MASTER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-81110 MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: NEWMAN, JOHN HENRY TITLE: TRACT XC: ON CERTAIN PASSAGES... PLACE: LONDON DA TE : 1888 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIDLIOGRAPHIC MICROiFORM TARCRT Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ " ■ ■ ■ ■" ■ I. I ■ ■ ■ ... I I -^ ,,. v^ 1 ,^3.7^A^e\A}rn^ri,4okrj^Heri:c)L^-eE^^ 1801-904 NAr'o'^ |Tr5»c^ 90 on certTim pass^^es in' .the 89 ^irticjles, with ?i Inistoric^tl prefece by j Rev. E.B.PuSev... ?ind Catholic subscription xo ? the 39 Micles... by ^:be Hev. J. Keble. .London 188^. 0.i ) 48t8'?+26p. L Restrictions on Use: > TECI-INICAL MICI^OFORM DATA REDUCTION RATIO: HJ^ FILM SIZE: 3_^^^ IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA UIA) IB IIB DATE FILMED:_Ag7_/^_ INITIALS_>W_'li_C HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOQDDRIDGE. CT c Association for Information and image IWanagement 1 1 00 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1 1 00 Silver Spring. Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 mm LiiJ T iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii T Inches hmjmjimj^^ TTTTl 1.0 llllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIII I.I 1.25 2.5 12.2 2.0 ttittu 1.8 1.4 1.6 TTT I I I I I I I I I 5 I MfiNUFflCTURED TO fillM STflNDflRDS BY APPLIED IMAGE- INC. J'-J* W£^f^\ m T^- i'« .,>w^' Columtita (Hnttietscftp THE LIBRARIES liliraru. 1?^"" «^^: 455^' TRACT XC. ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN THE XXXIX ARTICLES. BY THB REV. J. H. NFAVMAN, B.D. 1841. WITH 5| A HISTORICAL PREFACE. BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. (REVISED.) AND CATHOLIC SUBSCRIFITON TO THE XXXIX ARTICLES CONSIDERED IN llEFERENCE TO TRACT Xa BY THB 4 # REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. 1811. 3fonbon: WALTER SMITH AND INNES, (late Mozley), 31 & 32, BEDFORD STREET, STRAND, W.a 1888. < \ 1%^ LON'DON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND S0N8, LIMITED, •TAMFORD 8TRRKT AND CBikRIKO CROee. ! .1 I \ A i. ADVERTISEMENT. Tt is not Nvithout ag.-ave cause, that I renew the mmory of sorrows, mistakes, and strong and (as I think) ill-consi- dered measures, themselves long since past, but abiding in their effects. The re-awakened interest in Tract 90 within the Church of England, attested by its recent reprint in the United States and by the wish which has been felt in Eng. land that it should be reprinted amongst us, will justify, I fust, an explanation of the circumstances which occasioned the original prejudice enteitained but too widely against it • f..r to republish it without some such explanation, would be but to re-awaken those sleeping impressions about it. This has already been a result of its republication in the United States, where a paper, apparently a Church organ, notices the fact, only to censure Tract 90 in the terms fnr,„erly used about it. To myself, also.-when engaged ..pon a general defence of the Articles in my recent Eire- nicn, and giving the exposition of certain of them which had, in the main, commended itself independently, but co. incidently, to the Author of Tract 90. J. Keble, and myself -it appeared very desirable to republish that Tract. In it, A 2 ^ ADVERTIS EMENT. I the exposition wliich, in its main outlines, we had severally adopted, was put forth, for the most part, with all thaf marked precision of thought which characterized its writer. ' I say, '' for the most part," on account of one purposed exception, which I shall come to presently. I therefore obtained the leave of the Author to reprint the Tract, with which he had himself no further concern ; but the reprint- ing of which, or any comments upon it, could in no way commit him, since he has given his own account of it in his Apglogia ^ For the foUowing observations I alone am responsible, having purposely abstained from consulting him upon the subject. * Apologia, pp. 158 — 174. rilEFACE. A QUARTER of a ccntury has all but elapsed since Newman, in Tract 90, proposed explanations of certain of the Arti- cles, some of which bear upon things taught in the Roman Church, some, not. Various circumstances concurred to prevent his work being then appreciated as it deserved. We had all been educated in a traditional system whictt had practically imported into the Articles a good many principles which were not contained in them nor suggested by them, yet which were habitually identified with them. The writers of " The Tracts for the Times,"" as they became more acquainted with Antiquity and the Fathers, gradually and independently of one another laid these aside. Thus, when we learned the value of genuine tradition, we ex- amined the Articles, and found that Arti cle VI^ so far from maintaining " private judgment,"'' or that " Scripture is its own interpreter,""* rather implied the contrary, and that Article XX., by asserting that "the Church hath authority in controversies of faith,"*"* emphatically denied unlimited private judgment. As we knew more of the authority which the GGcumenical Councils had ever had in \he Church, we came to observe that the XX 1st Article, in declaring that " General Councils may err, and sometimes have erred,'" implied at least that some Councils had nevei erred, such as those which had established the faith which the Church received. In like way, we saw that since meo /- V fi PREFACE. could not be justified by a dead faith, when Article XI. said that we were ** justified by faith only,'*' it must mean, \/ "justified by a living faith, i. e. a faith working by love,*' of wEiiSIi the Apostle speaks. We proposed no system to ourselves, but laid aside, piece by piece, the system of ultjra- Protestant interpretation, which had encrusted round the Articles. This, doubtless, appeared in our writings from time to time, but the expositions to which we were accustomed, and which were, to our minds, the genuine expositions of the Articles, had never before been brought into one focus, as they were in Tract 90. What was to us perfectly natural was, to others who had not examined the Articles from the same point of view as ourselves, un- natural. They as honestly thought that the system, which had been imported into the Articles, really lay in them, as we were honestly satisfied that it did not. Only we had examined the Articles, in order to see whether or no they contradicted other truths ; they who did not believe those other truths, had no occasion to examine them in this aspect, and consequently had not so examined them. This was quite natural. Popular books upon the Articles, to which all were accustomed, which had been emj)loyed as text-books in reading the Articles, such as Tomline's, or Burners, which came in subsequently, (in our day it was not used, as being held to be unsound,) were on their side, not on ours. Only, when the time came, and our exposi- tions were before them, they ou«;lu, before condemning them, to have examined them, and that, not superfi- cially, or on preconceived or traditional notions about the Articles, but comparing them strictly and conscientiou.sly with the Utter of the Articles, as we had. But we had had an interest in so doing, to vindicate our Church from unsoundness as to any Catholic truth ; they had no such interest, and dreaded, conscientiously from their point of view, our daily -growing influence. PREFACE. vu As soon as the attack of the "Four Tutors'' made it apparent that the Tract was likely to be misappre- hended, Newman explained, that it was written solely against this system of interpretation, which brought mean- ings into the Articles, not out of them, and also why he wrote it at all. After stating that he thought that such of our Articles as were antagonistic to things taught in the Church of Rome, were directed against a traditional system in it, which went beyond the letter of its decrees, although it pointed their meaning, he added * : " I should not be honest if I did not add, that I consider our own Church, on the other hand, to have in it a traditionary system, as well as the Homaii, beyond and beside the letter of its formularies, and to be ruled by a spirit far inferior to its own nature. And this tradi- tionary system, not only inculcates what I cannot conceive, but would exclude any difference of belief from itself. To this exclusive modern system, I desire to oppose m>self; and it is as doing this, doubtless, that I am incurring the censure of the Four Gentlemen who have come before the public. I want certain points to be left open which they would close. I am not speaking for myself in one way or another; I am not examining the scripturalness, safety, propriety, or expedience of the points in question ; but I desire that it may not be supposed as utterly unlawful for such private Christians as feel they can do it with a clear conscience, to allow a comprecation with the Saints as Bram- hall does, or to hold with Andrewes that, taking away the doctrine of Transubstantiation from the Mass, we shall have no dispute about the Sacrifice ; or with Hooker to treat even Transubstantiation as an opi- nion which by itself need not cause separation; or to hold with Ham« mond that no General Council, truly such, ever did, or shall err in any matter of faith ; or with Bull, that man was in a supernatural state of grace before the full, by which he could attain to immortality, and that he has recovered it in Christ; or with Thorndike, that works of humiliation and penance are requisite to render God again propitious to those who fall from the grace of Baptism; or with Pearson, that the Name of Jesus is no otherwise given under Heaven than in the Catho- lic Church. " In thus maintaining that we have open questions, or as I have ex- pressed it in the Tract, 'ambiguous foruiularies,' I observe, first, that I am introducing no novelty. For instance, it is commonly said that. * Letter to Dr. Jelf, in c:;planatiun of No. 90, &c., pp. 17—49. / JUl PREFACE. *> jr the Articles admit botTi Arminians and Calvinists; the prinelpU then iS admitted, as indeed the Four Gentlemen, whom I have several times noticed, themselves observe. I do not think it a greater latitude than this, to admit those who hold, and those who do not hold, the points above specified. " Nor, secondly, can it be said that such an interpretation throws any uncertainty upon the primary and most sacred doctrines of our reli- gion. These are consigned to the Creed; the Articles did not define them; they existed before the Articles; they are referred to in the Articles as existing /ac/*, just as the broad Roman errors are referred to; but the decrees of Trent were drawn up after the Articles." In the same letter Newman stated, that the ground why he wrote the Tract at all, was to meet a wish "• earnestly set before him by parties whom he revered *."' ** I may be wrong in my conviction, I mny be wrong in the mode I adopt to meet it, but still the Tract is grounded on the belief that the ' Articles need not be so closed as the received method of teaching ; closes them, and ought not to be for the sake of many persons. If we j will close them, we run the risk of subjecting persons whom we should least like to lose or distress, to the temptation of joining the Church of Rome, or to the necessity of withdrawing from the Church as esta- blished, or to the misery of subscribing with doubt and hesitation. And, as to myself, I was led especially to exert myself with reference to this difficulty, from having had it earnestly set before me by par- ties I revere, to do all I could to keep members of our Church from straggling in the direction of Rome ; and, as not being able to pursue the methods commonly adopted, and as being persuaded that the view of the Articles I have taken is true and honest, I was anxious to set it before them. I thought it would be useful to them, without hurting any one else. ** I have no wish or thought to do more than to claim an aduUssion for these persons to the right of subscription. Of course I should rejoice if the members of our Church were all of one mind; but they are not; and till they are, one can but submit to what is at present the will, or rather the chastisement, of Providence. And let me now implore my brethren to submit, and not to force an agreement at th©- risk of a schism." There is another fact, which I will mention, as having been an occasion of the misconception of Tract 90, at its ' Letter to Dr. Jelf, in explanation of No. 90, &c., pp. 28, 29. PREFACE. IX first appearance. In its first edition, Newman drew no line as to what Article XXII. rejected, and what it admitted of. He ever shrank from being a leader; and especially he wished not to encourage young men, upon his own well-deserved authority, to go to the verge of what the Church of England did not condemn, although she did not sanction it. In the second edition, however, before any ad- verse opinion had been expressed, although not before preju- dices had arisen, Newman, at the instance of others (partly perhaps my own), supplied this, marking his alterations by the brackets which have been retained in the present edition. Two circumstances precipitated men's judgments be- yond recall. By an unhappy combination, two tutors, of the as yet undeveloped "broad'' (which in some of its members has become the half-believing or un-believing) party, and two, I believe, of the Evangelical \ printed a joint memorial to " the Editor of the Tracts for the Times," requesting him to make known the name of the writer of Tract 90. The ground of their memorial was, — "This publication is entitled * Remarks on certain passages in the Thirty-nine Articles,* and as these Articles are appointed by the statutes of the University to be the text-book for Tutors in their Theo- logical teaching, we hope that the situations we hold in our respective Colleges will secure us from the charge of presumption in thus coming forward to address you. " The Tract has in our apprehension a highly dangerous tendency, from its suggesting, that certain very important errors of the Church of Rome are not condemned by the Articles of the Church of England : for instance, tliat those Articles do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines ; ^ 1. Of Purgatory, 2. Of Pardons, 3. Of the Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, 4. Of the Invocation of Saints, 5. Of the Mass, » I used the word *• party " simply to express the general character of a person's theology, not as ascribing to individuals that they acted in A party way. In this sense, I suppose, I am informed, that one of these two carefully stood aloof from all party.— Ed. 2. I % PREFACE. \ as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome ; but only of certain absurd practices and opinions which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do. It is intimated, moreover, that tlie De- claration prefixed to the Articles, so far as it has any weight at all, sanctions this mode of interpreting them, as it is one which takes them in their * literal grammatical sense,' and does not 'affix any new senses * to them. Tlie Tract would thus appear to us to have a ten- dency to mitigate, beyond what charity requires, and to the prejudice of the pure truth of the Gospel, the very serious differences which separate the Church of Rome from our own, and to shake the con- fidence of the less learned members of the Church of England in the Scriptural character of her formularies and teaching. We readily admit the necessity of allowing that liberty in interpreting the formularies of our Church, which has been advocated by many of its most learned Bislvops and eminent Divines; but this Tract puts forth new and startling views as to the extent to which that liberty may be carried. For if we are right in our apprehension of the author's meaning, we are at a loss to see what security would remain, were his principles generally recognized, that the most plainly erroneous doctrines of the Church of Rome might not be inculcated in the lecture-rooms of the University and from the pulpits of our Churches." To this Newman replied with a courtesy and humility which, after a lapse of twenty-four years, is still touching ; but with the most entire and absolute contradiction * — "Four Gentlemen, Tutors of their respective Colleges, have pub- lished a protest against the Tract in question. I have no cause at all to complain of their so doing, though, as I shall directly say, I con- sider that they have misunderstood me. They do not, I trust, suppose that I feel any offence or soreness at their proceeding ; of course, 1 naturally think that I am right and they are wrong ; but this persua- sion is quite consistent both with my honouring their zeal for Christian truth and their anxiety for the welfare of our younger members, and with my very great consciousness that, even though I be right in my principle, I may have advocated truth in a wrong way. Such acts as theirs when done honestly, as they have done them, must benefit all parties, and draw them nearer to each other in good will, if not in opinion. But to proceed to the subject of this letter. " I propose to offer some explanation of the Tract in two respects,— as to ite principal statement and its object. •' 1. These Four Gentlemen, whom I have mentioned, have misun- derstood me in so material a point, that it certainly is necessary to PREFACE. XI ♦ Letter to Dr. Jtlf, in explanation of No. 90, &c., pp. 1, 2. enter into the subject at some length. They consider that the Tract asserts that the Thirty-nine Articles " • do not contain any condemnation of the doctrines of Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Reliques, the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they are taught authoritatively by the Church of Rome, but only of certain absurd practices and opi- nions, which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do.' * " On the contrary I consider that they do contain a condemnation of the authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome on these points ;J_ only say that, whereas they were written before the decrees of Trent, they wer^ nqt_.4iiMlfid^gainst tJbo8e_decre^. The Church of Rom'e' taught authoritatively before those decrees, as well as since. Those decrees expressed her authoritative teaching, and they will continue to express it, while she so teaches. The simple question is, whether taken by themselves in their mere letter, they express it; whether in fact other senses, short of the sense conveyed in the present authorita- tive teaching of the Roman Church, will not fulfil their letter, and may not even now in point of fact be held in that Church." It appears from the context that Newman, at that time, used stronger language in regard to the practical Roman system than most of us, I believe, whose minds were natu- rally less bold, ventured to employ. I mention this only as illustrating the strong honesty of the Tract, which to me it ever seemed so strange that any could have doubted. So little did those who wrote or spoke against us know about • us. After again illustrating the difference between the Tridentine decrees and the practical system, he said once more *, — *'This disUiiction^ between the words of the Tridentine divines and the authoritative teaching of the present Church, is made in the Tract Itself, and would have been made in far stronger terms, had I not often before spoken against the actual state of the Church of Rome, or cmild I have anticipated the sensation which the appearance of the Tract has excited. I say, ' '" % 'lililA^i^jsh, doctrinej: is not meant the Tridentine doctrine, hecaus^his Article was draw i^^ up before the decreed the Council of LlJ^: ^^ ''iLwopposed is.jLh£.mLC/»l^^ of the day, and ««- /iuppily of this day too, or the doctrine of the Romafi Schools.'— p 04 -This doctrine of the Schools is at present, on the whole, the esta- V 1 • Letter to Dr. Jell, in eAplauution of No. UO. &c., pp. 9, 10. Xll PREFACE. PREFACE. XIII :i Wished creed of the Roman Church, and this I call Romanism of Popery, and against this I think the Thirty-nine Articles speak. I think they speak, not of certain accidental practices, but of a body and mbstance of divinity, and that traditionary, an existing ruling spiiit and view in the Church." . It would manifestly be a shocking abuse of the kindness which permits me to reprint Tract 90, to cite any language which the writer has since retracted in regard to the Roman Church, to which he has since submitted, as believing it to be the one Church of God. But the occurrence of that lan- guage in his explanation of the Tract should have^ checked the rash judgments which were passed upon it. Unhappily the Heads of Houses precipitated their condemnation of the Tract. The censure of Tract 90 by the Heads was issued on the Monday following that, on which the Four Tutors had addressed their memorial to the Editor of the Tracts. On Wednesday, March 10, the Vice- Chancellor laid before the Hebdomadal Board Tract 90, together with the memorial of the - Four Tutors.^' Two days afterwards, Friday, March 12, the decision on Tract 90 was passed, and a Committee was appointed to draw up formally the resolution in which (1) the " Tracts for the Times ^' should be disowned, (2) Tract^O_should be condemned, as *' evad- rather than explaining the Articles." On the next 111 meeting of the Hebdomadal Board, the following Monday, March 15, the resolution, embodying those two points which had been agreed upon, was issued. On the following day, March 16, Newman^s - Letter to Dr. Jelf " appeared. His' full explanation, that he did consider that the Thirty- nine Articles do contain a condenmation of authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome, upon the very subjects upon which the " Four Tutors^' had alleged that he sug- gested that they do noU was but a few hours too late. If the Heads had granted the respite of those few hours, which were needed in order to publish what, with his usual rapidity of execution, Newman had already in the press, it would have been impossible for them to condemn Tract 90 in the terms in which they did condemn it. For the ground of the censure was cut away. No one can tell how much of the subsequent history of the Church of England might not have been altered, had the respite of those few hours been granted. The Hebdomadal Board had their own choice of time ; no one awaited their decision, for no one had asked for it. Even the memorial of the " Four Tutors '' had not been addressed to them. They preferred to give the deci- sion, five days (Sunday included) from the time when one of their own members brought the subject before them. A note at the close of Newman's " Letter to Dr. Jelf '' says, " Since the above was in type, it has been told me that the Hebdomadal Board has recorded its opinion about the Tract." We had done what we could to obtain a hearing, or a suspension of the condemnation. I have been reminded, that I myself wrote to the then Vice- Chancellor on the Friday (March 12), upon which the Heads met to de- liberate upon Tract 90, giving an explanation of its bear- ings, what, in my belief, it did and what it did not intend *. For this letter no one is responsible but myself. I told Newman indeed my purpose of writing it, but I did not show it him, or tell him any thing of its contents. " My DEAR Mr. Vice-Chancellor, " Writings often appear so different, according to the impression with which one first takes them up, that I hope I shall not appear presuming upon your kindness, if I write to you a few lines on the Tract, which I understand has been the subject of discussion at your Board, knowing, as I do intimately, the mind of the writer. " His feelings were these ; ourjChurch has condemned nothing Catholic, but only Romish errors; yet there are certain opinions and practices, more or less prevailing in Catholic antiquity, having some relation to the later Romish error, which might seem to be condemned by our Articles, as they are often popularly understood. • I am enabled to publish this letter by the candour and courtesy of the individual to wliom it was addressed. / xiv PREFACE. •*This would be a subject of great perplexity to some mindf, and tend to alienate them from their Church, if she have indeed condemned what 18 Catholic. Such persons might — not merely be unable to sign the Articles, but — doubt whether they ought to remain in lay-com- munion with the Church, if she have so done. (I happen to know one such case, which would, as far as an individual can be, be a great blow and shock, where a person's doubts, whether he will remain in communion i^..ii our Church, turn on this very point.) Thus, as he has noticed, there are several opinions of there being some Purgatorial process before or at the Day of Judgment, whereby those who de- parted out of this life in an imperfect state, would be fitted for tlie Presence of God. Are all these (such an one would ask) condemned by our Church ? Again, it is very common to hear any high doctrine as to the Lord's Supper condemned as involving Transubstantiation, or Romanists enlist in support of their worship of saints all apostro- phes which one may find to departed saints in the Fatliers. •* Now, of course, you feel that it is an act of charity and duty to facilitate in any lawful way persons remaining in their Church; on other points we are content (and I think rightly) to allow our formu- laries to be construed laxly (I can have no doubt contrary to the meaning of their writers). Were, e.g., the strict meaning of the Baptismal Service enforced at once, how many valuable persons would forsake the Church ! In the imperfect state in which we are, they are patiently borne with. Why should we not deal equally patiently with another class, equally valuable ? Why, if a person do not hold the ' Romish doctrine of Purgatory ' to be Catholic, should he look upon himself as condemned by our Articles, if he hold the Greek view, or if he suppose that, at the Day of Judgment, those who are saved should pass through fire, in which those stained with much sin should suffer? Or (which is more likely) why should he be obliged to look on the Fathers who so hold as condemned by our Church ? The rejection of the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration is tolerated ; why may not the belief of some sort of Purgatorial process ? " Forgive my troubling you at this length, but I wished to show how the Tract had a practical bearing in relieving persons, whose mis- givings as to remaining in our Church, or even their scruples, every one would be glad to see removed. ** Believe me, my dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor, " With much respect, ** Yours very faithfully, •• E. B. PUSEY. " Oirist Church, " March 12, 1841. •* It can hardly be necessary to say, that neither the writer of tbt r i PREFACE. Wl«h„ II,,, 1,,^, ^^ of fl,« A- 'V ™^ °'^*''« condemnation of Tract 90 an^ wise or unwisp If K^^ u. *^"citever. Yet, whether ')-attr;rtS:L:;rforr*^^«-^«' opinions l,eld in the early Church no!,' T' '° '^''^ Roman doctrine ; 2) that ft ol c .C a A "'r '^"««^ one side which .as conceded. ^J^kIIII::^'^:: ''' conceded, in an opposite direction F„r ! ^ *" ""^ that the then evils in the OhurrcouW "! h"" """""'^ any measures of man • fhT u ^^ '^'"^^'^^ ^y hy the Spirit of God ' ' '' "' ''"''''' "^ ^^-'^^ ever saw S fI^'Z ''•''' '^ ''^^ "^^"^^ ('f 4 Jhe Artj-cies with the^^I^lTrr S^f " *^ designed to counteract," was in A! . ^ "'^''^ what I stated, that Trac't 9ol i„ rdtd^roTf-'" '" condemnation of opi^„s held inTS^^ chu t" ' what I called " the later Romish en^r ' '^f^"''*"''-?'?^?^ disclaimer, that the writer of Triron '^'' '" ""« ^eed this line of interprll'Tw: Z^ ^' ^ h^rri:s:d"ur -iz'' ^^-^^^'^'^^^^^ the latitudV c ml r;: '"'""' '" *'" '^"^^' ue Claimed by the interpretation of Art V ytt xvi PREFACE. of faith, and which I did not myself hold or practise, not to any interpretations which bore upon matters of faith. A contemporary letter, defending the proceedings of the Board, states that the resolution of Friday, March 12, " that they ought to censure the Tract in some public and official way,"' " was carried by nineteen against two '/'' Whether we then knew that this resolution was actually carried, I know not. A letter, written at the time to an absent friend, and giving a graphic account of the events of that eventful week, states that " as soon as it became known that the Heads meant to attack No. 90, Newman began writing a short pamphlet to explain its statements and objects, and let the Heads know that it was coming, through Pusey and the Provost of Oriel." This notice re- awakened as (such statements do) my own latent memories, far beyond the fact stated ; and T remember vividly my going to Newman, consulting with him, and obtaining his leave to ask the Provost of Oriel to request of the Board a delay of their judgment, until the author should be able to publish his explanation, and going straight to the Provosfs to make the application On the next day, March 14, Newman thought it best (as he told me) himself to inform the Provost of the forthcoming explanation, and of the ' " Two Letters concerning No. 90 in the series called Tlie Tracts for the Times (printed for private distribution only)," pp. 13, 14. The statement is that of the Rev. John Griffiths. I am glad to preserve the memory of what is, I believe, an undoubted fact, that the two who voted against the condemnation of Tract 90 (though the one is said to have disagreed from it, the other not to have been satisfied that he understood all its bearings) were the late respected Rector of Exeter, the Rev. Dr. Richards, and one of the Proctors, the Rev. E. A. Dayman, Fellow of Exeter. I understand, too, that Dr. Routh (who always sympathized so kindly with us, and, on some important occasions, gave us his name, as agreeing with us) was, although absent, adverse to the condemnation. PREFACE. ^ .. natuj^ wish of the author of the Tnuit, that-b fact he a ou d t be condemned without being heard. Thi'wt what the w,sh amounted to, though Newman expressed it in hi8 own retiring way. He wrote thus :— .'.e' w' '^Z') ""i"' """/"" ''"''"' •">- "-ot «>e Author of Board, as wr ten :'iT"'/' ""''''''"'' ''" ""-'■<>" "^ y" ■o hi. -that it should Z : L h. niVlTl '*'• "^ "'""'"* expressed on the subject by your Board burh,.^ T"'"" " P""'''^ it to your judgment." ' ' ^' " 1""* '='""^"' '» '-^"e The Provost of Oriel tells me. that in consequence of th-s note on Monday the 15th, "he moved the Board that a^l proceedings as to Traet 90 should be suspended, unti he publication of the author's promised explanation." ^ne . onTh T '" 7 "''P"^" '' "^^ '''^' ^' '^e time on the direct authority of ear-witnesses," that "the mmonty" who voted for the delay, "consist d of eithe hree or four " The fatal censure was accordingly ii ed I believe, early on March 16; and in the course orthj afternoon, "the Letter to Dr. Jelf " appeared, which con! tamed the explanations, for which that respite had been flv Lf ptrV." ' '""' "' '''' '''*^ »■•• Bl- on the fly-lea. Published m the afternoon of Tuesday, March 16. Less than twelve hours elapsed ' between the issue of the censure and the appearance of the explanation, which, ■ Two Letters, p. 15. • In the first edition I stated «* An inH*f«of« r • i , Newman tells me that Newman aVkeHoTt I. "^° ""' "^""^ ""■» self, and was refused them"" Thf, t . I '""'" '" '*?'"'" ••'■"- authoHty musthavtr„t,thiVerIrat^"^c:tr^^ amounted to "twelve hoiir« " a„ *i, tr i.^ * ^nicn, m eifect, i:"LTi h'wirerm?- r: -' -t^^- ^ --»- racts. which I have since ti^^UeZ ^.1:^^ " l\- XVI PREFACE. of faith, and which I did not myself hold or practise, not to any interpretations which bore upon matters of faith. A contemporary letter, defending the proceedings of the Board, states that the resolution of Friday, March 12, " that they ought to censure the Tract in some public and official way,'** " was carried by nineteen against two ^J^ Whether we then knew that this resolution was actually carried, I know not. A letter, written at the time to an absent friend, and giving a graphic account of the events of that eventful week, states that *' as soon as it became known that the Heads meant to attack No. 90, Newman began writing a short pamphlet to explain its statements and objects, and let the Heads know that it was coming, through Pusey and the Provost of Oriel." This notice re- awakened as (such statements do) my own latent memories, far beyond the fact stated ; and I remember vividly my going to Newman, consulting with him, and obtaining his leave to ask the Provost of Oriel to request of the Board a delay of their judgment, until the author should be able to publish his explanation, and going straight to the Provosfs to make the application On the next day, March 14, Newman thought it best (as he told me) himself to inform the Provost of the forthcoming explanation, and of the ' " Two Letters concerning No. 90 in the series called Tlie Tracts for the Times (printed for private distribution only)," pp. 13, 14. The statement is that of the Rev. John Griffiths. I am glad to preserve the memory of what is, I believe, an undoubted fact, that the two who voted against the condemnation of Tract 90 (though the one is said to have disagreed from it, the other not to have been satisfied that he understood all its bearings) were the late respected Rector of Exeter, the Rev. Dr. Richards, and one of the Proctors, the Rev. E. A. Dayman, Fellow of Exeter. I understand, too, that Dr. Routh (who always sympathized so kindly with us, and, on some important occasions, gave us his name, as agreeing with us) waS| although absent, adverse to the condemnation. PREFACE. .. A Vll natural wish of the author of the Tract, that-b fact he s ould not be condemned without being heard. This 'wa^ what the w,sh amounted to, though Newman expressed it in h.s own retirmg way. He wrote thus :- .l.e' w'iHTr';"'"^'' """ ""' ^'"""'^ ■'"- "><" 'he Author of Boarl , ; ' ' ' ""f""""^ " °-"P>"»g "'e attention of your .0 him -.hat it should be i your^.and TV" """ "'■ """' ''^'«""'"« expressed on the suhject; your Board buXu" T"'"" " '"""''"'' it to your judgment." "°"'*'"'''^' •""•>«" quite content to leave The Provost of Oriel tells me, that in consequence of ths note, on Monday the 15th, "he moved the Board that all proceedmgs as to Tra«t 90 should be suspended, unti tune on the direct authority of ear-witnesses," that "the nunonty' who voted for the delay, "consisted of either hree or four." The fatal censure was accordingly ii„ed I beheve,ear^ on March 16; and in the courle o7 thj afternoon, the Letter to Dr. Jelf " appeared, which con tamed the explanations, for which that respite had been wi h Ih T "' " T "-^"^^ '" ""'■ •^^'^" '« ««" extant! Zl f " ptrV." " ''"' "' '''' '^*^ ^'•- Bliss on thj %-Iea. "Pubhshed m the afternoon of Tuesday, March 16. Less than twelve hours elapsed ' between the issue of the censure and the appearance of the explanation, which, » Two Letters, p. 15. amounted to " twelve hours " A, th. u ul !? ' ' '" ®^^^'' (which would have been till l o r« ^u . oegan to sit .he time which .JziZ:^ n?;:rrf „ ' '"'-"'"'' ra=t.S which I have since either .earnedor freildlllVdT' "' PREFACE. XIX XVlll PREFACE. I believe, would have made that censure impossible in the form in which it was conceived. The condemnation was almost inconceivably precipitate. I do not mean to blame any one ; especially since twenty- four years have removed from this world so many who took part in that decision. But in the thought of what has been lost, what might have been, perhaps, saved, time but in- tensifies the sorrow, that those few hours were not granted. Whatever was the ground of this haste, so it was that, on the day before the explanation was to appear which should remove the charge of the Four Tutors, the Heads of Houses embodied their condemnation in one of those telling antitheses, which fix themselves in the minds of people who do not think for themselves. The condemnation ran, " Considering that it is enjoined in the statutes of this University (Tit. iii. 8, 2, Tit. ix. s. ii. § 3, s. v. § 3) that every student shall be instructed and examined in the Thirty-nine Articles and shall sub- scribe to them ; considering also that a Tract has recently appeared, dated from Oxford, and entitled ' Remarks on certain passages in the Thirty-nine Articles,' being No. 90 of the * Tracts for the Times,' a series of anonymous publications, purporting to be written by memben of the University f but which are in no way sanctioned by the University itself; ** Resolved, That modes of interpretation such as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty- nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors, which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned statutes." The significant disclaimer of the " Tracts for the Times" generally, as well as of No. 90 in particular, looks like the vent of a long-j ent-up wish to be free of us. For no one could imagine that the University sanctioned Tracts, printed and published in London, in which it could find nothing to condemn by any form of law, and to which no one of the contributors had affixed his initials, except myself, and Newman (at my suggestion upon the wish of others) to ao early Tract, which, however, he discontinued. I have, of course, no means of knowing whether the Heads ever read Newman ""s explanation, which showed the injustice of the charge of " evading rather than explaining the sense of the Articles."" I hope that, the censure having been passed, and no further proceedings being then to be founded upon it, tliey did not ; else it is inconceivable to me how they allowed the terms of that censure to stand, or how they could repeat the same charge four years afterwards. It appears from the letter of John Keble * (which was widely circulated at the time among the antagonists of Tract 90, although now first published), that the Heads of Houses knew that they were condemning the author of " The Christian Year,"" as well as Newman. John Keble had eagerly avowed to them, that he had given his hearty sanction to Tract 90, and had expressed his wish that it should be published. Other counsels prevailed. The car went on ; it mattered not, over whom its wheels should pass. It was rumoured at the time, (for the condemned knew little of the proceedings of the condemners, except that they were employed on the condemnation,) that the Heads of Houses were the more prompt in their condemnation, because, the '' Tracts for the Times'' being, with hardly any exception, anonymous, they thought that they might con- demn the Tract without a pointed condemnation of the author. If so, in this too they knew us not. Personally, it would not have been an added pang to any of us, to be himself condemned. Each would have preferred that it should be himself. All which any of us heeded was the condemnation of any of the principles or truths, which we held or taught, by any persons invested with any authority ; and this, not for our own sakes, but in view of the evil * I have obtained the consent of the writer to publish it, in times in many respects happily different, as illustrative of the mind and thought! of those whom Tract 90 represented. a 2 f I. i\. XX PREFACE. which would probably ensue. Nor could any one help knowing, of whose acute mind Tract 90 bore the impress. Keble too, and myself, whose styles were very different from that of each other and of Tract 90, had both written to the Heads, as to the Author, as distinct from ourselves. Few could doubt that the Author, whoever he was, must avow himself. Concealment would, in any case, have been un-English, and the writers, among whom the choice lay, were now but few. Newman'*s explanation in his letter to Jelf had been, like Tract 90, anonymous. He avowed him- self the author on the day on which the condemnation appeared, in a letter still touching for its humility. LETTER FROM THE REV. J. H- NEWMAN. " Mr. Vice-Chancellor, — I write this respectfully to inform you, that I am the author, and have the sole respon- sibility of the Tract on which the Hebdomadal Board has just now expressed an opinion, and that I have not given my name hitherto, under the belief that it was desired that I should not. I hope it will not surprise you if I say, that my opinion remains unchanged of the truth and honesty of the principle maintained in the Tract, and of the necessity of putting it forth. At the same time, I am prompted by my feelings to add my deep consciousness that every thing I attempt might be done in a better spirit, and in a better way ; and, while I am sincerely sorry for the trouble and anxiety I have given to the members of the Board, I beg to return my thanks to them for an act which, even though founded on misapprehension, may be made as profitable to myself as it is religiously and charitably intended. * 1 say all this with great sincerity, " And am, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, " Your obedient Servant, ** John Henry Newman. ••Oriel College, March 16th.