine in these words : " Disponuntur autem ad
ipsam justitiam, dum excitati divina gratid, etadjuti,
fidem ex auditu concipientes, libere moventur in
Deum." And the latter teUs us, that neither faith
nor works can merit justification, but that it is the free
boori of God to man : " Si enim gratia est, jam non
ex operibus." Nothing then which you have been
enabled to adduce wiU alter the persuasion that the
Romish doctrines, on these points, are distinguished
from our own, by no more than shades of colour too
nice tor the ordinary capacities of human vision, and

117
much less therefore of a character to affect the fun
damentals of our common faith. But I conclude with
the sentiments of no bad judge, as to the value of
discussions hke these.
" In the beginning of the Reformation," says Bar
row, in his Sermons on Justification, " when the dis
covery of some great errors from the corruption and
ignorance of those times, crept into vogue, rendered
aU things the subject of contention, and multiplied
controversies ; there did arise hot disputes about this
point, and the right stating thereof seemed a matter
of great importance, nor scarce was any controversy
prosecuted with greater zeal and earnestness : whereas
yet, so far as I can discern about the real points of
doctrine, whereto this word, according to any sense
pretended may relate, there hardly doth appear any
material difference ; and all the questions depending,
chiefly seem to consist about the manner of expressing
things which aU agree in ; or about the extent of the
signification of words capable of larger or stricter ac
ceptation; whence the debates about this point,
among all sober and inteUigent persons, might, as I
conceive, easily be resolved or appeased, if men had a
mind to agree and did not love to wrangle ; if at least
a consent in believing the same things, although under
some difference pf expression, would content them so
as to forbear strife."
We have now, my Lord, proceeded through two
stages of our inquiry ; we have considered the doctrines
which you assert, that the Church of Rome holds
solely upon the authority of tradition, and the Church
of England totally rejects, because it rejects tradi-
dition ; and those which the Church of England
retains in nam^, but has changed in substance.

lis
We are next introduced to a point which occupies no
less than forty-four pages of the "Comparative View;"
I mean, "the difference between the Church of England
and Rome in respect to the canon of Scripture :" but,
in mentioning this length, I am far, my Lord, fix>m
wishing to underrate the value of such researches,
as you have there displayed, or to undervalue those
labours which are honestly employed upon a careful
examination of the testimony on which every line and
word of Soipture, accepted by our Church as canon
ical, is to be established. I have read such cri
ticisms, coming from various authors, with sincere
gratitude for the labour and industry they display ;
and, I speak it with sincerity and truth, that I haVe "
read none with greater gratitude than those which
have issued from your Lordship's pen. But the
question is, what have they to do here ? They would
be usefid as a preface to MichaeUs ; they would do
no discredit to the work, as a preface to Mant's
Bible. But, I again ask, " what have they to do
here ?" Their proper object, if they have any, is to
prove, not merely a difference, but a fundamental
difference between the two Churches ; and you have
yourself, in the opening of this article, so asserted it.
Now a fundamental difference of churches is, as I
conceive it, only to be established by, proving a differ
ence of fundamental doctrines ; for, when speaking
of Christian Churches, as divided from each other,
we mean divisions of certain bodies of men, aU possess
ing Christianity under different views of doctrine
and discipline ; but we never consider them ns funda
mentally distinguished, unless some great and lead
ing article of Christian faith is maintained by one
party, and totally rejected by the other. The differ-

119
ence to be proved then is, I repeat, a fundamerital
difference ; and, as the word Church, when apphed
to the subdivisions of the universal Church of Christ,
is but a term representing a set of doctrines, the road
to the final and fuU establishment of your argument
was both short and obvious. It was only to point
©ut one single fundamental doctrine arising out of
Ike difference you proposed to demonstiate, and the
thing was done. The whole business, if possible to
be accomphshed at all, would have been ,accom^
pUshed in fewer lines than you have occupied pages.
As this has not been attempted, nor, indeed, any
thing beyond proving the mere fact, that the Church
of Rome calls the whole body of Scripture contained
in our Bibles, except the third and fourth books of
Esdras, and the prayer of Manasses, canonical;
whilst our Church divides them into canonical and
.apocryphal, a fact which every body knows, and no
body questions, it is neither necessary nor useful
that I should attempt to foMow you through these
devious windings. That the books which we caU
.apocryphal do not rest upon the same unquestioned
authority with those which we adopt as canonical, is
as weU known to the members of the Church of
Rome, as to ourselves. The ppint was learnedly and
severely contested, during four congregations at the
comiciLof Trent, and several of the Catholic Bishops
of that assembly proposed to divide them into two
classes ; viz. those which have been always received
without contiadiction, and those which have been re
jected or disputed. They urged that St. Austin had
adopted this arrangement; that St. Gregory had said
£>f the books of the Maccabees, tiiat they were

120
written for edification, but not canonical ; that St;
Jerome had made the same distinction, whose trans
lation had been chiefly adopted as the authorised
text. It was, however, overruled by the papal party,
whose chief argument was, that the spirit of the
times was peculiarly unfavourable to the encourage
ment of such a spirit of scepticism, as the adoption
of that measure would be hkely to excite ; and,
therefore, that it would be better to let aU the books
stand in the order and character in which they have for
so many ages been ranked in the Greek Septuagint,
and adopted from thence into the Latin Vidgate, and to
forbear any further inquiries as to their character and
origin. It has been since then proposed by the Catho
lics to caU them "deutero-canonical," a term which your
Lordship denominates as absurd, because " canonicity
admits of no degress." Whether, however, a set of
writings, over whose origin and claims to inspiration
there hangs some doubt, may not be stiU retained as
of secondary authority, not to establish any doctrine,
but to iUustrate or strengthen the testimony derived,
from a higher source, or to be read for example of hfe
and instruction of manners, and be thus admitted
to hold an inferior situation in the canon of a church,
is a question, after aU, of terms only, in a case where
not one single doctrine is either whoUy or even
chiefly maintained and derived from them. And
this is strictly the case with respect to the
Church of Rome and the apocryphal books of
Scripture. She holds not one single tenet of her
faith upon their sole authority. Your Lordship has in
deed urged, that though nothing is to be found upon
this head in the Council of Trent, yet that your

121
friend Bellarmine has quoted the apocryphal books
in a treatise he wrote on Purgatory. But the Catholic
might just as weU remind us, that these very books
are also quoted no less than ten times over in one
single homily of our own Church, to say nothing
of their being read as lessons in our service. Nay,
your Lordship has yourself quoted, at p. 138, the third
book of Esther, and ranked it as an " authority of
Scripture in favour of the use of the ring in marriage."
But then another charge, closely connected with
this point, is, that the Council of Trent declared
the translation, caUed the Vulgate, to be "authentic."
It did so, and it gives the reason why ; it says, " con
sidering that no smaU advantage might arise to the
Church of God, if out of all the Latin translations
of the sacred books which were then in circulation^
it should make known which of them should be con
sidered as authorized, this sacred Council deter
mines and declares, that the same old and common
translation, " vetus et vulgata editio," which has been
for so many ages approved in the Church, shaU be
used as the authorized version in pubhc lectures^
disputations, sermons, and expositions. Now, my
Lord, I am sure no one who reads these pages,
without having seen or recollecting the observations
you have made upon this point, would believe the
manner in which it is worked up even into a funda
mental distinction of Christian churches. " It is
ike glory of Protestants," you exclaim, p. 118, "that,
in the exposition of Scripture, they enjoy the hberty
of appealing to the inspired originals ; for here lies
the grand distinction between the chm-ches of Eng
land and Rome in regard to the use of Scripture."

122
It has often happened, in the com-se of these Re
marks, that I have had to express my wonder at a
strange misconstruction of the force of words ; and it
now appears that you are as httle acquainted with the
meaning of the word " authentica," as with that of
*' mensuret," which you so freely rendered by " com
prised," orthe distinction between "veritatis" and "om
nis veritatis." But perhaps this may be accounted for,
as it is not a word of classical latinity; it is found, how
ever, where it does occur, to have but two significations.
In every instance it means either authorized or origi
nal, and it is remarkable that it is used in both these
senses in this very decree before us. The first is the
passage already mentioned ; the next is near the close,
where the decree ordains that every book to be thence
forward pubhshed on disputed subjects of divinity shall
bear on its titie-page, whether written or printed, the
/luthentic approval of the Ordinary given in writing.
Now the assembly of Trent could not mean to
pass off the Vulgate as the original text of Scripture,
for they printed it with the preface of St. Jerome,
which gives an account of the sources from which it
was translated : Nor could they even mean that it
was not open to criticism and correction, for BeUar
mine himself has criticised it very closely, though
with the intention of defending its various readings.
But Pope Clement VIII., two years after this declara
tion of authenticity, published a revised edition, by
his own authority, differing from the former in more
than two thousand places. They could, therefore, only
mean to signify by it simply authorized, as it is ap
plied to our own version. But, my Lord, supposing the
-word authentica to bear the signification you have

123
attached to it, I do not see what is its importance,
unless it can be proved that the Vulgate varies so far
from the original text of Scripture, as, by the sole
Weight of such version, to establish some article of
faith or doctrine for which there is no other autho
rity. It is not a sUght variation of phrase, or pro
pensity to the use of particular words in a translation,
that is sufficient to give to the church that uses it a
fundamental difference from other Christian commu
nities who use it not ; nor is it very charitable to
charge that as a fault upon others, which we arrogate
as a merit in ourselves. No member of the Church
of England is insensible to the value of having an
authorized version of the Scriptures, instead of leav
ing every parish, or every clergyman in the kingdom,
to adopt one of their own. We love our English
Bible, and cherish its ancient and universal use
amongst us. It is our " vetus et vulgata editio ; "
and though we know it to have errors and imperfec
tions, yet we almost may be said to cherish even
these as being a part of it. Again, when you talk
of the " glory of Protestants," in being able to ap
peal to the inspired originals, I presume you mean
this only to be understood within certain limitations.
I should be sorry, after what I have seen in your last
charge upon using nothing but authorized psalms,
rendered by an authorized version in our churches, to
be the clergyman who shoidd incur yom- censure by
reading the lessons, or by preaching from a text taken
from Mr. Bellamy's new translation of the Bible, though
we are told that it is mpst literaUy and faithfully exe
cuted in the very spirit of the original Hebrew. You

124
might, it is true, admit such a person stiU to be " a
glorious Protestant," but I very much question whether
you would long admit him to be a good member of
the Church of England, or even to officiate as a cler-
gjrman in your diocese. But you have dwelt
much upon the concluding words, " nemo illam re-
jicere quovis pra2textu audeat vel praesumat," and
have observed upon them, that " if the Church
of Rome can estabUsh a doctrine by its autho
rized version, the Latin vulgate, no appeal is aUow
ed either to the Hebrew in the Old Testament, or to
the Greek in the New Testament. But the Church of
England aUows its ministers to appeal in expositions
of Scripture, from a translation to the original." *
Let me then ask, for I hope there is no concealed and
studied ambiguity in your expressions, does the
Church of England aUow me to appeal from our au
thorized version to the original Greek or Hebrew
against its own doctrines ? If our Bible, according
to the interpretation of our Church, teach any doctrine
whatever, am I allowed, as a minister officiating in
her service, to teach, upon my own interpretation of
the original, any other? If your words have any
common meaning, as respecting the Churches of Eng
land and Rome, this is your assertion, and I need not
say how formidable to our unity such an assertion is.
If your words have not this sense, the whole passage
is but a mere quibble, and the argument good for
nothing, for it is neither applicable nor connected with
om- inquiry. * Comparative View, p, 119.

125

SECTION XI.