** PREFACE. XXI The writer of the contemporary letter, who was living in society from which I had retired, wrote that this letter ** softened many people.'' Of the explanation he said : •'Soon after came out Newman's explanation in a letter to Jelf, his point being to defend himself against the charges, 1) of dishonesty and evasion, and 2) of wantonness. This has rather staggered people as to the immediate move. I think they feel that he has shown that tliey did not take quite time enough to understand his meaning; and he has brought together for their benefit in a short compass, and in a pamphlet which every body is sure to read, some disagreeable facts and statements from our Divines." Yet the blow was struck, and had gone home. The form which the Heads chose for their condemnation of the Tract involved this, in his own words. That " I had been posted up by the marshal on the buttery-hatch of every College of my University after the manner of discommoned pastry-cooks." The whole country rang with that '' evad- ing rather than explaining the sense of the Articles." *' Evading " is the special object of hatred to English honesty. Newman has summed up the result,—" > I saw clearly that my place in the Movement was lost ; public confidence was at an end ; my occupation was gone. It was simply an impossibility that I could say any thing henceforth to good effect, when &c." '' In » the last words of my letter to the Bishop of Oxford, I thus resigned my own place in the Movement.*" It is a common impression, and was my own, that Tract 90 was censured by the Heads of Houses in 1841, on ac- count of its explanations of those Articles alone, which bear upon Roman doctrine. It may have been so, since these subjects had been singled out by the " Four Tutors." It was so in the decree which was proposed to the University, at eight days^ notice, on Feb. 13, 1845, and which waJ vetoed by the Proctors. But in an intermediate docu- • Apologia, pp. 172, 3. • lb. p. 175. XXll PREFACE. PREFACE. XXIll ment, the Preamble to the test which the Heads promul. gated at the close of 1844, other "unsound opinions'' were expressly included, although not specified. It ran ♦, *• Since some have wrongly interpreted those Articles of Faith and Religion, wherein unsound opinions, and especially the errors of the Romanists, are censured, in such sort that they seem scarcely or not at all to oppose those errors/' &c. Since interpretations of the Articles, opposed to certain Roman doctrines, were especially condemned, they were of course not exclusively condemned. And what the Heads required by that test was, a declaration,—** I profess that I will subscribe— all and each of the Articles in the sense in which I firmly believe that they were originally published and are now proposed by the University as a certain and undoubted test of my opinions." So that if one thought that the framer of Article XVII. was an Augustinian, another, that he was a Calvinist, a third, that he was an Arminian, each must subscribe it in a different sense, according to his opinion as to the private opinions of the framers. The test applied to the interpretation of the Articles on Justification or on General Councils, as much as to Art. XXII. In each case, members of the University who were suspected by the authorities, (for these only were to subscribe it,) would have had to reject any interpretation of the Articles, other than that which he supposed to have been in the mind of the Framers, as indorsed by the domi- nant body in the University. Further, it appeared even from this Preamble, that others, besides the Author of Tract 90, were aimed at in the test. For it says, " since some, &c." This was brought * The Latin of that Preamble was, •' Quoniam vero articulos illos Fidei et Religionis, in qnibus reprehenduntur male sanse opinioues, et pra-sertim Romanensium errores, ita nonnuUi perperam intcrpretati •uut, lit erroribus istis vix aut ne vix quidem adversari vidcantnr," &'c. out more distinctly in the decree, proposed on Feb. 13, which implied moreover that we were therein opposed to **the true faith of the Gospel.'' The Preamble was worded : «• Whereas it is the declared purpose of this University to maintain and inculcate the true faith of the Gospel, and to this end it is enjoined in the statutes of the University that every student shall be instructed and examined in the Thirty-nine Articles, and shall subscribe to them on various occasions [referring to the several statutes], and v^hereas in the 90th number of the Tracts for the Times, entitled • Remarks on certain Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles,' modes of interpretation were suggested, and have since been advocated in other publications purporting to be written by Members of the University, by which sub- scription to the said Articles might be reconciled with the adoption of Roman Catholic Errors;— It is hereby declared and decreed," &c. Then followed the resolution of 1841', which was then to be passed as a decree of the University, had God so permitted. It is illustrative of the condemnation of Tract 90 by the Heads, that, at least in 1845, they proposed to the Uni- versity to condemn, not its Author alone, but its defenders en masse (such as the late W. B. Heathcote and myself), and so that no special opprobrium was tJien intended against Tract 90, except as the original delinquent. It is clear also, that the University would not have ratified this condemnation of Tract 90. The names of 554 Members of Convocation, who thanked the Proctors for their veto (among whom I have discovered three only who were at that time what is called "liberals" in matters of faith), show that the Heads judged rightly from their own point of view, in not raising the question again, when they had the opportunity a few months later ; for they would have been defeated. 2. The second fact, which aggravated and fixed the misinterpretation of Tract 90, was the comment put upon • Given above, ir p. xviii. V I XXIV PREFACE. PKEFACB. XXf Newman'*9 teaching in it by W. G. Ward, the author of '' The Ideal of the Christian Church." He had, before this, discovered, that he could not follow Newman, and had thereupon taken for his guide the Council of Trent. But he never dissociated the letter of the Council of Trent from that vast practical system, upon which some of its decrees bear, although it abstained from laying down any definite doctrine upon the several subjects. He, then, interpreted Tract 90 on the Roman side, as I defended it on the Eng- lish side. We both alike acted on our own responsibility. It appears now that Ward misinterpreted Tract 90 in two very serious ways ; (1) that he connected with it the claim to " hold all Roman doctrine/'' (including, apparently, the whole practical system, not the letter of decrees only,) whereas Newman has told us in his " Apologia,'*'' that he did not hold Transubstantiation until he had submitted to the Roman Church ; (2) by the use of the very offensive word "non-natural*.'"' So then the charge brought * Canon Oakeley has pointed out, that Ward first used the word " non-natural " in his " Ideal "in 1844, and therefore that it could not have increased the odium against Tract 90 in the interval between 1841 — 1844. It did anyhow afterwards. He says also that<*non- natural " interpretations are not therefore dishonest. True, if a person himself believes them to be " natural " interpretations. The interpre- tation of the words, " we yield Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holy Spirit," by **the judg- ment of charity " is unnatural, because all infants are alike incapable of good or evil, so that there is nothing upon which to exercise any judgment of charity. All is from the goodwill of God towards them all alike. But the interpretation is not dishonest in those, who can believe it to be true. That which attached the idea of dishonesty to Mr. Ward's claim was, that he called his oum interpretations *' non- natural." His defence in the Theatre was, that all alike were re- duced to such interpretations; I know not whether he added, ''be- lieving them to be non-natural," which occasioned the charge of dishonesty. The English mind does not distinguish between ** non- natural " and " unnatural." The question however was not, whether an interpretation which a person adopts was not natural, but, whether he subscribed in a sense which he himself believed not to be natural. against Tract 90 seemed to be borne out, in that one, who appeared as its interpreter, claimed to " hold all Roman doctrine '," which, in the popular estimation, involved the teaching of the whole practical Roman system in our pul- pits. Further, the charge of "evading the sense of the Articles,'' was apparently justified, when one who wrote in its defence avowed that his own interpretation was " non-natural.*" I was informed, many years after the condemnation of Ward, by one who ^ I have understood, took a leading part in preparing it, that, not the alleged misinterpretation of the XXXIX Articles in itself, but what the Heads thought " bad faith " in that interpretation, was the ground of his condemnation. It seemed to him consistent in the Heads to have proposed the degradation of Ward, and yet not to propose the condemnation of those who contradicted Articles which lay down the central truths of the Christian faith. The difference was, that Ward, by calling his inter- pretations ** non-naturaV suggested that they were dis- honest ; those others, who used " non-natural " interpreta- tions, did not call them so. There was indeed a marked difference between the feeling evinced by Convocation towards Newman and Ward, in that Ward was condemned, while those 554 members of Convocation thanked the Proctors for forbidding that hastily-prepared condemnation of Tract 90 and its de- This was (and I think deservedly) the offensiveness of the claim — Ed. 2. 7 Mr. Oakeley, in his «* Few Word8,"said, « I do not include [among those who in subscribing the Articles, « renounce no one Roman doc- trine'] the revered autlior of Tract 90, whose precise and matured view upon this question I do not know; and who has cer/ain/y neither stated nor implied in the Tract, that he considers the Articles capable of this extreme interpretation ; althoucrh. neither (if my memory serves me, for I am too much pressed for time to ascertain the point) has he there stated or implied the reverse." • The late Dr. Cardwell. XXVI PREFACE. PREFACE. XX VII fenders. Still, the unhappy word " non-naturar* has stuck to the whole class of interpretations of the Articles, of which Tract 90 was the distinguished exponent. This appeared at a comparatively late period in Mr. Maurice's censure of myself, as though " non-naturaF' had been a term which I had myself accepted. While Tract 90 remained uncondemned, Newman did what in him lay to explain it. After its condemnation by the Heads of Houses, he remained silent, except in giving such statements to his Bishop, as his liishop wished him to renew in order to allay the excitement. And so his explanation was overlooked, and W. G. Ward's, being the most exasperating which could be offered, was taken as its exponent. In this way, for twenty-three years, Tract 90 and its author remained under the odium of a wrong inter- pretation, until, in order to vindicate me from a charge made by Mr. Maurice, Newman broke the silence, which in all those years he had not broken for self- vindication. He is now amply vindicated ; no one, not even the most pre- judiced, who has read the wonderful self-analysis of his " Apologia,*" can doubt his full and entire honesty. But I have yet another purpose in appealing from England under the excitement which clouded it in 184-5, to England, freed from that excitement in 1865. Tract 90 was made a by- word. A work is not so easily rehabilitated as a man, with his visible and transparent Christian truth- fulness. And I do wish, for love of my friend, to see each shadow pass away from his work also. But further, in the condemnation of Tract 90, a great principle was condemned*, • Dr. Hawkins has drawn attention to the fact that I said in my Eirenicon that " this principle was noi condemned." In this place, I was speaking of Tract 90 alone, which at that time had alone ap- peared, and whose censure by the Heads did involve the condemna- tion of this principle. For Tract 90 could in no other way be said to «* evade rather than explain the sense of the Articles," than that the Heads identified their own interpretation of ;he Article.«, (i.e. the essential to the right understanding of our own Church as well as the Roman, and to all righteous and true interpre- tation of our Articles. The maxim has been insisted upon by the half-believing school, " Interpret the Scripture like any other book *".'" If this axiom of their school means any thing aright, it means this, " Do no violence to language ; do not interpret mean- ings..ijito~ it» but draw them out of it.'"* Probably, in the mind of the Essayist, it meant much more, and what would offend Christian feeling and faith. But this is not the place to discuss it. Yet so much (as some of us tried to show at the time) was the principle of Tract 90, that traditional jwwinterpretation of them) with the Articles themselves. In the Eirenicon, I was speaking of the larger results, when Bishops, who had previously determined not to censure Tract 90 as a body, echoed more or less the censure of the Hebdomadal Board. By this time, my own and W. B. Heathcote's defence had appeared and had been much read. Yet they were not censured by the Bishops. The Heads wished to obtain from Convocation the condemnation of these defences of Tract 90, but failed (see above, p. xxiii.). The fact that the Bishops would not, as a body, censure Tract 90, was told me by the late Bishop of Oxford (Bagot). He added, what Dr. Newman has already stated in the Apologia (p. 244), and which I con- veyed to him from Bishop Bagot, that perhaps two or three might men- tion it in their charges. This Bishop Bagot said to me, not as his own opinion, but on authority (although he did not tell me what authority). I suppose that that authority had miscalculated. Yet it was a very grave matter ; for the non-condemnation of Tract 90 was the induce- ment held out by him why (with materials for another year at least) we should close the series abruptly. The Bishops who did censure it were not, I think, so many as have been supposed. I make out twelve English Bishops (including, alas ! Bishop Bagot himself, who must have forgotten what he had said the year before), three Irish, one East Indian. Some spoke very mildly. Bishop Thirlwall justified the honesty of the principle, while rejecting the application. Archbishop Howley, who, more than any other, understood the object of the Tracts and of the whole "movement,*' passed no censure on Tract 90. Of some others, I believe that, could they have foreseen the result ot their censures, they would have withheld them. *• Essays and Reviews, p. 377 •si/ xxviii PREFACE. Ill '^1 lii •* nothing is to be imported into any dociinient, which docs^ not lie in its words, understood in their known and full sense ;" which is a self-evident rule of interpretation. To the Articles it had been applied in the Declaration pre- fixed to them. Roman Catholic Divines have not unfre- quently asserted the same principle, as regards the Council of Trent. It has been often told us, that no part of the popular system is to be held to be '' de fide," except what is, in terms, contained in it ; nay, 1 am informed by one whose word is of great authority, that that only of the Council of Trent is to be held to be '' de fide,'' which is, in terms, contained in canons, i. e. those propositions which are guarded by anathema. And yet the condemnation of Tract 90 involved the violation of this principle in both respects. The English Articles were to be held to mean what no grammatical construction of the words in their known sense could make them mean. The Articles so construed were to be held, under pain of being charged with " evading not explaining their meaning," to condemn the Council of Trent for what no construction of its words could make it mean. Before I conclude, I would remind any reader, that this «listJnction between the decrees of Trent and the pracTical J Ionian syste m did not originate with Newman. It is remarkable how, when Roman controversy was still un- familiar and almost asleep, this point was brought out by the acute mind of him, our revered teacher, to whom both of us were so much indebted. B ishop L loyd. Newman observed in that same Letter to Jelf * : — "The distinction I have been making is familiar with our controversialists. Dr. Lloyd, the late Bishop of Oxford, whose memory both you and myself hold in affection and veneration, brings it out strongly in a review which he wrote in the British «l * Letter to Dr. Jelf, in explanation of No. 90, &c., pp. 10—14. ,'[ PREFACE. XXIX Critic in 1825. Nay, he goes further than any thing I have said on one point, for he thinks the Roman Catholics are not what they once were, at least, among ourselves. I pro- nounce no opinion on this point ; nor do I feel able to follow his revered guidance in some other things which he says, but I quote him in proof that Jlie Reformers did not aim at decrees or abstract dogmas, but against a living system, and a system wliich it is quite possible to separate from the formal state- ments which have served to represent it. * Happy was it,' he says, 'for the Protestant controversinlist, when his own eyes and ears could bear witness to the doctrine of Papal satisfactions and meritorious works, when he could point to the be- nighted wanderer, working his way to the shrine of our Lady of Wal- singham or Ipswich, and hear him confess with his own mouth, that he trusted to such works for the expiation of his sins ; or when every eye could behold "our churches full of images, wondrously decked and adorned, garlands and coronets set on their heads, precious pearls hanging about their necks, their fingers shining with rings, set with precious stones; their dead and still bodies clothed with garments stiff with gold." '—Horn, 3, ag. Idol. p. 97. " On the other hand he says : • Our full belief is, that the Roman Catholics of the United King- dom, from their long residence among Protestants, their disuse of processions and other Romish ceremonies, have been brought gra- dually and almost unknowingly to a more spiritual religion and a purer faith,— that they themselves see with sorrow the disgraceful tenets and principles that were professed and carried into practice by their forefathers,— and are too fond of removing this disgrace from them, by denying the former existence of these tenets, and ascribing the imputation of them to the calumnies of the Protestants. This we cannot allow ; and while we cherish the hope that they are now gone for ever, we still assert boldly and fearlessly that they did once exist' — p. 148. " Again : ' That latria is due only to the Trinity, is continually asserted in thi Councils; but the terms of dulia and hyperdulia have not been adopted or acknowledged by them in their public documents; they are, however, employed unanimously by all the best writers of the Romish Church, and their use is maintained and defended by them.'— p. 101. ** I conceive that what * all the best writers ' say, is authori- tative teaching, and a sufficient object for the censurea con- t rt XXX PREFACE. veyed in the Articles, though the decrees of Trent, taken hy themselves, remain untouched. *This part of the inquiry' [to define exactly the acts peculiar to the different species of worship] * however is more theoretical than useful ; and, as every thing that can be said on it must be derived, not from Councils^ but from Doctors of the Romish Church, whose authority would be called in question, it is not worth while to enter upon it now. And therefore, observing only that the Catechism oj Trent still retains the term of adoratio angelorum^ we pass on, &e.* —p. 102. " Again : * On the question whether the Invocation of Saints, professed and practised by the Church of Rome, is idolatrous or not, our opinion is this; that in the public formularies of their Church, and even in the belief and practice of the best informed among them, there is nothing oJ idolatry^ although, as we have said, we deem that practice altogether unscriptural and unwarranted ; but we do consider the principles re- lating to the worship of the Virgin calculated to lead in the end to positive idolatry ; and we are well convinced, and we have strong grounds for our conviction, that a large portion of the lower classes are in this point guilty of it. Whether the Invocation of Angels or of Saints has produced the same effect, we are not able to decide.' — p. 113. " I accept this statement entirely with a single explanation. By ' principles * relating to the worship of the Blessed Virgin, I understand either the received principles as distinct from those laid down in the Tridentine statements ; or the principles contained in those statements, viewed as practically operating on the existing feelings of the Church. " Again : *She [the Church of England] is unwilling to fix upon the prin* ciples of the Romish Church the charge of positive idolatry ; and con- tents herself with declaring that ** the Romish doctrine concerning the Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, is a fond thing, &c. &c." But in regard to the universal practice of the Romish Church, she adheres to the declaration of her Homilies; and professes her con- viction that this fond and unwarranted and unscriptural doctrine has at all times produced, and will hereafter, as long as it is suffered to prevail, produce the sin of practical idolatry.* — p. 121. " I will add my belief that the only thing which can stop this tendency in the decrees of Rome, as things are, is its making some formal declaration the other way. PREFACE. XXXI " Once more : * We reject the second [Indulgences], not jnly becanse they are altogether unwarranted by any word of Holy Writ, and contrary to every principle of reason, but because we conceive the foundations on wliich they rest to be, in the highest degree, blasphemous and absurd. These principles are, 1 . Tiiat the power of the Pope, great as it is, does not properly extend beyond the limits of this present world ; 2. That the power which he possesses of releasing souls from Purgatory arises out of the treasure committed to his care, a treasure consisting of the supererogatory merits of our blessed Saviour, the Virgin, and the Saints • . . This is the treasure of which Pope Leo, in his Bull of the present year, 1825, speaks in the following terms : " We have re- solved, in virtue of the authority given to us by Heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, composed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues of Christ our Lord, and of His Virgin Mother, and of all the Saints, which the Author of human salvation has entrusted to our dis- pensation.*"— p. 143. " This is what our Article means by Pardons ; but it is more than is said in the Council of Trent.'* Our friend noticed further the same distinction in the controversial writings of Bramhall, Bull, and Wake ^ : " And Bramhall : * A comprecation [with the Saints] both the Grecians and we do allow ; an ultimate invocation both the Grecians and we detest; so do the Church of Rome in their doctrine, but they vary from it in their practice.' — Works, p. 418. "And Bull: * This Article [the Tridentine] of a Purgatory after this life, as it is understood and taught by the Roman Church (that is, to be a place and state of misery and torment, whereunto many faithful souls go presently after death, and there remain till they are thoroughly purged from their dross, or delivered thence by Masses, Indulgences, &c.), is contrary to Scripture, and the sense of the Catholic Church for at least the first four centuries, &c,'^Corrupt. of Rome, § 3, « And Wake : * The Council of Trent has spoken so uncertainly in this point [of Merits] as plainly shows that they in this did not know themselves, what they would establish, or were unwilling that others should.* "-1 Def, of Expos. 5. • Letter to Dr. Jelf, in explanation of No. 90, &c., pp. 14, 15. XXXIl PREFACE. PREFACE. XXXlll For myself, I did not hear any thing about Tract 90, until the excitement about it in the University brought it to my knowledge. I read it with some anxiety, on account of the greatness of that excitement. Having read it, I was in my turn surprised at the excitement. The general principle, that the Articles jyere directed, not against the Counci^l of Trent, but against the popular system, had lon^ been familiar to my mind. UntUJ_saw this, I never could^ uJiTeritand the ^antithesis of Article XIX.» I had seen thatliTArticle in any way contravened any Catholic truth, or contradicted any thing received as truth in the primitive Church. The one doubt which I had in regard to Tract 90, related to a certain vagueness as to the object of Article XXII., which was almost the exclusive ground of the attack of the Four Tutors. That doubt my friend satis- fied in the second edition, as he would have satisfied the Four Tutors, had they inquired, instead of or before accusing. It has been a strange Nemesis (to use men's favourite word for Divine retribution) that, of the Four Tutors who originated the attack upon Tract 90, and who procured its condemnation, its author unheard, one. Rev. H. B. Wilson, was formally declared by Dr. Lushington, in his judgment, to have "suggested modes by which the Articles sub- scribed may be evaded contrary to the king's declaration and the terms of subscription*." And this, not as to » See my Eirenicon, p. 33. « «* In the passage recited from Mr. Wilson's Essay, first come cer- tain observations upon the Statute of Elizabeth, which Mr. Wilson declares will not be easily brought to bear upon questions likely to be raised in our own days. * The meshes are too open for modern refinements.' The passage then proceeds as follows : " • Forms of expression, — partly derived from modem modes of thought on metaphysical subjects, partly suggested by a better ac- quaintance than heretofore with the unsettled state of Christian opi- nion in the immediately post Apostolical age,— may be adopted with respect to the doctrines in the first five Articles without directly con- tradicting, impugning, or refusing assent to them, but passing by the A)'ticles (such as Article XXII.) drawn up in general terms, but as to Articles framed with great dognriatic pre- cision ; the five first, which relate to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. Whether he was punishable for this, Dr. Lushington left open *, since the indictment had been laid side of them— as with respect to the humanifying of the Divine Word and to the Divine personalities,* ** What is meant by * passing by the side of the first five Articles, and as to the humanifying of the Divine Word and thi Divine persona- lities without directly contradicting, impugning, or refusing a part to them ? ' The Clergy are bound by the King's Declaration to take the Articles in their literal and grammatical sense ; thf; first five Articles are the most important of all. Is it consistent wit^ their literal and grammatical sense to pass by them? I think noc. Is it consister with the declaration that they are agreeable to the Word of God^ so, why pass by ? Is it consistent with the declaration of the c * I do willingly and ex animo subscribe to the three Articles 36th Canon (one of which includes the Thirty-nine Articles of gion), and to all things which are contained in tKem? ' I think not. And yet according to Mr. Wilson, the clerk is to pass by these Articles without directly contradicting, impugning, or refvsing assent to them. In my opinion this is not possible. / think that he substance of what Mr, Wilson has written is this : to suggest modes ly which the Articles subscribed may be evaded, contrary to the King's Declaration and the terms of subscription:'— Dr. Lushington' s Judgment on Essays and Re- views , p. 39. » "I have not now to decide whether the publication of such words by Mr. Wilson is blameable or not, nor even whether it may not be an offence in some way punishable ; but whether the oflfence charged in this Article is a violation of this particular Canon, the 36th. To this question, and this only, must I address myself, for it is the only charge preferred.— What, then, is the offence struck at by the Canon? Clearly the omission by the clerk to subscribe previous to his admis- sion to the Ministry, and the omission by those in authority to see that he does so subscribe. The short question therefore is, whether a clerk who has himself subscribed to the three Articles of the Canon, has, by counselling others that they may subscribe them in a sense not consonant either to the King's Declaration or the Articles themselves committed an Ecclesiastical offence against this particular Canon ; I Bay, against this particular Canon, not whether he has committed an offence otherwise punishable. ** I cannot come to the conclusion in the affirmative ; the offence xxxiv. PREFACE. PREFACE. XXXV amiss. \ In the final Court of Appeal, Mr. Wilson, who had charged Newman with explaining away Article XXII. {inter alid) on the subject of Purgatory, defended his own suggestion of the denial of eternal punishment, by affixing a non-natural sense to his own words, and declaring that he did not deny eternal punishment, but only spoke of a sort of purgatorylfor a middle class of souls. The two Arch- bishops accepted, and could not but accept, this his virtual recantation, and the non-natural sense which, amid the solemnity of a trial, he gave to his words. But his former colleague in his attack upon Tract 90, now one of his judges, although himself believing the eternity of punish- ment, seems to have coincided with the lay judges in Jting a non-natural sense on the word "everlasting." while expressing his conviction that '' there is nothing :ie revelation of the Gospel, in which such a hope of the termination of the punishment of the wicked] can legitimately rest," he expressed that he was " glad that the expression of such a hope is settled not to be actually pun- ishable by the laws of our Church '," and asserted that he knew of nothing in the decisions of the Church universal to overrule this wise forbearance. For it could only not be punishable, on the non-natural interpretation of words ; viz. that such a prayer as, " Deliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death," related to a death which is not eternal, or that "• everlasting " does not mean '' lasting for ever." Such has been the comment of time upon the attack of two out of the four assailants of Tract 90. And now, I would ask people, with English honesty of judgment, not to look whether the explanations of the Articles in Tract 90 are what they would have given them- selves or would give (some are not what \ should have struck at by the Canon being of a totally different character. I must reject this Article."— Dr. Lushingtons Judgment on Essays and Re- views^ p. 40. • The Word of God and the Ground of Truth, Part II., Preface, p. vi. given myself) ; but whether the y are contradictory to the grammatical meaning of the Articles. It seems self- evident, that a teaching referred to in the terms, '' in the which it was commonly said," cannot be the formal and fully-worded teaching of Canons, but was a popular teach- ing ; and that ** the Romish doctrine " could not mean, e. g. any primitive doctrine on any of these subjects, nor the Greek. For myself, I believe that Tract 90 did a great work in clearing the Articles from the glosses, which, like barnacles, had encrusted round them. I believe that that work will never be undone, while the Articles shall last. Men will gloss them as they did before, according to their pre- conceived opinions, or as guided by the Puritan system of belief ; but they cannot do so undisputed. Even the Four Tutors, in their censure upon Tract 90, seem to have been half conscious of the force of the appeal to " the literal and grammatical interpretation." So long as that interpretation shall be applied, it will be impossible either to condemn Tract 90, or to import into the Articles the traditional system, so long identified with them. E. 13. P. Advent, 186d. b 2 POSTSCRIPT. xxxvii POSTSCRTPT TO THE SECOND EDITION. The recent remarks of the Provost of Oriel (Additional Notes on Subscription) call for a few supplemental expla- nations of facts or principles laid down by him. 1. The particular explanation of Art. XXI. in Tract 90 (below, p. 21) is not what I should myself have given. I thought that the Article related to General Councils, as representative assemblies, of which one could not be certain beforehand, whether the Bishops would be guided by the Spirit of God or no. Such was the robber- Council of Ephesus, which was legitimately cohvened, but became full of wickedness and violence, and was condemned. The Article says no more than Bellarmine, when he speaks of "Concilia Generalia reprohata^^ But Dr. Hawkins singles out another ground why, in his opinion, ''the comment upon Art. XXI. is an example of a mode of interpretation which evades rather than explains the sense of the Article." He says, "The point of the Article is in its conclusion, that 'things ordained by General Councils as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scri{)ture.' Yet of this not a word U said in the comment^ but," &c. Dr. H. has overlooked that Tract 90 expressly mentions what he says that it omits. ** Another of these conditions " [" which fulfil the notion of a gathering in the Name of Christ"] "the Article goes on to mention, viz. that, in points necessary to salvation, a Council should prove its decrees by Scripture " (below, p. 22), He mentioned this^ as essential to those Councils which are " things of heaven," whose " deliberations are overruled, and their decrees authoritative ;" of which sort, he adds, "the Homilies seem to recognize four or even six " (p. 21). 2. Newman, in Tract 90, stated, in regard to Art. XXII., *' by the Romish doctrine is not meant the Tridentine [statement], because this Article was drawn up before the decree of the Council of Trent. What is opposed is the received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine of the Roman schools,'''' The four Tutors, in the face of this statement, said, that "Tract 90 sug- gested that the Articles did not contain any condemnation of the doctrines, as they are taught authoritatively in the Church of Rome, but only of certain absurd practices and opinions, which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much as we do.'' What ? " Received doctrine "" not " authorita- tive V " The doctrine of the Roman schools " (they are the very words of the Article of 1552, "doctrina Scholasti- corum'') only "certain absurd practices and opinions re- pudiated by intelligent Romanists as well as byusT' If so, then the Article of 1552 also condemned only those same practices and opinions. For Newman stated that the Article condemned, exactly what the Article of 1552 did condemn; — the "doctrine of the Schoolmen,''' said the Article; " the doctrine of the Roman schools," said New- man. It is inconceivable how the four Tutors came to bring a grave accusation against the author of Tract 90, of perverting the meaning of the Article, when he said that it condemned just what it did condemn in 1552 in the self- same words. But Dr. Hawkins would make out, that it is possible f %y POSTSCRIPT. XXXIX XXXVIU POSTSCRIPT. that the Article of 1552 might have had the doctrine of the Council of Trent in view, because one of the five subjects of Art. XXII., viz. Purgatory, had been alluded to in an earlier session in 1547. But the Article of 1552 condemns only " the doctrine of the Schoolmen,^^ and Dr. Hawkins himself thinks, that the change of " Doctrina Scholasti- corum " into " Doctrina Romanensium " in the Articles of 1563 may have been occasioned by the fact that "the Church of Rome had given her solemn sanction to so many floating errors of former days." But the hypothesis, that the term "doctrina Romanensium " was substituted in 1563 forthe former term " Doctrina Scholasticorum" in order to include the Council of Trent, excludes the idea that the teaching of that Council was alluded to before, as the "doc- trine of the Schoolmen ;" apart from the incredibility that "the doctrine of the Schoolmen," i.e. of writers from A.D. 1141 to 1480, should be a term chosen to include the Council of Trent. But, on the other hand, it seems to me altogether incredible that, if the revisers of the Articles in 1563 had meant to condemn the doctrine of the Council of Trent on those subjects, they should not have inserted the slightest allusion to any statement of the Council, but simply have retained the self-same words in regard to the subjects, on which " the doctrine of the Romanists " was condemned, after those sessions of the Council, which they had before. But this historical question, or, rather, this speculation, whether the revisers in 1563 mentally included the decree of the Council of Trent, when they retained the censure of the framers of the Articles of 1552, ought to have remained an open question. Some might think, if they so pleased, that " the Romish doctrine " meant that of the Council of Trent ; others surely might lawfully think that it did not. Certainly this seems to me no ground, why those who held the one opinion should condemn those who held the other. To think so, is certainly no "evasion" of the sense of the Article. For " Romanensium " is not " Ecclesiae Romanrc," nor " Concilii Tridentini." It is one of the cases in which people identified their own inter- pretation of the Articles with the Articles themselves. Had the revisers meant to condemn the doctrine of the Council of Trent, what hindered their expressing that they did mean it ? And since they did not express it, it should not have been made a fault, that Newman thought that they did not. But further, "the doctrine of the Roman schools," which Newman held that the Article did reject, is very far fuller than that of the Council of Trent upon these points. The Council was hurrying to its conclusion. It said very little on these subjects. How then could it be "evading rather than explaining the Article," to say that the Article rejected the " received doctrine," " the doctrine of the Roman schools," [or, I may add, what the framers of the Articles thought to be such,] which was the fuller state- ment, rather than the Council of Trent, which was the less full? I see no explanation, but that both the four Tutors and the Hebdomadal Board condemned the Tract without adverting to this very definite statement at the outset of the comment on Art. XXII., which was almost the exclusive ground of the attack of the four Tutors. 3. The real question of principle as to the interpretation of the Articles at issue between Newman, the author of the Christian Year, and myself on the one side, and those whose condemnation of Tract 90 Dr. Hawkins justifies, on the other, was not, whether we are to accept literally any definite statement of the Articles. We always contended for this^ in conformity with common honesty and the de- claration prefixed to the Articles, " No man shall put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take the Article in its literal and grammatical eense." And I must, in my turn, express my conviction I xl POSTSCRIPT. that Dr. Hawkins is doing harm to the cause which he has at heart, the promotion of a bona fide subscription to the Articles, by representing Tract 90 and its adherents as loosening such subscription. More than this, he is renew- ing an injustice, not, of course, voluntarily, but through preconceived opinion. Every one must have observed that the Articles are drawn up with very different degrees of precision or dog- matic character. Some are framed with great precision (as the five first and the Ninth) ; some (like the Sixth) have to be supplemented out of some other Article ; Art. XXV., as far as relates to the " five commonly called Sacraments," is ungrammatical * ; Art. XXTX., though plain and intel- ligible in itself, can by no possibility be made to mean what is often understood by its heading ; some Articles are nega- tive only, disclaiming certain opinions, but not stating any positive truth, and leaving the belief of the framers to be gained from the Homilies or the Prayer Book. Thus the Homilies state the universal reception of the six first general Councils, not the Articles. The Articles on the Sacra- ments, although they are explicit in rejecting Zwinglianism, very diflferent from the Calvinistic confessions, and con- tain the true doctrine, are yet not so clear as the Cate- chism or the Liturgy. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Stanley, although opposed toto ccelo in their aims, seem to agree in their opinion, that all the Articles are equally definite and clear, and that, therefore, the same principles which are applied to any of them, must be applied to all. Such a maxim as " ^ what is definite is not to be inter- preted by what is indefinite '" is indeed a first principle of * The words " partly," ** partly," would, in common usage, imply a division into two classes; whereas "confirn>ation," at least, can fall into neither, and could not have been intended to be placed in either. * Dr. Hawkins, p. 33. POSTSCRIPT. xli interpretation of any document whatever. It would be obvious dishonesty to turn aside the plain, unmistakeable meaning of any statement by any quibbling interpretation, or by assigning to words of known theological meaning any other than their known sense, or trying to " win for words new senses V In any matter of this world one who should try to do so as to any covenant to which he had bound him- self, would be counted by all men a dishonest man. But it would be begging the whole question at issue, to assunie that all the Articles are alike definite. The very name, "ambiguous formularies,'" or (what Newman substituted for it, when this was thought to be " spoken in a reproach- ful tone") "indeterminate statements,*" shows that New- man had in his mind Articles which he believed to be indefinite. He himself stated strongly at the outset of the Tract, that "the statements of the Articles are not difficulties to a Catholic Christian," and protested " against any anticipation, that persons who profess to be disciples of the early Church will silently concur with those of very opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation of subscrip- tion against the wish of the great body of the Church." There was no question at that time as to the principle of subscription to any definite Articles. The only questions could be 1) as to facts, whether there were any twdefinite statements in the Articles; 2) by what rule such state- ments, if such there were, were to be interpreted. Now the very profession which the Heads at one time wished to require of us, that we should " * subscribe all and each of the Articles," as "we firmly believed that they were originally published," implies a certain indtfiniteness about some of them. Else there would be no need of any thing beyond what the declaration prefixed to them re- quired, viz. the adherence to their " literal and grammatical * Jowett on the Atonement, Comm. ii. 589. * See above, p. \xii. I POSTSCRirT. xli Xl POSTSCRIPT. that Dr. Hawkins is doing harm to the cause which he has at heart, the promotion of a bona fide subscription to the Articles, by representing Tract 90 and its adherents as loosening such subscription. More than this, he is renew- ing an injustice, not, of course, voluntarily, but through preconceived opinion. Every one must have observed that the Articles are drawn up with very different degrees of precision or dog- matic character. Some are framed with great precision (as the five first and the Ninth) ; some (like the Sixth) have to be supplemented out of some other Article ; Art. XXV., as far as relates to the " five commonly called Sacraments," is ungrammatical * ; Art. XXIX., though plain and intel- ligible in itself, can by no possibility be made to mean what is often understooc by its heading ; some Articles are nega- tive only, disclaiming certain opinions, but not stating any positive truth, and leaving the belief of the framers to be gained from the Homilies or the Prayer Book. Thus the Homilies state the universal reception of the six first general Councils, not the Articles. The Articles on the Sacra- ments, although they are explicit in rejecting Zwinglianism, very different from the Calvinistic confessions, and con- tain the true doctrine, are yet not so clear as the Cate- chism or the Liturgy. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Stanley, although opposed toio ccelo in their aims, seem to agree in their opinion, that all the Articles are equally definite and clear, and that, therefore, the same principles which are applied to any of them, must be applied to all. Such a maxim as " ^ what is definite is not to be inter- preted by what is indefinite '' is indeed a first principle of * The words " partly," " partly,'* would, in common usage, imply a division into two classes; whereas "confirrrwtion," at least, can fall into neither, and could not have heen intended to be placed in either. * Dr. Hawkins, p. 33. interpretation of any document whatever. It would be obvious dishonesty to turn aside the plain, unmistakeable meaning of any statement by any quibbling interpretation, or by assigning to words of known theological meaning any other than their known sense, or trying to " win for words new senses V In any matter of this world one who should try to do so as to any covenant to which he had bound him- self, would be counted by all men a dishonest man. But it would be begging the whole question at issue, to assume that all the Articles are alike definite. The very name, "ambiguous formularies,"' or (what Newman substituted for it, when this was thought to be " spoken in a reproach- ful tone") "indeterminate statements," shows that New- man had in his mind Articles which he believed to be indefinite. He himself stated strongly at the outset of the Tract, that "the statements of the Articles are not difficulties to a Catholic Christian," and protested " against any anticipation, that persons who profess to be disciples of the early Church will silently concur with those of very opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation of subscrip- tion against the wish of the great body of the Church." There was no question at that time as to the principle of subscription to any definite Articles. The only questions could be 1 ) as to facts, whether there were any indefinite statements in the Articles; 2) by what rule such state- ments, if such there were, were to be interpreted. Now the very profession which the Heads at one time wished to require of us, that we should " * subscribe all and each of the Articles," as "we firmly believed that they were originally published," implies a certain indbfiniteness about some of them. Else there would be no need of any thing beyond what the declaration prefixed to them re- quired, viz. the adherence to their " literal and grammatical • Jowett on the Atonement, Comm. ii. 589. * See above, p. xxii. I xlii POSTSCRIPT. P0STSCRI1»T. xliii sense/** And this principle, which the Heads proposed in the test of 1845, but withdrew, Dr. Hawkins proposes to us now, as binding upon our consciences ; nay, he contend? that " subscription, to be of any use or meaning, must bo made in the sense of the imposers,*" viz. in tlie sense in which the Convocation imposed subscription in 1571. But if the framers of the Articles did not, in any case, lay down their meaning clearly, who is to assure us what it was? They were not always of one mind among them- selves. To us it seemed that they gave us an indication of their mind in what Dr. Hawkins calls " * the often mis- represented Canon concerning Preachers,'** " Let them teach nothing in sermons, to be religiously held or believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testaments, or what Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered from the same doctrine/' It is true that this is only a negative rule. It does not require that we should teach whatever Fathers had taught, or whatever they had collected from Scripture ; it simply says, that we are '* not to teach, as to be religiously held,'"* any thing which is not agreeable to what they so gathered. What they enjoined to Preachers, they must have believed the framers and revisers of the Articles to have observed ; else they would have been condemning the framers and the revisers of those Articles, the subscription to which they enjoined, and they would themselves have proposed to us two contradictory rules. They would have required us to teach according to Articles, on the hypothesis, not agreeable to what the Fathers had gathered from Holy Scripture, while they, by their Canon, forbad us to teach what should not be agreeable thereto. But this is all which Newman claimed in Tract 90, or the loved Author of the Christian Year (who can now speak to us only in his writings) defended, viz. that where the meaning was " undetermined,'' there it was a duty to interpret them according to the mind of the Catholic Church. Keble said, " • where a doubtful passage occure in a formulary, it is catholic to interpret it so as may best agree with the known judgment of the primitive and as yet undivided Church." People may doubt whether there be any *' ' doubtful passages " in the Articles, or whether there be any such thing as " Catholic consent." But these are questions as to facts. Since the principle^ asserted by Newman and Keble, related to Articles of doubtful mean- ing, it is only by neglecting the limitations which they annexed, that Dr. Hawkins can parallel their rule of inter- pretation with the evasions of the Arians of the eighteenth century, or Dr. Stanley can try to soothe the consciences of subscribing Rationalists in the nineteenth. Those Arians affixed new meanings to known Theological Forms ; they gave, and could not but give, new or ambi- guous meanings to the words God, Trinity, Person, Co- Eternal, Co-Equal, &c. Professor Jowett speaks of this habit, '* winning new senses for words,'' as a characteristic of " what has been written of late years on the Atonement ;" others have affixed a new sense to the ordinary Enf^lish word " everlasting." Dr. Stanley anticipates a time when the Articles shall be *'• Articles of peace, because not Articles of helief^'' Newman and Keble taught that every word was to be used in its known sense, and every definite statement in its definite meaning. • Catholic Subscription, p. 14, quoted by Dr. riawkins, p. 35. ' lb. 45. » Paper read to Clergy at St. James, reprinted in Contemp. Rev, I8G6, p. 546. E. B. P. Easier, liJGG. » \\ 35. ifi il No. 90.] TRACTS FOU THE TIMES. REMARKS ON CERTAIN PASSAGES IN THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. [The corrections in the Second Edition are put in brackets.] 9} CONTENTS. FAOB 2 Introduction •••••••• I 1. Articles vi. & xx.— Holy Scripture, and the Authority of the Church § 2. Article xi.-— Justification by Faith only § 3. Articles xii. & xiii.— Works before and after Justification 14 . . 17 . 21 $ 4. Article xix.— The Visible Church . § 5. Article xxi.— General Councils ( 6. Article xxii.—Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, Invo- cation of Saints . . . • § 7. Article xxv. — The Sacraments § 8. Article xxviii.— Transubstantiation § 9. Article xxxi. — Masses . f 10. Article xxxii.— Marriage of Clergy § 11. Article xxxv.— The Homilies . § 12. Article xxxvii.— The Bishop of Rome Conclusion • • • • • 5 12 22 45 49 61 67 69 80 83 'I INTRODUCTION. it i It is often urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there are in the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent with the Catholic faith ; or, at least, when persons do not go so far as to feel the objection as of force, they are per- plexed how best to reply to it, or how most simply to ex- plain the passages on which it is made to rest. The follow- ing Tract is drawn up with the view of showing how groundless the objection is, and further of a))proximating towards the argumentative answer to it, of which most men have an implicit a|)prehension, though they may have nothing more. That there are real difficulties to a Catholic Christian in the Ecclesiastical position of our Church at this day, no one can deny; but the statements of the Articles are not in the number ; and it may be right at the present moment to insist upon this. If in any quarter it is supposed that persons who profess to bo disci[)les of the early Church will silently concur with those of very opposite sentiments in furthering a relaxation of subscriptions, which, it is imagined, are galling to both parties, though for different reasons, and that they will do this against the wish of the great body of the Church, the writer of the following pages would raise one voice, at least, in protest against any such anticipation. Even in such points as he may think the English Church deficient, never can he, without a great alteration of sentiment, be party to forcing the opinion or project of one school upon another. Religious changes, to be beneficial, should be the act of the whole body ; they are worth little if they are the mere act of a majority*. No * This is not meant to hinder acts of ratUolic consent, such as introduction. 21 good can come of any change which is not heartfelt, a development of feelings springing up freely and calmly within the bosom of the whole body itself. Moreover, a change in theological teaching involves either the commission or the confession of sin; it is either the profession or renunciation of erroneous doctrine, and if it does not succeed in proving the fact of past guilt, it, ipso facto^ implies present. In other words, every change in religion carries with it its own condemnation, which is not attended by deep repentance. Even supposing then that any changes in contemplation, whatever they were, were good in themselves, they would cease to be good to a Church, in which they were the fruits not of the quiet conviction of all, but of the agitation, or tyranny, or intrigue of a few ; nurtured not in mutual love, but in strife and envying ; perfected not in humiliation and grief, but in pride, elation, and triumph. Moreover, it is a very serious truth, that persons and bodies who put them- selves into a disjidvantageous state, cannot at their pleasure extricate themselves from it. They are unworthy of it; they are in prison, and Christ is the keeper. There is but one way towards a real reformation, — a return to Him in heart and spirit, whose sacred truth they have betrayed; all other methods, however fair they may promise, will prove to be but shadows and failures. On these grounds, were there no others, the present writer, for one, will be no party to the ordinary political methods by which professed reforms are carried or com- passed in this day. We can do nothing well till we act " with one accord ;'*'* we can have no accord in action till we agree together in heart ; we cannot agree without a supernatural influence; we cannot have a supernatural influence unless we pray for it ; we cannot pray acceptably without repent- ance and confession. Our Church's strength would be irresistible, humanly speaking, were it but at unity with itself: if it remains divided, part against part, we shall see occurred anciently, when the Catholic body aids one portion of a par- ticular Church against another portion. B 2 4 Introduction. the energy which was meant to subdue the world preying upon itself, according to our Saviours express assurance, that such a house " cannot stand." Till we feel this, till we seek one another as brethren, not lightly throwing aside our private opinions, which we seem to feel we have received from above, from an ill-regulated, untrue desire of unity, but returning to each other in heart, and coming together to God to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, no change can be for the better. Till [we] [her children] are stirred up to this religious course, let the Church*, [our Mother,] sit still ; let [us] be content to be in bondage ; let [us] work in chains ; let [us] subniit to [our] imper- fections as a punishment ; let [us] go on teaching [through the medium of indeterminate statements*] and inconsistent precedents, and principles but partially developed. We are not better than our fathers ; let us bear to be what Ham- mond was, or Andrews, or Hooker ; let us not faint under that body of death, which they bore about in patience; nor shrink from the penalty of sins, which they inherited from the age before them *. But these remarks are beyond our present scope, which is merely to^ghow that, while our Prayer Book is acknow- ledged on all hands to be of Catholic origin, our Articles also, the offspring of an uncatholic age, are, through Goi/s good providence, to say the least, not uncatholic, and may « " Let the Church sit still ; let her be content to be in bondage,** &c.— Ist edition. [The author has lately heard that these words have been taken as spoken in an insulting and reproachful tone ; he meant them in the sense of the lines in the Lyra Apostolica,— •• Bide thou thy time ! Watch with meek eyes the race of pride and crime : Sit in the gatj and be the heathen's jest, Smiling and self-possest," &c.— 3rd edition.] » "With the stammering lips." — 1st edition. ♦ " We, Thy sinful creatures,'* says the Service for King Charles the Martyr, '* here assembled before Thee, do, in behalf of all the people of this land, humbly confess, that they were the crijhif/ sins of this nation, which brought down this judgment upon us," i. e. King Charles's murder. Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 5 be subscribed by those who aim at being cathohc in heart anOo'ctrihe. In entering upon the proposed examination, it is only necessary to add, that in several places the writer has found it convenient to express himself in language recently used, which he is willing altogether to make his own». He has distinguished the passages introduced by quotation marks. § I. —Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church. Articles vi. & xx.— " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. . r^Pi The Church hath [power to decree (statuendi) rites and ceremonies, and] authority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to [ordain (instituere) any thing that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it] so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be„ a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet [as it ought not to decree (decernere) any thing against the same, so] besides the same, ought it not to enforce (obtrudere) any thing to_ be believed for necessity of salvation ^.^ Two instruments of Christian teaching are spoken of in these Articles, Holy Scripture and the Church. Here then we have to inquire, first, what is meant by Holy Scripture ; next, what is meant by the Church ; and then, what their respective offices are in teaching revealed truth, and how these are adjusted with one another in their actual exercise. » [Tlie passages quoted are the author's own writing on other occasions.] • The passages in brackets (all) relate to rites and ceremonies which are not here in question. [From brackets marking the Second Edition, must be excepted those which occur in quotations.] ■"^ # ^i 7 I [V t^' t. ^ 6 Holy Scripture and (he Authority o/the Church, 1. Now what the Church is, will be considered below in Section 4. 2. And the Books of Holy Scripture are enumerated in the latter pari of the Article, so as to preclude question. Still two points deserve notice here. First, the Scriptures or Canonical Books are said to be those "of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Here it is not meant that there never was any doubt in portions of the Church or particular Churches concerninf]^ certain books» which the Article includes in the Canon ; for some of thein^ — as, for instance, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse — have been the subject of nmch doubt in the West or East, as the case may be. But the Article asserts that there has been no doubt about them in^e Church Catholicj that is, at the very first time that, th e Cath olic or whole Church had the opportunity of form- i" g a j udgment on the subject, it pronounced in favour of the Canonical Books. The Epistle to the Hebrews was doubted by the West, and the Apocalypse by the East, only while those portions of the Church investigated sepa- rately from each other, only till they compared notes, inter- changed sentiments, and formed a united judgment. The phrase must mean this, because, from the nature of the case, it can mean nothing else. And next, be it observed, that the books which are com- monly called A pocrypha, are not asserted in this Article to be destitute of mspiration or to be simply human, but to be not Canonical ; in other words, to differ from Canonical Scripture, specially in this respect, viz, that they are not adduciBIe in proof of doctrine. " The other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth not apply them to es tablis h any doctrine^ That this is the limit to which our disparagemehl of them extends, is plain, not only because the Article mentions nothing beyond it, but also from the reverential manner in which the Homilies speak of them, as shall be incidentally shown in Section 11. [The compatibility of such reverence with such disparagement is also shown u/ Iloly Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 7 from the feeling towards them of St. Jerome, who is quoted in the Article, who implies more or less their inferiority to Canonical Scripture, yet uses them freely and continually, as if Scripture. He distinctly names many of the books which he considers not canonical, and virtually names thorn all by naming what are canonical. For instance, he says, speaking of VVisdom and Ecclesiasticus, " As the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, without receiving them among the Canonical Scriptures, so she reads these two books for the edification of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.'"* {Prmf, in Lihr. Salom.) Again, "The Wisdom, as it is commonly styled, of Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the Canon." {Prcef, ad Reges.) Such is the language of a writer who nevertheless is, to say the least, not wanting in reverence towards the books he thus disparages.] A further question may be asked, concerning our received version of the Scriptures, whether it is in any sense imposed on us as a true comment on the original text ; as the Vulgate is upon the Roman Catholics. U would appear not. It was made and authorized by royal command, which cannot be supposed to have any claim upon our interior consent. At the same time every one who reads it in the Services of the Church, does, of course, thereby imply that he considers that it contains no deadly heresy or dangerous mistake. And about its simplicity, majesty, gravity, harmony, and venerableness, there can be but one opinion. 3. Next we come to the main point, the adjustment which this Article effects between the reflective offices of the Scripture and Church ; which seems to be as follows. It is laid down that, 1. Scripture contains all necessary articles of the faith ; 2. either in its text, or by inference ; ;]. The Church is the keeper of Scripture ; 4. and a witness of it ; 5. and has authority in controversies of faith ; 6. but may not expound one passage of Scripture to contradict another ; 7. nor enforce as an article of faith any point not contained in Scripture. 4 , Zyt^^-t<7 y It i^ T^M ^^^^^ J^^' 8 Holy Scripture and tJie Authority of the Church. From this it appears, first, that the Church expounds and enforces the faith ; for it is forbidden to expound in a parti- cular way, or so to enforce as to obtrude ; next, that it derives the faith wMUjl /rom Scripture; thirdly, that its office is to educe an harmonious interpretation of Scripture. Thus much theTrticle settles. Two iinj)ortant questioj^, however, it does not settle^ viz. wliether the Church judnres, first, at her sole discretion; next, on her sole responsibility ; i.e. first, what the 7nedia are by which the Church interprets Scripture, whether by a direct divine gift, or catholic tradition, or critical exegesis of the text, or in any other way ; and next, who is to decide whether it interprets Scripture rightly or not ;— what is her method, if any; and who is her judge, if any. In other words, not a word is said, on the one hand, in /a wwr of Scripture having no rule or method to fix interpretation by, or, as it is commonly expressed, heinQthejole rule of faith ; nor on the other, of the private judgment of the individual being the ultimate standard of interpretation. So much has been saidTateTybn both the^e points, and indeed on the whole subject of these two Articles, that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them ; but since it is often supposed to be almost a first principle of our Church, that Scripture is " the rule of faith,'' it may be well, before passing on, to make an extract from a paper, published some yeai-s since, which shows, by instances from our divines, that the application of the phrase to Scripture is but of recent adoption. The other question, about the ultimate judge of the interpreta- tion of Scripture, shall not be entered upon. " We may dispense with the phrase * Rule of Faith,' as applied to Scripture, on the ground of its being ambiguous ; and, again, because it is then used in a novel sense ; for the ^ancient Church made the Apostolip Tradition, as summed upTn~the Creed, andnbrthe Brble, the B^gula Fidei, or RuIeT Sfore^over, its use as a technical phrase, seems to be oF late introduction in the Church, that is, since the days of King William the Third. Our great divines use it with-, out any fixed sense, sometimes for Scripture, sometiniesfor Holy Scripture and the Authority of the Church. w*.'' the whole and perfectly adjusted Christian doctrine, some- t li nes fo r the Creed ; and at the risk of being tedious, we wHl prove this, by quotations, that the point may be put beyond dispute. *' Ussher, after St. Austin, identifies it with the Creed; — when speaking of the Article of our Lord's Descent to Hell, he says, — •* * It having here likewise been furtlier manifested, what different opinions have been entertained by the ancient Doctors of the Church, concerning the determinate place whtrein our Saviour's soul did re- main (luring the time of the separation of it from the body, I leave it to be considered by the learned, whether any such controverted matter may fitly be brought in to expound (he Rule of Faitliy which, being common both to the great and small ones of the Church, must contain such varieties only as are generally agreed upon by the common con- sent of all true Christians.' — Answer to a Jesuitf p. 3C2. " Taylor speaks to the same purpose : ' Let us see with what constancy that and the following ages of the Church (lid adhere to the Apostles' Creed, as the sufficient and perfect Bale of Faith."" — Dissuasive, part 2, i. 4, p. 470. T]lsc?where he calls Scripture the llule : ' That the Scripture is a full and sufficient llule to Christians in faith and manners, a full and perfect declaration of the Will of God, is therefore certain, because we have no other." — Ibid, part 2, i. 2, p. 384. Elsewhere, Scripture and the Creed : ' He hath, by His wise Providence, preserved the plain places of Scripture and the Apostles' Creed, in all Churches, to be the llule and Measure of Faith, by which all Churches are saved.' — Ibid, part 2, i. 1, p. 346. Elsewhere he identifies it with Scripture, the Creeds, and the first four Councils : ' We also [after Scripture] do believe the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of Constantinople, and that which is commonly called the symbol of St. Athanasius; and the four first General Councils are so entirely admitted by us, that they, together with the plain words of Scripture, are made the Bule and Measure of judging heresies among us.' — Ibid, part 1, i. p. 13L '' Laud calls the Creed, or rather the Creed with Scrip- 10 Uoly Scripture and the Authority of the Church. ture, the Rule. ' Since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith ; since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the Two Regular Precepts^ by which a divine is governed about his faith/ &c. — Conference with Fisher^ p. 42. *' Branihall also : ' The Scripture and the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith, but one and the same Rule^ dilated in Scripture, contracted in the Creed.'' — Worh, p. 402. Stillingfleet says the same (Grounds, i, 4. 3.) ; as does Thorndike (De Rat. fin. Controv. p. 144, &c.). Else- where, Stillingfleet calls Scripture the Rule (Ibid. i. 6. 2.) ; as does Jackson (vol. i. p. 226). But the most complete and decisive statement on the subject is contained in Field's work on the Church, from which shall follow a long extract. ** • It remained to show,* he says, ' what is the Rule of that judgment whereby the Church discerneth between truth and falsehood, the faith and heresy, and to whom it properly pertainetli to interpret those things which, touching this Rule, are doubtful. The Rule of our Faith in general, whereby we know it to be true, is the infinite excellency of Gon It being pre-supposed in the generality that the doctrine of the Christian faith is of God, and containeth nothing but heavenly truth, in the next place, we are to inquire by what Rule we are to judge of particular things contained within the compass of it. "'This Rule is, 1. The summary comprehension of such principal articles of this divine knowledge, as are the principles whence all other things are concluded and inferred. These are contained in the Creed of the Apostles. ** * 2. All such things as every Christian is bound expressly to be- lieve, by the light and direction whereof he judgeth of other tilings, which are not absolutely necessary so particularly to be known. These are rightly said to be the Rule of our Faith, because the principles of every science are the Rule whereby we judge of the truth of all things, as being better and more generally known than any other thing, and the cause of knowing them. ** * 3. The analogy, due proportion, and correspondence, that one thing in this divine knowledge hath with another, so that men cannot err in one of them without erring in another; nor rightly understand one, but they must likewise rightly conceive the rest. ** * 4. Whatsoever Books were delivered unto us, as written by them, to whom the first and immediate revelation of the divine truth was made. Eoly Scripture and the Authority of the Church. 