Ouu next branch of discussion is but of very subor
dinate importance, and with what consistency with
our own Protestant principles your Lordship can have
even introduced it, as tending to prove a fundamental
distinction between the Churches of England and
Rome, is a point not very easily adjusted. It is the
subject of Church ceremonies, and the traditions, which
are caUed " ecclesiastical." Now these, our own Article
tells us, " need not be in aU places one or utterly like;
for at all times they have been diverse, and may be
changed according to the diversities of countries,
times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordaiur
ed against God's word." And when our church thus
claims for herself, and concedes to others, this liberty
of regulation, assuredly she does so upon the very
ground that may be enjoyed and exercised without
any breach in the unity of faith being thereby com
mitted, and much less any fundamental separation.
But the Church of Rome also differs but very little
from our own in the freedom thus conceded, BeUar
mine says himself, that besides the division, already
noticed, of traditions into divine, apostolical, and
ecclesiastical; there is another partition also into
such as are " perpetual or temporary, general ox parti
cular, necessary or discretionary." " Altera partitio
traditionum est penes materiam, in traditiones de fideet
traditiones de moribus, quae rursum aut sunt perpetuae,
aut temporales, et vel universales, vel particulares,
6

126
vel necessariae, vel liberse." Lib. iv. c. ii. I have al
ready mentioned one instance in which the Pope
offered, upon certain conditions, to confirm the whole
Liturgy of the Church of England, and to allow the
cup to the laity in the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup
per. The pr/«ci/>/e, therefore, asserted by our own
Church, was here distinctly recognized, and in a point
of discipline of the very highest importance. In fact,
the Church of Rome, in this respect, seems to extend
her liberality even farther than the Church of Eng
land. — As a national establishment, we insist upon a
perfect uniformity both of faith and discipline. Any
deviation, however slight, by a clergyman from the
prescribed forms, would be deservedly censured by his
bishop, and, most probably, not less disapproved by
his congregation also. For instance, the Church of
Rome, as we have seen, would have aUowed the cup
to the laity in England, though refused in France or
Italy. Is there any rite or ceremony of any value
whidi the Church of England would, or coidd con
sistently concede to any body of her people, wishing
to have such a change? The Chm-ch of Scotland
differs from us in very httle more than in church
discipline ; but, would your Lordship admit them to
be within the pale of the Church of England ? The
Independents, Methodists, and the Baptists, are aU
in the same predicament, and yet no one confounds
them with the Church of England. — But, whoever
has witnessed abroad the pomp, the processions, the
prostrations, the images, and various superstitions
which accompany and distinguish the externals of the

127
profession of the Romish faith, and compares it with
the comparatively sober and chastised deportment of
the same faith as practised in England, or has com
pared their respective rituals, as to the days dedicated
to saints and martyrs, would scarcely believp that the
religion of these several countries could be yet the
same. I know that the causes axe sufficiently obvi-
vious, but the plain facts are aU we are here concerned
with. But, my Lord, I am still told that the principles
upon which rites and ceremonies are adopted and re
jected by the Church of England and Rome, are
not the same. This Objection must have been al
ready answered ; but we wiU still examine it more
closely. The Church of Rome, though varying her
discipline and her ceremonies from time to time,
as might be shown in a thousand instances, and
though presenting a very considerable variety amongst
her members even at the same period, as they are in
fluenced by various habits, manners, and degrees of
improvement, yet shows as close and rigid an ad
herence to what she insists to be the authority of
tradition as she possibly can. And, my Lord, until
I read your pubhcation, I had always understood that
the Church of England did so likewise. I had hum
bly conceived that it was her boast and glory, that
both her doctrines zcere scriptural, and hex forms and
discipline apostolical ; that the primitive Church of
Christ was the exemplar upon which she was strictly
modelled, in every thing relating to her government,
as well as to her faith ; and your Lordship's book is
5

128
the only one I ever read on such a subject, in which
an appeal to the antiquity and primitive usage of our
ceremonies was not acknowledged to be the ground
upon they were continued and enforced at the Re
formation. I am sure it is so considered in our own
canons, as may abundantly be proved by a reference
to the 30th. " On the lawful Use of the Cross in Bap
tism ; " for it is there stated, as the authority for retain
ing it, that " the honour and dignity of the name of the
cross begat a reverend estimation, even in the apostles'
days, (for aught that is known to the contrary) of the
sign ofthe cross, which the Christians shortly after used
in all their actions." Our 34th Article enjoins that man
be rebuked who shall openly break the traditions and
ceremonies of the Church ; " but," adds your Lord
ship, " it is not because such ceremonies are tradi
tions, that men are to be rebuked for breaking them."
But the question at issue is not the reason why
men are to be rebuked, but why such ceremonies are
" ordained and approved" at aU, why the Church
has given them her sanction, and why the magistrate
has extended the shield of his authority over them.
I contend, my Lord, that it is because they were
founded on primitive authority that the Cl>urch
adopted them, and because the Chm-ch adopted them,
the magistrate, as the legal guardian of religion,
enforces their observance. The whole, therefore, at
last resolves itself into the authority qf tradition. It
is, after aU, tradition that originally recommends, the
Church which secondarily adopts, and the lawful au
thority which lastly lends its aid to give effect to the
obligation of observance. We are told, however,

129
that the authorityof tradition is left entirely out of the
¦question. For if a cel-emony does not, tend to edifica~
tion, it is rejected, even though supported by tradition;"
— And we are again told, as the reason of this, that
" the Christian religion is a revelation of doctrines,
not, like the Jewish, a revelation of ceremonies."
(P. 132.) Now, in the first place, I cannot believe,
because every writer and every authority connected
with the Reformation prove the contrary, that tradi
tion was left entirely out of the question ; and it
would have been more than a miracle^ if it had been
so, to have found a Church corresponding so nearly
as the Church of England does in every formulary,
and in every rite, to aU we read of the primitive ages
of Christianity, and in points upon which Scripture
itself is sometimes very ambiguous, and sometimes
entirely silent. But this question is at once settled,
¦by a reference to the directions originally given to
those entrusted with the office of revising and settling
om- ritual. These directions were, in the language
of the Act itself, that " having as well eye and re
spect to the most pure and sincere Christian religion,
taught in the Scriptures, as to the usages ofthepri.
mitive Church, they should draw and make one con
venient, and meet order, rite, and fashion of common
prayer, and administration of sacraments, to be had
and used in this his Majesty's realm of England,"
But these "^ usages " of the primitive Church are no
other than those " consuetudines antiquae " mentioned
by BeUarmine, and given as the proper definition of
ecclesiastical tradition. Secondly, I cannot admit
your unqualified description of the Christian religion,
K

as being only a " revelation of doctrines," and the
Jewish " of ceremonies." For I have been always
taught to consider the ceremonial part of our sacra
ments, whether in baptism or in the eucharist, as well
as iriany other rites enforced amongst us, to have been
expressly ordained by Christ and his apostles ; and
therefore to be reckoned as a part, and that top an
essential part, of Christianity itself: and I am as little
prepared to contemplate the Ten Commandments,
delivered to the Jews by Moses, to be mere matters
of ceremonial observance. No, my Lord, the Jewish,
and the Christian, and every other system of reUgion,
eonasts of two parts ; of articles of belief or precepts
of duty, and of ritual observances ; and both of which
have, to a certain degree, in all cases, Jewish, Chris
tian, Pagan, Mahometan, or Hindoo, been instituted
by their respective founders, and ordained as of per
petual and universal obligation. Nothing, I am sure,
but the zeal and eagerness of supporting an unfortu
nate theory, could have led you to the length you
have carried your arguments on this topic. You have
throughout treated it as if tiie Reformation was a
systematic institution de novo of a Christian Church ;
as if that from which we partly separated was totaUy
laid in ruins, and a new fabric raised by the arbitrary
selection of a few old materials, worked up with much
that was new. My Lord, the Reformation was no
thing of this kind. We have never separated fiom
the original, apostolic church of Christ, founded by
St. Peter. We separated from nothing but her errors.
We never laid her temples prostrate, to trample on
her ruins. We stripped off the extraneous ornaments

131
with which ignorance and superstition had encumbered
and defaced her native simplicity, and we swept and
garnished her apartments; but we perpetuated her
hierarchy, we left untouched every one of her creeds,
and, with one solitary exception, we adopted her
sacraments also, though some of them under a dif
ferent character and name. In short, we rejected
nothing of her essentials, hut the authority of htr
spiritual Head, and we instituted nothing that was
new. Our deference for primitive usages is as great
as her own ; and our only difference is, on this point,
are they really primitive or riot, and tending to edifi
cation. Having gone through the general preliminaries
respecting Church ceremonies, we are now led on to
the examination of particulars ; and I cannot sup^-
press my surprise at finding the first of these ceremo
nies, in which you describe the Church of England
as neither recognizing tradition as a sufficient autho
rity for their admission, nor requiring for them the
authority of Scripture, is the ceremony of ordination.
My Lord, I have always contemplated the sacred
hierarchy of our Church, and the miinterrupted suc
cession of her priesthood, as placing her at an immense
distance above all those sects by which she is sur
rounded ; and as forming, perhaps, the very proudest
of her distinguishing pretensions to the Christian
character. There was no stig-ma which her adversa
ries at the Reformation, more laboured to fix upon
her, than that the link of authority had been broken,
and her bishops consequently no longer the lawful
successors of the aposties. There Avas no point more
K 2

132
earnestly, and more successfuUy, maintained by the
Church of England, Bellarmine, amongst others,
urged against us the fourth canon of the council of
, Nice ; which directs, that every bishop shall have
been ordained by at least three other bishops,
who shaU themselves have been duly ordained by
others. But he was indignantly answered by Bishop
Andrews, " Nee is canon apud nos violatus unquam,
nee ea series unquam interrupta," Now if tradition,
which by its very term intimates that chain of evi
dence which is here, I should humbly conceive, abso
lutely indispensable, is to be " left entirely out of the
question," the canon of Nice may, or may not, have
been broken, for aught we know; or, upon your
Lordship's principles, for aught we care. The whole
claim to the apostolical succession of our priesthood,
is at once abandoned, and the canonical obedience
due to yourself as a bishop, and to our clergy as mi
nisters of the gospel of Christ, rests upon nothing
more than the authority pf the civic magistrate.
Whether the clergy of the Church of England wiU
subscribe generally to such a doctrine, I, have very
great doubts. For one, I beg to enter my firm and
decided protest against it. I wiU only further notice
the admirable shift of argument with which this sub
ject is concluded, in the ," Comparative View," p.
142. " The Church of Rome enumerates five orders,
besides those of priest and deacon, for which the cle
rical tonsure is required. Since then the five lower
orders are rejected by the Church of England, and
only the two higher orders are retained, the advo
cates of the Church of Rome, when they contend that

133
o«r orders depend upon tradition, as weU as theirs,
make use of an argument which directly contradicts
what the council of Trent has admitted." The so
phistry here, my Lord, is twofold: first, that you.
have substituted the ceremonial part of the rite of
ordination, for that which is much more important,
the lawfulness of that authority, by which it is admi
nistered. Your argument may thus be very specious,
but it wants one point still to make it available, which
is to show, that any advocate of the Church of Rome
ever maintained such nonsense as you have here.
imputed to them. It is not the formalities of the
ceremony which are intended, as you well know, by
the Catholics, when they urge this topic, but the
essence of the rite, that essence which is so strongly
insisted on by aU the early Christian fathers, that
essence to which TertuUian alluded, when he said of
the pretensions of some new sects, which rejecting the
ancient discipline and authority, had proceeded to
form and model to themselves new rites and to pro
mulgate new doctrines, and to institute a new order
of ministry, " Let them produce for us the ori^n of
their Churches, let them unfold to us the order of
their bishops, so succeeding each other that their first
bishop, whosoever he was, had some of the apostles
or apostolical men for their predecessor. For thus do
apostolical Churches derive their pedigree. Thus doth
the Church of Smyrna show her Polycarp, placed there
by St, John, and Rome her Clement, ordained by
Peter," It was thus that Irenaeus, at an earlier periodj
and St,.Augustin, at a later, had both resisted the

134
schismatics of their own times : and it is thus the
Churches of England and Rome may unite together,
in addressing the common adversary to the hierarchy
of both.
The second part of this sophistry is, that you have
in your text confounded together the whole series of
orders in the Church of Rome as held on the autho
rity of tradition, though you have given a part of the
Trent canon respecting this point at the bottom of
your page, in which the distinction is not only made
as to those orders, but another very incom enient dis
tinction also for your Lordship's theory would have
been not less asserted, if the whole sentence had been
fairly given. The offices of priest and deacon are
said to be established upon Scripture, the others ap
pointed because such names are known to have been
in use in the beginning of the church. The Church
of Rome therefore retains them, but, as the canon
tells us, non pai'i gradu. Why these little words,
concluding the very sentence you have thus far
quoted, were suppressed, may be more easily conjec-
tmed than reconciled with what is due to candour
and common justice.
The next subject in this chapter of Ceremonies, is
the institution of the Christian sabbath. Jeremy
Taylor, as I have already noted, rejected, hke your
Lordship, the authority of tradition, and of general
councUs likewise, and most consistently therefore,
seeing no other way to solve the difficulty, declared
that we have now no sabbath. " The Lord's Day,"
says he, " did not succeed in the place of the sab-