11 "'5. Whatsoever hath been delivered by all the saints with one consent, which have left their judgment and opinion in writing. ** * 6. Whatsoever the most famous have constantly and uniformly delivered, as a matter of faith, no one contradicting, though many other ecclesiastical writers be silent, and say nothing of it. "*7. That which the most, and most famous in every age, con- stantly delivered as a matter of faith, and as received of them that went before them, in such sort that the contradictors and gainsayers were in their beginnings noted for singularity, novelty, and division, and afterwards, in process of time, if they persisted in such contra- diction, charged with heresy. ** * These three latter Rules of our Faith we admit, not because they are equal with the former, and originally in themselves contain the direction of our Faith, but because nothing can be delivered, with such and so full consent of the people of God, as in them is ex- pressed, but it must need be from those first authors and founders of our Christian profession. The Romanists add unto these the decrees of Councils and determination of Popes, making these also to be the Rules of Faith ; but because we have no proof of their infallibility, we number them not with the rest. "•'Thus we see how many things, in several degrees and sorts, are said to be Rules of our Faith. The infinite excellency of God, as that wliereby the truth of the heavenly doctrine is proved. The Articles of Faith, and other verities ever expressly known in the CPTurdTas the^ first pnncipliM,^are tire~CanonI)y which we judge of conclusions from"" thence ijiferred. The Scripture, as containing in it all that doctrine of Faith whTch Christ the Son of God delivered. The uniform prac- tice and consenting judgment of them that went before us, as a certain and undoubted explication of the things contained in the Scripture. So then, we do not make Scripture the Rule of our Faith, but that other things in their kind are Mules likewise; in such sort that it is not tafe, without respect had unto them, to judge things hy the Scripture alone,' &c.— iv. 14. pp. 364, 365. "Theseextracts show not only what the Anglican doc- trine is, but, In particular, that the phrase ' Rule of Faith ' is no symSoIicai expression with us, appropriated to some one sense ; certainly not as a definition or attribute of Holy Scripture. And it is important to insist upon this, from tEe~very great misconceptions to which the phrase gives rise. Perhaps its use had better be avoided altogether. In the sense in which it is commonly understood at this day, Ml [/ I 12 Justification hy Faith onfy. Scr^iturc.. it is plain, is not, on Anglican principles, the Eulc of Faith;' § 2,— Justification hy Faith only. Article xi.— '' That we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine.*" The Homilies add that Faith is the sole means, the sole instnment of justification. Now, to show briefly what such statements imply, and what they do not. 1 They do not imply a denial of Baptism as a means and an instrument of justification ; which the Homihes else- where affirm, as will be shown incidentally m a later ^''''" The instrumental power of Faith cannot interfere with the instrumental power of Baptism ; because Faith is the sole justifier, not in contrast to all means and agencies whatever, (for it is not surely in contrast to our Ws merits, or God s mercy,) but to all other graces. When, then Faith is called the sole instrument, this means the sole internal instrument, not the sole instrument of any kind. ^' There is nothing inconsistent, then, in Faith being the sole instrument of justification, and yet Baptism also the sole instrument, and that at the same time, because m dis- tinct senses ; an inward instrument in no way interfering with an outward instrument. Baptism may be the hand of the giver, and Faith the hand of the receiver." Nor does the sole instrumentality of Faith interfere with the doctrine of Works being a mean also. And that it is a mean, the Homily of Alms-deeds declares in the strongest lantruage, as will also be quoted in Section 11. *^An assent to the doctrine that Faith alone justifies, does not at ail preclude the doctrine of Works justifying also If indeed, it were said that Works justify in the same seuBC as Faith only justifies, this would be a con- Justification hy Faith only. 13 tradiction in terms; but Faith only may justify in one sense — Good Works in another: — and this is all that is here maintained. After all, does not Christ only justify ? How is it tnat tiie^ffe^ine of Faith justifying does not interfere with our LoRi/sVbeing the sole Justifier ? It will, of course, be replied, that! our T.ord is the meritorious cause, and Faith the means; tliat Faith justifies in a different and subordinate sense. As, then, Christ justifies in the sense in which He justifie o alone, yet Faith also justifies in its own sense; so Works, whether moral or ritual, may justify us in their own respective senses, though in the sense in which Faith juj^tifies, it only justifies. The only question is. What is t iat\ sense in which Works justify, so as not to interfere w, h Faith only justifying? It may, indeed, turn out on inq rv , that the sense alleged will not hold, either as being un i^ttural, or for any other reason; but, whether so or not t any rate the apparent incon- sistency of language should not startle persons ; nor should they so promptly condemn these who, though they do not use their language, use St. James's. Indeed, is not this argument the very weapon of the Arians, in their warfare against the Son of God? They said, Christ is not God, because the Father is called the ' Only God.' *" 2. Next wc have to inquire in what sense Faith only does justify. In a number of ways, of which here two only shall be mentioned. First, it is the pleading or impetrating principle, or constitutes our title to justification ; being analogous among the graces to Moses' lifting up his hands on the Mount, or the Israelites eyeing the Brazen Serpent, — actions which did not merit God's mercy, but asked for it. A number of means go to effect our justification. We are justified by Christ alone, in that He has purchased the gift ; by Faith alone, in that Faith asks for it; by Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it; and by newness of heart alone, for newness of heart is the life of it. And secondly, Faith, as being the beginning of perfect or justifying righteousness, is taken for what it tends towards, Jii 'i 14 Works before and after Justification. or ultimately will be. It is said by anticipation to be that which it promises ; just as one might pay a labourer his hire before he began his work. Faith working by love J the seed of divine graces, which in d^^ iime wVu De brought forth and flourish— partly in this ;ivorld, fully in the next. % g 3. — WorJcs lefore and defter Justification, Articles xii. & xiii. — " Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, [' before justifi- cation," title of the Article,] are no/t pleasant to God (minimi Deo grata sunt) ; forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make man meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity (merentur gratiam de congruo) ; yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. Albeit good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification (justificatos sequuntur), cannot put away (expiare) our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable (grata et accepta) to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith.'' Two sorts of works are here mentioned — works before justification, and works after ; and they are most strongly contrasted with each other. 1. Works before justification, are done " before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit.'' 2. Works before "do not spring of Faith in Jesus Christ;" works after are "the fruits of Faith." 3. Works before " have the nature of sin ;" works after are " good works.'' 4. Works before " are not pleasant (grata) to God ;" works after "are pleasing and acceptable (grata et accepta) to God." / Works before and after Justification, 15 Two propositions, mentioned in these Articles, remain, and deserve consideration : First, that works before justifi- cation do not make or dispose men to receive grace, or, as the school writers say, deserve grace of congruity ; secondly, that works after "cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment." 1. As to the former statement,— to deserve de congruo or of congruity, is to move the Divine regard, not from any claim upon it, but from a certain fitness or suitableness ; as, for instance, it might be said that dry wood had a certain disposition or fitness towards heat which green wood had not. Now, the Article denies that works done before the grace of Christ, or in a mere state of nature, in this way dispose towards grace, or move God to grant grace. And it asserts, with or without reason, (for it is a question o^ historical fact, which need not specially concern us,) that certain schoolmen maintained the affirmative. Now, that this is what it means, is plain from the following passages of the Homilies, which in no respect have greater claims upon us than as comments upon the Articles: — " Therefore they that teach repentance without a lively faith in our Savio.r Jesus Christ, do teach none other but Judas's repentance as all the schoolmen do, which do only allow these three parts of re* pentance,~the contrition of the heart, the confession of the mouth and the satisfaction of the work. But all these things we find in Judas s repentance, which, in outward appearance, did far exceed and pass the repentance of Peter This was commonly the penance which Christ enjoined sinners, * Go thy way, and sin no more ; ' which penance we shall never be able to fulfil, without the special grace of Him that doth say, * Without Me, ye can do nothing.' "-0« Re, fjentanccj p. 460. To take a passage which is still more clear : " As these examples are not brought in to the end that we shou.d thereby take a boldness to sin, presuming on the mercy and goodness of God, but to the end that, if, through the frailness of our own flesh and the temptation of the devil, we fall into the like sins, we should in no wise despair of the mercy and goodness of God: even so nmst we leware and take heed, that we do in no wise think in our hearU. V3fl 16 Works before and after Justification. imagine, or believe that we are able to repent aright, or to turn effec tually unto the Lord by our own might and strengths —Ibid, part i. fin. The Article contemplates these two states,— one of justifying grace, and one of the utter destitution of grace ; and it says, that those who are in utter destitution cannot do any thing to gain justification ; and, indeed, to assert the contrary would be Pelagianism. However, there is an intermediate state, of which the Article says nothing, but which must not be forgotten, as being an actually existing one. Men are not always either in light or in darkness, but are sometimes between the two ; they are sometimes not in a state of Christian justification, yet not utterly deserted by God, but in a state something like that of Jews or of Heathen, turning to the thought of religion. They are not gifted with habitual grace, but they still are visited by Divine influences, or by actual grace, or rather aid; and these influences are the first-fruits of the grace of justification going before it, and are intended to lead on to it, and to be perfected in it, as twilight leads to day. And since it is a Scripture maxim, that "he that is faithful m that which is least, is faithful also in much C and - to who- soever hath, to him shall be given T therefore, it is quite true that works done with divine aid, and in faith, before justification, do dispose men to receive the grace of justifi- cation ;— such were Cornelius's alms, fastings, and prayers, which led to his baptism. At the same time it must be borne in mind that, even in such cases, it is not the works themselves which make them meet, as some schoolmen seem to have said, but the secret aid of God, vouchsafed, equally with the "grace and Spirit," which is the portion of the baptized, for the merits of Christ s sacrifice. [But it may be objected, that the silence observed in the Article about a state between that of justification and grace, and that of neither, is a proof that there is none such. This argument, however, would prove too much ; for in like manner there is a silence in the Sixth Article about d. judge of the scripturalness of doctrine, yet a judge The Visible Church. 17 there must be. And, again, few, it is supposed, would deny that Cornelius, before the angel came to him, was in a more hopeful state, than Simon Magus or Felix. The difficulty then, if there be one, is common to persons of whatever school of opinion.] 2. If works before justification, when done by the influence of divine aid, gain grace, much more do works after justifi- cation. They are, according to the Article, "grata,'' "pleasing to God;'' and they are accepted, "acceptaf which means that God rewards them, and that of course according to their degree of excellence. At the same time, as works before justification may nevertheless be done under a divine influence, so works after justification are still liable to the infection of original sin; and, as not being perfect, " cannot expiate our sins," or " endure the severity of God's judgment." § ^.—The Visible Church. Art. xix.— " The visible Church of Christ is a congre- gation of faithful men (coetus fidelium), in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." This is not an abstract definition of a Church, but a description of the actually existing One Holy Catholic Church diffused throughout the world ; as if it were read, " The Church is a certain society of the faithful," &c. This is evident from the mode of describing the Catholic Church familiar to all writers from the first ages down to the age of this Article. For instance, St. Clement of Alexandria says, " I mean by the Church, not a place, but the congregation of the electr Origen : " The Church, the assembly of all the faithful."' St. Ambrose : " One congre- gation, one Church." St. Isidore : " The Church is a con. c V ./ 18 The Visible Church, gregation of saints^ collected on a certain faith, and the best conduct of life."' St. Augustin : '' The Church is the people of God through all ages." Again : " The Church is tJie multitude which is spread over the whole earth.'" St. Cyril: " When we speak of the Church, we denote the most holy multitude of the pious:" Theodoret: ''The Apostle calls the Church the assembly of the faithful:" Pope Gregory: " The Church, a multitude of the faithful collected of both sexes." Bede : '' The Church is the congregation of all saints:' Alcuin: " The Holy Cathohc Church,— in Latin, the congregation of the faithful:" Amalanus: "The Church is the people called together by the Churcirs ministers." Pope Nicolas I. : " The Church, that is, the congregation of Catholics:" St. Bernard : '' What is the Spouse, but the congregation of the just?"" Peter the Venerable: ''The Church is called a congregation, but not of all things, not of cattle, but of men, faithful, good, just. Though bad among these good, and just among the unjust, are revealed or concealed, yet it is called a Church." Hugo Victorinus: " The Holy Church, that is, the university of the faithful"" Arnulphus : " The Church is called the congregation of the faithful:" Albertus Magnus : " The Greek word Church means in Latin convocation ; and whereas works and callings belongs to rational animals, and reason in man is inward faith, therefore it is called the congregation of the faithfuL"" Durandus : " The Church is in one sense material, in which divers offices are celebrated ; in another spiritual, which is the collection of the faithful"" Alvarus : " The Church is the multitude of the faithful, or the university of Christians." Pope Pius IL : " The Church is the multitude of the faith- ful dispersed through all nations '." [And so the Reformers, in their own way ; for instance, the Confession of Augsburgh. "The one Holy Church will remain for ever. Now the Church of Christ properly is the congregation of the members of Christ, that is, of saints who truly beheve and obey Christ; though with this congregation many bad * These instances are from Launoy, The Visible Church, 19 and hypocrites are mixed in this life, till the last judgment." vii.— And the Saxon: "We say then that the visible Church in this life is an assembly of those who embrace the Gospel of Christ and rightly use the Sacraments," &;c. xii.] These illustrations of the phraseology of the Article may be multiplied in any number. And they plainly show that it is not laying down any logical definition what a Church is, but is describing, and, as it were, pointing to the Catholic Church diffused throughout the world; which, being but one, cannot possibly be mistaken, and requires no o'theivaccount of it beyond this single and majestic one. The ministration^of the Word and Sacraments is mentioned as a further note of it. As to the question of its limits, whether Episcopal Succession or whether intercommunion with the whole be necessary to each part of it,— these are questions, most important indeed, but of detail, and are not expressly treated of in the Articles. This view is further illustrated by the following passage from the Homily for Whitsunday:— " Our Saviour Christ departing out of the world unto His Father, promised His Disciples to send down another Comforter, that should continue with them for ever, and direct them into all truth. Which thing, to be faithfully and truly performed, the Scriptures do suffi- ciently bear witness. Neither must we think that this Comforter was either promised, or else given, only to the Apostles, but also to the universal Church of Christ, dispersed through the whole world. For, unless the Holy Ghost has been always present, governing and preserving the Church from the beginning, it could never have suffered 80 many and great brunts of affliction and persecution, with so little damage and harm as it hath. And the words of Christ are most plain in this behalf, saying, that ' the Spirit of Truth should abide with them for ever;' that ' He would be with them always (He meanet)i by grace, virtue, and power) even to the world's end.' "Also in the prayer that He made to His Father a little before His death, He maketh intercession, not only for Himself and His Apostles, but indifferently for all them that should believe in Him through their words, that is, to wit, for His whole Church. Again, St. Paul saith, * If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is not His.' Also, in the words following: * We have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.' Hereby, then, it is evident and plain to all men, that the Holy Ghost was given not c 2 20 The Visible Church, only to the Apostles, but also to the whole body of Christ's congre* gation, although not in like form and majesty as He came down at the feast of Pentecost. But now herein standeth the controversy, — whether all men do justly arrogate to themselves the Holy Ghost, or no. The Bishops of Rome have for a long time made a sore challenge thereto, reasoning with themselves after this sort: *The Holy Ghost,* say they, * was promised to the Church, and never forsaketh tlie Church. But we are the chief heads and the principal part of the Church, therefore we have the Holy Ghost for ever: and whatsoever things we decree are undoubted verities and oracles of the Holy Ghost.* That ye may perceive the weakness of this argument, it is needful to teach you, first, what the true Church of Christ is, and then to confer the Church of Rome therewith, to discern how well they agree together. The true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people^ built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the head corner- stone. AmLitJiath always three notes or marks, whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreejible both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith. Now, if you will compare this with the Church of Rome, not as it was in the beginning, but as it is at present, and hath been for the space of nine hundred years and odd ; you shall well perceive the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the Church, that nothing can be more." This passage is quoted, not for all it contains, but in that respect in which it claims attention, viz. as far as it is an illustration of the Article. It is speaking of the one Catholic Church, not of an abstract idea of a Church which may be multiplied indefinitely in fact; and it uses the same terms of it which the Article does of "the visible Church.'' It says that *' the true Church is an universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people," &c., which as closely corresponds to the coetus fidelium^ or "congregation of faithful men" of the Article, as the above descriptions from Fathers or Divines do. Therefore, the coetus Jidelium spoken of in the Article is not a definition, which kirk, or connexion, or other communion may be made to fall under, but the enunciation of a fact. 21 § 5. — General Councils. Article xxi.-^" General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, m things pertaining to God." That great bodies of men, of different countries, may not meet together without the sanction of their rulers, is plain from the principles of civil obedience and from primitive practice. That, when met together, though Christians, they will not be all ruled by the Spirit or Word of God^ is plain from our Lord s parable of the net, and from melancholy experience. That bodies of men, deficient in this respect, may err, is a self-evident truth,--unless, indeed, they be favoured with some divine superintendence, which has to be proved, before it can be admitted. General councils then may err, [as such;— may err,] unless in any case it is promised, as a matter of expre^ supernatural privilege, that they shall not err ; a case which [as consisting in the fulfilment of additional or subsequent conditions,] lies beyond the scope of this Article, or at any rate beside its determination. Such a promise, however, does exist, in cases when general councils are not only gathered together according to "the commandment and will of princes," but in the Name of Christ, according to our Lord's promise. TEe ArtTcIe merely contemplates the human prince, not the King of Saints. While councils are a thing of earth, their infallibility of course is not guaranteed ; when they are a thing of heaven, their deliberations are overruIed,~and their decrees authoritative. In such cases they are Catholic councils; and it would seem, from passages which will be quoted in Section 11, that the Homilies recognize four, or even six, as bearing this character. Thus^ Catholjcor (Ecumenical Councils are general councils, and~something~^ (^ 22 Purgatory^ Pardons, Images^ more. Some general councils are Catholic, an^ others^re^ not. Nay, as even Romanists grant, the same councils may lie partly Catholic, partly not. If Catholicity be thus a qaaliUj, found at times in general councils, rather than the differentia belonging to a certain class of them, it is still less surprising that the Article should be silent about it. What those conditions are, which fulfil the notion of a gathering "in the Name of Christ,'' in the case of a particular council, it is not necessary here to determine. Some have included among these conditions, the subsequent reception of its decrees by the universal Church ; others a ratification by the pope. Another of these conditions, however, the Article goes on to mention, viz. that in points necessary to salvation, a council should prove its decrees by Scripture. St. Gregory Nazianzen well illustrates the consistency of this Article with a belief in the infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils, by his own language on the subject on different occasions. *♦ In the following passage he anticipates the Article : — •« My mind is, if I must write the truth, to keep clear of every con- ference of bishops, for of conference never saw I good come, or a remedy so much as an increase of evils. For there is strife and ambition, and these have the upper hand of reason." — Ep. 55, Yet, on the other hand, he speaks elsewhere of " the Holy Council in Nicaia, and that band of chosen men whom the Holy Ghost brought together.'' — Orat. 21. Relics^ Invocation of Saints, 23 § 6. — Purgatory^ Pardons^ Images, Relics^ Invocation of Saints, Article xxii.— "The Romish doctrine concerning pur- gatory, pardons (de indulgentiis), worshipping (de vene- ratione) and adoration, as well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing (res est futilis) vainly (inaniter) invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant (contradicit) to the Word of God." Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article IS, that the doctrine objected to is " the Romish doctrine." For instance, no one would suppose that the Cahinistic doctrine containing purgatory, pardons, and image-worship, is spoken against. Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond thing, but the Romish doctrine. Accordingly, the Primitive doctrine is not condemned in it, unless, indeed, the Primitive doctrine be the Romish, which must not be supposed. Now there was a primitive doctrine on all these points, — how far Catholic or universal, is a further question, — but still so widely received and so respectably supported, that it may well be entertained as a matter of opinion by a theologian now ; this, then, whatever be its merits, is not condemned by this Article. This is clear without proof on the face of the matter, at least as regards pardons. Of course, the Article never meant to make light of every doctrine about pardons, but a certain doctrine, the Romish doctrine, [as indeed the plural form itself shows.] And [such an understanding of the Article is supported by] some sentences in the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far as regards relics, a certain "veneration" is sanctioned by its tone in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish veneration. The sentences referred to run as follow : — "In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book, and Forty-eighth Chapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being yet alive, did work miracles : and that after his death, devils, being expelled at his grave or tomb, did roar.' Thus you see what authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that most ancient history give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epiphanius." Again : "St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the 24. Purgatory^ Pardons^ ImageSy Emperor, saith, * Helena found the Cross, and the title on it. She worshipped the King, and not the wood, surely (for that is an heathenish error and the vanity of the wicked), but she worshipped Ilim that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name was written on the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's fact, and St. Ambrose's judgment at once ; they thought it had been an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have worshipped the Cross itself which was imbrued with our Saviour Christ's own precious blood." — Peril of Idolatry y part 2, circ. init. In these passages the writer does not positively commit himself to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the discovery of the true Cross, but he evidently wishes the hearer to think he believes in both. This he would not do, if he thought all honour paid to relics wrong. If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine concerning veneration of relics is condemned in the Article before us, but a certain toleration of them is compatible with its wording ; neither is all doctrine concerning pur- gatory, pardons, images, and saints, condemned by the Article, but only " the Romish.*" And further by " the Romish doctrine,'' is not meant the Tridcntine [statement], because this Article was drawn up before the decree of the Council of Trent. What is opposed is the received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine of the Roman schools ; a conclusion which is still more clear, by considering that there are portions in the Tridentine [statements] on these subjects, which the Article, far from condemning, by anticipation approves, as far as they go. For instance, the Decree of Trent enjoins concerning purgatory thus: — "Among the uneducated vulgar let difficult and subtle questions, which make not for edification, and seldom contribute aught towards piety, be kept back from popular discourses. Neither let them suffer the public mention and treatment of uncertain points, or such as look like falsehood,'''' Session 25. Again, about images : " Due honour and veneration is to be paid unto them, not thai ice believe that any divinity or virtue is in them, for which they should be worshipped H / f Belies, Invocation of Saints. 25 (colendse) or that ice should ask any thing of them, or that trust should be reposed in images, as formerly was done by the Gentiles, which used to place their hope on idols.'' — Ibid, If then, the doctrine condemned in this Article concerning l)urgatory, pardons, images, relics, and saints, be not the Primitive doctrine, nor the Catholic doctrine, nor the Tri- dentine [statement] but the Romish, doctrina Eomanensium, let us next consider what in matter of fact it is. And 1. As, to the doctrine of the Romanists concerning Purgatory. Now here there was sl primitive doctrine, whatever its merits, concerning the fire of judgment, which is a possible or a probable opinion, and is not condemned. That doctrine is this : that the conflagration of the world, or the flames which attend the Judge, will be an ordeal through which all men will pass ; that great saints, such as St. Mary, will pass it unharmed ; that others will suffer loss ; but none will fail under it who are built upon the right foundation. Here is one [purgatorian doctrine] not "Romish." Another doctrine, purgatorian, but not Romish, is that said to be maintained by the Greeks at Florence, in which the cleansing, though a punishment, was but ^pwnadamniy not a poena sensus ; not a positive sensible infliction, much less the torment of fire, but the absence of God's presence. And another purgatory is that in which the cleansing is but a progressive sanctification, and has no pain at all. None of these doctrines does the Article condemn ; any of them may be held by the Anglo-Catholic as a matter of private belief; not that they are here advocated, one or other, but they are adduced as an illustration of what the Article does not mean, and to vindicate our Christian liberty in a matter where the Church has not confined it. [For what the doctrine which is reprobated is, we might refer, in the first place, to the Council of Florence, where a decree was passed on the subject, were not that decree almost as vague as the Tridentine ; viz. that deficiency of penance is made up by p " The pardons then, spoken of in the Article, are large and reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments." Ist ed. ^ Images and Relics, 33 , and gratitude, would kneel before men, carpenters, masons, plasterers, founders, and goldsmiths, their makers and framers, by whose means they have attained this honour, which else should have been evil- favoured, and rude lumps of clay or plaster, pieces of timber, stone, or metal, without shape or fashion, and so without all estimation and honour, as that idol in tlie Pagan poet confesseth, saying. « I was once a vile block, but now I am become a god,' &c. What a fond thing is it for man, who hath life and reason, to bow himself to a dead and insensible image, tlie work of his own hand ! Is not this stooping and kneeling before them, which is forbidden so earnestly by God s word? Let such as so fall down before images of saints, know and confess that they exhibit that honour to dead stocks and stones, which the saints themselves, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, would not to be given to them, being alive ; which the angel of God forbiddeth to be given to him. And if they say they exhibit such honour not to the image, but to the saint whom it representeth, they are convicted of folly, to believe that they please saints with that honour, which they abhor as a spoil of God's honours—Homily on Peril of Idolatry ^ p. 191. Again : "Thus far Lactantius, and much more, too long here to write, of candle lighting in temples before images and idols for religion ; whereby appeareth both the foolishness thereof, and also that in opinion and act we do agree altogether in our candle-religion with the Gentiles idolaters. What meaneth it that they, after the example of the Gentiles idolaters, hum incense, ofer up gold to images, hang up crutches, chains, and ships, legs, arms, and whole men and women of wax, before images, as though by them, or saints (as they say) they were delivered from lameness, sickness, captivity, or shipwreck? Is not this *colere imagines,' to worship images, so earnestly forbidden in God's word ? If they deny it, let them read the eleventh chapter of Daniel the Prophet, who saith of Antichrist, ' He shall worship God, whom his fathers knew not, with gold, silver, and with precious stones, and other things of pleasure:' in which place the Latin word 18 colet:* "To increase this mardness, wicked men, which have the keeping of such images, for their great lucre and advantage, after the example of the (ientiles idolaters, have reported and spread abroad, as well by lying tales as written fables, divers miracles of images : as that such an image miraculously was sent from heaven, even like the Palladium, or Magna Diana Ephesiorum. Such another was as miraculously found in the earth, as the man's head was in the Capitol, or the horse's head in Capua. Such an image was brought by angels. Such an one came itself far from the East to the West, as Dame Fortune fled to Rome. Such an image of our Lady was IM 34 Images and Relics, painted by St. Luke, whom of a physician they have made a painter for that purpose. Such an one an hundred yokes of oxen could not move, like Bona Dea, whom the ship could not carry; or Jupiter Olympius, which laughed the artificers to scorn, that went about to remove him to Rome. Some images, though they were hard and stony, yet, for tender heart and pity, wept. Some, like Castor and Pollux, helping their friends in battle, sweat, as marble pillars do in dankish weather. Some spake more monstrously than ever did Balaam's ass, who had life and breath in him. Such a cripple came and saluted this saint of oak, and by and by he was made whole; and lo! here hangeth his crutch. Such an one in a tempest vowed to St. Christopher, and 'scaped ; and behold, here is a ship of wax. Such an one, by St. Leonard's help, brake out of prison, and see where his fetters hang." •' The Relics we must kiss and offer unto, specially on Relic Sunday. And while we offer, (that we should not be weary, or repent us of our cost,) the music and minstrelsy goeth merrily all the offertory time, with praising and calling upon those saints, whose relics be then in presence. Yea, and the water also, wherein those relics have been dipped, must with great reverence be reserved, as very holy and effectuous." " Because Relics were so gainful, few places were there but they had Relics provided for them. And for more plenty of Relics, some one saint had many heads, one in one place, and another in another place. Some had six arms, and twenty-six fingers. And where our Lord bare His cross alone, if all the pieces of the relics thereof were gathered together, the greatest ship in England would scarcely bear them; and yet the greatest part of it. they say, doth yet remain in the hands of the Infidels; for the which they pray in their beads-bidding, that they may get it also into their hands, for such godly use and purpose. And not only the bones of the saints, but every thing appertaining to them, was a holy relic. In some place they offer a sword, in some the scabbard, in some a shoe, in some a saddle that had been set upon some holy horse, in some the coals wherewith St. Laurence was roasted, in some place the tail of the ass which our Lord Jesus Christ sat on* to be kissed and offered unto for a relic. For rather than they would lack a relic, they would offer you a horse bone instead of a virgins arm, or the tail of the ass to be kissed and offered unto for relics. O wicked, impudent, and most shameless men, the devisers of these things ! O silly, foolish, and dastardly daws, and more beastly than the ass whose tail they kissed, that believe such things ! " ««0f these things already rehearsed, it is evident that our image maintainers have not only made images, and set them up in temples, as did the Gentiles idolaters their idols; but also that they have had the same dolatrous opinions of the saints, to whom they have made images. Images and Belies. 35 I'l i which the Gentiles idolaters had of their false gods ; and have not only worshipped their images with the same rites, ceremonies, superstition, and all circumstances, as did the Gentiles idolaters their idols, but in many points have also far exceeded them in all wickedness, foolish- ness, and madness."