155
bath, but the sabbath was whoUy abrogated, and the
Lord's Day was merely of ecclesiastical institution."
The " Comparative View," however, with an ambi
guity of expression exactly suited to the case it has
undertaken to defend, thus disposes of this question.
" It has been asserted, that the institution of the
Christian Sabbath, or the keeping the first day of
the week holy instead of the seventh, is fourided on
tradition. — ^But it is evident from Acts xx, 7, and
1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, that the practice of the primitive
Christians to assemble, for the purpose of worship,
on the first day of the week, in commemorating
Christ's resurrection, had the sanction of St. Paul
himself. And since this is recorded in the written
word, what necessity is there for an appeal to the
unwritten word ? " The dexterity of argument is
here again, my Lord, veiy admirable, but it is not
quite sufficiently disguised. The institution of a
sabbath, and the keeping of the first day of a week
holy, are not exactiy the same thing. A holy day
and a sabbath are, in the first place, not quite syno
nymous terms ; and secondly, the appointment of the
one does not necessarily imply the abrogation of
another; and thirdly, neither does it at aU imply
that it is substituted to supply its place and office,
supposing it to be reaUy abrogated. And of the force
of these objections, it is quite impossible that we
should believe your Lordship to be ignorant. Various
passages in Scripture combine assuredly to prove, that
the apostles did commemorate the resmreetion of our
Lord by assembling for purposes of devotion on the
first day of the week ; though the passages you have

136
referred us to are not amongst the clearest or most
forcible.* But it is not correct to suppose that they ever con
sidered it as a sabbath. The Jewish sabbath conti
nued to be universally observed, not only during the
lives of the apostles, but for some ages afterwards.
There is no part of ecclesiasticaLhistory more certain
than that both the seventh day of the week, and the
first also, were set apart for rehgious purposes by the
primitive Christians, but the former was held as the
sabbath, and the latter as a holy-day ; the one as a
day of holy rest, the other as a day fi-om which busi
ness was not excluded, but yet mingled with de
votion. The very terms themselves of (r<»(3j3.aToi/, or
sabbatum, and of ii'/ASf a xu^ i«>cri,or Dies Dominions, and
sometimes Feria Dominica, by which they are imi-
formly designated and distinguished, in the Greek
and Latin writers of the first and second century,
• "The assembly mentioned in the Acts may, or may not,
have had say particular reference to that great event. The
" breaking of bread" also is an expression very commonly used
both in the Acts and Epistles, for simply taking the refresh
ment of a meal ; and Calvin has been followed by a very numer
ous train of commentators in totally depying any greater im
portance to that expression in the place before us. His words
Vipon it are " Nam quod hie fractionem panis nonnulji interpretan-
tur sacram coenam, alienum mlhi^videtur a mente Lucae," The
approaching departure ofthe apostle for Jerusalem, where, as he
emphatically says, he " knew not what would befal him,'' may
be considered as very sufficient cause, independent of any other,
why his friends should meet together at so solemn a parting,
why he should address to them his exhortations and instructions,
and why they should join in prayers and valedictions Avith each
other.

137
place this beyond all question. In the eastern
churches again both the days were " observed as fes
tivals, but in the a;e*^cr» the custom was consider
ably, varied respecting the sabbath ; for whUst it was
observed as a fast at Rome, it was even at Milan ce
lebrated as a festival. The injunction of the Consti-
tutiones Apostolicae, which applied chiefly to the ori
ental churches, was " Keep the sabbath and the Lord's
day festival, because the one is the commemoration of
the creation, and the other ofthe resurrection, I. vii. 23.
The first account of any thing like the character of a
sabbath being given authoritatively to the Lord's Day,
is an edict of Constantine, by which he orders the courts
of justice to be closed upon it, and, by subsequent di
rections, bids all customary business, except works of
charity and necessity, to be then suspended. From
this period there appear to have been two successive
days out of every seven, set apart for holy rest ; and
the author of the " Constitutions " above-mentioned,
accordingly says, " that servants should work five days
in the week, but on the sabbath and the Lord's Day
they should rest, that they might be at leisure to at
tend their church for instruction in piety." The in
convenience of so large an interval of labour and ces
sation fi-om the ordinary concerns of life was sure to
be soon felt, and the council of Laodicea held
A. D. 361, applied its particular attention to this
important subject. The result of its deliberations
was the issuing a canon, forbidding Christians " to
Judaize by resting on the sabbath, any farther than
was necessjiry for public worship ; but to honour the

138
Lord's Day, and rest on that as Christians." The
substitution was now perfect and completed. The sab
batical rest was expressly and authoritatively trans
ferred from the seventh to the first day, and the ap
pointment of a Christian sabbath may from that
date, and no other, be strictly reckoned. Whether
there be any apostohcal tradition for this change it
is useless to enquire, and I doubt whether the author
of the Treatise De Ecclesia Christi has so asserted.
I can find no such assertion in him, and your Lord
ship has given me no clue towards the discovery.
You have asserted it, but without any reference ;
and, after the experience I have had, you will par
don me if I again repeat that I doubt the fact being
so. The Trent Catechism, a much more important
document, says nothing like it, but agrees with the
historical account I have just given, in making it a
regulation of the Chm-ch only. The words in which
it briefly assigns the reason why the sabbath was
changed are these, " Placuit autem Ecclesia Dei, ut
Diei Sabbati cultus et celebritas in dominicum trans-
ferretur diem." The conclusion then, my Lord, is
this, that you are neither correct in one position nor the
other. The Protestant has not " the sanction of the
the written Word " for the institution of the first day
of the week as a sabbath, and the Catholic does not
reckon it as an apostolical tradition. The ancient
Church of Christ justly considered it as a fit subject
on which its discretion might be exercised; the Church
of Rome adopted the change, together with the rest of
Christendom, and the Chiuch of England never felt the

139
necessity or propriety of witholding her acqui
escence. We now pass on to another of your Lordship's
ceremonies, the ceremony qf infant baptism. As
the most indispensable of Christian rites, and the
most solemn sacrament of our Church, I should
have been justified, in my own opinion, in ranking it as
a doctrine even of the higher order ; but there is no
need to be disputing about words, when things crowd
so fast upon us on which there is so little agreement.
If it were not for their length, I would gladly have
given the whole of your Lordship's observations
upon this important point ; for they constitute not
the least extraordinary part of your extraordinary
book ; whether we consider the arguments them
selves, or the mode of urging them ; but I must now
content myself with giving only such extracts as are
necessary for our purpose, and referring my reader,
as I do most earnestly, to the perusal of the whole.
You commence, then, by stating, that both the
council of Trent and Bellarmine have spoken of
infant baptism as an apostolical tradition ; and that,
from this example, it is argued that the Church of
England does not reject tradition as a rule of faith ;
or that it acts inconsistently in retaining the sacra
ment of baptism under the same form as the Church
of Rome, But both these charges, you add, are at
once refuted by our twenty-seventh article. For this
article is so far from resting the practice of infant
baptism on the authority of tradition, that it places
the practice on a totally different footing. " The bap-

140
tism of young children (says this article), is in any
wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to
the Institution of Christ." Where then, you ask, " is
the inconsistency, of our Church in respect of infant
baptism ? " To this question, I most readily answer,
no where. For as the Church of Rome never adopted
tradition as a rule of faith independent of Scripture,
and as our Church never refused its aid in conjunction
w;ith Scripture, there is no inconsistency committed.
They both believe, that the doctrine of infant bap
tism is contained in Scripture, " in universali"
though not " in particulari," as Bellarmine ex
presses it : they both believe that if any doubts upon
it could be entertained, they are all removed, and
its certainty assured, by a reference to the documents
of tradition ; or, in other words, to the writings of
the earliest Christian fathers, and the ascertained
usage of the primitive churches ; and there is nei
ther wonder nor inconsistency in their both arriving
at the same conclusion, viz. that it must have been
" most agreeable with the institution of Christ."
But, my Lord, you still assure us that our article places
that practice on a different footing from that on which
the council of Trent had placed it.
I have long ceased to be staggered at the boldness of
any assertion coming from your Lordship's pen, but
I have learnt to examine the authority upon which it
rests. Now upon turning to the Trent Catechism,
I find the four following reasons assigned for the
adoption of infant baptism, the whole of which I shall
enumerate, and then leave, without any comment.

141
the reader himself to judge of the width and irrecon-
cileable character of those differences by which the
respective churches are divided, and the opposition
in which the Church of Rome stands to the lan
guage of our own article, Liturgy, and best commen
tators on this ceremony. The first reason assigned
is this: " the unanimous consent and authority of
the ancient fathers assures us that the Church has
received from apostolic tradition the doctrine that
not only adults, but infants also, should be baptized."
Secondly, we cannot but ;further believe that it
was agreeable to the will of Christ that the sacra
ment of baptism should not be denied to infants, of
whom he said, " Suffer the httle children to come
unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the
kingdom of heaven ; and he embraced them in his arms,
and laid his hands upon them, and blessed them."
Thirdly, when we read that any whole family was
baptized by St. Paul, it ia sufficiently apparent that
the infants who were of that number, were washed in
the fountain of salvation. Fourthly, circumcision,
which, was the type of baptism, particularly recom
mends this custom ; for no one is ignorant that infants
were accustomed to be circumcised on the eighth day.
Now, my Lord, where is the difference of footing?
where. the fundamental distinction that divides us?
Is it that our article says not a word about tradition ?
It certainly does not exclude it; for though it refers us
to the institution of Christ, yet there is no such in
stitution mentioned expressly in Scripture ; and it is
not too much to say that our article itself, in every

142
thing but in words, bids us look for it where it may
best be traced. In a note upon this point, your
Lordship has referred us to those who have wiitten
professedly on that subject. I have consulted the
best and ablest of them all, and I here give you his
opinion at large.* " Forasmuch as the commission
given by our Saviour to his disciples, in the time of
his mortal life, to baptize in the country of Judea,
is not at all set down in Scripture ; only it is
said, that they baptized a great many ; and the en
largement of that commission given them afterwards
to perform the same office among aU the heathen
nations, is set down in such brief words, that there
is no particular direction given what they were to do,
in reference to the children of those that received the
faith ; and among all the persons that are recorded as
baptized by the Apostles, there is no express
mention of any infant, it is no wonder that the
readers of Scripture, at this distance from the
Apostles' times, have fallen into contrary sentiments
about the meaning of our Saviour's command, and
the practice of the Apostles in reference to the
baptizing of infants. But since the practice of the
ancient Christians that lived nigh the times of the
Apostles, being more largely dehvered, is more easily
known, — and since the Apostles Uved some of them
to near the end of the first century, and St, John
• Wall's Preface to the History of Infant Baptism. From the
discursive manner in which the sentiment is given, I have been
induced to abridge it, but not to suppress or alter any thing of its
essence, or even of its words.