— /Towi/y on Peril of Idolatry, pp. 193—197. It will be observed that in this extract, as elsewhere in the Homilies, it is implied that the Bishop or the Church of Rome is Antichrist ; but this is a statement bearing on prophetical interpretation, not on doctrine; and one be- sides which cannot be reasonably brought to illustrate or explain any of the positions of the Articles : and therefore it may be suitably passed over. In another place the Homilies speak as follows :— " Our churches stand full of such great puppets, wondrously decked and adorned; garlands and coronets be set on their heads, precious pearls hanging about their necks; their fingers shine with rings, set with precious stones; their dead and stiff bodies are clothed with garments stiff with gold. You would believe that the images of our men-saints were some princes of Persia land with their proud apparel ; and the idols of our women-saints were nice and well-trimmed harlots, tempting their paramours to wantonness : whereby the saints of God are not honoured, but most dishonoured, and their godliness, sober- ness, chastity, contempt of riches, and of the vanity of the world, defaced and brought in doubt by such monstrous decking, most differing from their sober and godly lives. And because the whole pageanl must thoroughly be played, it is not enough thus to deck idols, but at last come in the priests themselves, likewise decked with gold and peari, that they may be meet serva.its for such lords and ladies, and fit worshippers of such gods and goddesses. And with a solemn pace they pass forth before these golden puppets, and fall down to the ground on their marrow-bones before these honourable idols; and then rising up again, offer up odours and incense unto them, to give the people an example of double idolatry, by worshipping not only the idol, but the ^old also, and riches, wherewith it is garnished. Which thing, the most part of our old Martyrs, rather than they would do, or once kneel, or offer up one crumb of incense before an image, suffered most cruel and terrible deaths, as the histories of them at large do declare." " ^ ^°°*^8 and scriptures, in the which the devilish school- master, Satan, hath penned the lewd lessons of wicked idolatry, for his dastardly disciples and scholars to behold, read, and learn, to God s most high dishonour, and their most horrible damnation ! Have we not been much bound, think you, to those which should have taught D 2 36 Images and Relics, us the truth out of God's Book and His Holy Scripture, that they have shut up that Book and Scripture from us, and none of us so bold as once to open it, or read in it? And instead thereof, to spread us abroad these goodly, carved, and gilded books and painted scriptures, to teach us such good and godly lessons? Have not they done well, after they ceased to stand in pulpits themselves, and to teach the people committed to their instruction, keeping silence of Gods word, and become dumb dogs, (as the Prophet calleth them,) to set up in their stead, on every pillar and corner of the church, such goodly doctors, as dumb, but more wicked than themselves be 1 We need not to complain of the lack of one dumb parson, having so many dumb devilish vicars (I mean these idols and painted puppets) to teach in their stead. Now in the mean season, whilst the dumb and dead idols stand thus decked and clothed, contrary to God's law and command- ment, the poor Christian people, the lively images of God, commended to us so tenderly by our Saviour Christ, as most dear to Him, stand naked, shivering for cold, and their teeth chattering in their heads, and no man covereth them, are pined with hunger and thirst, and no man giveth them a penny to refresh them ; whereas pounds be ready at all times (contrary to God's word and will) to deck and trim dead stocks and stones, which neither feel cold, hunger, nor thirst." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, pp. 219—222. Again, with a covert allusion to the abuses of the day, the Homilist says elsewhere, of Scripture, " There shall you read of Baal, Moloch, Chamos, Melchom, Baalpeor, Astaroth, Bel, the Dragon, Priapus, the brazen Serpent, the twelve Signs, and many others, unto whose images the people, with great devotion, invented pilgrimages^ precious decking, and censing them, kneeling doumy and offering to them, thinking that an high merit before God, and to be esteemed above the precepts and commandments of God." — Homily on Good Works, p. 42. Again, soon after : " What man, having any judgment or learning, joined with a true zeal unto God, doth not see and lament to have entered into Chkist's religion, such false doctrine, superstition, idolatry, hypocrisy, and other enormities and abuses, so as by little and little, through the sour leaven thereof, the sweet bread of God's holy word hath been much hindered and laid apart? Never had the Jews, in their most blindness, so many pilgrimages unto images, nor used so much kneeling, kissing, and censing of them, as hath been used in our time. Sects and feigned religions were neither the fortieth part so many among the Jews, nor more superstitiously and ungodly abus>ed, than of late years they have Images and Belies, 37 been among us : which sects and religions had so many hypocritical and feigned works in their state of religion, as they arrogantly named it, that their lamps, as they said, ran always over, able to satisfy not only for their own sins, but also for all other their benefactors, brothers, and sisters of religion, as most ungodly and craftily they had persuaded the multitude of ignorant people ; keeping in divers places, as it were, marts or markets of merits, being full of their holy relics, images, shrines, and works of overflowing abundance, ready to be sold ; and all things which they had were called holy — holy cowls, holy girdles, holy pardons, holy beads, holy shoes, holy rules, and all full of holiness. And what thing can be more foolish, more superstitious, or ungodly, than that men, women, and children, shoiild wear a friar's coat to deliver them from agues or pestilence ; or when they die, or when they be buried, cause it to be cast upon them, in hope thereby to be saved? Which superstition, although (thanks be to God) it hath been little used in this realm, yet in divers other realms it hath been, and yet is, used among many, both learned and unlearned."— ^omi/y on Good Works, pp. 45, 46. [Once more : — "True religion then, and pleasing of God, standeth not in making, setting up, painting, gilding, clothing, and decking of dumb and dead images (which be but great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage, and wicked idolatry, to dally and play with), nor in kissing of them, capping, kneeling, offering to them, incensing of them, setting up of candles, hanging up of legs, arms, or whole bodies of wax before them, or praying or asking of them, or of saints, things belonging only to God to give. But all these things be vain and abominable, and most damnable before God." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 223.] Now the veneration and worship condemned in these and other passages are such as these : kneeling before images, lighting candles to them, offering them incense, going on pilgrimage to them, hanging up crutches, &;c. before them, lying tales about them, belief in miracles as if wrought by them throcgh illusion of the devil, decking them up im- modestly, and providing incentives by them to bad passions ; and, in like manner, merry music and minstrelsy, and li- centious practices in honour of relics, counterfeit relics, multiplication of them, absurd pretences about them. This is what the Article means by "the Romish doctrine,'' which, in agreement to one of the above extracts, it calls *'a fond thing,'' resfutilis; for who can ever hope, except 38 Invocation of Saints. the grossest and most blinded minds, to be gaining the favour of the blessed saints, while they come with unchaste thoughts and eyes, that cannot cease from sin ; and to be profited by "pilgrimage-going," in which "Lady Venus and her son Cupid were rather worshipped wantonly in the flesh, than God the Father, and our Saviour Christ His Son, truly worshipped in the Spirit?" Here again it is remarkable that, urged by the truth of the allegation, the Council of Trent is obliged, both to confess the above-mentioned enormities in the veneration of relics and images, and to forbid them. " Into these holy and salutary observances should any abuses creep, of these the Holy Council strongly [vehementer] desires the utter extinction ; so that no images of a false doctrine, and supplying to the un instructed opportunity of perilous error, should be set up All superstition also in invocation of saints, veneration of relics, and sacred use of images, be put away ; all flthy lucre be cast out of doors ; and all wantonness be avoided; so that images be not painted or adorned with an immodest beauty; or the celebration of Saints and attendance on Relics be abused to revelries and drunkenness ; as though festival days were kept In honour of saints by luxury and lasciviousness.*' Sess. 25. [On the whole, then, by the Romish doctrine of the veneration and worshipping of images and relics, the Article means all maintenance of those idolatrous honours which have been and are paid them so commonly throughout the Church of Rome, with the superstitions, profanities, and impurities consequent thereupon.] 4. Invocation of Saints. By 'invocation'' here is not meant the mere circum- stance of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms in our daily service, which are frequent in in- vocations of Angels to praise and bless God. In the Benedicite too we address '' the spirits and souls of the righteous. "* Nor is it a " fond "^ invocation to pray that unseen beings may bless us; [for this Bishop Ken does in his Evening Hymn : — Invocation of Saints, 39 , O may my Guardian, while I sleep, Close to my bed his vigils keep, His love angelical instil^ Stop all the avenues of ill, &c.] * On the other hand, judging from the example set us in the Homilies themselves, invocations are not censurable, and certainly not " fond,'' if we mean nothing definite by them, addressing them to beings which we know cannot hear, and using them as interjections. The Homilist seems to avail himself of this proviso in a passage, which will serve to begin our extracts in illustration of the superstitious use of invocations. *' We have left Him neither heaven, nor earth, nor water, nor country, nor city, peace nor war to rule and govern, neither men, nor beasts, nor their diseases to cure; that a godly man might justly, for zealous indignation, cry out, heaven^ earth, and seas^, what madness and wickedness against God are men fallen into! What dishonour do the creatures to their Creator and Maker ! And if we remember Go» sometimes, yet, because we doubt of His ability or will to help, we join to Him another helper, as if He were a noun adjective, using these sayings : such as learn, God and St. Nicholas be my speed : such as neese, God help and St. John ; to the horse, God and St Loy save thee. Thus are we become like horses and mules, which have no understanding. For is there not one God only, who by His power and wisdom made all things, and by His providence governeth the same, and by His goodness maintaineth and saveth them? Be not all things of Him, by Him, and through Him? Why dost thou turn from the Creator to the creatures? This is the manner of the Gentiles idolaters : but thou art a Christian, and there- fore by Christ alone hast access to God the Father, and help of Him only." — Homily on Peril of Idolatry, p. 189. ' Again, just before : " Terentius Varro sheweth, that there were three hundred Jupiters in his time : there were no fewer Veneres and Dianae : we had no fewer Christophers, Ladies, and Mary Magdalens, and other saints. (Enomaus and Hesiodus shew, that in their time there were thirty thousand gods. I think we had no fewer saints, to whom we gave the honour due to God. And they have not only spoiled the true living ' [A passage here occurred in 1st edition upon Rev. i. 4, in which the author still thinks that ** the seven spirits " are seven created angels.j • O caelum, o terra, o maria Neptuni. Terent, Addph, v. 3, 40 Invocatwn of Saints. Invocation of Saints. 41 God of His due honour in temples, cities, countries and lands, by such devices and inventions as the Gentiles idolaters have done before them • but the sea and waters have as well special saints witli them, as they had gods witii tlie (ientiles, Neptune, Triton, Nereus, Castor and Pollux, Venus, and such other: in whose places be come St. Christopher, St. Clement, and divers other, and specially our Lady, to whom shipmen sing, * Ave, maris stella.' Neither hath the fire escaped their idolatrous inventions. For, instead of Vulcan and Vesta, the Gentiles' gods of the fire, our men have placed St. Agatha, and make litters on her day for to quench fire with. Every artificer and profession hath his special saint, as a peculiar god. As for example, scholars have St. Nicholas and St. Gregory : painters, St, Luke ; neither lack soldiers their Mars, nor lovers their Venus, amongst Christians. All diseases have their special saints, as gods the curers of them ; the falling-evil St. Cornelio, the tooth-ache St. Apollin, &c. Neither do beasts nor cattle lack their gods with us; for St. Loy is the horse-leech, and St, Anthony the swineherd," — Ibid., p. 188. The same subject is introduced in connexion with a lament over the falling off of attendance on religious worship con- sequent upon the Reformation : " God's vengeance hath been and is daily provoked, because much wicked people pass nothing to resort to the Church, either for that they are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God and godliness, and care not with devilish example to offend their neigh> hours ; or else for that they see the Church altogether scoured of such gay gozing sights, as their gross fantasy was greatly delighted with, because they see the false religion abandoned, and the true restored, which seemeth an unsavoury thing to their unsavoury taste ; as may appear by this, that a woman said to her neighbour, * Alas, gossip, what shall we now do at church, since all the saints are taken away, since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone, since we cannot hear the like piping^ singing, chanting, and playing upon the organs, that we could before V But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice, and give God thanks, that our churches are delivered of all those things which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled His house and His place of prayer, for the which He hath justly destroyed many nations, according to the saying of St, Paul : * If any man defile the temple of God, God will him destroy.' And this ought we greatly to praise God for, that superstitious and idolatrous manners as were utterly naught, and defaced God's glory, are utterly abolished, as they most justly deserved : and yet those things that either God was honoured with, or His people edified, are decently retained, and ii; i our churches comely practised." — On the Place and Time of Prayer ^ pp. 293, 294. Again : "There are certain conditions most requisite to be found in every such a one that must be called upon, which if they be not found in Him unto whom we pray, then doth our prayer avail us nothing, but is altogether in vain. *' The first is this, that He, to whom we make our prayers, be able to help us. The second is, that He will help us. The third is, that He be such a one as may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that He understand better than ourselves what we lack, and how far we have need of help. If these things be to be found in any other, saving only God, then may we lawfully call upon some other besides God. But what man is so gross, but he well understandeth that these things are only proper to Him, who is omnipotent, and knoweth all things, even the very secrets of the heart ; that is to say, only and to (lOD alone? Whereof it followeth that we must call neither upon angel, nor yet upon saint, but only and solely upon God, as St. Paul doth write : * How shall men call upon Him, in whom they have not believed?' So that invocation or prayer may not be made without faith in Him on whom they call; but that we must first believe in Him before we can make our prayer unto Him, whereupon we must only and solely pray unto God. For to say that we should believe in either angel or saint, or in any other living creature, were most horrible blasphemy agsimst God and His holy word; neither ought this fancy to enter into the heart of any Christian man, because we are expressly taught in the word of the Lord only to repose our faith in the blessed Trinity, in whose only name we are also baptized, according to the express commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ, in the last of St. Matthew, " But that the truth thereof may better appear, even to them that be most simple and unlearned, let us consider what prayer is. St. Augustine calleth it a lifting up of the mind to God ; that is to say, an humble and lowly pouring out of the heart to God. Isidorus saith, that it is an affection of the heart, and not a labour of the lips. So that, by these plans, true prayer doth consist not so much in the outward sound and voice of words, as in the inward groaning and crying of the heart to God. ** Now, then, is there any angel, any virgin, any patriarch, or prophet, among the dead, that can understand or know the meaning of the heart ? The Scripture saith, * it is God that searcheth the heart and reins, and that He only knoweth the hearts of the children of men.* As for the saints, they have so little knowledge of the ■ccrets of the heart, that many of the ancient fathers greatly doubt 42 Invocation of Saints, whether they know any thing at all, that is comnoonly done on earth. And albeit some think they do, yet St. Augustine, a doctor of great authority, and also antiquity, hath this opinion of them ; that they know no more what we do on earth, than we know what they do in heaven. For proof whereof, he allegeth the words of Isaiuh the prophet, where it is said, ' Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not.' His mind therefore is this, not that we should put any religion in worshipping them, or praying unto them ; but that we should honour them by following their virtuous and godly life. For, as he witnesseth in another place, the martyrs, and holy men in time past, were wont, after their death, to be remembered and named of the priest at divine service ; but never to be invocated or called upon. And why so? Because the priest, saith he, is Goo's priest, and not theirs : whereby he is bound to call upon God, and not upon them, O but I dare not (will some man say) trouble God at all times with my prayers : we see that in kings' houses, and courts of princes, men cannot be admitted, unless they first use the help and means of some special nobleman, to come to the speech of the king, and to obtain the thing that they would have. "Christ, sitting in heaven, hath an everlasting priesthood, and always prayeth to His Father for them that be penitent, obtaining, by virtue of His wounds, which are evermore in the sight of God, not only perfect remission of our sins, but also all other necessaries that we lack in this world; so that this Holy Mediator is sufficient in heaven, and needeth no others to help Him. "Invocation is a thing />ro/)«'r unto God, which if we attribute unto ^he saints, it soundeth unto their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our hands. When Paul healed a certain lame man, which was impotent in his feet, at Lystra, the people would have done sacrifce unto him and Barnabas ; who, rending their clothes, refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true God. Likewise in the Revelation, when St. John fell before the angel's feet to worship him, the angel would not permit him to do it, but commanded him that he should worship God. Which examples declare unto us, that the saints and angels in heaven will not have us to do any honour unto them that is due and proper unto God." — Homily on Prayer^ pp. 272 — 277. Whereas, then, it lias already been shown that not all invocation is wrong, this last passage plainly tells us what kind of invocation is not allowable, or what is meant by invocation in its exceptionable sense : viz. " a thing proper to God,'"* as being part of the "honour that is due and proper unto God." And two instances are specially given of such calling and invocating, viz., sacrificing^ SLnd/alling down Invocation of Saints. 43 ! ; in worship. Besides this, the Homilist adds, that it is wrong to pray to them for " necessaries in this world/' and to accompany their services with "piping, singing, chanting, and playing **' on the organ, and of invoking saints as patrons of particular elements, countries, arts, or remedies. Here again, as before, the Article gains a witness and concurrence from the Council of Trent. " Though,"" say the divines there assembled, " the Church has been accus- tomed sometimes to celebrate a few masses to tlie honour and remembrance of saints, yet she doth not teach that sa- crifice is offered to them^ but to God alone, who crowned them ; wherefore neither is the priest wont to say, / offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or Paul, but to God." (Sess. 22.) Or, to know what is meant by fond invocations, we may refer to the following passage of Bishop Andrews's Answer to Cardinal Perron : — "This one point is needful to be observed throughout all the Cardinal's answer, that he hath framed to himself five distinctions: — (1.) Prayer direct^ and prayer oblique^ or indirect. (2.) Prayer absolute^ and prayer relative. (3.) Prayer sovereign, and prayer subaltern. (4.) Prayer final, and prayer transitory. (5.) Prayer sacrificial, and prayer out of, or from the sacrifice. Prayer direct^ absolute, final, sovereign, sacrificial, that must not be made to the saints, but to God only : but as for prayer oblique, relative, transitory, subaltern, from, or out of the sacrifice, that (saith he) we may make to the saints. " For all the world, like the question in Scotland, which was made some fifty years since, whether the Pater noster might not be said to saints. For then they in like sort devised the distinction of— (1.) Ultimate, et non ultimate. (2.) Principaliter, et minus principnliter. (3.) Primarie et secundarie : Capiendo stride et capiendo large. And as for ultimate, principaliter, primarie et capiendo stride, they conclude it must go to God: but non ultimate, minu^ principaliter, secundarie, et capiendo large, it might be allowed saints. " Yet it is sure, that in these distinctions is the whole substance of his answer. And whensoever he is pressed, he flees straight to his prayer relative and prayer transitory ; as if prier pour prier were all the Church of Rome did hold ; and that they made no prayers to the saints, but only to pray for them. The Bishop well remembers, that Master Casaubon more than once told him that reasoning with the Cardinal, touching the invocation of saints, the Cardinal freely 44 Invocation of Saints, confessed to him that he had never prayed to mint in all his life, savt only when he happened to follow the procession ; and that then he sung Ora pro nobis witli tiie clerks indeed, but else not. ** Which Cometh much to this opinion he now seemeth to defend : but wherein others of the Church of Rome will surely give him over, so that it is to be feared that the Cardinal will be shent for this, and some censure come out against him by the Sorbonne. For the world cannot believe that oblique relative prayer is all that is sought; seein«f it is most evident, by their breviaries, hours, and rosaries, that they pray directly, absolutely^ and finally to saints, and make no mention at all of prier pour prier, to pray to God to forgive them ; but to the saints, to give it themselves. So that all he saith comes to nothing. They say to the blessed Virgin, ' Sancta Maria,* not only * Ora pro nobis :* but * Succurre miseris, juva pusillanimes, refove flebiles, ' accipe quod offerimus, dona quod rogamus, excusa quod tinienius,* &c. &c ** All which, and many more, shew plainly that the practice of the Church of Kotne, in this point of invocation of saints, is fur otherwise than Cardinal Perron would bear the world in hand ; and that prier pour prier is not all, but that * Tu dona ccelum, Tu laxa, Tu sana, Tu solve crimina, Tu due, conduc, indue, perdue ad gloriam ; Tu serva, Tu fer opem, Tu aufer, Tu confer vitam,* are said to them {totidem verbis) : more than which cannot be said to God Himself. And again, * Hie nos sol vat a peccatis, Hie nostros tergat reatus. Hie arma conferat. Hie hostem fuget. Hie gubernet. Hie aptet tuo conspectui;' which if they be not direct and absolute, it would be asked of them, what is absolute or direct ?" — Bishop Andrews's Answer to Chapter XX. of Cardinal Perron s Reply , pp. 57 — 62. Bellarmine'^s admissions quite bear out the principles laid down by Bishop Andrews and the Honiilist : — " It is not lawful," he says, •* to ask of the saints to grant to us, as if they were the authors of divine benefits, glory or grace, or the other means of blessedness This is proved, first, from Scripture, * The Lord will give grace and glory.' (Psal. Ixxxiv.) Secondly, from the usage of the Church ; for in the mass-prayers, and the saints' offices, we never ask any thing else, but that at their prayers, benefits may be granted to us by God. Thirdly, from reason : for what we need surpasses the powers of the creature^ and therefore even of saints; therefore we ought to ask nothing of saints beyond their impetratinjj from God what is profitable for us. Fourthly, from Augustine and Theodoret, who expressly teach that saints are not to be invoked as gods, but as able to gain from God what they wish. However, it must be observed, when we say, that nothing should be asked of saints but The Sacraments. 45 their prayers for us, the question is not about the words, but the sense of the words. For, as far as words go, it is lawful to say : * St. Peter, pity me, save me, open for me the gate of heaven;' also, 'give me health of body, patience, fortitude,* &c., provided that we mean 'save and pity me by praying for me;' 'grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits.' For so speaks Gregory Nazianzen, and many others of the ancients, &c." — De Sanct. Beat, i, 17. [By the doctrine of the invocation of saints then, the Article ipeans all maintenance of addresses to them which intrench upon the incommunicable honour due to God alone, such as have been, and are in the Church of Rome, and such as, equally with the peculiar doctrine of purgatory, pardons, and worshipping and adoration of images and relics, as actually taught in that Church, are unknown to the Cathohc Church.] § 7. — The Sacraments. Art. XXV. — "Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacra- ments of the Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following (prava imitatione) of the Apostles, partly from states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of sacraments, (sacramentorum eandem rationem,) with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." This Article does not deny the five rites in question to be sacraments, but to be sacraments in the sense in which Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments; "sacra- ments of the Gospel,'''' sacraments with an outward sign ordained of God. They are not sacraments in any sense, unless the Church has the power of dispensing grace through rites of its own appointing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and hidlowing the *' rites or ceremonies'" which, according to 46 The Sacraments, ! the Twentieth Article, it "hath power to decree. But we may well believe that the Church has this gift. If, then, a sacrament be merely an outward sign of an invisible grace given under it, the five rites may be sacra- ments ; but if it must be an outward sign ordained hy God or Christ, then only Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. Our Church acknowledges both definitions; — in the Article before us, the stricter ; and again in the Catechism, where a sacrament is defined to be " an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained hy Christ Himself^'* And this, it should be remarked, is a characteristic of our formularies in various places, not to deny the truth or obligation of certain doctrines or ordinances, but simply to deny, (what no Roman opponent now can successfully maintain,) that Christ for certain directly ordained them. For instance, in regard to the visible Church it is sufficient that the ministration of the sacraments should be " according to Christ's ordinance,'''' Art. xix. — And it is added, *'in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.**' The question entertained is, " what is the least that God requires of us.**** Again, *' the baptism of young children is to be retained, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ."" Art. xxvii. — Again, " the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.*" Art. xxviii. — Who will maintain the paradox that what the Apostles " set in order when they came " had been already done by Christ ? Again, " both parts of the Lord's sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to all Christian men alike.'' Art. xxx. — Again, "bishops, priests, and deacons, are not commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of single life or to abstain from marriage." Art. xxxii. — [In making this distinction, however, it is not here insinuated, though the question is not entered on in these particular Articles, that every one of these points, of which it is only said that they are not ordained by Christ, is justifiable on grounds short of His appointment.] T/ie Sacraments 47 On the other hand, our Church takes the wider sense of the meaning of the word sacrament in the Homilies; observing — *• In the second Book against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets, he [St. Augustine) calleth sacraments holy signs. And writing to Bonifacius of the baptism of infants, he saith, ♦ If sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they be sacraments, they should be no sacraments at all. And of this similitude they do for the most part receive the names of the self-same things they signify.' By these words of St. Augustine it appeareth, that he alloweth the common description of a saciament, which is, that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace; that is to say, that setteth out to the eyes and other outward senses the inward working of God's free mercy, and doth, as it were, seal in our hearts the promises of God."— Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments, pp. 296, 297. Accordingly, starting with this definition of St. Augus- tine's, the writer is necessarily carried on as follows : " You shall hear how many sacraments there be, that were instituted by our Saviour Christ, and are to be continued, and received of every Christian in due time and order, and for such purpose as our Saviour Christ willed them to he received. And as for tl»e number of them, if they should be considered according to the exact signifi- cation of a sacrament, namely, for visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining in Christ, there be but two ; namely, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. For although absolution hath the promise of forgiveness of sin j yet by the express word of the New Testament, it hath not this promise annexed and tied to the visible sign, which is imposition of hands. For this visible sign (I mean laying on of hands) is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be used in absolution, as the visible signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : and therefore absolution is no tuch sacrament as Baptism and the Communion are. And though the ordering of ministers hath this visible sign and promise ; yet it lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are. But in a general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed to any thing, whereby an holy thing is signified. In which understanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken and used for supplying the. number of the seven sacraments ; but also to divers and sundry other 48 The Sacraments. ceremonies, as to oil, washing of feet, and such like; not meaninjj thereby to repute them as sacraments, in the seme signif cation that the two forenamed sacraments are. And therefore St. Augustine, weighiii;f the true signification and exact meaning of the word, writing to Januarius, and also in the third Book of Christian Doctrine, affinneth, that the sacraments of the Christians, as they are most excellent in signification, so are they most few in number, and in both places maketh mention expressly of two, the sacrament of Baptism, and the Supper of the Lokd. And although there are retainetl by order of the Church of England, besides these two, certain other rites and ceremonies, about the institution of ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of Children, by examining them of their knowledge in the Articles of the Faith, and joining thereto the prayers of the Church for them, and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick ; yet no man ought to take these for sacraments, in mch signification and meaning as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are : but either for godly states of life, necessary in Christ's Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity, by the ministry of the Church, or else judged to be such ordinances as may make for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ's Church."— ^oi»% on Common Prayer and Sacraments^ pp. 298 — 300. Another definition of the word sacrament, which equally succeeds in hmiting it to the two principal rites of the Christian Church, is also contained in the Catechism, as well as alluded to in the above passage : — " Two only, as penerally necessary to salvation. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." On this subject the following remark has been made : — "The Roman Catholic considers that there are seven [sacraments] ; we do not strictly determine the number. We define the word generally to be an ' outward sign of an inward grace,^ without saying to how many ordinances this applies. However, what we do determine is, that Christ has ordained two special sacraments, as generally necessary to salvation. This, then, is the characteristic mark of those two, separating them from all other whatever ; and this is nothing else but saying in other words that they are the only /Ms/i/^m^ rites, or instruments of communicating the Atonement, which is the one thing necessary to us. Ordi- nation, for instance, gives power, yet without making the Transubstantiation. 49 soul acceptable to God; Confirmation gives light and itrength, yet is the mere completion of Baptism ; and Abso- lution may be viewed as a negative ordinance removing the barrier which sin has raised between us and that grace, which by inheritance is ours. But the two sacraments ' of the Gospel,' as they may be emphatically styled, are the instruments of inward life^ according to our Lord's de- claration, that Baptism is a new birth, and that in the Eucharist we eat the living bread." § 8. — Transubstantiation, Article xxviii. — "Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacra- ment, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." What is here opposed as " Transubstantiation," is the shocking doctrine that " the body of Christ," as the Article goes on to express it, is not " given, taken, and eaten, after an heavenly and spiritual manner, but is carnally pressed with the teeth ;" that It is a body or substance of a certain extension and bulk in space, and a certain figure and due disposition of parts, whereas we hold that the only substance such, is the bread which we see. This is plain from Article xxix., which quotes St. Au- gustine as speaking of the wicked as " carnally and visibly pressing with their teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," not the real substance, a statement which even the Breviary introduces into the service for Corpus Christi day. This is plain also from the words of the Homily: " Saith Cyprian, ' When we do these things, we n^ed not whet our teeth, but with sincere faith we break and divide that holy bread. It is well known that the meat we seek in 50 Transubstantiation. Transuhstantiation. 51 this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of the soul, a heavenly refection, and not earthly ; an invisible meat, and not a bodily ; a ghostly substance, and not carnaV " Some extracts may be quoted to the same effect from Bishop Taylor. Speaking of what has been believed in the Church of Rome, he says : — " Sometimes Christ hath appeared in His own shape, and blood and flesh hath been pulled out of the mouths of the communicants : and Plegilus, the priest, saw an angel, showing Christ to him in form of a child upon the altar, whom first he took in his arms and kissed, but did eat him up presently in his other shape, in the shape of a wafer. • Speciosa cert^ pax nebulonis, ut qui oris prcebuerat basium, dentium inferret exitium.* said Berengarius : ♦ It was but a Judas* kiss to kiss with the lip, and bite with the teeth.'"— ^jj. Taylor, vol. X. p. 12. Again : — " Yet if this and the other miracles pretended, had not been illusions or directly fabulous, it had made very much against the present doctrine of the Roman Church ; for they represent the body in such measure, as by their explications it is not, and it cannot be : they represent it broken, a finger, or a piece of flesh, or bloody, or bleeding, or in the form of an infant ; and then, when it is in the species of bread : for if, as they say, Christ's body is present no longer than the form of bread remained, how can it be Christ's body in the miracle, when the species being gone, it is no longer a sacra- ment? But the dull inventors of miracles in those ages considered nothing of this ; the article itself was then gross and rude, and so were the instruments of probation. I noted this, not only to show at what door so incredible a persuasion entered, but that the zeal of prevailing in it hath so blinded the refiners of it in this age, that they still urge those miracles for proof, when, if they do any thing at all, they reprove the present doctrine."— i?/>. Taylor's Works, vol. ix. p. ccccxi. Again : the change which is denied in the Article is ac- curately specified in another passage of the same author : " I will not insist upon the unworthy questions which this carnal doctrine introduces . . . neither will I make scrutiny concerning Christ's bones, hair, and nails; nor suppose the Roman priesU to be such Kapxa^olovTtQy and to have such ♦saws in their mouths:' these are appendages of their persuasion, but to be abominated by all Christian and modest perwns, who use to eat not the bodies but the flesh of beasts, and not to devour, but to worship the body of Christ in the exaltation, and now in union with His divinity." — On the Real Presence, 11. And again : — ** They that deny the spiritual sense, and aflirm the natural, are to remember that Christ reproved all senses of these words that were not spiritual. And by the way let me observe, that the expressions of some chief men among the Romanists are so rude and crass, that it will be impossible to excuse them from the understanding the words in the sense of the mm of Capernaum ; for, as they understood Christ to mean His * true flesh natural and proper,' so do they : as they thought Christ intended they should tear Him with their teeth and suck His blood, for which they were offended ; so do these men not only think so, but say so, and are not offended. So said Alanus, * Apertissime loquimur, corpus Christi vere a nobis contrectari, manducari, circum- gestari, dentibus teri [yround by the teeth'}, sensibiliter sacrificari [^sensibly sacrificed'], non minus quam ante consecrationem panis,' [not less than the bread before consecration] ... I thought that the Ro- manists had been glad to separate their own opinion from the carnal conceit of the men of Capernaum and the offended disciples .... Uut I find that Bellarmine owns it, even in them, in their rude circumstances, for he affirms that ' Christ corrected them not for supposing so, but reproved them for not believing it to be so.' And indeed himself says as much: * The body of Christ is truly and properly manducated or chewed with the bread in the Eucharist;' and to take off* the foulness of the expression, by avoiding a worse, he is pleased to speak nonsense : * A thing may be manducated or chewed, though it be not attrite or broken.' . . . But Bellarmine adds, that if you will not allow him to say so, then he grants it in plain terms, that Christ's body is chewed, is attrite, or broken with the teeth, and that not tropically, but properly. . . . How ? under the species of bread, and invisibly." — Ibid. 3. Take again the statement of Ussher: — " Paschasius Radbertus, who was one of the first setters forward of this doctrine in the West, spendeth a large chapter upon this point, wherein he telleth us, that Christ in the sacrament did show himself * oftentimes in a visible shape, either in the form of a lamb, or in the colour of flesh and blood ; so that while the host was a breaking or an offering, a lamb in the priest's hands, and blood in the chalice should be seen as it were flowing from the sacrifice, that what lay hid in a mystery might to them that yet doubted be made manifest in a miracle.' .... The first [tale] was .... of a Roman matron, who found a piece of the sacramental bread turned into the fashion oi % E 2 52 Transubstantiation. .1 finger, all bloody ; which afterwards, upon the prayers of St. Gregory, was converted to its former shape again. The other two were first coined by the Grecian liars The former of these is not only related there, but also in the legend of Simeon Metaphrastes (which is such another author among the Grecians as Jacobus de Voragine was among the Latins) in the life of Arsenius, .... how that a little child was seen upon the altar, and an angel cutting him into small pieces with a knife, and receiving his blood into the chalice, as long as the priest was breaking the bread into little parts. The latter is o'f a certain Jew, receiving the sacrament at St. Basil's hands, converted visibly into true flesh and blood: '^Ussher's Answer to a Jesuit pp 62—64. ' ^^ Or the following : — *« When St. Odo was celebrating the mass in the presence of certain of the clergy of Canterbury, (who maintained that the bread and wine, after consecration, do remain in their former substance, and are not Christ's true body and blood, but a figure of it:) when he was come to confraction, presently the fragments of the body of Christ which he held in his hands, began to pour forth blood into the chalice. Whereupon he shed tears of joy; and beckoning to them that wavered m their faith, to come near and see the wonderful work of God • as soon as they beheld it they cried out, *0 holy Prelate! to whom'the Son of God has been pleased to reveal Himself visibly in the flesh pray for us, that the blood we see here present to our eyes, may again be changed, lest for our unbelief the Divine vengeance fall upon us ' He prayed accordingly ; after which, looking in the chalice, he saw the species of bread and wine, where he had left blood "St. Wittekundus, in the administration of the Eucharist, saw a child enter into every one's mouth, playing and smiling when some received him, and with an abhorring countenance when he went into the mouths of others; Christ thus showing this saint in His coun- tenance, who were worthy, and who unworthy receivers. "—/oAw*on'« Miraclet of Saints y pp. 27, 28. The same doctrine was imposed by Nicholas the Second on Berengarius, as the confession of the latter shows, which runs thus : — " I, Berengarius anathematize every heresy, and more par- ticularly that of which I have hitherto been accused I agree with the Roman Church .... that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are, after consecration, not only a sacrament, but even the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that these are temibly, and not merely sacramentally, but in truth, handled Transuhsiantiation, 63 / rnnd broken^ by the hands of the priest, and ground by the teeth of the faithful." — Bowdens Life of Gregory VII,, vol. ii. p. 243. Another illustration of the sort of doctrine offered in the Article, may be given from Bellarmine, whose controversial statements have already been introduced in the course of the above extracts. He thus opposes the doctrine of in- trosusception, which the spiritual view of the Real Presence naturally suggests : — He observes, that there are "two particular opinions, false and erroneous, excogitated in the schools: that of Durandus, who thought it probable that the substance of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, was without magnitude ; and that of certain ancients, which Occam seems afterwards to have followed, that though it has magnitude, (which they think not really separable from substance,) yet every part is so penetrated by every other, that the body of Christ is without figure^ without distinction and order of parts." With this he contrasts the doctrine which, he maintains, is that of the Church of Rome as well as the general doctrine of the schools, that " in the Eucharist whole Christ exists with magnitude and all accidents^ except that relation to a heavenly location which He has as He is in heaven, and those things which are concomitants on His existence in that location ; and that the parts and members of Christ's body do not penetrate each other, but are so distinct and arranged one with another, as to have a figure and order suitable to a human body." — De Euchar. iii. 5. We see then, that, by transubstantiation, our Article does not confine itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any definition of the word substance, nor in rejecting it, rejects a word, nor in denying a " mutatio panis et vini," is denying every kind of change, but opposes itself to a certain plain and unambiguous statement, not of this or that council, but one generally received or taught both in the schools and in the multitude, that the material elements are changed into an earthly, fleshly, and organized body, extended in size, distinct in its parts, which is there where the outward 54 Transubstantiaiian, appearances of bread and wine are, and only does not meet the senses, nor even that always. Objections against *' substance/' "nature/' "change,'' "accidents," and the like, seem more or less questions of words, and inadequate expressions of the great offence which we find in the received Roman view of this sacred doctrine. In this connexion it may be suitable to proceed to notice the Explanation appended to the Communion Service, of our kneeling at the Lord^s Supper, which requires expla- nation itself, more perhaps than any part of our formularies. It runs as follows : — "Whereas it is ordained in this office for the Ad- ministration of the Lord^s Supper, that the communicants should receive the same kneeling: (which order is well meant, for a signification of our humble and grateful ac- knowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy communion, as might otherwise ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ignorance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved,— It is hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ^s natural flesh and blood. For the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their ver>' natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." Now it may be admitted without difficulty,-!. That " no adoration ought to be done unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received." 2. Nor " unto any corporal («. e. carnal) presence of Christ^s natural flesh and blood." Transubstantiation. 55 3 That " the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances." 4. That to adore them " were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians ;" and 5. That " the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven." But " to heaven " is added, " and not here:' Now, though it be allowed that there is no " corporal presence " [i. e. carnal] of " Christ s natural flesh and blood " here, it is a further point to allow that "Christ's natural body and blood" are " not here.'' And the question is, how can there be any presence at all of His body and blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here ? How can there be any presence^ yet not local ? Yet that this is the meaning of the paragraph in question is plain, from what it goes on to say in proof of its position: " It being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." It is here asserted then, 1. Generally, "no natural body can be in more places than one ;" therefore, 2. Christ's natural body cannot be in the bread and wine, or there where the bread and wine are seen. In other words, there is no local presence in the Sacrament. Yet, that there is a presence is asserted in the Homilies, as quoted above, and the question is, as just now stated, " How can there be a presence, yet not a local one!" Now, first, let it be observed that the question to be solved is the truth of a certain philosophical deduction, not of a certain doctrine of Scripture. That there is a real presence, Scripture asserts, and the Homilies, Catechism, and Communion Service confess ; but the explanation before us adds, that it is philosophically impossible that it should be a particular kind of presence, a presence of which one can say " it is here," or which is " local." It states then a philosophical deduction ; but to such deduction none of us have subscribed. We have professed in the words of the Canon : " That the Book of Prayer, &c. containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God," Now, a position like tliis may not be, and is not, "contrary to the word of 56 Transubstantiadon. God," and yet need not be true ; «. g. we may accept St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, as containing nothing contrary to Scripture, nay, as altogether most scriptural and yet this would not hinder us from rejecting the account of the Phoenix— as contrary, not to Gods word, but to matter of fact. Even the infallibility of the Roman see is not considered to extend to matters of fact or points of philosophy. Nay, we commonly do not consider that we need take the words of Scripture itself literally about the sun s standing still, or the earth being fixed, or the firma- ment being above. Those at least who distinguish between what 13 theological in Scripture and what is scientific, and yet admit that Scripture is true, have no ground for wondering at such persons as subscribe to a paragraph of which at the same time they disallow the philosophy ; especially considering they expressly subscribe it only as not "contrary to the word of God." This then is what must be said first of all. Next, the philosophical position is itself capable of a very specious defence. The truth is, we do not at all know what IS meant by distance or intervals absolutely, any more than we know what is meant by absolute time. Late dis- covenes m geology have tended to make it probable that time may under circumstances go indefinitely faster or slower than it does at present ; or in other words, that in- definitely more may be accomplished in a given portion of It What Moses calls a day, geologists wish to prove to be thousands of years, if we measure time by the operations at present effected in it. It is equally difficult to determine what we mean by distance, or why we should not be at this moment close to the throne of God, though we seem far from It. Our measure of distance is our hand or our foot ; but as an object a foot off is not called distant, though the interval is indefinitely divisible ; neither need it be distant either, after it has been multiplied indefinitely. Why should any conventual measure of ours— why should the percep- tions of our eyes or our ears, be the standard of presence or distance! Christ may really be clos« to us, though in I 1 t Transuhstantiation, 57 heaven, and His presence in the Sacrament may but be a manifestation to the worshipper of that nearness, not a change of place, which may be unnecessary. But on this subject some extracts may be suitably made from a pamphlet published several years since, and admitting of one or two verbal corrections, which, aB in the case of other similar quotations above, shall here be made without scruple : — " In the note at the end of the Communion Service, it h argued, that a body cannot be in two places at once ; and that therefore the Body of Christ is not locally present, in the sense in which we speak of the bread as being locally present. On the other hand, in the Communion Service itself, Catechism, Articles, and Homilies, it is plainly de- clared, that the Body of Christ is in a mysterious way, if not locally, yet really present, so that we are able after some ineffable manner to receive It. Whereas, then, the objection stands, ' Christ is not really here, because He is not locally here,** our formularies answer, ' He is really here, yet not locally."' " But it may be asked. What is the meaning of saying that Christ is really present, yet not locally ? I will make a suggestion on the subject. What do we mean by being present f How do we define and measure it ? To a blind and deaf man, that only is present which he touches : give him hearing, and the range of things present enlarges ; every thing is present to him which he hears. Give him at length sight, and the sun may be said to be present to him in the day-time, and myriads of stars by night. The pre- sence, then, of a thing is a relative word, depending, in a popular sense of it, upon the channels of communication between it and him to whom it is present ; and thus it is a word of degree. " Such is the meaning o^ presence, when used of material objects ; — very different from this is the conception we form of the presence of spirit with spirit. The most intimate presence we can fancy is a spiritual presence in the soul ; it is nearer to us than any material object can possibly be ; for our body, which is the organ of conveying to us the pre- i 58 Tranmbstantiation, 8ence of matter, sets bounds to its approach towards h3. It, then, sp.ntual beings can be brought near to us. (and that they can, we know, from what is told us of the in- fluences of Divine grace, and again of evil angels upon our souls,) their presence is something sui generis, of a more perfect and simple character than any presence we com- monly call local. And further, their presence has nothing to do with the degrees of nearness ; they are either present or not present, or, in other words, their coming is not measured by space, nor their absence ascertained by dis- tance. In the case of things material, a transit through space IS the necessary condition of approach and presence; but m things spiritual, (whatever be the condition,) such a transit seems not to be a condition. The condition is un- known. Once more : while beings simply spiritual seem not to exist in place, the Incarnate Son does; according to our Church s statement already alluded to, that 'the na- tural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one ' " Such seems to be the mystery attending our Lord and Savioob; He has a body, and that spiritual. He is in place ; and yet, as being a spirit, His mode of approach- the mode m which He makes Himself present here or there -may be, for what we know, as different from the mode in which material bodies approach and come, as a spiritual presence is more perfect. As material bodies approach by moving from place to place, so the approach and presence of a spiritual body may be in some other way,-probably is m some other way, since in some other way, (as it would appear) not gradual, progressive, approximating, that is locomotive, but at once, spirits become present,-may be such as to be consistent with His remaining on God's right hand while He becomes present here,-that is, it may be real yet not local, or, in a word, is mysterious. The Body and Blood of Christ may be really, literally present in the holy Eucharist, yet not having become present by local passage, may still literally and really be on Gods right Transubstaniiaiion, 59 hand ; so that, though they be present in deed and truth, it may be impossible, it may be untrue to say, that they are literally in the elements, or about them, or in the soul of the receiver. These may be useful modes of speech ac- cording to the occasion ; but the true determination of all such questions may be this, that Christ's Body and Blood are locally at God's right hand, yet really present here, — present here, but not here in place, — because they are spirit. " To assist our conceptions on this subject, I would recur to what I said just now about the presence of material objects, by way of putting my meaning in a different point of view. The presence of a material object, in the popular sense of the word, is a matter of degree, and ascertained by the means of apprehending it which belong to him to whom it is present. It is in some sense a correlative of the senses. A fly may be as near an edifice as a man ; yet we do not call it present to the fly, because it cannot see it ; and we call it present to the man because he can. This, however, is but a popular view of the matter : when we consider it carefully, it certainly is difficult to say what is meant by the presence of a material object relatively to us. It is in some respects truer to say that a thing is present, which is so circumstanced as to act upon us and influence us, whether we are sensible of it or not. Now this is what the Catholic Church seems to hold concerning our Lord's Presence in the Sacrament, that He then personally and bodily is with us in the way an object is which we call present ; how He is so, we know not, but that He should be so, though He be millions of miles away, is not more inconceivable than the influence of eyesight upon us is to a blind man. The stars are millions of miles off*, yet they impress ideas upon our souls through our sight. We know but of five senses : we know not whether or not human nature be capable of more ; we know not whether or not the soul possesses any thing analogous to them. We know nothing to negative the notion that the soul may be capable of having Christ present to it by the stimulating of dormant, or the develop- ment of possible energies. 60 Transubstantiation, \\ \ " As sight for certain purposes annihilates space, so other nnkno capae.t.es, bodily or spiritual, n,a/ann hilate vied t 7'''^- *^"' ^ P^^'^"''^' »"""'"»'-" -- ■■"- vet on sf r"''""' "f ^""'•'^ '" ^'- P''"' °" his con- version. Such a practical annihilation is involved in the doctnne of Chr.sts ascension ; to speak according to I e ^as of space and time co.monl, received, what n,us h e ^n the rap.d,ty of that motion by ^hich, within ten days. He placed our human nature at the right hand of God ' Is useThe%'"^'*r""V'''' "' should 'open the heavens ' to shLidtLTd "'' ■^i".''^^'*''"'"^"''*' ••"^'^ *»>»'"- S thev «'rT T *""' ^"'^ '^'"'^ •■" 'f-^ --e in us at the y 7 ''^■'y/f P--d with, in the sun's warming us a the distance of 100,000,000 of miles, than that He should have dispensed with them on occasion of His as cendmg on high ? He who showed what the pas^ge of an incorruptible body was ere it had reached L/ hrlne thereby suggests to us what may be its coming back and pr^se^ce with us now, when at length glorified fnd become us wS '"'"''' *'''"' ^'^^ P"""^'^""' ^"^ Christ comes to -that He comes by the agency of the Holt Ghost, .•„ and by the Sacrament. Locomotion is the means of a ma- teria Presence; the Sacrament is the means of His spi- ruual Presence. As faith is the means of our receiving I , mol rj.^""'" " '^' ^«^"* ^-^ the Sacrament the n>eans of His „„parting It; and therefore we call It a Sacramental Presence. We kneel before His heavenly Ihrone, and the distance is as nothing; it is as if tl^I Throne were the Altar close to us. " Let it be carefully observed, that I am not province or determining any thing; I am only showing how it is that cenam p^positions which at first sight seen'. conti:;^t on m terms, are not so,-I am but pointing out o«. way of re- conciling them. If there is but one tay assignaUe tlj Tat an "^'^r "'^^''*'''" ^««'"«* 'he possiblhty o any at all is removed, and then of course there may be Alasses, 61 other ways supposable though not assignable. It seems at first sight a mere idle use of words to say that Christ is really and literally, yet not locally, present in the Sacra- ment ; that He is there given to us, not in figure but in truth, and yet is still only on the right hand of God. I have wished to remove this seeming impossibility. " If it be asked, wj/^y attempt to remove it, I answer that I have no wish to do so, if persons will not urge it against the Catholic doctrine. Men maintain it as an impossibiHty, a contradiction in terms, and force a believer in it to say why it should not be so accounted. And then when he gives a reason, they turn round and accuse him of subtleties, and refinements, and scholastic trifling. Let them but be- lieve and act on the truth that the consecrated bread is Christ's body, as He says, and no officious comment on His words will be attempted by any well-judging mind. But when they say, ' this cannot be literally true, because it is impossible ;' then they force those who think it is lite- rally true, to explain how, according to their notions, it is not impossible. And those who ask hard questions must put up with hard answers." There is nothing, then, in the Explanatory Paragraph which has given rise to these remarks, to interfere with the doctrine, elsewhere taught in our formularies, of a real super-local presence in the Holy Sacrament. § 9. — Classes. Article xxxi.— -" The sacrifices (sacrificia) of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits (perniciossB imposturae)." Nothing can show more clearly than this passage that the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman 62 Masses* Masses, 63 Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken into its system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in which the special question of doctrine would be introduced ; but '' the sacrifice of Masses^ certain observances, for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of the Articles knew to have been in force m time past, and saw before their eyes, and which involved certain opinions and a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, "in which it was commonly saidT which surely is a strictly historical mode of speaking. If any testimony is necessary in aid of what is so plain from the wording of the Article itself, it is found in the drift of the following passage from Burnet :— " It were easy from all the rituals of the ancients to shew, that they had none of those ideas that are now in the Roman Church. They had but one altar in a Church, and probably but one in a city : they had but one communion in a day at that altar: so far were they from the many altars in every church, and the many masses at every altar that are now in the Roman Church. They did not know what solitary masses were, without a communion. All the liturgies and all the writings of ancients are as express in this matter as is possible. The whole constitution of their worship and discipline shews it. Their worship always concluded with the Eucharist: such as were not capable of it, as the catechumens, and those who were doing public penance for their sins, assisted at the more general parts of the worship; and so much of it was called their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it. When that was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of the Eucharist; and at the conclusion of It they were likewise dismissed, from whence it came to be called the mass of the faithful."— ^um^/ on the XXXIst Article, p. 482. These sacrifices are said to be " Wasphemous fables and pernicious impostures." Now the " blasphemous fable '' is the teaching that there is a sacrifice for sin other than Christ s death, and that masses are that sacrifice. And the " pernicious imposture '^ is the turning this belief into a means of filthy lucre. 1. That the "blasphemous fable'' is the teaching that masses are sacrifices for sin distinct from the sacrifice of Christ's death, is plain from the first sentence of the Article. "The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect re* demption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. And there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone, Wlierefore the sacrifice of masses, fcc."" It is observable too that the heading of the Article runs, " Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross,'' which interprets the drift of the statement contained in it about masses. Our Communion Service shows it also, in which the prayer of consecration commences pointedly with a decla- ration, which has the force of a protest, that Christ made on the cross, "by His oiw oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfac- tion for the sins of the whole world." And again in the offering of the sacrifice : " We entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching Thee to grant that by the merits and death of Thy Sox Jesus Christ, and through faith in His blood, we and all Thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all ot/i£r benefits of His passion." [And in the notice of the celebration: "I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed, the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and I31ood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of His meritorious Cross and Passion ; whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are made partakers of the kingdom of heaven."] But the popular charge still urged against the Roman system, as introducing in the Mass a second or rather con- tinually recurring atonement, is a sufficient illustration, without further quotations, of this part of the Article. 2. That the " blasphemous and pernicious imposture " is the turning the Mass into a gain, is plain from such pas- sages as the following : — " With what earnestness, with what vehement zeal, did our Saviour Christ drive the buyers and sellers out of the temple of God, and hu/led down the tables of the changers of money, and the seats of the 64 Masses. dove-sellers, and could not abide that a man should carry a vessel through the temple. He told them, that they had made His Father's house a den of thieves, partly through their superstition, hypocrisy, false worship, false doctrine, and insatiable covetousness, and partly through contempt, abusing that place with walking and talking, with worldly matters, without all fear of God, and due reverence to that place What dens of thieves the Churches of England have been made by the blasphemous buying and selling the most precious body and blood of Christ in the Mass, as the world was made to believe at dirges, at months minds, at trentalls, in abbeys and chantries, besides other horrible abuses, (Goo's holy name be blessed for ever,) which we now see and understand. All these abominations they that supply the room of Christ have cleansed and purged the Churches of Tk"^ "k .?'.'", ^"^ "'"'^ "'• '"^'^ fulsomeness and filthiness, as through blind devotion and ignorance hath crept into the Church these many hundred years."-0„ repairing and keeping clean of Churches, pp. 229, 230. "^ Other passages are as follow :— - Have not the Christians of late days, and even in our days also, in like manner provoked the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God; partly because they have profaned and defiled their Churches with heathenish and Jewish abuses, with images and idols, with numbers of altars, too superstitiously and intolerably abused with gross abusing and filthy corrupting of the Lords holy Supper, the blessed sacrament of His body and blood, with an infinite number of toys and trifles of their own devices, to make a goodly outward shew, and to deface the homely, simple, and sincere religion of Christ Jesus; partly, they resort to the Church like hypocrites, full of all iniquity and sinful life, having a vain and dangerous fancy and persuasion, that if they come to the Church, besprinkle them with holy water, hear a mass, and be blessed with a chalice, though they understand not one word of the whole service, nor feel one motion of repentance in their heart, all is well, all is sure?"— 0« the Place and 7tme of Prayer, p. 293. Again • — I. " T^ wf ^ ^'? '^' '*"'" °^'^" ^°'' '^""^^''y^ ^"* the ignorance hereof? What hath been the cause of this mummish massing, but the Ignorance hereof ? Yea, what hath been, and what is at this day the cause of this want of love and charity, but the ignorance hereof? Let us therefore so travel to understand the Lord's Supper, that we be no cause of the decay of God's worship, of no idolatry, of no dumb massing, of no hate and malice; so may we the bolder have access Classes* 65 thither to our comfort." — Homily concerning the Sacrament, pp. 377, 378. To the same purpose is the following passage from Bishop Bull's Sermons:— " It were easy to shew, how the whole frame of religion and doc- trine of the Church of Rome, as it is distinguished from that Christianity which we hold in common with them, is evidently designed and contrived to serve the interest and profit of them that rule that Church, by the disservices, yea, and ruin of those souls that are under their government What can the doctrine of men's playing an after- game for their salvation in purgatory be designed for, but to enhance the price of the priest's masses and dirges for the dead? Why must a solitary mass, bought for a piece of money, performed and participated by a priest alone, in a private corner of a church, be, not only against the sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church, but also against common sense and grammar, called a Communion, and be accounted useful to him that buys it, though he never himself receive the sacrament, or but once a year; but for this reason, that there is great gain, but no godliness at all, in this doctrine ? "—^p. BulVs Sermons, p. 10. And Burnet says : — " Without going far in tragical expressions, we cannot hold saying what our Saviour said upon another occasion, * My house is a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.' A trade was set up on this foundation. The world was made believe, that by the virtue of 80 many masses, which were to be purchased by great endowments, souls were redeemed out of purgatory, and scenes of visions and apparitions, sometimes of the tormented, and sometimes of the delivered souls, were published in all places : which had so wonderful an effect, tha' in two or three centuries, endowments increased to so vast a degree, that if the scandals of the clergy on the one hand, and the statutes of mortmain on the other, had not restrained the profuseness that the world was wrought up to on this account, it is not easy to imagine how far this might have gone; perhaps to an entire subjecting of the temporality to the spirituality. The practices by which this was managed, and the effects that followed on it, we can call by no other name than downright impostures; worse than the making or vending false coin : when the world was drawn in by such arts to plain bargains, to redeem their own souls, and the souls of their ancestors and posterity, so many masses were to be said, and forfeitures were to follow upon their not being said : thus the masses were really the price of the lands."— On Article XXIL, pp. 303, 304. 66 Masses. I 1 The truth of these representations cannot be better shown than by extracting the following passage from the Session ^2 of the Council of Trent : " Wherea. many thing, appear to have crept in heretofore, whether by the fault of the time, or by the neglect and wickedne, of men ore,gn to the d.gnlty of so great a sacrifice, in order that it may reg_am .ts due honour and observance, to the glory of Goo and the ed.f,cat.on of H.s faithful people, the .r„ly Council decrees, that the bishops ordmanes of each place, diligently take care and be bound, to forb.d and put an end to all those things, which either avarice wh,ch IS Idolatry, or irreverence, which is scarcely separable from .mp.e y, or .uper.tUion, the pretence of true piety, has introduced. thLT'^Zf '" * '''" """''' ""' "^ ""• »' '" -"'". '«t them k nffnd T) "«"*■"*""' "-«' •>««-"» o( payment of whatever Ztr, . " """" ^"^ "''*™""* "'" ""-"'• """^-ver im- portunate and mean extortion, rather than petition of alms, and such Ike practices, wh.ch border on sin.oniacal sin, certainly on JlUAu i"rlcH ■ • • * T .""" "•""''' '""" ""' church those mS practices ^hen yh the organ or ^,h the chant any thing la.civiou. or 'mpure ,. ^.nyled; also all secular practices, vain a'nd therein profane conversations, promenadings, bustle, clamour; so that the house of God may truly seem and be called the house of prayer Lastly, It any opening be given to superstition, let them provide by other than the due hours, nor use ri.es or ceremonies and prayer, in by the Church, and received on frequent and laudable use. And let them altogether remove from the Church a .et number of certain rna..e, and candle., which ha, proceeded rather from .uper.titiol observance than from true religion, and teach the people T wh" consists, and from whom, above all, proceeds the so precilus and heavenly fruit of this most holy sacrifice. And let the'm adl i h the same people to come frequently to their parish Churches, a, leas, on Sundays and the greater feasts," &c. On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its femg [an offering, though commemorative,] ' for the quick and the dead for the remission of sin ; [(especially since the decree of Trent says, that "the fruits of the Uloody Oblation are through this most abundantly obtained; so far • "An offering for the quick, 4c,"-iSr«< EdUioH. Marriage of Clergy. 