1-13
SQjnething beyond it, and had in their own time pro
pagated the Christian faith and practice into so many
countries, it can never sink into the head of any conr
sidering man but that such Christians as were ancient
men about 100 or 150 years after that time of the
Apostle's death, which is the year of Christ 200 or
250, must easily know whether infant baptism was
in use at the time of the Apostle's death or not. We
Englishmen cannot be ignorant whether infants were
usually baptized in England, or not, in Queen Elizia-
beth's days, which is the same distance: the man
that thinks, this is possible;, is one that is not used to
consider. Some pretend to slight this argument, as
not being a Scripture one ; but it is that too by a di
rect consequence; for since the Scripture promises
that the church shall be led into all truth, i. e. all
truth that is necessary or fundamental, to follow the
example of the primitive church must be, by the
rule of Scripture, a sure way not to err in funda
mentals. But the truth is, there is no man that does
really slight this argument ; though those that have
no skill in itj or do suspect that it will go against
their side, xoill make as if they did." I have only
now to add, that I hope your Lordship will find this
reference satisfactory and conclusive ; conclusive as to
the employment of tradition, and satisfactory as to
infant baptism being merely a church ceremony.
The conscious satisfaction with which your Lord
ship here looks back upon the various topics into
which you have inquired, and the notes of " Veni,
vidi, vici," in which the victory and the triumph are
3

144
proclaimed over the past, and anticipated over the
future, would have been quite enviable, had they pro
claimed the triumph of nothing but truth and justice,
charity and moderation. But be assured, no triumph
can be either valuable or durable Which is bought at
their expense. I cannot, therefore, envy one atom of
that self-complacency ; I am more inclined to wonder
at and grieve over it ; nor should any thing less than
an impeirious sense of duty have impeUed me for a
moment to disturb it.
There are, however, three points more which you
still vouchsafe to notice ; and the first is this : " It is
said," you observe, " that if our Church rejects the
authority of tradition, it rejects what is necessary to
prove the authenticity of the New Testament."
Now, instancing the Epistles of St. Paul, you readily
admit that " when we are about to establish their au
thenticity, we trace the quotations from them in
ecclesiastical writers, from the present age upwards,
till we come to writers so near to the time when St.
Paul lived, that the Epistles, ascribed to him, could
not have been falsely ascribed, without their knowing
it." But then, you add, " this is a tradition of
testimony, and has no connection whatever with a
tradition of doctrine." The first of these sentences
is but very loosely expressed ; but I have no wish to
cavil about trifles. I will take it for granted that, by
the quotations mentioned, you mean quotations, dis
tinctly stated, by those writers who give them, to be
the words of that Apostle ; because, otherwise, they
might be quotations from Epistles now attributed to

145
St. Paul, but yet be no evidende that he really wtbte
them. As to the difference between traditions of
testimony and traditions of doctrine, I readily can.'-
cede that the nominal distinction is sufficiently
obvious ; but not so the assertion that there is no
connexion whatever between them. I will follow
your Lordship in instancing the Epistles of St. Paul,
and suppose some doctrine enforced upon the exclu
sive authority of some part of the writings of that
Apostle ; and will next suppose that some doubt
arises as to the authenticity of that particular epistle
in which such doctrine is contained. Would not the
testimony and the doctrine find themselves embarked
in one common lot, and experience, in whateveif
might be the result, one comttion fate ? Would they
not, in homely metaphor, sink or swim together?
That your Lordship, after investigating, with so
much minuteness, the traditional testimony of the
apocryphal books of Scripture, and assigning thiS
very defect of testimony as a reason why no doctrine
could be established upon their authority, should
now turn round and tell us that the tradition of
testimony has no connection whatever with the
tradition of doctrine, is, I suppose, only one of those
little incompatibilities to which great minds are
subject. A celebrated critic of antiquity has told us
that inconsistencies and errors may be pardoned to
real genius. It would, however, be satisfactory to
some of your readers, if- you would vouclisafe, in any
future edition of the Comparative View, to reconcile
these jarring dogmas, I.

146
But another post stiU remains to your Lordship
before this ground is to be abandoned ; namely, th^t
this sort of testirnqny is applied " to establish th?
authenticity of writings in general. That it is a
kind of tradition, which is apphed to fke written
Word ; whereas tradition, as a rule of faith, applies
exclusively to the unwritten Word'.' We have
here, again, a distinction which I confess myself so
dull as to be quite unable to comprehend. The
Romanist says that imless ypu can assure yourself pf
the authenticity of the Scriptures, you cannot be
sure pjf the divine character of the doctrines they
convey. Your Lordship insists that the things " have
no connexion whatever with each other," and gives
us an iUustration, by an appeal to the epistles of
Cicero and of Pliny, I can have no objection to such
an appeal ; and can only say, that if any historical
fact, or assertion of custom, as prevalent at the period
in which they wrote, is dependant on their authority
alone, and there should be any reasonable question
started, as to whether those epistles were really
written by Cicero and by Pliny, I should feel it my
duty to apportion my belief, either as to the fact or
custom, exactly to the degree of weight which such
doubt as to their authenticity might carry with it.
As to " tradition, as a rule of faith, being applied
exclusively to the unwritten Word," when we recol
lect that tradition is neither more nor less than that
very unwritten Word itself, how it can be said to be
applied, to it, can alone be explained by the author of
such a sentence, or, perhaps, by that distinguished
statesman who recommended to the members of the

147
House of Commons not " to turn their backs upon
themselves," Euclid has frariied his demonstration of
the relative proportions and affinity of two triangles,
by applying them to each other ; but if Euclid had
been told to apply a triangle to itself and thus dis*
cover its denomination or dimensions, I cannot help
thinking he would have been considerably puzzled.
The second of the three additional topics to be
noticed is the degree of deference which is re
spectively paid, by the Churches of England and
Rome, to the " Traditio hermeneutica," or, in plain
EngUsh, the ancient and universal interpretation of
any ambiguous or obscure passage of Scripture, As
to the practice of onr great Reformers, I have quoted
on this point already abundant testimony, and hate
just given, from Wall's book on Infant Baptism, an
authority of no mean importance. As to the Church
of Rome, the error of your Lordship's reasoning is
this, that you seem to have conveniently forgotten
what the meaning of the term tradition is. Ybii
admit here again, that the " interpretatioris which
have received the sanction of antiquity, are to a
certain extent entitled to our respect ; '* but yoii
conclude by observing that " no one, who #as ac
quainted with the fanciful interpretations of Justin
Mart3rr, the forced interpretations of Irenaeus, or
the aUegorical interpretations of Origen, would
conclude, that interpretations were riecessarily to be
recommended, because they originated in the second
and third centuries," But, my Lord, yoO must
either have never read BeUarmine, of whom you
say so much, or you must know that the Church of
t, 2

148
Rome no more feels herself tied down by the indi
vidual interpretation of any of the names you have
mentioned, nor even by them all put together, than
the Church of England. A tradition, whether it be
" de fide " or " de moribus," is not the private
opinion of any single and uninspired authority,
however ancient or however respected. If it be on a
point connected with doctrine, it requires no less than
the general consent of antiquity in its favour ; if
it be a question of rites and ceremonies, it must then
have the " usus ecclesiae continuus," before it be
entitled to impUcit deference, or even challenge to
itself the name of a tradition. The inquiry often
opens into a wide field, crossed by various paths ; each
inviting the traveller to pursue the track it offers ;
and thus guiding those who journey through it to a
different exit. It thus comes to pass, that in the
issue of such investigations, our Reformers some
times found themselves led to very different conclu
sions from those at which the members of the
Church of Rome seemed to have arrived. But I will
only say of this, as I have of several other points of
our inquiry, show me but one single doctrine, or one
single ceremony, which, having a real, primitive, and
universal tradition to support it, the Church of
England has rejected, and the Church of Rome
observes, and I will then " pro tanto " acknowledge
my own error, and bow with impUcit submission to
that superior knowledge by which I shall stand cor
rected. The last point, and I am glad that we have

149
reached it, " is the strange comparison of the English
Liturgy with Romish tradition;" for, "if our Liturgy
be compared with any thing belonging to the Church
of Rome,it must be compared with the Roman Missal,
from which it was partly derived." Such is your
Lordship's statement : but I should have been glad
to have been informed by whom, and in what terms,
this comparison had ever been made. For whoever
it might be that did make it; I should suppose that
he meant to include, under the word Liturgy, the
whole Book of Common Prayer, as it is often
printed, with our Articles of Religion, and all the va
rious offices attached to it, for without these the com
parison is too absurd ever to be gravely instituted-
But take it in this latter sense, and your Lordship
seems to have so considered it, and it becomes nei
ther so strange nor unaccountable as your own pro
posal to compare it with the Roman Missal. Our
articles, our offices, and our catechism, form the au
thorised exposition of our Church's faith and disci
pline, imperatively defined, and collectively delivered:
and whoever wishes to know what the Church of
England requires to be believed and practised, needs
go no further to find it. But the Roman Missal is
but a bare collection of prayers, coHects, and epistles.
It contains neither definitions of doctrine, nor cate
chism, nor even so much as the office of Christian
baptism. Take away, therefore, from our prayer-
book every thing beyond the mere Rubric of morn
ing and evening prayer, and the comparison with
^e Roman Missal may be entertained ; but upon

ISO
any other conditions, the paraUel is just as imperfect
and defective as the comparison of our whole Li
turgy, in its larger sense, is witli the tradition ap
pealed to by the Church of Rome, In truth, they
are both sufficiently absurd ; and I equally leave thorn
to the same common fate.
And having now closed a very important division
of our subject, permit me to make but a short re
trospect upon the country through which we have
been travelling. I have diligently marked your foot
steps, and followed you step by step through it, I
have introduced no new topic of my own ; I have
omitted none which I found stated in the Compa
rative View. I have shown that, in every article qf
faith we have considered, there is nothing which
can even approach to constituting a fundamental
distinction between the two Churches, and that, out
of every doctrine we have considered, there is not
one, however unimportant, which the Church of
Rome holds in contradistinction to us, which she does
not believe that she can derive from the authority
of Scripture, I have shown that in no one in
stance is tradition appUed, independant of Scrip
ture, nor, in any article of faith, as even equal. I
have shown that aU the authorities quoted by your
Lordship, to unction your extraordinary charge, are
either unfairly given or most incorrectly construed ;
and that, when properly viewed, most of them, and
particularly the Trent decree, prove the direct con
trary. Lastly, I have shown that your whole argu
ment is opposed to the doctrines and opinions of our

151
own Articleis, and Liturgy; of those wlro lived nearest
tbj and were actually sharers in, the ReformatioH ;
and of those who have been, till now, universally
held up as the brightest ornaments arid firmest pillars
of our Church.
Wrong, therefore, as I must necessarily consider
you to have been, in the pictul-e ybu have drawn of
both Churches, and even blameable in bringing for
ward against a large body of our fellow subjects arid
fellow Christians, circumstanced as they are, atciisa-
tions so unjust, and consequently so untenable, and
for the avowed purpose of -preventing their admission
to the civil rights of society, I should have thought
you still more blameable had I been obliged to con
sider them as having originated with yourself. But
they are almost every one of them, with the
quotations arid references annexed, to be found
heaped together in the few first pages of the " Ex-
amen Concilii Tridentini," by Chemnitz. Even the
Strange error of " Morum disciplinam," iheariing
" insffuctibn of moMs," and the no less strange
s^rise grv'en to " a?iitheriticus," are there, with all
their absijrdity, as weH a^' the passage from Hosius;
dflleged to be adoprted frorii aritithier qriarter. But
then Chemriit^, thbugh setting brit with these un
tenable errors, has taken care to guard them with
a, thousand fences and quaUficatibris as he go^s on,
and concluded by neither denying the existence of
ti'adition, as to points geiifei*aliy held to be doctrinal,
nor its apphcation and use by Protestants in forming
the regula totalis of their faith. S'or instance.

152
speaking of those primitive creeds given by Irenaeus
and TertulUan, but of which, as apostolical tradi
tions, your Lordship has boldly questioned the exist
ence, he says, " Haec est igitur apostolica traditio,
haec vera ecclesiae antiquitas, hie CathoUcus con
sensus, Habemus igitur veras et antiquas aposto
lorum traditiones," The misfortune of your Lord
ship's book is to have given us all the trash of Chem
nitz, and to have left out all the good sense that fol
lows it.

SECTION XII.