67 (I h the latter from detracting in any way from the former ;**)] but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as inde- pendent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy ; and, on the other, its being directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in addition. § 10. — Marriage of Clergy, Article xxxii. — " Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God'*s law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage." There is literally no subject for controversy in these words, since even the most determined advocates of the celibacy of the clergy admit their truth. [As far as clerical celibacy is a duty, it] is grounded not on God's law, but on the Church's rule, or on vow. No one, for instance, can question the vehement zeal of St. Jerome in behalf of this observance, yet he makes the following admission in his attack upon Jovinian :— " Jovinian says, * You speak in vain, since the Apostle appointed Bishops, and Presbyters, and Deacons, the husbands of one wife, and having children.' But, as the Apostle says, that he has not a precept concerning virgins, yet gives a counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord, and urges throughout that discourse a preference of virginity to marriage, and advises what he does not command, lest he seem to cast a snare, and to impose a burden too great for man's nature ; so also, in ecclesiastical order, seeing that an infant Church was then forming out of the Gentiles, he gives the lighter precepts to recent converts, lest they should fail under them through fear." — Adv. Jovinian, i. 34. And the Council of Trent merely lays down : — " If any shall say that clerks in holy orders, or regulars, who hav© solemnly professed chastity, can contract matrimony, and that the contract is valid in spite of ecclesiastical law or vowt let him be anathema." — Sess. 24 Can. 9. F 2 1 r!8 Marriage of Clergy. Here the observance is placed simply upon rule of the Church or upon vow, neither of which exists in the RnRlish Church; ^^ therefore:' as the Article lojrically proceeds "it t. lawful for then,, as for nil other Christian n.en, to marry at their mm discretion, as they shall jud^e the same to servo better to godliness." Our Church leaves the discretion with the clergy ; and most persons will allow that, under our cir- eum*tance», she acts wisely in doing so. That she has jwrer did she so choose, to take from tlu.m this discretion, and to "bhge them either to marriage [(as is said f. be the case as r(>gard8 the parish priests of the Greek (!hurch)] or to celibacy, would seem to be involved in the doctrine of the foUowmg extract from the Homilies; though, whether an enforcement cither of the one or the other rule would bo expedient and pious, is another matter. Speaking of fasting, the Homily says :— " God', Church ought not, neither may it be lo tied to that or any other order now made, or hereafter to be made and .levi.ed by the authority of man, but that it may la,rf„lly, f„rjmt cnme,, a/Irr, r/,ange or m,l,gaU those eccle.ia.tical decree, and or.ler,, yea, recede uhollu Jrom Ihfm, and break Iketn. when they tend either lo .i.per.tition or to impiety; when they draw the people from (ioo rather tlian work any edification in them. Thi, authority Cnai.T lli„,.elf „.ed. and left it to Unchurch lie „,ed it, I .ay, for the order or .lecree made by .he elder, for wa.hing ofttime., which wa. diligently observed of the Jew, ■ yet tending to .upemtition, our S*v.owr C„r„t altered and changed the .ame in Hi, Church into a profitable ,«crainent, the .acrament of our regeneration, or new birth. Thi. authority to mitigate law, and decree, ecclesiastical, the Apo,tle, practised, when they, writing from Jerusalem unto the congregation that wa. .t Antioch, .ignilied unto them, that they would not lay any further burden upon them but the,e necessaries : that is, < that they should abstain from thing, offered unto Idols, from blood, from that which is strangled, and from forni- cation i notwithstanding that Mo.e,'. law required many other ob- .ervance. This authority to change the orders, degree., and consti- tutions of the Church, was. after the Apostles" time, used of the father. •bout the manner of fasting, as it appeateth in the Tripartite History . . . . Ihu, ye have heard, good people, first, that Christian .ubiectj .re bound even m conscience to obey prince,' law,, which are not re- pugnant to the law, of God. Ve have al,„ heard that Christ'. Church .. not «, bound to observe any order, law, or d.cree made by man, to h 1 T/te lIomilie$. 69 prescribe a form in religion, but that the Church hath full power and authority from (Jod to change and alter the same, when need shall require; which hath been sliewed you by the example of our Saviour Christ, by the practice of the Apostles, and of the Fathers since that time."— //owii/y on Fatting^ pp. 212 — 244. To the flame effect the 34.th Article declares, that, " It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all placet one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may he changed according to diversities of countries, times, and men's man- ners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever, ihrough hia private jntlgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break tlie traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of (ion, and be ordained and approved by common au- thority, ought to be rebuked openly." — Article XXXIV. § 1 1 . — The Homilies. Art. XXXV. — " The Second Book of Homilies doth con- tain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies.'^ This Article has been treated of in No. 82 of these Tracts, in the course of an answer given to an opponent, who accused its author of not fairly receiving the Homilies, because he dissented from their doctrine, that the Bishop of Rome is Antichrist, and that regeneration was vouchsafed under the law. The passage of the Tract shall here be in- serted, with some abridgment. " I say plainly, then, I have not subscribed the Homilies, nor was it ever intended that any member of the English Church should be subjected to what, if considered as an ex- tended confession, would indeed be a yoke of bondage. Komanism surely is innocent, compared with that system which should impose upon the conscience a thick octavo volume, written flowingly and freely by fallible men, to be received exactly, sentence by sentence : I cannot conceive any grosser instance of a pharisaical tradition than this 70 The Homilies. The Homilies. 71 ■H would be. No : such a proceeding would render it iinpos- sible (I would say), for any one member, lay or clerical, of the Church to remain in it, who was subjected to such an ordeal. For instance ; I do not suppose that any reader would be satisfied with the political reasons for fastinrr though mdirectly introduced, yet fully admitted and dwelt upon m the Homily on that subject. He would not like to subscribe the declaration that eating fish was a duty not only as being a kind of fasting, but as making provisions cheap, and encouraging the fisheries. He would not hke the association of religion with earthly politics. '' How, then, are we bound to the Homilies ? By the Thirty-fifth Article, which speaks as follows :— * The second Book of Homilies . . . doth contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies: Now, observe, this Article does not speak of ever)- statement made in them, but of the ' doc^ tnne: It speaks of the view or cast or body of doctrine contamed in them. In spite of ten thousand incidental propositions, as in any large book, there is, it is obvious a certain line of doctrine, which may be contemplated con- tinuously in its shape and direction. For instance ; if you say you disapprove the doctrine contained in the Tracts for the Times, no one supposes you to mean that every sentence and half sentence is a lie. I say then, that in like manner when the Article speaks of the doctrine of the Homilies it does not measure the letter of them by the inch, it does not imply that they contain no propositions which admit of two opinions ; but it speaks of a certain determinate line of doctrine, and moreover adds, it is ' necessary for these times ' JJoes not this, too, show the same thing? If a man said the Tracts for the Times are seasonable at this moment, a^ their title signifies, would he not speak of them as taking a certain line, and bearing in a certain way ? Would he not be speaking, not of phrases or sentences, but of a 'doctrine' m them tending one way, viewed as a whole I Would he be inconsistent, if after praising them as seasonable, he con- tinued, ^yet I do not pledge myself to every view or senti- ment ; there are some things in them hard of digestion, or overstated, or doubtful, or subtle V "If any thing could add to the irrelevancy of the charge in question, it is the particular point in which it is urged that I dissent from the Homilies, — a question concerning the fulfilment of prophecy; viz. whether Papal Rome is Antichrist? An iron yoke indeed you would forge for the conscience, when you oblige us to assent, not only to all matters of doctrine which the Homilies contain, but even to their opinion concerning the fulfilment of prophecy. Why, V)e do not ascribe authority in such matters even to the unanimous consent of all the fathers. " I will put what I have been saying in a second point of view. The Homilies are subsidiary to the Articles ; there- fore they are of authority so far as they bring out the sense of the Articles, and are not of authority where they do not. For instance, they say that David, though unbaptized, was regenerated, as you have quoted. This statement cannot be of authority, because it not only does not agree, but it even disagrees, with the ninth Article, which translates the Latin word ' renatis "^ by the English ' baptized.** But, ob- serve, if this mode of viewing the Homilies be taken, as it fairly may, you suffer from it ; for the Apocrypha, being the subject of an Article, the comment furnished in the Homily is binding on you, whereas you reject it. " A further remark will bring us to the same point. Another test of acquiescence in the doctrine of the Ho- milies is this : — Take their table of contents ; examine the headings ; these surely, taken together, will give the sub- stance of their teaching. Now I hold fully and heartily the doctrine of the Homilies, under every one of these headings : the only points to which I should not accede, nor think myself called upon to accede, would be certain matters, sub- ordinate to the doctrines to which the headings refer — matters not of doctrine, but of opinion, as, that Rome is the Antichrist ; or of historical fact, as, that there was a Pope Joan. But now, on the other hand, can you subscribe the doctrine of the Homilies under every one of its formal I 72 The flomiliei. f i I headings ? I boliove you cannot. The Homily against Dis- obedience an.1 VVilf„| Roheliion is, in many of its elementary principles decidedly unconRenial with your sentiments." This illustration of the subject may be thought enough • yet It may be allowable to add from the Homilies a number of propositions and statements of more or less importance, which are too much forgotten at this day, and are decidedly opposed to the views of certain schools of religion, which at the present moment are so eager in claiming the Homilies to themselves. This is not done, as the extract already read will show, with the intention of maintaining that they are one and all binding on the conscience of those who sub- scribe the Thirty-fifth Article ; but since the strong Ian- guage of the Homilies against the Bishop of llon.u is often quoted, as if it were thus proved to be the doctrine of our Church, it may be as well to show that, following the same rule, we shall be also introducing Catholic doctrines, which indeed it far more belongs to a Church to profess than a certain view of prophecy, but which do not approve them- selves to those who hold it. For instance, we read as follows : — 1. " The great clerk and godly preacher, St. John Chrv- sostom --1 B. i. 1. And, in like manner, mention is made e sewhere of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. Cyprian, St. Hierome, St. Martin, Origen, Pros- per, Ecumenms, Photius, Bernardus, Anselm, Didymus, Theophylactus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Lactantius Cyrillus, Kpiphanms, Txregory, Tremens, Clemens, Rabanus, Isidorus, husebms, Justinus xMartyr, Optatus, Eusebius Emissenus and Bede. ' 2. " Infants, being baptized, and dying in their infancy are by this Sacrifice washed from their sins ... and they' which in act or deed do sin after this baptism, when they turn to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this Sacrifice," &c.— 1 B. iii. 1. %nit. 3. "Our office is, not to pass the time of this present ife unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or ju^ ^>(/r&;c.-l B iii. 3. ^ The riomilies. 73 4. " By holy promises, we be made lively members of Christ, receiving the sacrament of Baptism. By like holy promises the sacrament of Matrimony knitteth man and wife in perpetual love."'' — 1 B. vii. 1. 5. " Let us learn also here [in the Book of Wisdom] by t/te infallible and undeceivable Word of GoD^ that,**' &c. —1 B. X. 1. 6. "The due receiving of His blessed Body and Blood, under the form of bread and wine.**^ — Note at end o/B. i. 7. ''In the Primitive Church, which was most holy and godly . . . open offenders were not suffered once to enter into the house of the Lord . . . until they had done open penance . . . but this was practised, not only upon mean persons, but also upon the rich^ noble^ and mighty persons^ yea, upon Theodosius, that puissant and mighty Emperor^ whom ... St. Ambrose . . . did . . . excommunicate."' — 2 B. i. 2. 8. " Open offenders were not . . . admitted to common prayer, and the use of the holy sacraments.'''' — Ibid. 9. " Let us amend this our negligence and contempt in coming to the house of the Lord; and resorting thither diligently together, let us there . . . celebrating also reve- rently the Lord's holy sacramsnts^ serve the Lord in His holy house.'' — Ibid, 5. 10. " Contrary to the . . . most manifest doctrine of the Scriptures, and contrary to the usages of the Primitive Church, which was most pure and uncorrupt, and contrary to the sentences and judgments of the most ancient, learned^ and godly doctors of the Church." — 2 B. ii. 1 . init, U. *' This truth . . . was believed and taught by the old holy fathers, and most ancient learned doctors, and received by the old Primitive Church, which was most uncorrupt and pure.'" — 2 B. ii. 2. init. 1 2. " Athanasius, a very ancient, holy, and learned bishop and doctor." — Ibid. 13. " Cyrillus, an old and holy doctor." — Ibid. 14. " Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamine, in Cyprus, a very holy and learned man." — Ibid. \ 74 The Homilies* 15. To whose (Epiphanius's) judgment you have . .. all the learned and godly bishops and clerks, yea, and the whole Church of that age," [the Nicene] "and so upward to our Saviouk Christ's time, by the space of about four hundred years, consenting and agreeing."— /Wrf. 16. " Epiphanius, a bishop and doctor of such antiquity, holiness, and authority."— /4irf. ^'i; " f ,V. -^"8"^*'"®' *•>« •^^t learned of all ancient doc- tors. — Iota. 18. « That ye may know why and when, and by whom .mages were first used privately, and afterwards not only received into Christian churches and temples, but, in con- clu.sion wotBhipped also ; and how the same was gainsaid resisted, and forbidden, as well by podfy bishops and learned doctors, as also by sundry Christian princes. I will briefly collect " &c. [The bishops and doctors which follow are l of EliSrT"'' ^^''°"'' ^''''^°'^' *''" ^*"''" "' "'" ^**"""''' 19. "Constantine, Bishop of Rome, assembled a Council of bishops of the West, and did condemn Philippicus, the Emperor and John, Bishop of Constantinople, of the heresy of the Mmwthelites, not without a cause indeed, but vJu pistly.^—Ibid. ' 20 « Those six Councils, which were allowed and received of all men. — Ibid. 21. "There were no images publicly by the space of almost *.r^ hundred years. And there is no doubt but the Primitive Church, next the Apostles' times, was most pure " — Ibid, ^ 22 " Let us beseech God that we, being framed by His holy Word . and by the writings of old godly doctors and ecclesiastical histories/' &.c,^Ibid. 23. " It shall be declared, both by God s Word, and the sentences of the ancient doctors, and judgment of the Pri- mitive Church," (fee— 2 B. ii. 3. 24. '* Saints, whose souls reign in joy with GoDr^Ibid 25. - That the law of God is likewise to be understo<^ against all our images . . . appeareth further by the>W^. The Homilies, 75 i \ ment of the old doctors and the Primitive Church.*^ — Ibid, 26. *' The Primitive Church, which is specially to be fol- lowed^ as most incorrupt and pure.*" — Ibid, 27. '* Thus it is declared by God's Word, the sentences of the doctors, and the judgment of the Primitive Church."' — Ibid, 28. " The rude people, who specially, as the Scripture teacheth, are in danger of superstition and idolatry ; viz. Wisdom xiii. xiv.**' — Ibid, 29. " They [the ' learned and holy bishops and doctors of the Church ' of the eight first centuries] were the preaching bishops .... And as they were most zealous and diligent, so were they of excellent learning and godliness of life, and by both of great authority and credit with the people.*** — Ibid. 30. " The most virtuous and best learned, the most dili- gent also, and in number almost infinite, ancient fathers, bishops, and doctors . . . could do nothing against images and idolatry.*" — Ibid. 31. ''As the Word of God testifieth, Wisdom xiv.*"— Ibid, 32. " The saints, now reigning in heaven with God.*" — Ibid, 33. " T\iQ fountain of our regeneration is there [in God'*s house] presented unto us." — 2 B. iii. 36. " Somewhat shall now be spoken of one particular good work^ whose commendation is both in the law and in the Gospel [fasting]."— 2 B. iv. 1. 37. " If any man shall say ... we are not now under the yoke of the law, we are set at liberty by the freedom of the Gospel ; therefore these rites and customs of the old law bind not us, except it can be showed by the Scriptures of the New Testament, or by examples out of the same, that fasting, now under the Gospel, is a restraint of meat, drink, and all bodily food and pleasures from the body, as before : first, that we ought to fast, is a truth more manifest, then it should here need to be proved , , , Fasting, even by Christ's 76 The Homilies. The Homilies, 77 assent, is a withholding meat, drink, and all natural food from the body," k.Q.—lbid. 38. - That it [fasting] was used in the Primitive Church appeareth most evidently by the Chalcedon council one of t\i^ first four fjeneral councils. The fathers assembled there .... decreed m that council that every person, as well in his private as public fast, should continue all the day with- out meat and drink, till after the evening prayer This Canon teacheth how fasting was used in the /'rimitivs Churchr—Wd, [The Council was a.d. 452.] n9. - Fasting then, by the decree of those 6:iO fathers grounding their determinations in this matter upon the sacred Scriptures ... is a withholding of meat, drink and all natural food from the body, for the determined time of fasting." — Ibid, 40. " The order or decree made by the elders for washing ofttimes, tending to superstition, our Saviour Cukist altered and changed the same in His Church, into a profit- able sacrament, the sacrament of our regeneration or new births'— 2 B. iv. 2. 41. " Fasting thus used with prayer is of areat efficacy ^^^weighethmuch with God, so the angel ilaphael told lobias. — Ibid. 42. "As he" [St. Augustine] " witnesseth in another place, the martyrs and holy men in times past were wont after their death to be remembered and named of the priest at divine service ; but never to be invocated or called upon " — 2 B. vii. 2. 43. " Thus you see that the authority both of Scripture and also of Augustine, doth not permit that we should nrav to them."— /iiof. ^^ 44. '" To temples have the Christians customably used to resort from time to time as to most meet places, where they might . . . receive His holy sacrammts ministered unto them duly and purely."— 2 B. viii. 1 . 45. " The which thing both Christ and His apostles mth all the rest of the holy fatJiers, do sufficiently declare 80." — Ibid. 46. " Our godly predecessors., and the ancient fathers of the Primitive Church, spared not their goods to build cluirches." — Ibid. 47. '* If we will show ourselves true Christians, if we will be followers of Christ our Master, and of those godly fathers that have lived before us, and now have received the reward of true and faithful Christians," &c. — Ibid. 48. " We must . . . come unto the material churches and temples to pray . . . whereby we may reconcile ourselves to God, be partakers of His holy sacraments., and be devout hearers of His holy Word," &c. — Ibid. 49. " It [ordination] lacks the promise of remission of sin, as all other sacraments besides the two above named do. Therefore neither it, nor any other sacrament else, be such sacraments as Baptism and the Communion are." — 2 Horn. ix. 50. " Thus we are taught, both by the Scriptures and ancient doctors, that," &c. — Ibid. 51. " The holy apostles and disciples of Christ ... the godly fathers also, that were both before and since Christ, endued without doubt with the Holy Ghost, . . . they both do most earnestly exhort us, &c. . . . that we should re- member the poor ... St. Paul crieth unto us after this sort .... Isaiah the Prophet teacheth us on this wise . . . And the holy father Tobit giveth this counsel. And the learned and godly doctor Chrysostom giveth this admonition, .... But what mean these often admonitions and earnest exhortations of the prophets, apostles, fathers, and holy doctors r'— 2 B. xi. 1. 52. " The holy fathers. Job and Tobit."— /iw?. 53. " Christ, whose especial favour we may be assured by this means to obtain^''' [viz. by almsgiving] — 2 B. xi. 2. 54. " Now will I . . . show unto you how profitable it is for us to exercise them [alms-deeds] . . . [Christ's saying] serveth to . . . prick us forwards ... to learn . . . how we may recover our health, if it be lost or impaired, and how it may be defended and maintained if we have it. Yea, He teacheth us also therefore to esteem that as a precious me- 73 The Homilies. The Homilies. h I dicine and an inestimable jewel, that hath snch strenpih and virtue in it, that can either procure or preserve so incom- parable a treasure/'— -/6«V/. 55. " Then He and His disciples were grievously accused of the Pharisees, . . . because they went to meat and washed not their hands before, . . . Christ, answering their super- stitious complaint, teacheth them an especial remedy how to hep clean their souls, . . . Give alms,'' kc-^Ibid. 56. " Merciful alms-dealing is profitable to purge the soul from the infection and filthy spots o/sin."' — Ibid. 57. " The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach in sundry places of the Scripture, saying, ' Mercifulness and alms-giving,' &c. [Tobit iv.] ... The wise preacher, the son of Sirach, confirmeth the same, when he says, that 'as water quencheth burning fire,'" &c. — Ibid. 58. " A great confidence may they have be/ore the high God, that show mercy and compassion to them that are afflicted."— /5f(/. 59. " If ye have by any infirmity or weakness been touched or annoyed with them . . . straightway shall mer- cifulness wipe and wash them away, as salves and remedies to heal their sores and grievous diseases."" — Ibid. 60. " And therefore that holy father Cyprian admonisheth to consider how wholesome and profitable it is to relieve the needy, &c. ... by the which we mB,y purge our sins and heal our wounded s. What lately has takon place in the political world will afford an illustration in point. A French minister, desirous of war, nevertheless, as a matter of policy, draws up his state papers in such moderate language, that his successor, who is for peace, can act up to them, without compromising his own princij)les. The world, observing this, has con- sidered it a circumstance for congratulation ; as if the former minister, who acted a double part, had been caught in his own snare. It is neither decorous, nor necessary, nor altogether fair, to urge the parallel rigidly ; but it will explain what it is here meant to convey. The Protestant Confession was drawn up with the purpose of including Catholics ; and Catholics now will not be excluded. What was an economy in the reformers, is a protection to us. Conclusion. 87 What would have been a perplexity to us then, is a perplexity to Protestants now. We could not then have found fault with their words ; they cannot now repudiate our meaning. [J. H. N.] Oxford, The Featt of the Conversion of St. Paulf 1811. Stereotyped Edition^ reprinted {with the Author* s permission) from the Fourth Edition, I.r. r < t i THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SUBSCRIPTION TO THE r I \i i THIRTY-NOE ARTICLES CONSIDERED : WITH ESPECIAL BEFEBENCE TO THl DUTIES AND DIFFICULTIES OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS IN THE PRESENT CRISIS : IN A LETTER TO THE HON. MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE. BY THE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. LATE FELLOW OP OBIEL COLLEGE, IKOPESSOB OP POETBY IN THE UNIVEBSITT OP OZPOBD^ AND VICAB OP HUBSLEY, HANTS. [PRIVATELY PRINTED 1841.] LETTER, 8fe. ;;il •'V ■1 My dear Friend, I MUST begin by returning you my most sincere thanks for your kindness in allowing your name to stand at the head of the considerations which I have now to offer on a very serious and rather painful subject. Without in the least committing you tx) any statement or sentiment which may fall from me, I nevertheless feel that such friendly coun- tenance may do much in disposing men to think fairly and deliberately of the view which I have been led to take : in itself a sufficiently obvious one, yet such as may very well escape observation, when people are excited, and think themselves called on to make up their minds in a hurry. There seems some reason to apprehend a feeling of this sort, and that in quarters of no mean influence, regarding the attempt which has recently been made to obviate certain objections to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to reconcile subscription to them with Catholic principles. Persons seem unusually inclined to act and speak hastily on that subject. This alone, considering the importance of the matter, might excuse an endeavour, however weak, and however insignificant the quarter from which it proceeds, to urge a A % 4 Tke Case of Catholic Subscrijpdon little more patient reflection and inquiry, before steps are taken, which it may be desirable, but impossible, to retrace. But he who now addresses you has a personal reason, which may partly acquit him of presumption in thus coming forward, whatever other censure it may draw upon him ; viz. that he is himself responsible, as far as any one besides the actual writer can be, for the Tract on which so severe a condemnation has lately been pronounced by the Heads of Houses at Oxford; having seen it in proof, and strongly recommended its publication.* He is now, therefore, naturally anxious to explain, as he best may, the grounds of an opinion which has drawn on him the recorded censure of a body which he is for so many reasons bound to respect. The chief ground, indeed, has been already stated by Mr. Newman, viz. its being known as a fact, that persons imbued with Catholic principles, and desirous of carrying out in good faith the views which they seemed to them- selves to have learned from sacred Antiquity, were in some points staggered by the tone and wording of the Articles. Thus the title of the Sixth Article, TAe Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation^ might seem, at first sight, to dispense with the Church's office, as a witness and keeper of Holy Writ, and an enunciator of the Rule of Faith. To say " a man is justified by faith only,'' might appear to contradict St. James, and to be at variance with the constant use of the terms Justification, Merit, and the like, in the writings of the Fathers. Tlie description of the visible Church, if taken as a strict definition, might seem to countenance the claims of the Cougregationalists. The Article about Sacraments has a sound at variance with the well-known and constant phraseology of the old Church writers : that about Councils requires explanation, to be reconciled with what has always and everywhere been held, concerning those four at least, which the Church of England acknowledges. ' This, his responsibility, he avowed to the Board, l>efore the result •f their deliberations on the subject was known* to the Thirty-nine Articles considered. 5 On all these and similar points, explanations at length had been given in various works ; and it seemed desirable to collect them in one, as a kind of manual to assist in what was believed to be the true, legitimate, catholic expo- sition of the Articles; whereby the scruples which were known to exist, and other similar ones, which may be expected to arise from time to time in the interpretation of them, as of other formularies, might be removed or allayed, and our adherence to primitive antiquity, so far, thoroughly reconciled with our allegiance to the Anglican Church. Looking in another direction, one seemed to perceive an additional call for some brief and popular treatise to the above cfTcct. From various quarters the cry of insincerity has been of late more and more loudly raised, against those who, subscribing these Articles, professed uncompromising reverence for the ancient Church; and it was supposed neither unreasonable nor uncharitable, to put within the reach of persons, who might find something plausible in such an outcry, the true account of the several points of detail, which at first sight would naturally tell in its favour. If I may speak of myself individually, I will add that the general tone of the Tract, more especially of the Intro- duction, appeared to me so very instructive, so exactly what our present position requires, that it would have required some very grave reason indeed, to make me consent to its suppression. To explain myself, I will instance particularly one expression : the rather because it seems to have been understood by many quite in a different sense from what its author intended, and, as I should say, from what the context obviously requires. " Till her members are stirred up to this religious course (of repentance, confession, and prayer, such as to win back the forfeited blessing of the Unity of the Spirit), let the Church sit still; let her be content to be in bondage ; let her work in chains ; let her submit to her imperfections as a punishment; let her go on teaching with the stammering lips of ambiguous formularies. The Case oj CaiAolic Subscription and inconsistent precedents, and principles partially de- veloped/^ In this I saw nothing but a condensed statement of the same fact which had been taught and illustrated in detail in a former Tract for the Times, No. 86; the drift of which is to show, that the deviations made in our Prayer Book from the more perfect and primitive forms may be accounted for, on the supposition of a special Providence, overruling them, to suit our decayed moral tone and condition : a view which, besides its intrinsic verisimilitude and importance, I knew had tended much to remove scruples, and to satisfy tender minds. And although that Tract refers directly only to the Prayer Book, yet its principle readily extends itself to other parts of the Church system; and among the rest to the Articles; as also to the relations between our Church and the State : a fact which was brought before me by the phrases '^ ambiguous formularies,^^ " inconsistent precedents,'^ and " principles but partially developed.^' Thus I saw nothing in the sense of what was said, which had not been taught at large long ago, without a shadow of scandal, as far as appears : and in the metaphor of " stammering lips,'' I seemed to see a beautiful and true adaptation of a most heavenly and con- descending image from Holy Writ :^ " IFAom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine ? them that are weaned from the milky and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon f)receptj line upon line, ime upon line; here a little and there a little. For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people: to whom He said, ' This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest, and this is the refreshing:' yet they would not hear" Is not the Prophet here telling us, how God in His great mercy feeds them with milk who have need of milk, though for the time they ought to be able to bear strong meat ? how He speaks to them, as nurses to children, vouchsafing to imitate their imperfect tones ? and why should it appear a thing offensive » Isa. xxviii. 9-12. to the Thirty-nine Articles considered, 7 or incredible, that the dispensations of Providence with this Chnrch should have proceeded by a similar rule ? Or why should any of us take affront, at being advised to "refrain his soul and keep it low,'' in regard of this particular trial, the imperfections of the Church to which he belongs, as well as in the rest of his probation here ? Is not the contrary the very sentiment, the prevalence whereof we lament in the Roman Church, and blame her writers and authorities for encouraging it ? I write this without communication with Mr. Newman, and am far from supposing that I enter into the full meaning of his words ; but this is to my mind their obvious meaning : and until English Churchmen, generally, sym- pathize with him so far, I see no chance of our Church assuming her true position in Christendom, or of the mitigation of our present " unhappy divisions." For these reasons I wished the Tract published: nor did it occur to me that it was more likely to cause disgust, and excite animadversion and controversy, than former publications expressing the same views. I found hardly anything in it, which had not been before avowed, and explained, and vindicated. Perhaps I did not suflBciently consider the difference involved in bringing the whole together, in a comparatively small compass, and in showing how it bore directly on an important practical question. But as to the doctrinal substance of the Tract, it seemed not unreasonable to hope that the same liberty would be allowed, as in other matters, at first sight at least equally serious. It is stating the case at the very lowest, to say, that the doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration, and of Apostolical Succession in the ministry, appear to be as expressly set forth in the Articles, and what is more, in the Liturgy, as the sufficiency of Scripture exclusive of tradition ; or as Justification by Faith exclusive of works in all senses ; or as the condemnation of the notion of Purgatory in every sense in which it has ever been held. Now whether, for many years past, liberties have been taken with these doctrines, in the way not only of explanation, but of 8 The Case of Catholic Subscription absolute denial ; whether the parties taking such liberties have been few, uninfluential, or unconnected with the University ; these are matters familiarly known to all men ; but we have not heard of the promul*i^tion of any official reprimand on any such occasion. This is stited not as necessarily imputing any blame to the authors of the present censure: persons in high place must be allowed to judge for themselves, when it is their time to speak, and when to keep silence : but it may serve to account for our not anticipating such notice in the case of this Tract, more than on former occasions. And this brings me to the particular topic, on which I am anxious to address my brethren through you. The hope we had of being allowed to exercise our old freedom of interpretation on these subjects has been more or less disturbed by what has taken place. There appears to be some chance of an authoritative prohibition of the view, which not this Tract only, but a whole army of writers, new and old, recommend : and it becomes a serious question, what ought to be the line of conduct adopted in such case by persons holding that view, and concerned in any way with subscription to the Articles. It is a consoling, I trust we may say, a providential circumstance, that no authoritative censure has yet been passed. A resolution carried in the Board of Heads of Houses, I need hardly say, is not an act of the University : it is merely the opinion of the majority of individual members oi the Board, happening to be present : worthy of much respect as an expression of opinion from pei-sons in high place, but not laying any definite obligation on the conscience of those in inferior station: not what an episcopal sentence is to Churchmen within the diocese; or an academical sentence, to members of the University. As yet (and we cannot be too thankful for it) we are under no authoritative censure: but what has occurred comes sufficiently near to that case, to make it matter of Christian prudence, that we should realize the possibility of it as well m to the Thirty-nine Articles considered. 