The subject to which your Lordship now conducts,
us, is the difference between the Churches of England
and Rome, in the exercise of Church authority, a
point, on which our adversaries, you say, " have
pressed us more closely than on ^ny other," " The
friends of the Established Church," you observe fur
ther, " have on various occasions attempted a reply.
But many, if not most of these replies, have been
rather evasions of the argument than confutations of
it." How these attempts have been made, or how
they have failed in other hands, I shall not stay to
follow you by inquiry. My business is with your
Lordship only ; and to this I shaU strictly adhere,
by proceeding at once to examine how far the matter
is now mended in your own. This argyment, fo^i

153
the sake of perspicuity, you have divided into three
heads. " First, that the Church of England carries its
authority no further than is absolutely necessary for
its own preservation,
" Secondly, that Protestants in general, the Dis
senters themselves not excepted, exercise their spi
ritual authority on the same principle, and carry it
to the very same extent as the Church of England.
" Thirdly, that the Church of Rome not only
carries its authority further than is necessary for its
own preservation ; but that its authority is exercised in
such a manner, as to extinguish the right of private
judgment in its own members, and to trample on the
rights of all other Churches,"
Now, upon each of these propositions, I feel it
necessary to say a few words ; and of the first, to
say, that I enter my solemn protest both against the
principle upon which it is attempted to be established,
and the manner in which it is attempted to be
proved. The quantum of authority exactly neces
sary for the preservation of any particular set of
doctrines, or established system of religious worship,
is a question, which never either can, or ought to
be contemplated, except upon this principle, " If
that system be in unison with the sentiments of the
great body of the people for whom it is prescribed,
and its offices duly and properly administered, very
little authority wiU be sufficient to ensure its pro
fession and observance ; if it be the contrary, it can
then, upon no Christian principle, continue to be

154
enforced at aU. We separated from the errors of the
Roman communion, because we felt them to be
errors, and we hold ourselves perfectly justified in
the eyes both of God and man in having done so.
But the consideration of the maximum or minimum
of authority, absolutely necessary for our preservation,
was not the ground upon which our church estab
lishment was settled. The rule of the Reformation
was not that of human speculations, which may
much more safely and wisely influence civil than
religious institutions, but the revealed word of God,
and those prescribed forms and regulations which
were found to have prevailed in the purest periods of
the primitive Church of Christ. Our creeds, our
hierarchy, our sacraments, and our rites, were all
perpetuated, not upon nice calculations of authority
and power, but because they had existed in the
remotest ages of Christianity ; and our articles were
fashioned by and accommodated to them, and not
they by or to our articles. When, therefore, your
Lordship teUs us, in allusion to the Athanasian
Creed, that " it is unfair to argue from the anathemas
of a particular creed to the general sentiments of the
Church of England ; " and " that those sentiments
are officially declared in our articles of religion ; and
by those articles, no Christian whatever is excluded
from the hope of salvation ; " I cannot but be bold
enough to say, that such sentiments are very little
suited to the genuine principles and doctrines of
our faith; inasmuch as they, not only represent
our articles and our creed as at variance, and

155
[consistent with each other, but make the former,
lich they certainly are not, the more authoritative
position of the two. But, you further observe,
at " you do not mean to defend the anathemas of
at creed. They are no part of the creed itself."
pon this extraordinary language I can only ask
bether the penalty inflicted by any law is not a
irt of that law, or, how could an enactment be com-
ete which enjoined no punishment as the consc
ience of transgression ? But, even supposing those
lathemas to be no part of the creed, they are surely
part of " The Book of Common Prayer according
I the use of the Church of England ;" and " to aU
id every thing contained and prescribed in and by
lat book," both your Lordship and myself have most
(lemnly and publicly " declared our unfeigned as-
int and consent." Whatever your Lordship then
lay do, I can never beheve myself entitled to treat
(ly part of it with irreverence, or to speak of it as I
ould of the paragraphs of a common newspaper.
Tor can I feel in heart and conscience disposed to do
>. The great fundamental doctrines of our rehgion
ave for thirteen hundred years been secured by this
ime form of words throughout the Western Churches
F Christendom, and it stiU holds a place in the con-
!Ssion, if not in the Liturgy, of every Church in
lurope. Papal and Reformed, " fi-om no one of
rhich," in the words of that high and venerable au-
tiority. Bishop Cleaver, " could it be removed with-
ut authorizing, on the part of that Church, a pre-

156
it not have been better suited to your Lordship's.
situation and your office, to point out rather the
proper sense and construction of such forms, and to
show that they are neither at variance with Scripture,
nor inconsistent with perfect charity, when properly.
understood. In all nations, as well as ages, both
civil and ecclesiastical injunctions are used to be in
culcated in unqualified and decisive terms ; leaving
the modifications, whether of principle or practice, to
be regulated by particular circumstances, for which
it is impossible distinctly and separately to provide.
Any judge who should determine to put rigorously
and literally in force every penal statute of our code,
which he is appointed to administer, would soon show
us how " summum jus " may become " summa in
juria," and by sacrificing the spirit, to satisfy the let
ter, would present to us the system of British Juris
prudence as hardly less sanguinary than the laws of
Draco, And if the legislature and our bishops were,
in the same manner, to combine in construing and
administering all our articles and canons, the Church
of England would present a very different aspect from
that mild and tolerant spirit which is the real and
proper feature of her faith and disciphne. Nay,
even the gospel of peace and charity itself, as it stands
recorded in our Bible, would, under such mode of
interpretation, be a code of harsh and unamiable
institutes, far removed from being a gracious over
ture of mercy and salvation to all mankind. St,
Paul reckons heresies amongst those works of the
flesh of which the doers " shall not inherit the king-,

157
dom of God ; " and St. Peter speaks of " false teachets
who, privily bringing in damnable heresies, shaU
bring upon themselves swift destruction." And the
same Apostle, in another place, has taught us that
" there is no other name under heaven given among
men, but that of Jesus Christ crucified, whereby we
must be saved," But yet few persons, even upon
these strong declarations, would venture to exclude
entirely from the mercy of Almighty God, either the
wretched outcast of the House of Israel, or the poor
unenhghtened heathen, who labours, without the ad
vantages of law or gospel, to be a law unto himself;
though we may not consider them as entitled to the
full blessedness of covenanted grace through Christ.
Now, my Lord, apply but the same rule of inter
pretation to the creed in question, and there is no
need to cavil with its words, in its proper and
strict sense. I use again the language of that true
guardian of our Sion above-mentioned, " therejs no
thing unduly harsh or uncharitable in the maxim,
' Nulla salus extra ecclesiam,' or, in other words,
nothing inconsistent with the benevolence of our re
ligion in confining the full and proper benefits of the
gospel to those who hve in the faith and communion
of the Catholic Church," As to the particular limi
tations with which the passages of Scripture I
have quoted, and the anathemas of the creed in
question, are to be received, there is no more diffi
culty in ascertaining and applying them by the de
ductions of reason and the rules of equity, in matters

158
of religion, than there is in the civil administration of
law and justice.
Again, your Lordship has told us that " if at any
time there should be found amongst its members a
person, who on mature reflection, thought the creed
erroneous which he had once received, the Church of
England would say, " though we lament the evils of
religious dissension, we own the blessings of religious
hberty. If then you can no longer conform to our
creed, and the continuance in our communion would
be a restraint on the exercise of your private judg
ment, you are at hberty to exchange our society for
one which is more congenial with your own opinions."
But your Lordship has unfortunately forgotten to
point out from what part of her official ordinances
this speech has been extracted. I can only say that
I never met with it, and I have already shown that
it would be equally foreign to the usage of aU legis
lation, human or divine, to address those who are the
subjects of it in any such terms as you have assigned
to her. But though I never met with that speech,
yet I do know what the language of my church, in
many parts of her authoritative expositions, is. I know
that by one of her articles she claims " authority in
controversies of faith;" by another, declares " those to
be accursed that presume to say that every man shallbe
saved by the law or sect, or, as the Latin articles ex
press it, ' in lege aut secta,' which he professeth, so
that he be dihgent to frame his hfe according to that
law, and the light of nature;" and, by eleven sue-

159
cessive canons, she further declares those to be, ipso
facto, excommunicate and guilty of wicked errors,
who impugn her government, her hierarchy, her
articles, her ceremonies of worship, or " account her
members who are conformable thereto unmeet for
them to join with in Christian profession."
Lastly, advancing onward in this race of magna
nimous concession, we are told that " if any man
prefers the theological lectures which have been
hammered on the anvil, or stitched at the stall, to
the theological lectures even of a Divinity professor,
he may indulge himself in the preference without
any fear of impeachment, either for his taste or
judgment." But here again " Episcopus non
Ecclesia loquitur ; " and as to the genuine liberality
of principle by which such a sentence is dictated, I
shall leave it to be inferred from the language ia
which it is conveyed.
On the second proposition, which concerns neither
the Church of England nor Rome, I shall offer hut
one single remark, and it is this, that having nothing^
to do with the proper object of our inquiry, it would
be improper to pursue it ; but that, were it otherwdse,
some Protestants, and many Dissenters, might be
easily shown to maintain a laxity of religious opinions,
and an indifference in religious ceremonies, such as
can, be by no means said to characterize the Church
of England ; nay, I should rather say that it was this
very point which most especiaUy distinguished her
from several of those communions.
The third proposition, which respects the Church
3

160
of Rome, and charges her with not only " carrying'
her authority further than ourselves, but with exer
cising it in such a manner as to extinguish the right
of private judgment in its own members, and to
trample on the rights of all other churches," requires
more particular attention ; for it involves the very
important topics of religious persecution, of exclusive
salvation, of the claims of infallibility, and I know
not how much more, before it arrives at the summit
of its formidable cUmax, which is the horrid tribunal
of the Inquisition. But, my Lord, the mighty plot
of this well-wrought tragedy is at once unraveUed
by following one single thread which wiU guide us
through the whole, and instead of leaving us im
pressed with astonishment, indignation, and alarm,
permit us^to arrive at the conclusion, with the satis
faction of persons who have rather been the cheerful
spectators of a Comedy of Errors. This clue is
simply the precaution carefully to note in what sense
the word Church is applied, in whatever references
are made, and from whatever quarter ; and by this
sole means it will readily be seen how greatly your
Lordship has mistaken almost every authority you
have quoted on this subject. ;
In the Trent decrees there is not one single defini
tion of the word Ecclesia, or Church, that limits it
to the Church of Rome. In the Roman Catechism
the definition of that word is given at very consider
able length, and is said to have been apphed some
times, in Scripture, as weU to the heathens who
knew not God, and to those who did not regard him.

161
as to faithful Christians; but in- common usage to
designate the great Christian commonwealth, " rem-
publicam Christianam," or, in other words, the whole
body of the faithful spread over the whole world,
" Populus fidelis per universum orbem dispersus." The
Church militant here on earth is also explained by
" Coetus omnium fidelium qui adhuc in terris vivunt."
The property again of this universal community
is said to be, that it forms one, holy, Cathohc
Church. One, being under one invisible Head, which
is Christ in heaven, and as having, in the words of
the apostle, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism;" and
the visible Head of this universal body is said to be
the lawful successor of St. Peter, who was its great
founder.* And this last mentioned cause of unity is
* If it should be here apprehended that by arrogating this
rank for the Roman Pontifti the Trent decree, in reality, arro
gates the whole of Christendom as subject to his dominions, and
may therefore use the word " universal church," as still syno
nymous with the Church of Rome, the answer is, that a claim
of titular supremacy is a very distinct thing from a claim of
positive jurisdiction, and the mention of one single fact may
sufficiently prove that is so understood in the instance now be
fore us. The Church of Rome has never scrupled to acknow
ledge the Greek Church to be a true and apostolic Church,
though not in her communion. And a priest, ordained according
to the Greek ritual, is held to be canonically invested with his
sacred character, and authorised, without further ceremony, to
officiate at the Roman altar. And this is further done upon ex
actly the same principle as a priest of Rome is, when conform
ing to our Liturgy, admitted, without any further preparation,
to administer our sacraments, and perform the duty of a protest
ant minister in the Church of England, M

162
also thus stated by our own great commentator
Bishop Pearson. " Our Saviour," says he, " gave the
same power to all the apostles, which was to found
the church, but he gave that power to Peter to show
the unity of the same church." It is said to be holy,
"as being dedicated unto God, and composed of those,
who having taken upon them the faith of Christ,
and been baptized into his name, are thenceforward
members qf his church, though they may offend in
many things, and leave undone much that they ought
to do." It is said to be catholic, as "embracing in the
bosom of its charity every child of Adam, barbarian,
Scythian, bond or free, male or female." From the
foUowing chapter, also entitled, " Cur dicatur Ec
clesia Cathohca," art. 9- c. 19- your Lordship has.
extracted a passage, and prefaced its introduction by
these words, " It is positively asserted in the Roman
Catechism, that the Church of Rome cannot err in
matters of faith and morals," (the old interpretation
©f • fidei ac morum diseiplina,') " inasmuch as it is
guided by the Holy Spirit, but that all other churches
must err in faith and morals, inasmuch as they are
led by the spirit of the devU." Now, my Lord, I
beg humbly to submit that not one syllable about
the Church of Rome, as contradistinguished from
other Christian Churches, has the Roman Catechism
here uttered. Not one word is there, either in the
passage itself, or in the context, that can warrant
such a construction. It had been throughout, as it
goes on to do afterwards, speaking of the universal
Churchof Christ, and it says no more than that those

163
who do not belong to it, who had never embraced
the faith of Christ, and been baptized into his name,
though they might arrogate to themselves the name
of Churches, must needs err, both in matters of faith
and discipline, as led astray by the devil. "Quemad-
modum haec una Ecclesia errare non potest infidei
ac morum diseiplina tradenda, cum a Spiritu Sancto
gubernetur: ita ceeteros omnes, quce sibi Ecclesice
nomen arrogant, ut quae diaboh spiritu ducantur,
perniciosissimis errorribus versari necesse est." Again,
my Lord, on the subject of this infallibility, you have
further asserted, that " whatever diversity of opinion
may prevaU about the seat of it, whether a general
council derives infalhbUity from the Pope, or the
Pope from a general councU, or whether it be a joint
production, its existence is asserted by all Romish
writers without exception." But if it be meant by
this sentence to be affirmed, that the seat of infaUibihty
is thus universally asserted by all Romish writers, to
be any how or any where fixed, or belonging exclu
sively to the Church of Rome, (and, if less than this
is meant, the whole argument faUs at once to the
ground,) then I could produce you a hundred good
Catholic authorities, who have not only never assert
ed such a tenet, but most positively disclaimed it. I
will mention two, and the first shall be your friend
and favourite BeUarmine, whom you have recommend
ed no man to write about Scripture and tradition,
who has not carefuUy studied. In his Treatise de
Ecclesia Militante, 1, 3. c. 14. he says with indigna
tion to Calvin, who had charged him with maintain-
M 2

164
ing this infallibility for the Church of Rome, " Nos
tra sententia est Ecclesiam absolute non posse errare,
nee in rebus absolute necessariis, nee in aUis quae cre-
denda vel facienda nobis proponit ; et cum dicimus Ec
clesiam non posse errare, id intelhgimus tam de univer-
sitate fidelium qukm de universitate Episcoporum"
I know not what can be more decisive and unambigu
ous, unless it be the foUowing passage from Mr. Eus
tace's Tour in Italy : " Many of my readers may be
surprised to find no mention made of the infaUibihty
ofthe Pope, his most glorious prerogative, for the
supposed maintenance of which. Catholics have so
long suffered the derision and the contempt of their
antagonists. The truth is, that there is no such ar
ticle in the Cathohc Creed, for, according to it, iii-
falhbiUty is ascribed not to any individual, or even to
any National Church, but to the whole body of the
Church extended over the universe." But the Trea
tise caUed " Ecclesia Christi " you may stUl urge has
insisted that "councils which are general in their
convocation and celebration are infallible." Be it so.
But, my Lord, you cannot need be told that this very
proposition itself virtuaUy denies any pretension to
infaUibUity, as Umited to the Church of Rome. For
it can be no "General council," either as to chai-acter or
attendance, which is not extended far beyond the
narrow limits of a single Church, It would be no
general conned which excluded either the Greek, the
Syrian, or even the Church of England from its deli
berations. The Patriarch of Jerusalem was one of
the attendants at Trent, and I therefore leave any

165
reasonable man to judge whether he was likely to he
any party to a declaration that his own Church, " ut
quae diaboli spiritu ducatur, perniciosissimis erroribus
versari necesse est," Nor, if a general convention of
Christendom could be fairly and impartiaUy sum-
moried and assembled ; if its councils could be direct
ed by nothing but a love of truth, and its resolutions
be such as to acquire for them the general concur
rence of Christian Churches ; is it easy to see what
greater harm could result from maintaining, as to all
practical purposes, the decrees of it to be ihfalUble,
than from maintaining, as a legal and constitutional
maxim, that our King " is not only incapable of doing,
but even of thinking wrong,"* And that nothing
more is really intended by the Catholic in his tenet
of infalhbility, as applied to general councils, than by
ourselves in applying it to the head of our own
Church, is evident from this single fact, that no gene
ral council has ever scrupled to review and modify
the decisions of those which had preceded it.f The
* Blackstone,
1 1 cannot here forbear to notice a very honest, temperate and
well written Pamphlet, published last year, by the Rev, Mr.
Wix, on the suhject of a General Council, recommending it to
be. tried as a means of Catholic and Protestant Union. Much,
however, as I admire the whole spirit of that production, I can
not agree with its author in looking forward to any benefits as
likely to arise from such a measure. First, because the whole ex
perience of history can show us how little has at any time been
done in respect of conciliation by such assemblies. The council
of Trent added nothing to the christian unanimity of Europe.
The convention of the Jews and Christians in Poland broke up
in uproar and confusion. Secondly, because it is impossible

166
councU of Lateran sanctioned the doctrine, that
" faith need not be kept with heretics ;" but the coun
cU of Constance abrogated and disclaimed a tenet so
detestable and so wicked. " Our Church does not
controvert," says Burnet, " the doctrine that thereis a
visible society of Christians in a true Church ;" he
might have stated, that her articles distinctly recog
nise it. But if it be a true Church it cannot
err, for the moment it did so, it would cease to be
true. But then your Lordship has further charged upon
the Romanist that, " whilst the Church of England ex
cludes from salvation no Christian whatever, Protes
tants in general are excluded from salvation by the
Church of Rome," I am sorry, in these days, to see
such an argument stiU urged from such an authority
as yours. But as a friend to truth I will again plant
myself upon the whole body of the Trent Decrees,
to appoint any arbitrator in matters of faith and conscience, to
which both parties, in any case of difference, would or ought to
yield. Thirdly, because the influence of the Roman Pontiff
can never more become an object of negotiation with the Church
of England. That power, though once acknowledged, was, for
its abuses, resisted, forfeited, and lost; and America might
just as well be solicited to return to her former allegiance to
her parent state, as ourselves to resume that yoke from which
we have so long been free : whilst, on the other hand, many of
the causes which originally dictated and justified the separa
tion, have now entirely disappeared, and others' been so modified
and softened, that the same strong reasons of secession to the
Catholic of the present day are no more existing, upon which
our ancestors felt and acted. Time may, by gradual approxima
tion, effect that which premature attempts at direct and imme
diate union may place at a still greater distance.

167
and assert, without fear of contradiction, that no such
doctrine is there inculcated from the beginning to the
end. On the contrary, you will find that the word
Ecclesia or Church is uniformly, unless joined with
some other word expressly Umiting its signification,
used only in the larger sense of the universal commu
nity of Christians; and that those whom your Lord-
slup has so readUy consigned to the rank of heretics,
are neither so ranked by those decrees, nor, if they
wercj would they exclude them from salvation. I
have already shown that those decrees contemplate
every one that is baptized into the name of Christ,
as, from that moment, belonging to that great body
of which Christ is the Head ; and in the very same
article there quoted, the definition of a heretic is also
given us in the foUowing words : " It is not because
a man offends against the faith, that he is instantly
to be declared a heretic, but he that, disregarding the
authority of the Church, perseveres in opinions that
are impious. And it is not possible that any one can
pollute himself with the plague of heresy, if he only
beUeves those things which in this article are proposed
to be believed." But in this article, excepting the bare
statement that the successor to St. Peter is the visible
Head of the whole Christian world, not one single
doctrine, which mUitates against our own, is to be
found. I had indeed suspected this, when I found
the authorities you adduced chiefly drawn from pro
vincial catechisms and unofficial sources. You have,
it is true, produced several passages from the Lectures
of Maynooth, but not one which does not labour un-
6

168
der the same error I have already pointed out, of
construing Ecclesia, by the Church of Rome, instead
of the Christian Church in general ; and as to Pro
vincial catechisms, and especiaUy in that hitherto un
fortunate and agitated country of Ireland, I can easily
point out a Protestant catechism there used, which
will match in bigotry and intolerance any thing you
can possibly produce on the other side. You have
further referred us to Calvin's assertion, " Extra ec
clesiae gremium nulla est speranda peccatorum re-
missio, nee uUa salus," as quoted by Sir J. C, Hip-
pesley in the Appendix, No. 15, to his Speech in the
House of Commons. But why not have referred us
at once to another quatrter, where you must not only
have seen the same reference, but seen also a com
mentary upon it ; for that very author of the Ecclesia
Christi, so often mentioned in your pages, has also
given it, and has further observed upon it, as well as
upon our own 18th article, " therefore it has been con
stantly held as a principle by Protestants, no less than
by the Church of Rome, that there is no hope of sal
vation out of the bosom of that Church which Christ
instituted." An interpretation plain and just towards
aU parties, consistent, when properly understood, with
perfect charity, and with the written word of God.
I might go on with a whole host of cathohc testimo
nies disclaiming this odious tenet, attempted to be
fastened on them, but I shaU make only two extracts
more, which appear to me both important and deci
sive. The Catholic Bishops of Ireland recently re-
pubhshed a work entitled « Charity and Truth," in

169
which this point is stated with peculiar clearness and
precision. In speaking of the doctrine of salvation
it says, "Catholics hold, first, that whatever be the
religious belief of the parents of a person who is bap
tized, and whatever be the faith of the person who
baptizes him, he becomes in the instant of his baptism
a member of the Holy Catholic Church mentioned in
the Apostles' Creed : Secondly, that he receives on his
baptism jutifying grace and justifying faith : Thirdly,
that he loses the former by the commission of any
mortal sin, and the latter by the commission of a sin
against faith ; but does not lose it by the commission
of a mortal sin of any other kind: Fourthly, that with.^
out such wUful ignorance or wilful error, as amounts
to a crime in the eye of God, no individual is justi
fied in imputing, even in his own mind, this criminal
ignorance, or criminal error, to any other." How
exactly correspondent to this is the language of that
amiable and lamented writer, Mr. Eustace ! " Sin
cere and undisguised in the belief and profession of
the Roman Cathohc Religion, the author affects not
to conceal, because he is not ashamed of its influence.
Yet with this affectionate attachment to the ancient
faith, he presumes not to arraign those who support
other systems. Persuaded that their claims to mercy,
as weU as his own, depend upon sincerity and charity,
he leaves them and himself to the disposal of the
Common Father of all, who we may humbly hope
will treat our errors and defects with more indulgence
than mortals usuaUy show to each other. In truth.

170
reconcUiation and union are the objects of his warmest
wishes, of his most fervent prayers : and if a stone
shaU happen to mark the spot where his remains are
to repose, that stone shall speak of peace." * There
remains one authority more, which your Lordship has
much insisted on, and it is the expression of " banc
veram cathoUcam fidem extra quam nemo salvus esse
potest." This expression, be it remembered, though
quoted as coming from the Trent Confession, is ex
tracted neither from the Trent Catechism or Decrees,
but from a document sometimes printed with them.
It occurs in the Bull issued by Pope Pius IV- exactly
one year after the CouncU of Trent had been dis
solved ; and the difficulties attending it, before it can
be available to your Lordship's purpose, are these :
first, to reconcile the word Cathohc, as it here stands,
with the definition assigned to it in the Roman Cate
chism ; secondly, to establish the interpretation, that
the word " salvus " means not " safe," but saved ;
and thirdly, that a Pope's Bull is of equal authority
with the Decrees of the whole Council of Trent.
We know what has often become of Popes' BuUs,
and how they have been treated, not only in this
country, but in every country of Europe, Italy itself
not excepted ; and the time is really gone by for ex
citing any alarm and trepidation by holding up to us
such bugbears. There was at one period txvo Popes,
and at another three^ each issuing their Bulls in
* Preface to Tour in Italy.

171
contrary directions, and^ to use the words of a distin
guished Cathohc, " dividing the Christian world by
their quarrels, and scandalizing it by their mutual
Recriminations." *
But it is farther said that the arrogance of the
Church of Rome is intolerable, as claiming to be the
" mater ac magistra " of aU other churches. If it
be an empty title, with which she loves to be amused^
much good, I should say, may it do her ! If she at
tempt to reduce those pretensions to practice^ we
have known, and shaU again know, how to meet
them. But, my Lord, it would be, not merely an act
of arrogancCj but of most unnatural and unheard-of
cruelty, if at the very moment she was claiming all
other communities of Christians for her children and
dependants, she was yet, in the very same breath,
excluding them from salvation, and calmly consigning
them to everlasting torment ! Is it to be believed, is
is even possible, that these things can consist toge
ther ? Surely one of the two must, at least, be aban
doned ; or, if your Lordship wiU still insist on both, I
must leave this also, as I have done many more points,
to be reconciled by yourself. We have, however, not
a very unfit parallel to this extravagance, which I beg
to notice before I leave it. How long did the Head
of our own Church, the Monarch of Great Britain,
claim and wear the title of " King of England,
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, over aU
causes, civil and ecclesiastical, in these his dominions,
supreme ! " The estabUshed religion of France is
* Butler.

172
Roman Cathohc ; the King of this country arrogated
for ages a title to its crown, and arrogated also to be,
without any specified exception, over all causes within
his dominions,Vhether civil or ecclesiastical, supreme.
Now much less ingenuity than your Lordship has
exercised might prove from this, that the King of
Great Britain claimed to be the Pontifex Maximus of
the Church of France, and was therefore a just ob
ject of jealousy and terror to the Catholics of that
country. But, my Lord, instead of dwelUng on these idle
reveries, let us turn our eyes upon the living facts that
every where surround us. Let us view Cathohcs and
Protestants as they are now united in civil amity and
social union in every country of Europe. Let us ob
serve them united, as they often are, in the sacred
bonds of marriage, and yet both parties adhering to
their former faith. Let us mark the warmth of their
wedded love, and their common fondness for its off
spring, and then turn away, if we can, in the per
suasion that the one stiU believes the other to be only
on the road to perdition, and that the signal which
tears them from their earthly endearments wiU be
that which must also separate them for ever as widely
as heaven is from hell. Forbid it, gracious God, that
Christians should ever be supposed to feel and think
thus of each other !
The doctrines of Confession and Absolution chal
lenge our attention next. The discipline of the
Church of Rome, as to the former of these, is too well
known to need much comment here. It is inculcated
as of the essence of rehgious obedience ; but I can

173
find no authority which enforces it, as you insist, as
absolutely " necessary to salvation." In a note you
have given us an extract from the Trent Decrees,
ranking it as amongst the sacraments of that Church ;
and, as a saving clause could not be well admitted,
which says of these sacraments, " Ucet omnia sin
gulis necessaria non sint," you have added that
" this expression appUes to orders and matrimony,
but not to baptism or confirmation, or the eucharist,
or penance, or extreme unction," But for this dis
tinction I should wish for some Catholic authority
before I can admit it. I cannot believe it to be cor
rect, because I know many persons esteemed very
good Catholics who never go to confession at all ; and
I think any member of the Church of Rome would
be astonished, if he were told that the principles of
his communion consigned to eternal misery and dam
nation every brave soldier or seaman who died glori
ously performing his duty, and fighting for the hearths
and altars of his country, simply because no priest
was at hand to perform the last sad office of departing
Ufe. Nor do I any where find that a person dying
without confirmation, or even the eucharist, is held
by Romanists to be an unfit object for the mercies of
redeeming love. As to the disciphne of the Church
of England with regard to special confession, I must
beg leave to say that I do not think it very correctly
stated in the " Comparative View,"
It is surely not correct to say that " there is no simUa-
rity whatever between confession of the Church of Eng
land and confession in the Church of Rome." For, let
7

174
me ask, however we may differ as to the mode and
season of recommending it, whether that great prin
ciple upon which it is recommended or enforced at all,
namely, as preparatory to absolution by the priest, is
not precisely the same in both ? and whether the doc
trine of absolution, indispensably coupled with con
fession, is not retained in our own Liturgy, in aU its
varieties of form, precatory, declaratory, and au
thoritative, just as it is inculcated by the offices of
Rome !
There is nothing more positive in the whole compass
of Roman Liturgies than our own clinical absolution
in the Visitation of the Sick. Indeed the form usu
ally employed by Romanists has a very pointed qua
lification which ours has not, for it says only, " Te
absolve, in quantum possum, et tu indiges," whilst
our own says, " By his authority, committed unto
me, I absolve thee, in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And as to the
other distinction, that it is obligatory in one church,
and voluntary in another, if we impartiaUy consider,
it amounts to but very little. The Church of Rome
employs nothing but exhortation, and our Church
directs the minister to move the sick person to special
confession. The Romish custom of periodical con
fessions and absolutions being hable, hke masses for
the dead, to great misconceptions, and capable of lead
ing to great immorality and abuse, on this ground,
our Church most wisely acted, in retaining the doc
trine and the principle, but modifying the practice and
application. But that the utility and propriety of

175
confession never was sUghted or abandoned at the Re
formation may be most abundantly proved. The
Roman discipline enjoins confession every year to the
members of its communion, but does not compel it :
the Church of England bids every one of its members,
before he presents himself at the Lord's Table, to
examine his own conscience, and if he cannot quiet it
himself, to "go to some discreet and learned minister of
God's word, and open his grief;" and for what pur
pose ? " That he may receive the benefit of absolu
tion," And when a minister ofthe Church of England
visits the bed of sickness, he is here also first directed
to examine into the state of the sick man's conscience ;
and, if it be burdened by any weighty matter, to
inpve him to a special confession ; and, if he humbly
desire it, to pronounce his absolution in the mpst au
thoritative terms: And here, my Lord, I cannot help
observing the deUcate sensibUity which marks the
" Comparative View " on this subject. In the whole of
the text of that book, not one single word on absolu-
tipn is to be seen. The sentence I have just quoted
from our Communion Service is given, until it
arrives at the naention of absolution, but is there cut
short, as the poet describes the traveller turning sud
denly aside from his path at the sight of a serpent
stretched across his way. My Lord, no feelings of this
sort dictated our forms at the Reformation, nor did any
such scruples influence the best champions of her cause.
Bishop Jewel has asserted the doctrine of absolution
in its fuU force in his " Apology ; " Lord Bacon, who
had no small share in that great work of Reformation,

176
has done the same ; and, as he tells us in his " Paci
fication," " notwithstanding it was one of the points
most strongly objected to by the adheirents of the
Presbytery." When TiUotson, then Dean of Canter
bury, attended Lord Russel in his last moments,
previous to his execution, and had just administered
to him the Sacrament, he asked him " if he be
lieved all the Articles of the Christian Faith, as
taught by the Church of England? " He answered,
" Yes, truly." He then asked him, " if he forgave aU
persons ; " " That," he said, " he did from his heart;"
Then the Dean told him " he hoped he would dis
charge his conscience in full and free confession ? "
He said that " he had done it ; " meaning with Dr.
Burnet. Lord Russel did not meet death like a
man weighed down by the burden of conscious guUt,
nor does he appear to have given to TiUotson any
intimation of a troubled conscience. Your Lordship
wiU, therefore, observe how far the notions of these
great men, as to the duties and office of a minister of
our Church, were at variance with those rules which
you would prescribe, or that interpretation which
you have laboured to attach to the words of our
rubric: " If a minister of the EstabUshed Church
were desired to pray with a sick person, and that
sick person gave no intimation of a troubled con
science, or a want of spiritual relief, the minister
would not be authorized, by the rubric, even to
recommend a special confession. It would be a most
impertinent and unjustifiable prying into secrets,
with which he is no otherwise concerned, than as the
patient himself requires his assistance." Such is

177
your Lordship's direction to a clergyman visiting the
bed of sickness and of death. Even if he has the
strongest reason to suppose the wretched individualj
whom he visits, to have committed the most grievous
sin, by some particular act of his past Ufe, he is nbtj
without incurring your censure of impertinence, to
make any inquiry into it, nor even to remind him of
the state and condition of his soul, unless the dying
man first begins the subject, and opens it himself.
My Lord, I must, for one, plead guilty to many a
charge of this sort of impertinence. Often, in my
ministerial office, have I found a poor dying sinner
but very little sensible of his guilt ; often has it fallen
to my lot to know the sort of life that he has led ;
and yet to find no disposition to enter upon the cata
logue of his sins, or even to admit them to be such,
as being what others also are every day committing.
I have never hesitated to point out to him such
and such offences, to ask him if he had not
been addicted to such and such habits of
transgression ; to press upon him their character
and their consequences, and to move him to
employ the httle remainder of his life in ackriow-
ledgement, in penitence, and in prayer ; and more
especially have I done this, before I have thought it
right to admit him to partake the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper. Whether I have thus been an imper
tinent and officious minister of God's Word, prying
into secrets with which 1 had no concern, and acting
in contravention of the injunctions of my Church, I
am stiU not quite satisfied to leave to the decision of
the author ofthe " Comparative View;" and I hope
N

178
to be pardoned, if I prefer to foUow the examples I have
already urged, and am now about to urge further. A
few years ago, the Delegates of the Clarendon
Press, in Oxford, pubUshed, by their high authority,
a book entitled " The Clergyman's Instructor, or a
Collection of Tracts on the Ministerial Duties."
One of these Tracts, thus sanctioned and recom
mended, " as serviceable to the advancement of true
rehgion, and a due honouring of the Church as by
law estabUshed in this realm," is the " Tractatus de
Visitatione Infirmorum'' of Dr, Steame, wh« was
successively Bishop of Dromore and Clogher, and
Vice-ChanceUor of the University of DubUn. To
that tract is an Appendix, " De varus Modis addu-
cendi iEgrotos ad Agnitionem, et ubi fuerit necessaria,
ad Confessionem Peccatorum." My Lord, the whole,
both of this tract, and ofthe Appendix, is so directly
in the very teeth of your declared sentiments, that I
know not where to select a sentence that may best
show it ; but I wUl earnestly refer you to that work
itself, and just point out that, at p. 414, you
wUl find it thus addressing its admonitions to the
pastor: " Agat plenius et explicatius de absoluta
necessitate illius quod suaserit scrutinu, deque Ulius
utilitate, atque etiam de commodis, quae ex Ubera et
aperta admissorum confessione non immerito sperare
poterit. Disseratque etiam de imprudentid, seu
potius dementia eorum, qui socordia, metu, pudore,
aut aha quavis causa impediti officus tam necessariis
tam utilibus defuerint," At p. 417, you will find,
" Si aegroto defuerit voluntas confitendi peccati, quae,
nt recte ei ccwisul^tur, revelari oporteat ; inquirenduiT}

179
est parocho, quam iUe ob causam ea noUt detegere."
And as to the absolution of the sick, you wiU find, at
p. 400, the foUowing direction: " lUis de quorum
poenitentia, quin vera fuerit, non jure dubitatur, pro-
nuntianda est absolutio, si obnix^ cam petierint;
eaque, ne perperam inteUigatur ut plurimum exponi
debet; et proponi possit tanquam absoluta respectu
eorum delictorum, quae Ecclesiae scandalum pepe-
rerunt ; et respectu aliorum omnium peccatorum tan
quam authoritativa." How little, if your Lordship's
sentiments be correct, must either the Bishop of
Clogher, or the whole body of the Oxford delegates,
including Bishops, Professors, and Heads of Colleges,
have known about the doctrines of the Church of
England ! ! !
And now comes " the last engine of spiritual
tyranny in the Church of Rome," which your Lord
ship has found it expedient to bring forward in
proving that our churches are fundamentally distinct,
not in single articles of faith only, but in the very
basis upon which that Faith rests, and that the Ca
tholics of Great Britain and Ireland cannot be
safely admitted to the civU rights and privUeges of
the state. This, my readers wUl be pleased to find,
is that " horrid tribunal of the Inquisition." I say
pleased, because, as it never was introduced into
this country, even in the most gloomy periods of its
CathoUcity, and, though the reUgion of the Church
of Rome, was the reUgion of our forefathers during
more than a thousand years, I do not think they wiU
be much alarmed by any apprehensions about it at
N 2

180
the present moment, and rather be inclined to think
how desperate is that cause which can resort to such
an argument to support it. I shall offer not one
word upon the subject, but leave most readily to
your Lordship whatever benefit your theory can
derive from its assistance. And as Uttle am I dis
posed to enter into the sad history of those mutual
persecutions, by which both Catholics and Protes
tants, both of this and other countries, murdered
one another under the pretences of zeal towards God,
and the benefit of pure rehgion. Whoever wishes
to see this argument stated with precision, and iUus-
trated with accuracy and truth, will find it in a
small unassuming pamphlet, entitled " A Letter to
the Electors of Aylesbury, on the Catholic Question,"
by George Lord Nugent ; a nobleman, over whose
dawning talents and virtues I formerly watched
with no small anxiety, and whose present friendship
constitutes no small portion of the happiness of my
life. I know him, and could not say less ; I love
him, and could say much more.
From this passage last commented on, to the
close of your book, the whole is little or nothing
else than the discussion of that great political
question which has been, during the whole time in
which I have been writing these remarks, under
going, in the hands of the legislature, a consideration
suited to its weight and dignity. To the decisions
of that great and enhghtened body I shall entirely
leave it; the motives that have influenced my
thoughts, and guided my pen, have not been political
7

181
but religious.. Your Lordship iriay consistently
argue the question as a legislator ; I shall do so only
as a minister of Christ. Whatever reflections are
here found wiU be but little influenced, therefore,
either by the success or the rejection of the bill to
which I allude. If it should succeed, the members
of the Church of Rome shaU have my sincere con
gratulations ; and I hope that we shall, by a more
intimate connexion in the things that are temporal^
be led to approximate more nearly also in those
that are eternal, I trust that charity and goodwiU
will more and more abound ; and I am sure, as far
as religion is concerned, that nothing can more pro
mote it than a fair and candid inquiry into those
points by which we have long been supposed, without
being really so, to be irreconcileably divided, I trust
that we shall also turn our eyes more to those in which
there is no difference at all between us, instead of
dwelling upon the very few which may not be recon-
cUed. If your Lordship's book, after collecting every
possible point of difference, and then urging them as
a ground of continued hostility and exclusion, had
but devoted a few pages to the infinitely greater
points in which we are identified, it would surely
have merited more justly the title of a " Comparative
View," And if, instead of stating and insisting that,
whilst the Church of England has changed and
become more tolerant, the Church of Rome has not,
and cannot change one tittle, you had remembered
that the best and only correct comment upon the
principles, whether of governments or of churches.

182
at any given period in their practice, you would not
have directed us to continue to judge each other by
the number of heretics burnt on one side by Queen
Mary, and on the other by Queen Elizabeth, when
religious persecutions are now equaUy unknown in
every sect and every country that is Christian,
As to the position " that the Church of Rome is
not, and cannot be changed, because there is no
authority which can make that alteration, except
another general council, whUst the Parliament has
from time to time altered our own," the plain un
questioned fact is, that both churches have changed,
and most materially, if not by positive declaration
and enactments, yet, by what is infinitely more im
portant — iby positive practice. As to the Church of
England, witchcraft, magic, and incantations, which
were once insisted on, beheved, preached against,
and legislated on, as works qf the devil, are now no
more heard of. Popish recusants are stUl expressly
directed to be sought out and presented for punish
ment by the constable of every parish, in the com
mission of his office ; but let me ask what would
your Lordship do with one if he should be brought
before you, though the laws against them have re
mained unrepealed ? The divine right of kings, and
the doctrines of non-resistance, which were formerly
urged as revelations of Scripture, and the undoubted
law of God, where are they now? In 1662 the
University of Oxford gravely debated, in fuU con
vocation, tills proposition, as a religious question :
" Subditis merd privatis, si tyrannus tanquam latro
5

183
aut stupr&tor, in ipsos faciat impetum, et ipsi nee po-
testatem ordinaiiam implorare nee alia ratione effu-
gere penculum, possint, in praesenti periculo se et
sues contra tyrannum, sicut contra privatum gras-
satorem, defendere licet." The conclusion at which
they arrived was not only, " haec propositio est falsa*
periculosa, impia ; " but they decreed that na man
should be admitted to academic offices or honours,
who should not make a declaration so to maintain it.
I beheve no statute of the University has ever been
made to repeal this ; but the house of convocation,
with aU its zeal of loyalty, would be not a little
staggered by such a decision being now considered
as the definition of their opinions. I mention these
things only to show that sentiments, and even
principles, whether civil, political, or religious, are
often, by the course of circumstances and society,
modified and changed, without any authoritative or
public declarations of their being so. " Tempera
mutantur, et nos mutamur in iUis."
As to the authority of a general council being
indispensable to any alteration in the Church of
Rome, let Bishop Jewell answer it in his own
words. " Inquies injussu pontificis et concilii nefas
erat in religione voluisse quicquam immutare. , Imo
vero pontifices ipsi universum prope statum primitivae
ecclesiae sini ullo concilio mutaverunt," * The
Bishop, indeed, is speaking of the introduction of
* Epist, Episc. Juelli de Con, Trident. This Epistle is
annexed to Brent's translation of Sarpi's History.

184
corruptions and abuses ; but if popes could, and did
once introduce them, both popes, and even the
laity, may at least equally remove them without a
general council, and have, in this country at least,
most extensively done so. Where are now the
miracles of springs and weUs ? Who now visits, in
barefoot pUgriraages, the Lady of Walsingham, or
the Tomb of Becket ? Where are the processions
of the host, the prostrations before images, the
veneration for bones and relics, and, above aU,
those mighty thunders of the Vatican, that once
made even kings tremble, and suspended, by an
interdict, the rites and offices of rehgion through a
whole kingdom ? If your Lordship can stiU show
us these things as reaUy existing, then the argu
ment you urge is good ; if not, then has the Church
of Rome really and effectuaUy, because practically,
changed; then has not the Catholic remained the
unmoved spectator of general improvement, without
sharing its influence, nor clung to primaeval dark
ness amidst the blaze of surrounding light.
Lastly, my Lord, I have one request to make
before I say fareweU; and, as to polemical discus
sions, fareweU for ever. Let me not be considered
as having, without sincere regret, felt myself obhged
to urge much that has here been given, and let me
crave your indulgence if I have in any instance gone
beyond the bounds of fair and lawful criticism.
My wish was only to do justice to my own faith,
which needs no misrepresentation of the faith of
others to support it ; and which can never be recom-

185
mended by such means. If, on the other hand, a
more fair and candid comparison of our respective
tenets can tend to concihate both part;ies, the
common interests of truth are promoted, the
common bonds of mutual charity are strengthened ;
and, what I mention last, though not least in
my reflections, we shall be better disposed mu
tually to support each other in the common
cause of church government against that of no
chnrch government at all, if ever such a struggle
should arrive. My firm conviction is, that it is not
from the Church of Rome that the Church of
England has to apprehend her danger. The current
seems to me to be setting in from a very different
quarter, and to demand from us every precaution
on one hand, and every exertion on the other, to save
us from being swept away by the deluge of its
waters. Further, let me not be considered as in
clined to sacrifice one atom of our pure and primitive
system of faith and worship, even for all that either
pohcy might suggest, or the false notions of Uber-
ality and concession dictate. I may differ from your
Lordship in the construction of some of our Church
principles, and in the application of some of her
doctrines to particular cases ; I do not differ from you
in zeal for her prosperity, or in veneration of her
forms ; nor have I sacrificed in this inquiry one atom
either of her faith or discipline. But in contrasting
my faith with that of others, I would gladly foUow
the advice of that great and wise man, Lord Bacon,
and " make our contentions those of the olive and

186
of the vine, not of the thistle and briar, which
irritate and annoy without any benefit, and are fit
only for the sohtudes of the barren waste."
I am, my Lord
Your Lordship's very obedient
And faithful Servant,
GEORGE GLOVER.
Soiuhrepps,
April 5 th, 1821.

THE END.

ERRATUM,
Page 90, last line but one, /or your, read that.

187
PUBLISHED BY
BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY.

LECTURES on the PRINCIPLES and INSTITUTIONS
of the ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION ; with an Appen
dix, containing Historical and Critical Illustrations. By Joseph
Fletcher, MA. 8vo. Price 9*. boards. The Second Edi
tion, corrected and enlarged.
A HISTORY of the JESUITS ; to which is prefixed, a Reply
to Mr. Dallas's Defence of the Order. In 2 vols. 8vo. Price
IZ, 4«,
DISCOURSES on the THREE CREEDS, and on the
Homage offered to our Saviour on certain and particular Occa
sions, during his Ministry, as expressed in the Evangelical Writ
ings by the Greek Term nPOSKTNEii. Preached before the
University of Oxford at St. Mary's, in the Years 1816, 1817.
"With a copious and distinct Appendix to each set of Sermons.
By Edward Nares, DD. select Preacher, Regius Professor of
Modern History in the University of Oxford, and Rector of
Biddenden, Kent. In 8vo. Price 10*. 6d.
An ENQUIRY, chiefly on PRINCIPLES of RELIGION,
into the Nature and Discipline of Human Motives. By the Rev.
John Penrose, MA. formerly of C. C. C. Oxford, and Author
of ^the Bampton Lecture Sermons for 1808, 8vo, Price 10s. 6d.
*,* Tlie object of this work is to supply a manifest desideratum in
Moral and Theological Science, by sliewing systematically the connection
between the Principles of Religion and those of Virtue. '
The CHRONOLOGY of our SAVIOUR'S LIFE ; or, an
Enquiry into the true Time of the Birth, Baptism, and Cruci
fixion, of Jesus Christ. By the Rev. C. Benson, MA. of
Trinity College, Cambridge ; Author of an Inquiry into the Sa
crament of Baptism, In 8vo. Price 6s. boards.
TWENTY DISCOURSES, preached before the University
of Cambridge in 1820, at the Lecture founded by the Rev.
John Hulse. By the Rev. C Benson, MA. late of Trinity
College, and now Fellow of Magdalen College, Cambridge,
In 8vo. Price I2s. boards.

188
CHRISTIAN ESSAYS. By the Rev. Samuel Charles
WiLKS, AM. of St. Edmund Ilall, Oxford. In 2 vols. 8vo.
Price 14*.
OBSERVATIONS on the CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.
By Mary Cornwallis, of Rye, Sussex. In 4 vols. 8vo. The
Second Edition, revised and corrected. Price 21. 2s.
SERMONS. By the Rev, Thomas Boys, AM. of Trinity
College, Cambridge. 8vo. Price lOs. 6d. boards.
The SKETCH of the DENOMINATIONS of the
CHRISTIAN WORLD. To which is prefixed, an Outline of
Atheism, Deism, Theophilanthropism, Mahometanism, Judaism,
and Christianity ; with a Persuasive to Religious Moderation.
By John Evans, LLD. &c. Embellished with a new Engrav
ing of Eight Heads; the Fourteenth Edition, with the Addition
of an Account of the Sauds, an Indian Sect, resembling the
Quakers ; of the Recent Seceders from the Church of England ;
and of the Jerkers and Barkers in the United States of America.
18mo. Price 6s. boards.
SERMONS. By the late Charles Wesley, AM. Student
of Christ Church, Oxford ; with a Memoir of the Author, by
the Editor, In crown Svo. Price 7s.
LECTURES on the TEMPER and SPIRIT of the
CHRISTIAN RELIGION ; first written and delivered to the
Inmates of a large public Asylum, now published and addressed
to the numerous Parties which agitate and divide this Empire.
By William Allen, EM, RM. SE,, &c. Author of " Outlines
of a Course of Lectures on Chemical Philosophy," &c. Small
Svo. Price 8s.
LETTERS to a FRIEND, on the Evidences, Doctrines, and
Duties ofthe Christian Religion, By Olinthus Gregory, LLD.
Of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, In 2 vols, 8vo.
Price lis. boards. -The Third Edition, with Corrections and
Additions. SCRIPTURE CHARACTERS; or, a Practical Improve
ment ofthe principal Histories in the Old and New Testaments.
By Thomas Robinson, MA. Vicar of St. Mary's, Leicester.
New Edition. (Containing a Biographical Account of the Au
thor.) In 4 vols, Svo. Price '21. 2s. boards,
FEMALE SCRIPTURE BIOGRAPHY; including an
Essay on what Christianity has done for Women, By Francis
Augustus Cox, AM. In 2 vols. Svo. Price ll. 4s,

C. Balthvin, Printer,
New^Bridge-street, Lontlon.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 7644