9 as we can, and try to obtain some general view of what our position and duties would be, should it ever (which God forbid) occur to any of us. Suppose, e.g, that not the Heads of Houses, but the Academical Body in Convocation assembled, had determined that interpretations such as have been now (not for the first time) suggested, evade rather than explain the Articles, and are inconsistent with the duty of receiving and teaching them in good faith, to which the University, by express statute, binds her tutors and other members ; how would a college tutor (to take the simplest case first) have to act under such circumstances, supposing him convinced that the condemned view is the right one ? would it not be plain breach of a human trust, if he used the authority committed to him for the purpose of teaching that view ? and of a still higher trust, if, in compliance with the academical law, he forbore to inculcate it ? It is very desirable that the unavoidalle extent of this difficulty should be thoroughly understood. There is such a thing, we all know, as stating a case of conscience nakedly and drily, in such a way that no one shall be able to say the statement is exactly untrue, yet the effect on the whole would be felt by every one to be unfairly exaggerated, the conclusion, if I may so speak, far too large for the premises. One would be very sorry to entangle any person in a scruple of that kind. But the ground of hesitation in the case imagined, would surely be very different. The words of the censure are very large : " interpretations, such as are su^jrested in the Tract,'' are condemned : of course, all such interpretations : of course, then, each particular definite one which is at all peculiar to the Tract, or those who are responsible for it. Now this is a very wide field : not to speak at present of its being indefinitely enlarged by the word siich; which would impose on an instructor the task of considering, not merely whether a proposed explanation was contained in the obnoxious Tract, but whether it was of the same sort, and caste, and family. But to confine myself here to points actually stated in the Tract. Our 'i HI 10 The Case of Catholic Suhsenption inquirer's perplexity would begin with the Sixth Article : he might have learned from some other quarter — from Field, perhaps, or Laud, oi TertuUian,* or St. Augustine,* that Scripture alone is not the Rule of Faith, and in what sense it is not so: but he would find the same mode suggested as in the Tract, of reconciling this opinion with the Article : therefore he must not adopt that mode. Well, suppose him to have found some other, quite free from the dreaded infection : he goes on to the next group of Articles (with a light or a heavy heart, as it may happen) ; and there he cannot evade the difficulty, before alluded to, about Justification by Faith only : but unless he could fall back on pure Lutheranism (which our hypothesis excludes), he will find it hard to give an interpretation which has not been more or less anticipated, either in the Tract or in the elaborate work of its writer on the same subject. Similar instances might be given in each following Article : but not to weary you, let him have arrived at that, which being specified in another document, may be thought to have been chiefly in the mind of the censors : the Twenty- second Article, on Purgatory, Pardons, &c. Here of course his first object would be to know what was meant by " the Romish Doctrine :^' and perhaps it might occur to him to look into the first draught of these Articles, set forth by Edward VI. in the year 1552, where he would find that the original phrase was "the doctrine of the school-men \" and he might conclude that he could hardly be wrong if he expounded the present Article to mean " the doctrine of the school-men, as it is developed in the present practices and teaching of the Church : in papal bulls, indulgences, authorized service books, fraternities founded or warranted by authority to offer certain prayers, or the like.^' But here again he would find himself all wrong, for on looking into the Tract, he would meet with this sentence : " what is opposed is the received doctrine of • De Virg. Veland. 1. De Prsescript UaereU 13. * Enchirid. c. 56. to the Thirty -nine Articles considered. 11 the day, or the doctrine of the Roman schools" This, as far as circumstances guide us, would seem to be the point which of all others has excited most displeasure, and there- fore it may seem that the censure refers to this suggestion particularly, as "evading rather than explaining the meaning of the Article." Against it, consequently, a tutor, desirous to act bond fide on the prohibition we have been supposing, would feel himself most especially set on his guard. What- ever he might do in any other Article, he could not, without breach of trust, adopt the suggestion of the Tract on this. Then the question would follow. What is Boctrina Ro- manensiumy if school-men, papal decrees, and ordinary clerical teaching, together do not justify that description? There might be some difficulty in replying to this ; I will not therefore dwell upon it. Perhaps now instances enough have been given to make it clear, that, had the censure unhappily been authoritative, it would have been no slight stumbling-block in the way of academical tutors, who might, on other grounds, think it their duty so to interpret ambiguous phrases in the Articles, as to bring them most nearly into conlbrmity with the primitive Church, and to throw no unnecessary censure on other Churches. Such persons would have been met at every turn by the recorded sentence of the University against them : in them it would have been no contumacy, but plain conscientiousness, to withdraw from an engage- ment which they could not religiously fulfil. It may be said, they might do the work of tutors, might conduct a young man's general education, without directly applying themselves to the teaching of the Articles. That particular subject they might leave to others, who agreed more nearly in judgment with the general body. But, in the first place, this plan would hardly satisfy a mind disposed to great exactness in matters of trust ; since the University statutes make all tutors, and not here and there an occasional theological master, responsible for their pupils' understanding of and adherence to the Articles. Next, considerate Catholics know well, that there is. 12 2'Ae Case of Catholic Suhscrijition practically, no separating the high and comprehensive views which that name imports from any of the moral branches of education. Silence them as you may on directly theological questions, how are they to deal with ethics, or poetry, or history, so as not to guide their disciples by the light which the Church system reflects on all ? And there is yet a deeper consideration : they may perhaps think that College tuition is a branch of the Pastoral Care ; at least, if they be themselves ordained to serve at God's Altar : and then thev will have no further alternative: they must either teach Catholicism, or not teach at all. To pass from the case of those engaged in tuition (which is also, mutatis mutandisy the case of those who appoint the University tutors) : it would be matter of grave inquiry, whether any person, adhering to the Articles in the sense pointed out by the Tract, could with an unblemished conscience become a member of the University, or even, without dispensation, continue such. This doubt arises from the acknowledged rule of the best casuists,* that all oaths and covenants imposed by a superior, and especially subscriptions required to Articles of religion, are to be interpreted by the mind and purpose of the parties imposing, and in the sense which they intended. Waterland adds, in speaking of our Articles, the sense of the compilers also; but he presently modifies that part of his statement by subjoining,* "The sense of the compilers, barely considered, is not always to be observed ; but so far only as the natural and proper signification of words, or the intention of the im posers, binds it upon us. The sense of the compilers and imposers may generally be presumed the same; and therefore I mention both, one giving light to the other.'* This mode of speaking plainly implies, that he did not consider the sense of the compilers as being obligatory in • Bp. Sanderson de Juramenti Obligatione, Prael. vii. § 9 ; and as quoted by him, St. Aug. Epist. 125, 4 ; 126, 13. * Case of Allan Subscription, c. ill. Works, ii. 288. to the Thirty-nine Articles considered. 13 itself, but only as being one of the most certain ways to ascertain, where otherwise doubtful, that of the imposers. That is to say, if there be no reason to the contrary, the natural meaning of the words, as at first drawn up, may be taken without hesitation as the meaning of the Church, or State, or University, calling on us to sign them. Still our obligation so to take them arises from our relation to the imposers, not to the compilers : or, as Mr. Newman has more concisely worded it, "We have no duties toward their framers.'' This is evident, on considering, that if an Article were ambiguous, it is competent to the same authorities which imposed it, to add a new Article, making the point clear : and it is the same thing, if they choose rather to declare that such and such is the signification of the old Article. Thus, whatever might be the meaning of the divines of King Edward, who compiled, or of those of Queen Elizabeth, who revised our Articles, as to Predesti- nation and Election, and other kindred tenets, it was within the prerogative of the Church governors in King Charles the First's time to declare, that those Articles should not be interpreted by the rules of any modern schools, but by the literal and grammatical signification of the words. The plain and direct rule then is, that the Articles are to be subscribed to in the sense intended by those whose authority makes the subscription requisite. To prevent mistakes, though in a very plain matter, let it be here added, that by this expression, " the sense of the imposers,'' we do not of course mean the particular interpretation which the Bishops and other authorities for the time being might happen to put upon the several ambiguous passages, as most probable in their own private opinion. This could never be thought of for a rule, being a matter impossible to be ascertained, and varying continually as Church oflSces drop and a;-e filled up. " The sense of the imposers,'' can only mean, " the sense in which they intended to allow subscription : " plain and obvious, where the words of the formulary admit but of one interpretation : in other cases doubtful at first reading, yet capable of being fixed with any 14 The Case of Catholic Suhscription degree of certainty, by comparison of different passages; by the declarations of the parties ; or, as in the case now supposed, by an authoritative rule of exposition superadded to the original formula. We obey, then, the sense of the im posers, not only when we happen to agree with them in each particular interpre- tation, but also when our disagreement, known or unknown, extends not beyond the limits which they in their discretion are willing to allow : when we make no " open questions " beyond what they permit. Now, from the Reformation downwards, both English Churchmen in general, and academical men in particular, have had at least so much warrant as this for interpreting the Articles in the Catholic sense. And to prevent cavil, I will here explain what I understand by the Catholic sense. I understand the phrase to mean, " that sense which is most conformable to the ancient rule. Quod semper y quod ubique, quod ab omnibus" When a doubtful expression occurs in a formulary, it seems to me catholic to interpret it so as may best agree with the known judgment of the primitive, and as yet undivided. Church. Again, it seems catholic to interpret it so as to cast the least unnecessary' censure on other portions of the existing Church : more especially where they form the great majority of Christendom : both because such would be the natural sentiment of a mind trained to think much of the supernatural fellowship of Christians one among another ; and because, argumentatively, quod vbique, and quod ab omnibus, are presumptions in favour of quod semper, until the contrary has been proved. These I take to be the grounds and principles of the mode of exposition, of late so severely censured : grounds and principles which 7 By •' unnecessary," I mean here, " not required, humanly speak- ing, for the prevention of serious error in doctrine or practice." And as an example, I would instance the Articles never charging the Churches of Greece or Rome with idolatry ; as also their stigmatizing the tenets about purgatory, &c., not as overthrowing the foundations of the faith, but as "a fond thing vainly invented, and not proveable from Scripture, but rather repugnant to it." to the Thlrli/'nine Articles considered. 15 would not be shaken by proving here and there an error of application or detail ; though as yet I am not aware that anything material, even of that kind, has been or can be substantiated, as against the statements of the Tract. May we not appeal without hesitation to the whole tenor of English Church history, for the fact, that this,— which 1 will venture to go on calling the Catholic acceptation of the Articles, — has been allowed by proper authorities in every generation ? although in equity the onus probandi lies with those who would now put it down. They may be fairly challenged to name the time, when either the Bishops or the Universities of England have limited, as some would now limit, the sense in which the Articles are to be sub- scribed. But we have moreover this positive presumption in our favour, that the first imposers of the Articles, who were some of them * also among their original compilers, did in effect not only allow, but even enjoin and recommend the Catholic sense of them. It has been often repeated of late, but does not seem to have been sufficiently noticed, — I will therefore here set it down once more : — that the same convocation, in the same set of canons, which first required subscription to the Articles in 1571, enjoined also that preachers should " in the first place be careful never to teach anything from the pulpit, to be religiously held and believed by the people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and collected out of that very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops." It seems no violent inference, that the appointed measure of doctrine preached, was also intended to be the measure of doctrine delivered in the way of explanation of doubtful passages in formularies. The first generation, therefore, of subscribers to the Articles might well think they had something more than permission to interpret them on Catholic principles. What was to hinder the next from takinjr the benefit of the same canon: and the next to them, and so on, quite down to our time ; unless some • Bishops Home and Grindall. See Strype, Cranm. b. ii. c. 27. 16 The Case of Catholic Subscripiion to the Thirty -nine Articles considered. 17 authoritative declaration to the contrary can be produced ? But the only interferences by authority that I am aware of were the King's declaration before mentioned, the re-enact- ment of subscription in 1662, and the directions of William in 1695, repeated by George I. at his accession. In the two first, the animus imponeniis cannot be supposed less favourable to Catholic views, than that of the synod in Queen Elizabeth's time ; and the last relates exclusively to the fundamentals of the faith, as contained in the five first Articles. Nor can it be said that there was no interference, simply because the interpretation in question did not exist to be interfered with. Nobody can be ignorant that there has existed all along a school of divines who have been con- stantly employing it, on no mean points, but such as tradition, justification, the nature and authority of the Church, &c. : some of them confessedly among the greatest names in English theology. There was call enough for the imposers of subscription ta repudiate such " suggestions,'' had they been so disposed. But no such thing was ever done ; neither by the Church, nor (I speak under correction, not having documents at hand) by the Univer&ity, May we not say then, with some confidence, that our case so far is complete ? May we not hope that however the cause, which seems to us Catholic, may be damaged in other respects by the unworthiness of its defenders, at least it will not be allowed to suffer from this imputation on their sincerity,— that they maintain it contrary to the known tenor of their own solemn engage- ments ? But all this depends on the consent, implied or express, of the party imposing the subscription. Let that be once unequivocally withdrawn, and we should indeed be liable to the taunts and reproaches which now affect us so little, were we to go on subscribing by virtue of our Catholic interpretation. I would not willingly excite unnecessary scruples, nor cast a stumbling-block in the way of any man's conscience ; but is it not so, that had Convocation ratified anything equivalent to the recent vote of the Heads of Houses, not only tutors, holding the Catholic view of the Articles, must have resigned their ofiices to avoid breach of trust, but no academic whatever, of the like principles, could either subscribe afresh or continue his subscription? Obviously he could not subscribe, for he could not do so in any sense allowed by the imposers. But since most of those who subscribe the Articles in the Universities, are too young to have definite opinions on their meaning, the main import of their subscription being that they receive them on the authority of the present < Church : this might be thought no very great evil in practice. Few, it may be thought, would be excluded by it; and those who did subscribe would have greater security (so this argument would suppose) for sound education, Bnt what are those to do who have subscribed long ago in the Catholic sense, now (by hypothesis) forbidden ? Can they honestly go on availing themselves of their former signature, now that the consideration is at an end which made that signature available ? Can they with clear and untroubled consciences receive the emoluments of an aca- demical foundation, or exercise the privileges of a member of the academical senate, while deliberately breaking the condition on which only they were allowed to share in those advantages ? As long as they do so, they seem virtually to continue or renew their act of adhesion to the formula : and if there would be insincerity iki that act, were it now to be performed for the first time, surely to go on reaping the benefit of it amounts to a constant repetition of the in- sincerity. I am not prepared to say, that under such circumstances individuals might not honestly go on, having suflicient reason to know such was the wish of the imposing body in their own particular case : but if not sin, it would approach nearly to scandal, unless they could obtain a public dis- pensation, express or implied, to that effect. But as to the general case, as far as I see my way in it, I own that I have no alternative : it would be equivalent to the University's B I / 18 The Case of CathoCic Subscription adoptinof a new test, which if you cannot take, you can but retire from the society. The general principles which regulate Academical sub- scription must of course be applicable to Clerical subscription likewise ; only that all cases of conscience assume a deeper and more awful interest, as they come nearer and nearer to the Most Holy Things ; and any sin or scandal which may be incurred will be, cateris paribus, indefinitely greater. Nor am I unmindful, believe me, of the proportionably greater peril of unworthy tampering with this branch of the subject ; and it is partly from a feeling of that sort that 1 have preferred stating the general case, with an immediate view to the University, rather than to the Clergy. If, however, the determination of it above intimated is correct in substance, there can be no difficulty in applying it to this other and more serious relation. Tf a candidate for holy orders, or a clerk nominated to any dignity or cure, were distinctly warned, by the same authority which calls on him to subscribe the Articles, that the Catholic mode of interpreting them would be considered as " evading their sense," and "defeating their object;" the act of signature would evidently amount to a pledge on his part against that mode of interpretation. If, in virtue of a preceding sig- nature, he were already exercising his ministry, his going on, without protest, to do so, after such warning, would virtually come to the same thing : it would be equivalent, as I said before, to a continued signature ; unless indeed he could obtain from the imposers express or implied dispensation for his own case, which would remove the sin, and, if made public, would remove the scandal also. But Clerical Subscription differs from Academical in this important respect ; that it is not quite so easy to determine who are the real imposers of it, and what kind of declara- tion on their part is to be regarded as authoritative. Thus far, however, all Catholics will be agreed : that a synodical determination of the Bishops of the Church of England, with or without the superadded warrant of the State (on to the Thirty-nine Articles considered. 19 whose prerogative in such causes I would refrain from here expressing any opinion), would be endued with unquestion- able authority. And it may seem at first sight as if nothing less could be so ; as if the supposed limitation of meaning could only be enacted by another synod of London : just as in the University it would require an act of the Senatus AcademicHs, But would it not be dangerous, under present circumstances, to press this rule very rigidly ?— to insist on the literal meaning of the phrase, animus imponentis, so as to demand that the party modifying, should be formally as well as substantially identical with the party enacting? Would it not be taking unfair advantage of the unhappy condition of our Church, and of the real or supposed inability even of her Prelates to legislate for her, independently of those who happen to be ministers of State for the time ? It certainly seems as if, to a person really reverencing the Bishops as the Apostles' successors, there might be decla- rations of opinion not synodical, which would oblige him morally if not legally : as for example, if all our prelates should severally declare, ex Cathedra, their adhesion to the view which has just been expressed at Oxford; or if not all, yet such a majority, as to leave no reasonable doubt what the decision of a synod would be. In such case, would it not be incumbent on those who abide by the Catholic exposition, yet wished to retain their ministry, to protest in some such way, as that the very silence of our Bishops permitting them to go on, would amount to a virtual dispensation as regarded them ? More especially if the Bishop under whom we ourselves minister, did in any manner lay on us his commands to the same effect, (as a public, official declaration of his opinion would amount to a virtual command, and ought, I imagine, to be obeyed as such:) these are considerations which would make our position a very delicate one indeed. First, the old sacred maxim. He that hearethyou heareth Me, or, as the Church afterwards expressed it, Ecclesia in Episcopo, could not but weigh heavily on a consistent Churchman's mind : receiving as it does in our days (if B % 20 The Case of Cat/tolic Subscription possible) additional point and force from the fact, that our own Bishop^s personal direction is almost the only mode left, by which we may ascertain the mind of the Church on any doubtful matter of practice.' Next, let it be well weighed how much the Oath of Canonical Obedience imports. No pledge can be more solemn or direct, than that under which we stand bound " reverently to obey our Ordinary, and other chief ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government over us ; following with a glad mind and will their godly ad- monitions, and submitting ourselves to their godly judgments ** This latter clause appears to refer, more especially, to doctrinal decisions : and if to any, surely most especially to their explanation of the terms of the engagement, to which they themselves admitted us : as the Church's agents, it is true, and not in any wise by their own independent autho- rity ; yet as deliberative, responsible, highly trusted agents, endowed severally with powers of more than human origin, to enforce their "godly judgments." So that it would be a very strong step indeed, and one hardly conceivable, but in a case where the very foundation of the faith was unequi- vocally assailed, for a Catholic Priest to go on ministering, when he knew that he was violating the conditions on which his Bishop would allow him to minister. It would be far different from insubordinate conduct here and there, in points of detail : rather his whole clerical life would be one continued act of disobedience. Who could endure such a burthen ? What labour could prosper, what blessing be looked for, under it ? It is very possible that I may overlook something which materially affects this question, and which may be plain • By God's good Providence this statement, in its fulness, is now (1866) no longer applicable to our position, and apparently becoming less so year by year, as the idea of Synodical action with appellate authority is gradually reviving among ourselves, and in Christendom generally. And the perplexities and alarms to which these jjages address themselves are in the like proportion vanishing away. to the Thirty -nine Articles considered. 21 enough to other persons ; but it does seem to me that in the case supposed (of a public censure, and dispensation refused), loyalty to the Church, her Creed or her Order both, could only be maintained by one of the two following courses : either we should continue in our ministry, respect- fully stating our case, and making appeal to the Metropo- litan, or as Archbishop Cranmer did, to the Synod, and that publicly — which course one should be slow to adopt, except in a matter which concerned the very principles of Faith and of Church Communion; — or else we should tender to our superiors our relinquishment of the post which we held under them in the Church, and retire either into some other diocese, or, if all our Bishops were agreed, into lay communion. The objections in point of scandal to these two courses would be, that the former might sound under present circumstances more as a way of talking than anything else : the latter, unless the case were very amply and openly explained, would appear as if one conceded the notion of the Articles being incapable of a Catholic sense. But explanations might be given. And it seems on the whole that with the exception of such extreme cases as I just now put, of positive heresy in one of the Most Sacred Order, this resource of lay communion, painful and trying as it must be in most cases, both in a temporal and spiritual sense, would be the only one properly open to us. Farther than it we could not even appear to separate from that which we believe to be the manifestation of the Holy Catholic Church in our country. We might be excom- municated, but we could neither join ourselves to any of the uncatholic communities around us, nor form a new communion for ourselves. We could not be driven into schism against our will. We could only wait patiently at the Church door, wishing and praying that our bonds might be taken off, and pleading our cause as we best might from reason and Scripture and Church precedents. So little ground is there for the surmise, that advocating the Catholic sense of the Articles is symptomatic of a tendency to depart from the English Church. 22 The Case of Catholic Suhscrij)iion to the Thirty -nine Articles considered. 23 So far, my dear Friend, you will perceive that I have been addressing myself to those chiefly, who concur with me m their view of the principle on which the Articles should be expounded. May I, in conclusion, mention a few topics, which I would fain suggest for the consideration of persons demurring to that principle, either its truth or ite expediency, yet unprepared to adopt, at all hazards, extreme measures towards the maintainers of it? The objects of such a censure as that which occasioned these remarks could not indeed consistently deviate into schism : but It cannot be denied, that should it be unhappily adopted by Church authority, now or at any future time, very evil consequences of that kind may be anticipated with regard to others. The whole position of our English Church, in her great controversy with Rome, will be altered. She will no longer be able to take her stand, in questions of Church practice or interpretation of Scripture, upon the old Catholic fathers and ancient doctors. To what her appeal must be made, is not so clear ; but as often as she tries to fall back on antiquity and Church consent, Romanists will have to say, " Nay, you have explicitly condemned sug- gestions of that kind in the exposition of your Articles ; you cannot now be allowed, as in former days, to avail yourselves of them.- Hitherto, in all essential points, the followers of antiquity among us have challenged the Roman Catholics to prove our formularies wrong : it has been con- stantly said, " Rome must move towards us in the first mstance, if ever a re-union is to take place.- But now it will be quite obvious, that we too shall have to retrace our steps. We shall have wantonly sacrificed so much of the holy ground, which, by an especial Providence, we have hitherto occupied. As we have in former days surren- dered to them the name Catholic, so we should now, by a kind of fatality, be conceding the thing itself, and that at the very point of time when people gradually are beginning to be aware of its importance. There is no need to enlarge on the scandal which this would cause to our English Romanists, encouraging them to continue in their schism ; and to Roman Catholics abroad, causing them to think and speak more harshly than ever of our branch of the Church : nor is there occasion to add anything to the important and unanswerable statements of Mr. Newman, concerning the almost certain effect on many of our own communion, whose Catholic feelings are stronger than their principles are clear and consistent ; who are of themselves sufficiently inclined to be jealous of the signification of our formularies, from circumstances unhappily connected with their origin and history ; and who may seem to be wanting only such an impulse, as a false step on the part of our Church would give them, to go sheer over the precipice, and pledge them- selves to the infallibility of Rome. But may it not be well to give a thought also to another sort of scandal — the encouragement which would be given to the latitudinarian and dissenter, who will sneeringly congratulate our Church on having at last found out her own inconsistency, and abandoned the untenable position for which she has so long been contending ? Will it be pleasant or profitable to have the good faith of former ages, the theological honesty of such as Andrewes and Laud, of Hammond and Bull, virtually impugned by the confession of their own branch of the Church ? Will it not tend fearfully to the promotion of scepticism, and of a worldly contemptuaus tone on all such subjects ? Again, it should not be left out of sight, that the course which I am now deprecating, tending to displace, on reli- gious scruples, a certain number of clergymen or academical men, tends, consequently, to perplex and discourage a certain number of quiet, thoughtful people, under their charge, or otherwise aware of the circumstances. Of course, this incon- venience must be faced, rather than bear with false doctrine or immoral practice : yet it is a serious thing to multiply cases of conscience, and disseminate popular alarms, without some great necessity ; and those who think the interpreta- tion objected to rather imprudently stated than untrue in itself, will perhaps feel themselves bound, according to their opportunities, to check the same kind of imprudence, should M i "■=sss= 24 The Cane of Catholic Subscription to the Thirti/-niue Articles considered. 25 11^ it appear on the opposite side, the more earnestly from their sympathizing with such simple people as I am now alluding to. Further, we may be tolerably sure that the half-schis- matical effect of such a censure will not pass away with this year nor with the next, nor with the lives of those who have to inflict or endure it. There will always be, in all pro- bability, a certain number of educated persons, who will be led to take the view now objected to of the Articles of the English Church, and will be unable to sign them in any other sense. They will be restrained, at most, to Lay Communion, and their energies will be so much lost to the ministry. And it will be much if in the course of years human infirmity do not cause some of them to lapse into absolute schism. At any rate there will be a constant though an involuntary thorn in our Church's side : in one respect more so even than the Nonjurors; at least so far as the point which gave name to their party went ; for they naturally ceased as a sect or school, when the claims of the exiled family vanished away. But the interpretation which causes this difference, is such as cannot well cease to exist, while men have eyes to read the Fathers and to compare them with the Articles, and hearts to feel the duty of Catholicity, The last evil that I shall now specify, as likely to ensue from any hasty step of the kind on the part of those in authority, is the necessity which it seems to involve of something more definite, to follow on the Protestant side of the controversy. (I use the word Protestant in its historical sense, that sense by which it is best known throughout Christendom, as denoting a certain school of positive opinions : not in its strict etymological sense, as simply meaning those who protest against certain errors of the Church of Rome.) For example: the censure, sup- posing it authoritative, declares it an evasion of the sense of our Church on Purgatory, to say that " the Romish doctrine *' means the doctrine of the Schools as popularly taught in thai communion : will it not be expected, by and by, that the same authority should declare what is the intended measure of Romish doctrine? May we not expect efforts to establish, as a dictum of our Church, the too popular notion, that wilful deadly sin after Baptism, truly repented of, is as if it had never been ; so that a life- long contrition is not needed, to make the man's final hope assured and certain? Again, the censure seems to repudiate Catholic consent as a part of the Rule of Faith : shall we have no endeavours, by and by, to assert in direct terms the right of private judgment in its place ? The same kind of questions might be asked with reference to the other disputed points ; nor would it be hard to imagine two or three different schools of Theology, which would earnestly contend with each other for the right of determining them, each encouraged by the success they had had in common in first setting out. There is here abundant promise of future controversy ; considering that the object of the censure was the peace of the Church. But we may be allowed to hope better things : and, indeed, whilst I am writing,! am informed that the respected authors of this severe but no doubt conscientious sentence, have given, or are giving currency to a statement, that they did not intend it as an expression of theological opinion, but rather, if I rightly understand what I hear, as a caution against an immoral unfairness of interpretation, which they feared might find unintentional encouragement in the manner of reasoning adopted in the Tract which they were noticing. You and others will judge whether anything has been said incidentally, in the course of this letter, to obviate any such suspicion, by explaining that the principle of the Tract was that which the first imposers of subscription expressly recommended, and which their successors in every genera- tion have constantly allowed : viz, to interpret all doubtful places, as nearly as possible, by the rule of Catholic consent. You will also judge whether I have at all succeeded in the more direct object of what has been said : in pointing out, namely, the course which persons interpreting our formu- laries on the above-mentioned Catholic principle must adopt, in the event of an authoritative condemnation of thatprin- c 26 The Case of Catholic Subscription, ^c. ciple : you will judge whether the principle itself, or the condemnation of it, is more to be apprehended, as tending either to schism, or to scandal in other ways. And what- ever your sentence may be on these points, you will, I am sure, rejoice with me, that through the moderation of various parties, the discussion, at first so painful, appears likely to be concluded with no loss to truth, and (may I not add?) with some gain to charity (for I reckon as nothing what may have been said in angry newspapers, or in mere political declamation) : and that we have heard so little, during its progress, of that most uncatholic sentiment, too often lightly uttered in such debates, " If a man cannot sign, let him go : we can do without him : if he does not like our Church, let him go to another:'^ as if there were any other to which he could go. The prevalence or abate- ment of this sort of language and feeling, is perhaps one of the surest indices of the decay or growth of the temper of Catholicity among us. May we hear and practise less and less of it, and more of the tone and mind of that crood Bishop of our Church, who living in uncatholic times, yet made it part of his daily evening prayer, that God would " vouchsafe unto him an interest in the prayers of His holy Church THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, which had that day been offered to the Throne of Grace." Believe me, my dear Friend, Very affectionately yours, J. Keble. Hursley, April 2, 1841. THE END. UatW>V: PRreXKD by WTT.LIAM CLOWES an© sows, IIIUTKIN SlAMtOHU ^iTUEi::! AND CUAKINO CUOsm. / iy: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 0026056968 :i. :>._r»':il^;^~;ijr] BRIHLE DO NOT PHOTOCOPY ' ^to^^ \^ ^is#?- 'M aVVH^*: