J 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 * 
 
intfjeCitpofllfttigork 
 
 THE LIBRARIES 
 
LECTURES 
 
 ON 
 
 CERTAIN HIGH-CHURCH PRINCIPLES 
 
 COMMONLY, DESIGNATED BY THE TERM 
 
 PUSEYISM. 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS MADGE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. 
 
 184.4. 
 
PRINTED BY RICHARD AND JOHN E. TAYLOR^ 
 RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. 
 
 
 ,f 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following Lectures are published in compli- 
 ance with the earnest request of those to whom 
 they were addressed. They were written in the 
 course of each successive w^eek previous to their 
 deUvery, and without the slightest view to pubh- 
 cation. The reasons for which they were under- 
 taken are stated in the first Lecture. In pre- 
 paring them for the press, the Author has availed 
 himself of the opportunity of making various alter- 
 ations and additions, with the view" of rendering 
 them less unworthy of the favourable attention 
 with which they were at first received. The po- 
 
 64863 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 pular cast which they necessarily assumed as oral 
 addresses has been retained in their printed form, 
 both from the difficulty of reconstructing them 
 without entirely destroying their identity, and be- 
 cause it is for the people generally, and not for the 
 learned particularly, that they are designed. 
 
 London, Februarv 20, 1844. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 ON THE PRINCIPLES, SPIRIT AND TENDENCY OF 
 ANGLO-CATHOLICISM OR PUSEYISM. 
 
 Introductory remarks. — Reasons for entering on the sub- 
 ject of these lectures. — Tlie Oxford Tracts — their origin and 
 the doctrines contained in them. — Distinction between high- 
 churchmen and low- churchmen. — Principles and character 
 of Archbishop Laud — identity of his school with that of the 
 Anglo-Catholics. — Approximation of Puseyism to Romanism 
 — its exclusiveness — its intolerance 1 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 
 Scriptural meaning of the word Church. ^ — Its constitution 
 in the times of the apostles. — Christian ministers not priests. 
 — No foundation in the New Testament for three orders in 
 the ministry. — Deacons — their appointment and otHce. — • 
 Bishops and presbyters — original identity of these terms. — 
 Probable origin of diocesan episcopacy. — Ordination — its 
 signification and intent 46 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 Statement of the doctrine — its meaning in the vocabulary 
 of high-churchmen — examination of the scriptural ground 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 on which it is supposed to rest — admission of Tractarians 
 that it is not clearly taught in Scripture. — Their way of ob- 
 viating this difficulty.- — The argument from history consi- 
 dered, and its weakness and futility exhibited 87 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 CATHOLIC TRADITION AND THE AUTHORITY 
 OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 Tradition — how understood by Roman Catholics and 
 Anglo-Catholics — statement of it by the Tractarians — Mr. 
 Palmer, Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble. — Examples of the tra- 
 ditions recorded in the writings of the Fathers — the incredi- 
 bility of some, the falseliood of others — no reliance therefore 
 to be placed on such tales. — Councils — their authority de- 
 nied — reasons for this denial. — Consent of the universal 
 Church, a fiction — utterly wanting in the very instances 
 referred to in proof of its fulness.- — Testimony not the same 
 with tradition — difference between them explained and il- 
 lustrated . 129 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE AND RIGHT OF 
 PRIVATE JUDGEMENT. 
 
 The Scriptures alone the genuine source of Christian 
 knowledge — no other writings of co-ordinate authority with 
 them. — The grounds of this opinion stated. — The position 
 that the Church is the sure interpreter of Scripture examined 
 and its fallacy exposed. — The right of private judgement 
 asserted and explained — objections to it answered, and its 
 claims vindicated against the attacks of high-churchmen. — 
 The right to judge not to be confounded ^vith the compe- 
 tency to judge — importance of this distinction. — The abuse 
 of the right no argument against its fair and legitimate use. 197 
 
CONTENTS. VU 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN CONNECTION 
 WITH THE STATE. 
 
 Page 
 
 The divine institution of episcopacy as maintained by the 
 Anglo- Catholics, and the authority claimed by them for the 
 Christian priesthood, inconsistent with the actual position of 
 the English Church— opposed also to the opinions of some 
 of her most illustrious scholars and divines^of Hooker, 
 Burnet, Tillotson, Warburtou, Paley, Lord Bacon, and others. 
 — Dependence of the Church upon the State deprecated and 
 deplored by the Anglo-Catholics, but shown to have been 
 the condition of the English Church from the period of its 
 separation from the Church of Rome. — The line of conduct 
 required of the Anglo-Catholics, in consistency with their 
 principles, briefly intimated 243 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF A CHRISTIAN 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 No church a genuine Catholic Church which requires 
 other terms and conditions of communion than those pre- 
 scribed by Christ and his apostles — statement of what these 
 are. — That Jesus is the Christ, and that God raised him from 
 the dead, the only admission necessary to Christian commu- 
 nion, and the only basis of a true Catholic Church 271 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 Recapitulation of the preceding lectures 292 
 
LECTURES ON PUSEYISM. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 XN entering upon the present course of lectures, I 
 propose to bring under your consideration a subject 
 which has engaged and which continues to engage 
 a large share of public attention. Doctrines and 
 principles are now advocated by a numerous party 
 in the Established Church of this country which, 
 in many important respects, approach so nearly to 
 those of the Romish Church as to be scarcely 
 distinguishable from them. The party to whom I 
 refer are commonly known and designated by the 
 term Puseyites, from their supposed leader Dr. 
 Pusey ; and the peculiar opinions maintained by 
 them, by the corresponding term Puseyism. For 
 the sake of convenience, therefore, I shall some- 
 times employ these words to denote the high- 
 church principles which have of late been so pro- 
 
 B 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 minently exhibited and so zealously defended. At 
 the same time I wish it to be distinctly understood, 
 that I mean nothing offensive by the use of such 
 expressions. I adopt them merely in conformity 
 to general usage, and to avoid the circumlocution 
 which might otherwise be necessary. 
 
 To some of you, perhaps, the discussion of the 
 subject announced may seem not properly to be- 
 long to this place. It may be thought to be purely 
 a Church of England question ; important indeed 
 for the members of that church duly to consider 
 and carefully to examine, but of little moment or 
 interest to those of a different communion. If this 
 w^ere so, — if the principles avowed and defended by 
 the so-called Puseyites applied only to themselves, 
 to the constitution and government of their own 
 church, without injuriously reflecting upon those 
 of other churches, I know not that I should have 
 deemed it advisable or expedient to call your at- 
 tention to the peculiar views and proceedings of 
 this party. But when they go far beyond this ; 
 when they assume an authority and lay claim to 
 powers incompatible with the rights and liberties 
 of all other Protestant Christian communions ; 
 when they arrogate to themselves an exclusive 
 title to the blessings and hopes of the Gospel, and 
 contend that they alone who receive spiritual in- 
 struction at the hands of episcopally ordained 
 
LECTURE I. d 
 
 ministers belong to the true Church of Christ, and 
 that all others are to be regarded and treated as 
 heretics and schismatics ; when they tell us plainly 
 that the preaching of the Gospel and the admini- 
 stration of Christian ordinances can be rightfully 
 undertaken by those only who receive their com- 
 mission from the duly authorized descendants of 
 the apostles ; and that all others calling themselves 
 Christian ministers are to be reckoned usurpers and 
 intruders, venturing to assume an office to which 
 they have no just right or title, — when the privilege 
 of judging for ourselves is preremptorily denied, 
 and the authority of the church or the priesthood 
 is held up as of paramount force and obligation, — 
 then, I say, we, — all of us calling ourselves Pro- 
 testants, no matter what our peculiar opinions may 
 be, — we are all interested in asking, what do these 
 things mean ? Upon what are such pretensions 
 founded ? What are the grounds and reasons for 
 advancing claims apparently so preposterous and 
 absurd ? There may be those who are inclined only 
 to laugh at and ridicule such notions. They may 
 think them utterly unworthy of any serious consi- 
 deration, and fit only to be treated with unmingled 
 scorn and contempt. 
 
 Deserving of scorn and ridicule as they may be, 
 we must not blind ourselves to the fact that they 
 are held and maintained by a large number of the 
 
 b2 
 
^ LECTURE I. 
 
 English Church, especially of the clergy. Among 
 these are to be found men of distinguished attain- 
 ments, extensive learning and unimpeachable in- 
 tegrity. If the opinions, characterized by the term 
 Puseyism, had been advanced by a few heated en- 
 thusiasts, of no rank or estimation in the world of 
 letters, and remarkable only for the folly and vanity 
 of their extravagant assumptions, it might have been 
 sufficient to regard them with cold indifference, or 
 to turn upon them the look of indignant contempt. 
 But when we see men of high standing in the Esta- 
 blished Church, doctors of divinity and professors 
 at the Universities, with multitudes of the inferior 
 clergy, earnestly advocating such claims, the phe- 
 nomenon, it must be admitted, is a remarkable one, 
 and deserves and demands a serious and searching 
 examination. We may wonder at it. Truly, it is 
 an object of wonder, and the more narrowly we 
 )ook into it, the more wonderful it appears. Still, 
 there it is, and we must meet it fairly and man- 
 fully. It is folly to treat it as if it were a thing of 
 no power or significance. The opinions which it 
 embodies have gained a strong and deep root in the 
 minds of many, and are rapidly and widely spread- 
 ing around us. What may be the ultimate issue 
 of such opinions, in respect to the religious charac- 
 ter and condition of our country, it is of course 
 impossible to foresee. Some may hope that the 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 discussion and inquiry which they will awaken may 
 eventually be productive of great good. However 
 this may be, one thing seems to be clear, that with- 
 out such inquiry and discussion, not only will no- 
 thing that is good be obtained, but much that is 
 bad will follow. Unopposed and unresisted, the 
 principles of Puseyism may attain such a height of 
 popularity and power as once more to raise up a 
 spiritual despotism, subversive of our Christian 
 liberties, and substituting the religion of the priest 
 for that of the individual conscience. 
 
 This system, I say, if not watched and guarded 
 against, may affect us, and our intellectual and re- 
 ligious freedom and independence, in ways that we, 
 at present, think not of. This we know, that of 
 all tyrannies, ecclesiastical tyranny is the most 
 harassing and vexatious. Nothing, be assured, is so 
 much to be dreaded as authority and power when 
 lodged in tiie hands of a corporation of priests. 
 
 The avowed and published opinions of the Ox- 
 ford or Tractarian Divines have left us in no doubt 
 as to what their views and desires are. There has 
 been no reserve here. Their wishes and intentions 
 have been made plain enough, and should put 
 every man, who values his intellectual and moral 
 freedom, in an attitude of defence. For that de- 
 fence we should endeavour to qualify ourselves as 
 best we can. The shafts of ridicule will be of little 
 
b LECTURE I. 
 
 avail without other and better aids and appli- 
 ances. We must take into our hands litter and 
 mightier weapons than these. We must bear in 
 mind, that those we have to contend with are men 
 every way well accomplished for the warfare in 
 which they are engaged. Learned, skilful, subtle 
 in their arguments and abounding in resources, they 
 must be met, if they are to be successfully encount- 
 ered, with instruments of a similar temper. We 
 must call to our aid learning, research, sober rea- 
 soning and logical discrimination. But these, it 
 may be said by many persons — these are not at our 
 command. We have neither the learning nor the 
 leisure which the subject requires. What then are 
 we to do ? Are we to yield to what appear to us 
 monstrous and absurd opinions, merely because we 
 have not the time or the opportunity to acquire the 
 information, or to master the reasoning by which 
 they might be effectually opposed and overthrown ? 
 No, I answer, certainly not. But observe, this is 
 not the only alternative. It would be a poor feeble 
 way of opposing what seem to us false and per- 
 nicious doctrines, to content ourselves with calling 
 them preposterous and absurd. It is easy to apply 
 words like these to any notions that we happen to 
 dislike No reasonable man should be satisfied 
 with such a mode of attack. 
 
 To reject any opinion, gravely advanced and 
 
LECTURE 1. 7 
 
 seriously maintained by a considerable number of 
 tboughtful and instructed men, merely because it 
 jars with our preconceived views and notions, can 
 scarcely be considered as either just or reasonable. 
 Truth can never be served by such an idle, pitiful 
 homage as this. What then, — you may ask, — 
 what are we, who are out of the schools of learn- 
 ing and criticism, to do ? I answer, avail your- 
 selves of the learning, the information and the 
 arguments of others. This you can do, and with 
 but little cost of time or trouble. In fact it is what 
 all do, and must do more or less in the pursuit of 
 knowledge and truth. No man, on all occasions, 
 thinks it necessary to have recourse to the first and 
 original authorities : he must frequently depend 
 upon those which are at hand, which lie more con- 
 veniently within reach. It is what I myself shall be 
 obliged to do in the course of these lectures. If, 
 before making any statement or coming to any con- 
 clusion, I were in all cases to wait till I had con- 
 sulted the original documents or writings referred 
 to, and had ascertained by my own personal exami- 
 nation the correctness of the facts or data spoken of, 
 years would be required for the execution of the 
 task which I have now undertaken. For the prin- 
 cipal events in ecclesiastical history, I shall be 
 satisfied with appealing to such authorities as Lard- 
 ner, Mosheim, Neander, Waddington, and other 
 
8 LECTURE I. 
 
 well-known and accessible works, not doubting that, 
 generally speaking, they are perfectly faithful and 
 trustworthy in their historical relations. For com- 
 mon purposes, this is all that seems to be needful. 
 At times indeed and upon very nice points, where 
 the judgement to be formed depends upon the con- 
 struction of a word or the turn of a sentence, it may 
 be necessary to go further than this ; but commonly, 
 and in regard to all the most important questions 
 that concern us, the authorities which we have 
 readily at our command will be amply sufficient to 
 enable us to come to a just and satisfactory con- 
 clusion. 
 
 How many theologians, for instance, rely upon 
 such testimony as that of Griesbach in deciding 
 whether a given reading in the New Testament be 
 the true one or not ! How many are there who, 
 without the slightest hesitation, condemn as spu- 
 rious the text of the three heavenly witnesses*, 
 though perhaps they have never seen a single ma- 
 nuscript from which that text is absent ! They rely 
 upon the testimony of competent and faithful wit- 
 nesses, who depose to the fact of its non-appearance 
 in all the most ancient manuscripts and versions, 
 and they exercise their own judgement in drawing 
 from this circumstance the conclusions which 
 it may seem to warrant. In fact our inquiries and 
 
 * 1 John, V. 7. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 researches could scarcely be carried to any con- 
 siderable extent, if we were to proceed in a differ- 
 ent manner. What I propose, then, upon the 
 present occasion is, to furnish you with such facts 
 and statements and arguments, as, by the exercise 
 of your own understandings, will enable you to pro- 
 nounce whether the system called Puseyism be one 
 entitled to your favour and acceptance, or one de- 
 serving of your reprobation and rejection. 
 
 My first object will be to make you acquainted 
 with the leading principles of the Puseyite or Ox- 
 ford school, so far at least as they relate to the au- 
 thority of the church or clergy, and to point out the 
 tendencies which it clearly manifests. In the sixty- 
 fourth number of the ' British Critic ' (the gene- 
 rally understood organ of the Puseyite party) we 
 read, " It is now about ten years since certain mem- 
 bers of the University of Oxford began to put for- 
 ward, by means of Tracts and other publications, 
 various high-church doctrines which all agree had 
 been for a long time laid aside or but indifferently 
 maintained in our church ; these doctrines are main- 
 ly, baptismal regeneration, the real presence, the eu- 
 charistic sacrifice, tradition, church authority, and 
 apostolic succession." " There are few," says Pro- 
 fessor Powell in his work on 'Tradition,' "who have 
 not heard something of these questions. Those 
 periodicals which are chiefly devoted to religious and 
 
10 LECTURE I. 
 
 theological subjects have been full of them. Even 
 the daily journals have from time to time resound- 
 ed with the mention of the ' Oxford Tracts ' and the 
 names of their principal supporters. There have 
 gone forth among the public at large impressions 
 of the existence, organization and growth of prin- 
 ciples, and a party of the most dangerous tendency, 
 originating within the pale of the Church, and 
 extending even to both the ancient universities. 
 They are commonly supposed to aim at little less 
 than the complete revival of ecclesiastical autho- 
 rity and discipline, long consigned to oblivion ; 
 and a gradual, or if possible, an immediate resti- 
 tution of the very spirit, if not the actual letter, of 
 Romish superstition and papal despotism^." 
 
 To Dr. Pusey, the regius professor of Hebrew in 
 the University of Oxford, is commonly attributed 
 the origination of the party bearing his name, and 
 about the middle of the year 1833 they organized 
 themselves into a regular association, and began 
 the publication of the Oxford Tracts. To what ex- 
 tent their doctrines prevail I have not had the 
 means of distinctly ascertaining ; that they have 
 spread with astonishing rapidity is most certain. 
 A very large proportion of the younger clergy are 
 said to have embraced them. The number of their 
 clerical adherents is reckoned by thousands, and 
 
 * Powell's 'Tradition Unveiled,' p. 2. 
 
LECTURE I. 11 
 
 daily accessions to their ranks are boasted of. Dr. 
 Pusey himself speaks of the extraordinary progress 
 ■which Anglo-Catholic principles have made in En- 
 gland, and of the sympathy which they have found 
 in the episcopal churches of Scotland and America. 
 
 That you may better understand what those prin- 
 ciples are, their character and tendency, it may be 
 advisable that I should remind you of the religious 
 parties that appeared in the English Church at and 
 about the time of the Reformation, of the distinc- 
 tion between high churchmen and low churchmen, 
 and of the part taken by Archbishop Laud and 
 others, in the reign of Charles I., to bring the En- 
 glish Church to as near a conformity as possible to 
 the standard of the Romish Church. 
 
 How the English Reformation was brought about 
 is probably familiar to you all. Though from the 
 time of WicklifF there had been many, in various 
 parts of England, disaffected to the Romish Church 
 and anxious for a change, that change, even to the 
 small extent to which it was carried, would, in all 
 probability, not have been effected but for the 
 personal interference of King Henry VIII. The 
 object of that odious tyrant, in separating from 
 the Church of Rome, it is not necessary for me to 
 dwell upon. It is sufficient to notice the fact, that 
 what was done, was done in obedience to his will 
 and for the gratification of his vicious inclinations. 
 
12 LECTURE I. 
 
 Henry, as it has been well observed, determined to 
 be his own Pope. The power and authority which 
 had been possessed by the Roman pontiff were now 
 claimed and exercised by himself. As for the peo- 
 ple, they were to believe as he taught and to worship 
 as he enjoined. ' ' The religion established by Henry 
 Vni.," says Lord John Russell, in his Essay on the 
 English government, "was so far from being the Re- 
 formed Church of Luther or of Calvin, that he prided 
 himself in maintaining the Roman Catholic faith 
 after he had shaken off the supremacy of the Pope. 
 His ordinances, indeed, vibrated a short time be- 
 tween the old and the new religion, as he listened 
 more to Cranmer or to Gardiner ; but the law of 
 the six articles, which contains the creed he finally 
 imposed on his people, maintains and confirms all 
 the leading articles of the Roman belief." Edward 
 VL was not only friendly to the little Reformation 
 which had been effected, but was desirous of carry- 
 ing it still further. All progress, however, in this 
 direction was arrested by his successor Queen Mary, 
 and under her auspices the Romish Church resumed 
 very nearly its former position. On the accession 
 of Queen Ehzabeth affairs took another turn. Her 
 own legitimacy and title to the crown being iden- 
 tified with a denial of the Pope's authority, led her, 
 in spite of the strong bias she had for the Romish 
 doctrines and ceremonies, to espouse the side of 
 
LECTURE I. 13 
 
 the Reformation. The Protestant exiles — who had 
 sought refuge in foreign countries from the perse- 
 cutions to which they were exposed at home — 
 were allowed to return, but were not permitted to 
 make any change in doctrine or worship. An act 
 was soon passed establishing the ecclesiastical su- 
 premacy of the Queen, and this was a power of 
 which Elizabeth was exceedingly proud and upon 
 which she set the highest value. In the early part of 
 her reign the clergy in convocation passed and pre- 
 sented to the Queen five articles respecting the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper and the authority to be 
 exercised by the "successors of the apostles," which 
 it would be difficult to distinguish from the Romish 
 doctrines of transubstantiation and the church's in- 
 fallibility. Notwithstanding however these mani- 
 fest indications of their leaning towards the Papacy, 
 when they were required to take the oath enjoined by 
 the Act of Supremacy and to renounce the spiritual 
 as well as temporal authority of the Pope, they gene- 
 rally submitted with the exception of all the bishops 
 but one, and about two hundred of the other mem- 
 bers of the clerical body* ; thus furnishing another 
 
 * As it is computed that there were at this time upwards of 
 nine thousand beneficed clergymen, the number who refused to 
 take the oath of supremacy is very inconsiderable. " Of the 
 rest," says Echard in his ' History of England,' " that is, of those 
 who submitted, it was strongly believed that the greatest part 
 complied against their consciences, and would have been ready 
 
14 LECTURE I. 
 
 proof of the readiness with which ecclesiastics in 
 that age, as in the preceding ones of Henry, Edward 
 and Mary, adopted or professed any opinions which 
 the reigning monarch might choose to set up. The 
 Reformation in England, such as it was, was not 
 accomplished by the efforts of the clergy, but in 
 spite of them. Sir Michael Fester, esteemed one 
 of the greatest of our constitutional lawyers, con- 
 curs in this opinion. He says, " I believe it will 
 appear that the great work of the Reformation was 
 chiefly conducted by lay counsels in opposition to 
 the clergy. They were active in none of the changes 
 except in the restoration of Popery under Queen 
 Mary, and in the cruelties of her reign*." As be- 
 fore observed, most of the bishops, in the early part 
 of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, having refused to 
 take the oath of supremacy, vacated their sees, 
 several of which were filled up by some of the ex- 
 iles who had lately returned to England. Of these 
 Grindal was made bishop of London, and Jewel, of 
 Sarum. Now^ these bishops had contracted, while 
 abroad, a strong aversion to many of the Romish 
 rites and ceremonies which were still retained in 
 the English Church, and were anxious to be re- 
 fer another turn, if the Queen had died while that race of incum- 
 bents lived and the next successor had been of another religion." 
 * See his ' Examination of Bishop Gibson's Codex Juris Eccle- 
 siastici Anglicani,' p. 45. This little work of Sir M. Foster is to 
 be found in a volume entitled ' Tracts for the People.' 
 
LECTURE I. 15 
 
 lieved from them ; indeed most of the leading men 
 were at that time desirous of simplifying the church 
 ceremonial, — Archhishop Parker, with the Queen, 
 standing almost alone in maintaining it. Nor was 
 this altogether a new feeling. It existed with many 
 as far back as the time of Henry VIII. Among 
 this number, perhaps, may be reckoned Latimer, 
 Ridley, Hooper and Coverdale, men to bo had in 
 grateful and lasting remembrance for their learning 
 and virtue, their labours and their sufferings. 
 
 You will observe then, that almost from the very 
 first there were two, or I might say, three parties in 
 the Church of England. 
 
 First, the high-church party, who, if not really 
 and in heart Roman Catholics, were for adhering 
 as nearly as possible to the doctrine, discipline and 
 ritual of the Romish Church. In all essential points 
 they were one with the Papacy. 
 
 Next there was the low-church party, consisting 
 of those who, like Ridley, Hooper and Coverdale, 
 were for a greater simplicity in the outward forms 
 of worship, and whatever their opinions may have 
 been of the divine origin of episcopacy, regarded 
 the Lutheran and Reformed churches as sound 
 portions of the Christian community. Out of this 
 party sprang another, if indeed it may not rather 
 be considered as a branch of the same trunk, di- 
 stinguished by the name of Puritans, from their 
 
16 LECTURE I. 
 
 desire of purifying the church still more from what 
 they deemed Romish corruptions, and carrying to a 
 greater extent the principles of the Reformation. 
 
 Now these terms, high-church and low-church, 
 though clearly marking the two parties that existed 
 in the Church of England almost from the very be- 
 ginning of the Reformation, did not obtain general 
 use and currency till about the reign of Charles I. 
 Of the low-church divines of that period Mosheim 
 says*, " They were zealously attached to the form 
 of ecclesiastical government and worship that were 
 established in the Church of England, and they re- 
 commended episcopacy with all the power of their 
 eloquence, but they did not go so far as to look upon 
 it as of divine institution, or as absolutely necessary 
 to the constitution of a Christian church ; and hence 
 they maintained that those who followed other forms 
 of government and worship were not, on that ac- 
 count, to be excluded from their communion, or to 
 forfeit the title of brethren." Among the low- 
 church divines Mosheim mentions the names of 
 Hales, Chillingworth, More, Cudworth, Gale, 
 Whichcote and Tillotson, than which there are few 
 more illustrious to be found in the annals of the 
 English Church. The learned historian further in- 
 forms us that the high-churchmen were so called 
 
 * See his ' Ecclesiastical History,' translated by Maclaine, 
 vol. V. p. 367. 
 
LECTURE I. 17 
 
 on account of the high notions which they enter- 
 tained of the dignity and power of the Church, and 
 the extent they gave to its prerogative and juris- 
 diction. They denied the vaUdity of Presbyterian 
 ordination, and disowned the ministrations of foreign 
 churches. 
 
 Of this party the celebrated Archbishop Laud 
 may be considered as having been, in the times of 
 Charles L, the leader and chief. Of the principles 
 of this party Hallam thus speaks : " It is notorious 
 that all the innovations of the school of Laud were 
 so many approaches in the exterior worship of the 
 Church to the Roman model. Pictures were set up 
 or repaired ; the communion-table took the name 
 of an altar ; obeisances were made to it ; the cru- 
 cifix was sometimes placed upon it ; the dress of 
 the officiating priests became more gaudy, and 
 churches were consecrated with strange and myste- 
 rious pageantry The doctrine of a real presence, 
 
 distinguishable only by vagueness of definition from 
 that of the Church of Rome, was generally held ; 
 prayers for the dead were vindicated by many ; the 
 practice of auricular confession was frequently in- 
 culcated as a duty ; in fact there was hardly any 
 distinctive opinion of the Church of Rome which 
 had not its abettors among the bishops, or those 
 who wrote under their patronage*." 
 
 * See Hallam's Constitutional History, vol. ii. pp. 85, 86. 
 
 C 
 
18 LECTURE T. 
 
 Now I wish you to observe, that it is with Laud 
 and the party of which he is the representative, that 
 the Puseyite or Oxford Divines have closely identi- 
 fied themselves. Thev are not a new school in the 
 Church of England, but the revival of an old one. 
 Their great apostle, the object of their fond idola- 
 try, their hero, champion, and guide, is Archbishop 
 Laud. Froude in one of his letters thus writes : 
 " I have been reading Clarendon. I am glad I 
 know something of the Puritans, as it gives me a 
 better right to hate Milton, and accounts for many 
 things which most disgusted me in his, not in my 
 sense of the word, poetry ! I adore King Charles 
 and Bishop Laud. As for the Reformers, I think 
 worse and worse of them." 
 
 That you may know something more of this al- 
 most canonized saint of the Puseyite school, I shall 
 ask your attention for a few moments to a specimen 
 or two, first, of his folly and, next, of his cruelty. 
 On the consecration of a church in St. Giles's, the 
 following piece of ecclesiastical foppery is said to 
 have been practised by him. " At his approach to 
 the west door of the church, some persons who had 
 been appointed for the purpose cried with a loud 
 voice, ' Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the 
 king of glory may come in !' Presently the doors 
 were opened, and the bishop, with some doctors 
 and principal men, entered. As soon as they were 
 
LECTURE I. 19 
 
 within the place, his lordship fell down upon his 
 knees, and, with eyes lifted up and his arms spread 
 abroad, said, * This place is holy, the ground is 
 holy; in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, I pronounce it holy.' Then walking up the 
 middle aisle towards the chancel, he took up some 
 of the dust and threw it into the air several times. 
 When he approached the rail of the communion- 
 table, he bowed towards it five or six times, and re- 
 turning went round the church with his attendants 
 in procession, saying first the hundredth and then 
 the nineteenth psalm, as prescribed in the Roman 
 pontifical. After this and some other observances 
 came the sermon, then the sacrament, which the 
 bishop consecrated and administered in the follow- 
 ing manner. 
 
 ' ' As he approached the altar he made five or six 
 low bows ; and coming up to the side of it, where 
 the bread and wine were covered, he bowed seven 
 times. Then, after reading many prayers he came 
 near the bread, and gently lifting up the corner 
 of the napkin beheld it ; and immediately letting 
 fall the napkin, he returned hastily a step or two 
 and made three low obeisances. His lordship then 
 advanced, and having uncovered the bread, bowed 
 three times as before ; then he laid his hands on 
 the cup which was full of wine, with a cover upon 
 it, which, having let go, he stepped back and bowed 
 
 c2 
 
20 LECTURE I. 
 
 three times towards it. Then he came near again, 
 and lifting up the cover of the cup looked intoit, 
 and seeing the wine let fall the cover again, retired 
 back and bowed as before. Then the elements were 
 consecrated ; after which, many prayers being said, 
 the solemnity of the consecration ended *." 
 
 As an example of his cruel and merciless dispo- 
 sition, it will be sufficient to call your attention for 
 a moment to his treatment of Prynne and Leigh- 
 ton. 
 
 Prynne was a barrister at Lincoln's Inn, and had 
 rendered himself obnoxious to the high-church 
 party by various publications in reprobation of 
 their principles. Laud was greatly exasperated by 
 this, and determined upon seizing the first oppor- 
 tunity of making him feel the effects of his anger. 
 This opportunity soon presented itself in conse- 
 quence of the publication by Prynne of a work en- 
 titled ' Histriomastix,' the object of which was 
 to denounce and condemn all such amusements as 
 plays, masquerades and dances. In the course of 
 this work it was found that some coarse expressions 
 had been applied to women-actors ; and as the 
 queen had lately acted a part in a pastoral at So- 
 merset-house, advantage was taken of these ex- 
 
 * Abridged from the account given of this transaction in Tow- 
 good's ' Dissent from the Church of England justified,' p. 293 — 
 294, 8vo edit. 
 
LECTURE I. 21 
 
 pressions to inflame the minds of the king and his 
 consort by representing them as a libel directed 
 against her. Of the falseness and baseness of this 
 accusation, no other evidence is required than the 
 fact that the work, from which the passages just 
 spoken of were taken, had been published six weeks 
 prior to this exhibition on the part of the queen*. 
 Prynne was now committed to prison by a war- 
 rant under the signature of Bishop Laud ; and after 
 a twelvemonth's close confinement, a prosecution 
 was instituted against him in the Star-chamber. 
 Prynne solemnly protested his innocence of the 
 charge brought against him. He declared that he 
 had no intention of including the king or queen in 
 the censures he had pronounced. It was all in 
 vain — the voice of justice and mercy was disre- 
 garded, and the cry for vengeance and punishment 
 was alone listened to. Prynne was sentenced to be 
 imprisoned during life, to pay a fine of 5000/. to the 
 king, to stand in the pillory at Westminster and 
 have one of his ears cut off, and after a short in- 
 terval to have the same punishment repeated in 
 Cheapside. All this the sturdy Puritan underwent 
 with the firmness of a martyr and the patience of 
 a saint. His body might be mutilated, but his spirit 
 remained unchanged : that, no sufferings could 
 dismay or subdue. It defied even the vengeance 
 
 * See Brodie's History of the British Empire, vol. ii. p. 324. 
 
22 LECTURE I, 
 
 of Laud, and the pain and ignominy through which 
 he passed did but add in the end to tlie dignity of 
 his own character, while it fixed an indeUble brand 
 of infamy and meanness upon his perfidious and 
 merciless persecutors. 
 
 Passing by other instances of Laud's cruelty, I 
 shall briefly notice his conduct towards a Scotch 
 divine of the name of Leighton. This Dr. Leigh- 
 ton had published a book against the bishops, en- 
 titled ' Sion's Plea against Prelacy.' For this he 
 was apprehended and committed to Newgate. 
 After lingering there some months, he was brought 
 before the court of the Star-chamber and sentenced 
 to undergo the same kind of punishment as that de- 
 scribed in the case of Prynne. As soon as sentence 
 was pronounced against him. Laud, with his accus- 
 tomed vulgar brutality, pulled off his cap, and hold- 
 ing up his hands, gave thanks to God who had given 
 him victory over his enemies. And he thus coolly 
 notices in his Diary, dated Friday, November 16, 
 1630, the barbarous punishment that poor Leigh- 
 ton then endured. He says, " Part of his sentence 
 was executed upon him in this manner, in the new 
 palace at Westminster, in term time : 1. he was 
 severely whipped before he was put in the pillory; 
 2. being set in the pillory, he had one of his ears 
 cut off; 3. one side of his nose slit ; 4. branded on 
 one cheek with a red-hot iron ; and on that day sen- 
 
LECTURE I. 23 
 
 night his sores upon his back, ears, nose and face 
 being not cured, he was whipped again in Cheap- 
 side, and there had the remainder of his sentence 
 executed upon him by cutting off the other ear, 
 shtting the other side of the nose, and branding the 
 other cheek." After ten years' captivity Leighton 
 was released by the Long Parliament, but he came 
 out of prison paralytic, blind and deaf*. 
 
 And why, in a lecture concerning the principles 
 of the party termed Paseyites, do I remind you of 
 the principles and conduct of Laud ? Because this 
 is the man with whom they claim the closest union 
 and fellowship. Because he is ever the object of 
 their veneration and praise. Because they con- 
 stantly hold him up as an example to be followed 
 by his successors at Lambeth. They call him the 
 great archbishop, the brightest ornament of the 
 Church, and address him as 
 
 " Martyr'd Father, holiest man. 
 Laud, our England's Cyprian f!" 
 
 Now of this great archbishop — this brightest or- 
 nament of the Enirlish Church — this holiest man — 
 this pattern and example of what archbishops should 
 be, hear what is said by two distinguished writers 
 of the present day, both of whom are intimately ac- 
 quainted with the history of our country, and espe- 
 
 * Foster's Statesmen of the Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 316. 
 t" British Magazine for December 1840. 
 
24 LECTURE I. 
 
 cially the history of the times of Laud. "His ta- 
 lents," says Hallam, "seem to have been by no 
 means considerable. There cannot be a more con- 
 temptible work than his Diary; and his letters to 
 Strafford display some smartness, but no great ca- 
 pacity Though not literally destitute of religion, 
 
 it was so subordinate to worldly interest, and so 
 blended in his mind with the impure alloy of tem- 
 poral pride, that he became an intolerant persecutor 
 of the Puritan clergy, not from bigotry, but syste- 
 matic policy. And being subject, as his friends call 
 it, to some infirmities of temper, that is, choleric, 
 vindictive, harsh, and even cruel to a great degree, 
 he not only took a prominent share in the severities 
 of the Star-chamber, but, as his correspondence 
 shows, perpetually lamented that he was restrained 
 from going further lengths*." 
 
 Mr. Macau] ay, after observing that he agreed 
 with Hallam in reprobating the treatment which the 
 archbishop received from the parliament, thus de- 
 livers his judgement of his mind and character: 
 "For the individual, indeed, we entertain a more 
 unmitigated contempt than for any other character 
 in our history. His mind had not expansion enough 
 to comprehend a great scheme, good or bad. His 
 oppressive acts were not like those of the Earl of 
 Strafford, parts of an extensive system: they were 
 
 * Hallam's Constitutional History, vol. ii. p. 54. 
 
LECTURE I. 25 
 
 the luxuries in which a mean and irritable disposi- 
 tion indulges itself from day to day, — the excesses 
 natural to a little mind in a great place. The se- 
 verest punishment which the two houses could have 
 inflicted on him, would have been to set him at 
 liberty and send him to Oxford. There he might 
 have staid, tortured by his own diabolical temper, 
 hungering for Puritans to pillory and mangle, 
 plaguing the Cavaliers, for want of somebody else 
 to plague, wdth his peevishness and absurdity, per- 
 forming grimaces and antics in the cathedral, conti- 
 nuing that incomparable Diary which we never see 
 without forgetting the vices of his heart in the im- 
 becility of his intellect, minuting down his dreams, 
 counting the drops of blood which fell from his nose, 
 watching the direction of the salt, and listening for 
 the note of the screech-owls. Contemptuous mercy 
 was the only vengeance w^hich it became the Parlia- 
 ment to take on such a ridiculous old bigot*." 
 
 That any party not utterly blinded by passion 
 and prejudice, and having the slightest regard for 
 the principles of truth and justice, should cherish 
 the memory of such a man with feelings of venera- 
 tion and affection, — that they should speak of him 
 as the ornament of the English Church, — the great 
 archbishop, — an example to be followed by all who 
 come after him, almost exceeds the bounds of belief. 
 
 * Macaulay's Critical and Historical Essays, vol. i. p. 170. 
 
26 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Such, however, is the fact. Laud and his school, — 
 these are the watch-words of the present high-church 
 or Puseyite party. I say this not merely from the 
 strength of my own impressions, — not simply be- 
 cause it is a conclusion which I think fairly dedu- 
 cible from the language they employ, but because 
 they themselves avow it, distinctly and emphatically, 
 in so many words. In the sixty-fourth number of 
 the British Critic they say, "The present orthodox 
 divinity of our Church is a development since the 
 Reformation, and a reaction upon it. We care not 
 how great innovators the school [of Laud] were 
 considered in their time, or upon how slender a 
 thread they seemed to hang; they succeeded, and 
 their innovation is now our rule. The Church can- 
 not shake off the Laudian school: she has identified 
 herself with them; she has accepted their ground, 
 and she stands upon it*." 
 
 By thus observing the men and the party with 
 whom the Puseyites, in a great measure, identify 
 both themselves and their cause, you will learn 
 something of the principles, temper and disposition 
 by which they are distinguished. And that you 
 may have a still further insight into their views and 
 tendency, I will now proceed to show you the into- 
 lerant and exclusive nature of the powers and privi- 
 leges they claim for the Episcopal Church of En- 
 
 * British Critic for October 1842, p. 345. 
 
LECTURE I. 27 
 
 gland. According to them there is but one true 
 Christian church on earth, and that is the prelatic. 
 "I am now to speak," says Mr. Palmer, " of the 
 societies which are separated from the communion 
 of the Anglo-Cathoiic churches. As I shall consider 
 elsewhere the character of the Romanists and the 
 Scottish Presbyterians, it only remains here to treat 
 of the various sects of Dissent. Of these communi- 
 ties, whether collectively or individually considered, 
 I affirm that they are no part of the Church of 
 
 Christ Their separation from the Church of 
 
 England w^as founded not only in schism but in he- 
 resy, and, this being the case, they could not have 
 been any part of the Church, nor were they capable 
 of forming Christian churches*." 
 
 The same author, after endeavouring to show that 
 the Presbyterian ministry of Scotland is schismatical 
 and their ordination invalid, concludes with this ob- 
 servation: — "Therefore the Presbyterian establish- 
 ment, being founded in schism and destitute of an 
 apostolical ministry, constitutes no part of the visi- 
 ble Church of Christ." He then adds :—" With re- 
 gard to all the other sects in Scotland which have 
 seceded from the Presbyterian community, the same 
 observations apply to them all. Their predecessors, 
 the Presbyterians, voluntarily separated themselves 
 
 * Palmer on the Church of Christ, vol. i. pp. 305, 309, 3rd 
 edition. 
 
28 LECTURE I. 
 
 from the Catholic Church of Christ; and they, in 
 departing from the Presbyterian community, have 
 not yet returned to that of the true Church ; conse- 
 quently they form no part of the Church of Christ*." 
 The same sentence is passed on the various deno- 
 minations of English Dissenters; and speaking ge- 
 nerally of all the minor sects of Protestants, he 
 says, "It would be impossible, consistently with 
 the maintenance of any principles of unity, order 
 or faith, to allow that they constitute part of the 
 visible Church of Christ f." 
 
 " To call ourselves episcopalians," say the writers 
 of the British Critic, "is to imply that we differ from 
 the mass of Dissenters mainly in church government 
 and form ; whereas the difference is, that we are here 
 and they there. We, in the Church, and they, out 
 ofitj." 
 
 In a work entitled ' Christian Morals,' by the 
 late moral philosophy professor at Oxford, language 
 still more extraordinary with respect to the Church 
 is there to be met with. "Consider," says he, "the 
 vastness of the power claimed by the Church ; a 
 power which places it almost on a level with God him- 
 self ; the power of forgiving sins, by wiping them out 
 in baptism ; the power of bringing down the Spirit of 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. i. pp. 443, 444. 
 
 t Ibid, Preface, p. 13. 
 
 : British Critic for October 1839. 
 
LECTURE I, 29 
 
 God from heaven, and incorporating it in the person 
 of frail and fleshly man. Think, J say, of this stupen- 
 dous power, and then ask, if any human being could 
 dare to assume it without authority from God himself. 
 If such authority has never been given, then the 
 Church is guilty of the most frightful blasphemy that 
 man can conceive. If it has been given, is it not a 
 fearful thing to make light of or dispute it ? " 
 
 Sentiments similar to these may be found in the 
 writings of Newman and Dodsworth, but the fore- 
 going quotations are sufficient to show what ex- 
 clusive and extravagant privileges are claimed for 
 the Church by the Puseyite party. After this you 
 will not wonder at the low estimation in which they 
 hold the Reformers, and the language which they 
 apply to the school of what are called the low- 
 church divines, including those of the highest cha- 
 racter for learning and virtue. In the Review be- 
 fore-mentioned they say, " Our Reformers were not 
 Puritans or Sectarians themselves, but they let in 
 Puritanism and Sectarianism to a most fearful ex- 
 tent It should never be forgotten that the altar 
 
 of God, standing in the place where it now stands, at 
 the east end of the church, was, by the famous order 
 of Ridley* (the martyr Ridley), pulled down and 
 
 * " Why," says Froude, " do you praise Ridley .? Do you know 
 sufficient good about him to counterbalance the fact that he was 
 the associate of Cranmer, Peter Martyr and Bucer.?" — Remains, 
 vol. i. p. 394. 
 
30 LECTURE I. 
 
 removed, in the form of a communion-table, into 
 the middle of the church. The order was followed 
 in his own diocese, and more or less in most, and 
 of course turned our churches into conventicles. 
 Even to this day, the rubric, which allows the com- 
 munion-table (even at communion time) to stand 
 in the body of the church, is a memorial of the 
 sectarian spirit of our Reformation." In the same 
 article they call Bishop Hooper an obstinate puri- 
 tan, a mere dogged Genevan preacher ; and they 
 add, " the selection of such a man for a bishop was 
 unworthy of persons who really meant to make a 
 stand for the great principle of external worship." 
 Coverdale, a man of exemplary virtue, deep piety 
 and great learning, whose name is memorable for 
 having been the first English translator and pub- 
 lisher of the whole Bible, — Miles Coverdale, they 
 say, was another bishop of this sort, a thorough 
 puritan and Genevan; " who officiated at the conse- 
 cration of Archbishop Parker in his black gown." 
 Of Jewel (celebrated for his works in defence of 
 the Church of England) they say, "that the very 
 time he was a bishop and bound by his office to 
 maintain the orders of the Church, he was cor- 
 responding with the Calvinists abroad, and longing 
 for a release from its formularies. Let high-church- 
 men," they continue, " understand this, and then 
 look up to Jewel as a model, if they please ; if they 
 
LECTURE I. 31 
 
 like going flat against their own principles. For 
 our own part we must confess ourselves of the opi- 
 nion, that a man who dislikes the surplice and talks 
 about the formalities of our service is either a 
 dissenter at heart, or very near one*." Froude 
 goes a step beyond this, and actually designates 
 Jewel " an irreverent dissenter f." 
 
 This way of speaking of some of the most distin- 
 guished of the early English divines and reformers, 
 and the aversion which they express for the name 
 of Protestant I, are in complete accordance with the 
 respect and tenderness which they show towards 
 the principles of the Romish Church, and which, in 
 no material point, seem to be distinguishable from 
 their own ; they may differ a little about some un- 
 important articles of belief and practice, but the 
 
 * See British Critic, No. 64. 
 
 t " As to the Reformers, I think worse and worse of them. 
 Jewel was what you would, in these days, call an irreverent dis- 
 senter. His defence of his Apology disgusted me more than 
 almost any work I have read." — Remains of the late Rev. R.H. 
 Froude, M.A., Felloio of Oriel College, vol. i. p. 380. 
 
 X See British Critic for July 1841, where it is declared that 
 Protestantism is " essentially antichristian," — " that the Church 
 ought to be unprotestantized," — " that it must recede more and 
 more from the principles of the English Reformation." And 
 Froude says, " I must go about the country to look for the stray 
 sheep of the true fold ; there are many about, I am sure ; only 
 that odious Protestantism sticks in people's gizzard." — Remains, 
 vol. i. p. 32. 
 
32 LECTURE I. 
 
 great characteristic principles of each are the same. 
 Obedience to the dictum of the priest, whether de- 
 hvered through the voice of one or of more than 
 one ; whether proceeding from the Pope, or eccle- 
 siastical councils and synods, lies at the centre of 
 both systems. The authority of the Church, in other 
 words, the authority of the clergy, is the main pillar 
 of the gorgeous structure of Popery, and this too 
 is the basis or foundation of the system called 
 Puseyism. 
 
 In Nos. 10 and 17 of the 'Tracts for the times' 
 you will find, in confirmation of what I have now 
 said, various passages, asserting in the loftiest terms 
 the spiritual authority of the clergy. We are told 
 that " we may be as sure that the bishop is Christ's 
 representative as if we actually saw upon his head 
 a cloven tongue like as of fire. The bishop rules the 
 Church here below as Christ rules it above." Of the 
 clergy it is said, that " they have a commission 
 from God Almighty, not only to preach the Gospel 
 and administer the sacraments, but to guide the 
 Church." They are entitled and called not only 
 to exhort and rebuke, " but to rule with all au- 
 thority; and he that despises them, despises the 
 apostles ;" they then express a hope that the time 
 is coming when men will honour the clergy with a 
 purer honour than they do now, viz. " as those 
 who are entrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, 
 
LECTURE I. 33 
 
 as the heralds of mercy, the denouncers of woe to 
 wicked men, and as entrusted with the awful and 
 mysterious gift of making the bread and wine 
 Christ's body and blood*." 
 
 Addressing the ministers of the episcopal church 
 they say, "Exalt our holy fathers the bishops, as 
 the representatives of the apostles and the angels 
 of the churches, and magnify your own office, 
 as being ordained by them to take part in their 
 ministry f." They admit that there is something 
 in this view of their calling that is high and my- 
 sterious. It is *' a part," say they, " of that ineffa- 
 ble mystery, called in our creed the communion of 
 saints, and with all other Christian mysteries, is 
 above the understanding of all alike, yet practically 
 alike w^ithin the reach of all who are willing to em- 
 brace it by true faith |." 
 
 In further evidence of their sympathy with and 
 near approach to the Roman Catholic doctrines §, 
 
 * " I should like to know," says Froude, " why you flinch from 
 saying that the power of making the body and blood of Christ 
 is vested in the successors of the apostles." — Remains, vol. i. 
 p. 326. 
 
 t Tracts for the times. No. 1. p. 4. 
 
 X Ibid. No. 4. p. 6. 
 
 § Of this the Romanists themselves are fully aware, and exult 
 in the prospect which it presents. " It is impossible," says 
 Dr. Wiseman in his letter on Catholic Unity, "to read the works 
 of the Oxford divines without discovering a daily approach to- 
 wards our holy Church." 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 we find them declaring not only that the Church 
 forgives sins in the person of Christ, but lamenting 
 that the absolution contained in their service is not 
 strong enough ; that it is a mere declaration, not 
 an announcement of pardon to those who have con- 
 fessed*. With the Romanists also they are nearly 
 agreed in regarding the ceremony of ordination 
 as a sacrament. They say, " Ordination, though it 
 does not precisely come within our definition of a 
 sacrament, is nevertheless a right partaking, in a 
 high degree, of the sacramental characterf." 
 
 " I can see no other claim," says Froude, "which 
 the Prayer-book has on a layman's deference, as 
 the teaching of the Church, which the Breviary 
 and Missal have not in a far greater degree j." 
 
 ** I see Hammond takes that view of the infalli- 
 bility of the Church, which P. says was the old 
 one. We must revive it§." 
 
 " By the bye, we are not ignorant that the ancient 
 fathers generally teach that the bread and wine in 
 the Eucharist, by or upon the consecration of them, 
 do become, and are made the body and blood of 
 Christ!." 
 
 * Tracts for the times, No. 3. p. 2. 
 
 t Ibid. No. 5. p. 10. 
 
 X Froude's Remains, vol. i. p 402. § Ibid. p. 322. 
 
 II Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. 363. This also appears to be the 
 opinion of Dr. Pusey himself; for in his letter to Dr. Jelf he 
 quotes with approbation the following statement : — " It is by no 
 
LECTURE I, 35 
 
 After this it is not to be wondered at that the 
 party to which Froude belonged gave utterance to 
 such thoughts and wishes as the following. "The 
 vaunted antiquity, the universality, the unanimity 
 of their Church (referring to that of the Roman Ca- 
 tholics) puts them above the varying fashions of 
 the world and the religious novelties of the day ; 
 and truly, when one surveys the grandeur of their 
 system, a sigh arises in the thoughtful mind to 
 think that we should be separate from them*." 
 
 I might go on to cite many other passages from 
 the writings of the Oxford divines to prove the 
 identity, in all its leading features, of Puseyism 
 with Romanism ; but as there can be no need of 
 this, I shall content mj^self with one more reference 
 
 means to be denied that the elements are really changed, trans- 
 lated, turned and converted into the body and blood of Christ. 
 
 Yet is not this change destructive of the bodily substance of 
 
 the elements, but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of 
 Christ's body and blood." One fears to call this absurd because of 
 the difficulty of annexing any clear distinct ideas to the language 
 employed. But the following passage from Newman is either still 
 more unintelligible, or still more revolting to common sense. He 
 maintains, in Tract 90, that the body of Christ is, in a mysterious 
 manner, really, if not locally present ; and adds, " the true deter- 
 mination 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." 
 From this jargon of words what possible meaning can be ex- 
 tracted .f* 
 
 * Tracts for the times. No. 20, p. 3. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 LECTURE I. 
 
 to Newman, who ranks as one of the chiefs or leaders 
 of this section of the English Church. He calls the 
 Bishop of Rome the head of the Catholic world, and 
 says, " the authority of the Fathers of the first six 
 councils, and of the judgements of the Church 
 generally, the inspiration of the Apocrypha, the 
 sacramental character of marriage and other ordi- 
 nances, the real presence in the Eucharist and the 
 Church's power of excommunicating kings, are all 
 taught in the homilies*." 
 
 This passage is found in the notorious Tract 90. 
 It is throughout a covert apology for all the prin- 
 cipal doctrines of Romanism. It was felt, even by 
 the bishops themselves, to be rather alarming: 
 they began to think that the Tractarians were 
 going too fast, if not too far; and the consequence 
 was a sort of interdict by the Bishop of Oxford 
 against the further issue of such publications ; and 
 with this famous number ninety, therefore, the se- 
 ries of ' Tracts for the times' has, for the present, 
 terminated. 
 
 There is one other feature of the system under 
 review to which I must for a few moments direct 
 your attention, and that is, the avowal, the distinct 
 and explicit avowal on the part of the leading Pu- 
 seyites, of the principle of persecution ; of the right 
 of the Church to enforce conformity to her doctrines 
 
 * Tract 90. p. 75. 
 
LECTURE I. 37 
 
 and decrees by means of coercion and punishment. 
 Tliis is the worst part of their system. Its dog- 
 matism is bad enough. Its arrogance is still worse. 
 Its lordly assumptions yet more hateful ; but its 
 assertion of the right to compel assent and obedi- 
 ence by cailing to its aid the power and authority 
 of the civil magistrate is most detestable of all, 
 and should draw down upon it the frown of our 
 sternest, deepest indignation. 
 
 In proof of the accusation thus brought against 
 them, I will first refer you to a passage contained in 
 the sixty-fourth number of the British Critic. It had 
 been said in the Quarterly Review, that the Church 
 is not now in a worse position with respect to the 
 State than it was in the days of Whitgift and Hooker. 
 Upon this the British Critic observes, " Now with 
 all deference to the respectable quarter from which 
 this assertion proceeds, we cannot call it anything 
 else than a palpable and egregious mistake. The 
 Church is in a very diiferent and in a much lower 
 position, with respect to the State, than it was in 
 the times of these divines. Then it was co-exten- 
 sive and identical with the State : when men ceased 
 to be members of the former, they were also de- 
 prived of their position in the latter ; a seceder from 
 the Church was, as such, a criminal and a male- 
 factor. The king, the council, and the parliament 
 were all not only necessarily churchmen, in com- 
 
38 LECTURE I, 
 
 raon with the rest of the nation, but churchmen 
 bound officially to protect the Church, and put down 
 her enemies. We put it then to any person, as a 
 simple question of fact, — Is or is not this order of 
 things reversed ? Are persons now obliged to go to 
 church in order to escape going to jail ? Are even 
 ministers, privy councillors, members of parlia- 
 ment, magistrates, or any class of civil functiona- 
 ries, obhged to be churchmen?*" 
 
 Of this passage it may be said, perhaps, that the 
 questions asked in it are asked without any inten- 
 tion of expressing a desire that they should now be 
 answered in the affirmative. There is no positive 
 approbation of the principle involved in them. 
 Then why not have said so ? Why not have 
 guarded against such a construction of their mean- 
 ing by the most explicit disavowal of it ? Why 
 not, in calling to remembrance the power formerly 
 exercised by the Church, or rather by the State on 
 behalf of the Church, have accompanied it with a 
 declaration that they had no wish to see such power 
 revived and restored ? Why not have denounced 
 it as one of the greatest calamities and curses that 
 could be inflicted upon a Christian people ? But 
 not only is there no such righteous indignation ex- 
 pressed, not only is there no such caveat put in, but 
 the questions are evidently asked complainingly, as 
 
 * British Critic, No. Ixiv. p. 321. 
 
LECTURE I. 39 
 
 if the Church had been wrongfully deprived of this 
 aid and co-operation of the State. And that this 
 view of the passage is correct, may, I think, be 
 fairly inferred from the avowal of similar sentiments 
 and the use of similar language by other distin- 
 guished divines of the Puseyite school. Palmer, in 
 his treatise on the Church, after mentioning various 
 laws relating to its discipline and doctrine, which 
 still exist, goes on to observe, that, " in accordance 
 with the principle involved in these laws, and in 
 the articles and canons of the Church of England, 
 the State has a right, when necessary, to oblige the 
 members of the Church, by temporal penalties, to 
 submit to her ordinances, and neither to establish a 
 different worship nor teach different doctrines from 
 hers." You may say, perhaps, that he here limits 
 and confines this State interference to members only 
 of the Established Church, which, being in connec- 
 tion with the State, patronized and endowed by it, 
 cannot justly complain if her members are required 
 to comply with the conditions annexed to this alli- 
 ance. But the very next sentence to the above will 
 show that no such limitation is intended ; that he not 
 only means that those who continue in the Church 
 should be coerced and restrained by the civil ma- 
 gistrate from disobeying her laws and ordinances, 
 but those likewise who wish to withdraw from it. 
 He says, speaking of the Church of England, the 
 
40 LECTURE I. 
 
 State " has a right to prevent persons from separa- 
 ting from her communion and from troubling the 
 faithful, sowing dissension in the community, and 
 misleading the ignorant and weak-minded bre- 
 thren*." 
 
 I may perhaps be told, that notwithstanding 
 these passages, our author still advocates the cause 
 of toleration and maintains the unlawfulness of per- 
 secution. In appearance, I admit, he does, — but 
 that it is only in appearance is evident from the 
 qualifications with which it is accompanied and 
 the grounds on which it is supported. He says, 
 " if experience show that penalties have in vain 
 been employed to secure obedience ; if a schism be 
 formed and established ; if it be obviously in vain to 
 expect any good results from measures of compul- 
 sion ; Christian charity, as well as sound policy, 
 would enjoin the toleration of incurable errors. 
 Therefore the State of England acted well in relie- 
 ving Papists and other sectaries from the operation ol 
 laws which could no longer be useful with respect 
 to them. But though sects may be tolerated by a 
 Christian state, they ought never to receive from it 
 favour, encouragement, or the means of injuring the 
 true Church established f." 
 
 It will be perceived, then, that he does not argue 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 274, 3rd edit. 
 t Ibid. vol. ii. p. 275. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 41 
 
 against intolerant and persecuting laws because 
 they are intrinsically bad — because they are essen- 
 tially and universally wrong, opposed to the will of 
 God, at war with the spirit of Christ, subversive of 
 the rights of man, and incompatible with human 
 ignorance and frailty. What he does say against 
 them is altogether founded on their practical ineffi- 
 cacy and consequent inutility. Persecution has not 
 succeeded in extinguishing the hght within us; it 
 has not succeeded in crushing the spirit of intellec- 
 tual freedom ; it has not succeeded in securing unity 
 of opinion or uniformity of profession. The ana- 
 themas of the priest have been issued in vain, and 
 the cry of heresy and schism has been laughed to 
 scorn. The miserable enginery of pains and penal- 
 ties has been powerless to subdue the rebelUon of 
 conscience against ecclesiastical usurpation ; and 
 therefore, perhaps, it may as well be let alone. 
 This is the utmost extent to which our author's li- 
 berality goes, if indeed it can fairly be considered 
 as going so far ; for when he comes to notice the 
 objections which Locke and others have made to 
 the magistrate's interference in religious concerns, 
 he seems in his answers to justify, not only the fa- 
 vour and patronage of the State in behalf of what 
 he calls the true Church, but the use of pains and 
 penalties in restraining and silencing those who are 
 opposed to it. One of the objections noticed by 
 
42 LECTURE I. 
 
 him is this: "The Church is a purely voluntary 
 society, for no man is by nature a member of the 
 Church. He joins the society he judges most ac- 
 ceptable to God, and if he finds anything wrong in 
 it, he ought to be at liberty to leave it." To which 
 the answer is, " No man can forsake the Church 
 without committing a grievous sin The civil ma- 
 gistrate may reasonably restrain such men by tem- 
 poral penalties, in order to prevent them from dis- 
 turbing the weak brethren and troubling the 
 Church =^." 
 
 It would be difficult to distinguish this from the 
 most open and undisguised advocacy of the princi- 
 ple of persecution. The peace of the Church has 
 been at all times the bigot's plea for compulsive 
 conformity and submission. 
 
 In one of the ' Tracts for the times,' the writer, 
 referring to those who exercise the right of private 
 judgement, makes this observation : " Such trou- 
 blers of the Christian community would, in a healthy 
 state of things, be silenced or put out of it, as dis- 
 turbers of the king's peace and restrained in civil 
 matters ; but, in our times, from whatever cause, 
 being times of confusion, we are reduced to the use 
 of argument and disputation, just as we think it 
 lawful to carry arms and barricade our houses du- 
 ring national disordersf ." 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 276. f Tracts, No. 59. p. 3. 
 
LECTURE I. 43 
 
 Attend also to what Mr. Newman says : — " If 
 scripture-reading has, in England, been the cause 
 of schism, it is because we (the Church) are de- 
 prived of the power of excommunicating, which, in 
 the revealed scheme, is the formal antagonist and 
 curb of private judgement*." The same author, 
 in his 'History of the Arians of the fourth century,' 
 speaking of those who denied the doctrine of Christ's 
 deity and what he thought to be the evil conse- 
 quences of their conduct, says, "It is but equitable 
 to anticipate those consequences in the persons of 
 the heresiarchs, rather than to suffer them gra- 
 dually to unfold and spread far and wide after their 
 day, sapping the faith of their deluded and less 
 guilty followers." That is, as Archdeacon Towns- 
 end, in his ' Charge to the Clergy of Allerton,' ob- 
 serves, "it is better to inflict punishment upon 
 the persons of the heresiarchs than to wait to con- 
 fute their opinions, because those opinions are inju- 
 rious." Atrocious as this passage is, it is followed 
 in the very same page by one still more atrocious : 
 " In this," says Mr. Newman, " lies the difference 
 between the treatment due to an individual in error 
 and to one who is confident enough to publish his 
 innovations. The former claims from us the most 
 affectionate sympathy and the most considerate at- 
 tention ; the latter should meet with no mercy. He 
 
 * Newman's Treatise on Romanism, p. 170. 
 
44 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 assumes the office of the tempter, and so far forth 
 as his error goes, must be dealt with by the com- 
 petent authority, as if he were embodied evil." 
 
 The fiercest inquisitor could not have used lan- 
 guage more intolerable, — more hateful than this, or 
 have set up for himself a defence which would bet- 
 ter subserve his malignant and cruel purposes. 
 
 I have detained you a long time w^ith this expo- 
 sition of some of the leading doctrines and princi- 
 ples of the party denominated Puseyites ; but it 
 was, in a great measure, unavoidable, as I washed 
 you to see and understand, from what they them- 
 selves say, the character and tendency of the system 
 which they are so eagerly and so successfully pro- 
 pagating through the land. 
 
 In advancing such views and pretensions one 
 would suppose that, like the augurs of old, they 
 could not, when met together in friendly converse, 
 look each other in the face without smiling. But 
 we are assured that they are in earnest, and in 
 earnest therefore we will meet them. The worst 
 feature belonging to their system is the threaten- 
 ing aspect which it casts upon our civil and reli- 
 gious privileges. It denies and denounces liberty 
 of conscience and the right of private judgement. 
 If it could obtain the power, it lacks not the will to 
 curb and restrain both. It becomes us then to be 
 upon our guard, and to remember that our security 
 
LECTURE I. 45 
 
 consists in our sensitiveness to the approach of 
 danger. Our rehgious Uberty cannot be preserved 
 without constant watchfuhiess. If we sleep, the 
 enemy will come and sow tares. If w^e are careless 
 and indifferent about our religious privileges, we 
 shall forge the fetters of our own bondage, and 
 shall only w^ant, what our indifference will well de- 
 serve, a tyrant to come and fasten them upon us. 
 Let us, therefore, look to ourselves and take heed 
 to our ways. Let us resolve never again to be en- 
 tangled with the yoke of bondage, but steadily to 
 maintain and firmly to hold fast the liberty with 
 which Christ has made us free. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 Having in the preceding lecture laid before you a 
 statement of the leading general principles which 
 are held and maintained by that section of the 
 Church of England now commonly known and di- 
 stinguished by the name of Puseyites, I shall now 
 proceed to inquire more particularly into the 
 grounds and reasons on which those principles are 
 supported and defended. There is one word which is 
 used bv them so often and in such a manner as to 
 render it proper and expedient that we should begin 
 our examination of their system by an inquiry into 
 its scriptural meaning. The word to which I refer 
 is the very common and familiar one of the Church. 
 What is this ? what are w^e to understand by it ? 
 what is its use and signification in the New Testa- 
 ment? I ask these questions because when we 
 hear, as we are continually hearing, of the autho- 
 rity of the Church, of the decrees of the Church, 
 of the voice of the Church, we are apt to think of 
 some corporate body or society, endowed with pe- 
 culiar powers and privileges, and altogether distinct 
 
LECTURE II. 47 
 
 from the greater or lesser communities of Christian 
 believers. There are few general or abstract terms 
 which have been more perverted and abused than 
 this of the word Church. From this perversion 
 and abuse the Oxford divines are by no means ex- 
 empt. In saying this I do not mean that, when 
 formally defining the word, they are so absurd as 
 to give it a meaning altogether different from that 
 which is its undoubted signification, but that in the 
 abstract form in which they so commonly use it, it 
 appears as the representative of some mystical en- 
 tity, — what it is no one can tell, or where it is no 
 one can say, — whose voice, as declared by them, is 
 to awe and subdue the minds of the people into 
 reverential acquiescence and obedience. 
 
 What then is the original and scriptural meaning 
 of this word Church ? I answer, that in its origi- 
 nal acceptation it signified an assembly of any kind ; 
 afterwards, and among the first Christians, it came 
 to signify an assembly for religious purposes, — for 
 Christian devotion and instruction. In the New 
 Testament we find it used in two senses, denoting 
 sometimes a particular society of Christians meet- 
 ing together in one place, and sometimes the whole 
 body of Christians considered in their collective ca- 
 pacity. Thus we read of "the Church at Jerusa- 
 lem," " the Church at Antioch," " the Church of 
 Ephesus," meaning the different societies of Chris- 
 
48 LECTURE II. 
 
 tians in those places. For the larger and more ge- 
 neral meaning of the word we may refer to such 
 passages as these : " Christ loved the Church and 
 gave himself for it;" — " He is the head over all 
 things to the Church ;" — " Give none offence, nei- 
 ther to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the 
 Church of God." Here the word Church evidently 
 designates the whole Christian community. In all 
 cases then it means an association of Christians 
 more or less general, and not any particular class 
 or order of men among them. So says Mr. Locke. 
 "A Church," he observes, "I take to be a society 
 joining themselves together of their own accord in 
 order to the public worshiping of God, in such a 
 manner as they shall judge acceptable to Him, and 
 effectual to their own salvation." Thus too the 
 ever memorable John Hales : — "The Church," says 
 he, "as it imports a visible company on earth, is 
 nothing else but the company of professors of Chris- 
 tianity wheresoever dispersed in the earth." With 
 this definition both Mr. Palmer in his work on the 
 Church, and the Bishop of London in the first of his 
 three sermons on the Church, appear to agree. Mr. 
 Palmer says, " its ordinary appHcation in Scripture 
 is to a society of Christians, or of those who believe 
 in Christ." And the Bishop of London remarks 
 that, " as applied to Christians, it denotes a com- 
 pany of persons believing in Jesus Christ ; some- 
 
LECTURE II. 49 
 
 times the whole body of the faithful in all parts of 
 the world ; and sometimes those who inhabit a par- 
 ticular country or city." 
 
 So far all is well ; and there seems to be, on all 
 sides, a perfect unanimity as to the signification 
 of the word church. But a little further on in 
 the Sermon next to that last referred to, words 
 are introduced, in speaking of the Church, which 
 seem to restrict its meaning within narrower limits 
 than the definition before given. The Bishop there 
 says, " All local churches which can trace their 
 apostolic descent, and teach the pure word of God 
 and duly administer the ordinances of Christ, are 
 branches of the one holy universal church." No 
 doubt this may admit of a large and liberal inter- 
 pretation. Still the language is rather suspicious, 
 and is just of such a nature as to open a way for 
 that narrow and restricted sense which is sometimes 
 put upon the word Church. 
 
 When the Bishop speaks of apostolic descent and 
 the due administration of ordinances as character- 
 istic of the holy catholic church, room is instantly 
 made for the advocate of High-Church principles 
 to say to those who are not Episcopalians, " In your 
 religious assemblies the ordinances are not duly 
 administered, nor can your ministers trace their 
 descent from the apostles. Consequently, your 
 church is not a true church ; forms no part of the 
 
 E 
 
50 LECTURE II. 
 
 holy catholic church of Christ." And the same 
 observation applies to the language of Mr. Palmer. 
 He too declares that " the apostolic succession of 
 the ministry is a note of the true church and of all 
 the particiilar churches of which it is composed, so 
 that no community which is without this succes- 
 sion can be a church of Christ*." In addition to 
 this, when we read the following passage contained 
 in the ' Tracts for the times,' we can hardly enter- 
 tain a doubt that by the Puseyites the episcopal 
 form of church government is deemed to be essential 
 to the constitution of a Christian church " Bear 
 with me," says one of this school, " while I express 
 my fear that we do not, as much as we ought, con- 
 sider the force of that article of our belief, ' the one 
 catholic and apostolic church.' That is a tenet so 
 important as to have been in the creed from the be- 
 ginning. It is mentioned there as a fact, and a fact 
 to be believed, and therefore practical. Now what 
 do we conceive is meant by it ? As people vaguely 
 take it in the present day, it seems only an asser- 
 tion that there is a number of sincere Christians 
 scattered through the world. But is not this a 
 truism ? who doubt it ? who can deny that there 
 are people in various places who are sincere be- 
 lievers ? what comes of this ? how is it important ? 
 why should it be placed, as an article of faith, after 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. i. p. 143. 
 
LECTURE II. 51 
 
 belief in the Holy Ghost ? Doubtless the only 
 true and satisfactory meaning is that which our 
 divines have ever taken, — that there is on earth an 
 existing society, apostolic, as founded by the apo- 
 stles ; catholic, because it spreads its branches in 
 every place ; that is, the church visible, with its 
 bishops, priests and deacons*." 
 
 Apparently nothing can be better than the fol- 
 lowing definition of the word Church, as given in 
 the nineteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles : — " The 
 visible church of Christ is a congregation of faith- 
 ful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached 
 and the sacraments duly administered according to 
 Christ's ordinance." Unfortunately, however, this 
 definition just leaves an opening for the narrow in- 
 terpretation before mentioned. It enables the high- 
 churchman to say that he is authorized by this very 
 article to deny to any assembly of Christians the 
 title of a church of Christ in which the sacraments 
 are not administered by episcopally ordained mi- 
 nisters, since it is by such ministers alone that the 
 pure Word of God can be preached and the sacra- 
 ments duly administered. Now in Scripture not 
 an instance can be quoted where the word Church 
 has such conditions annexed to it. Any number 
 of persons believing in Jesus as the Christ, the 
 Son of God, and assembled together in his name, 
 
 * Tracts, No. 2. p. 2. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 LECTURE II. 
 
 are called churches, without the addition of a syl- 
 lahle about apostolic descent and the due admini- 
 stration of the sacraments. All this is now supplied 
 with the view of contracting the basis on which the 
 church of Christ was built, and of barring all en- 
 trance into it except that which is placed under 
 the guardianship of the priest. 
 
 One of the earliest departures from the strict and 
 scriptural meaning of the word Church, consisted 
 in the application of it to the building in which the 
 church met. This was a very natural and perhaps 
 harmless change of the word. But the next step 
 away from its original meaning was far less natural 
 and infinitely more mischievous ; I mean the trans- 
 ference of the term Church from the congregation 
 to those who are called the clergy. " The word 
 Church," as Dr. Arnold observes, "has with many 
 entirely lost its proper meaning, and is constantly 
 used to express only the clerical members of it. 
 This creates an uncharitable distinction between the 
 clergy and the laity, to the equal injury of both." 
 
 Now though the Oxford divines cannot deny 
 that the church is the congregation, — that it is an 
 assembly of Christians meeting together by virtue 
 of their relation to one common Lord, yet it is quite 
 clear that they often use it in a sense different from 
 this. They speak much of the authority of the 
 Church, of the judgement of the Church, of the 
 
LECTURE II. 53 
 
 voice of the Church. Now to what authority, to 
 what judgement, to what voice do they refer ? To 
 anything done or said by the people in congrega- 
 tion assembled ; that is, by the church properly so 
 called ? Nothing of the sort. Men professing them- 
 selves sincere disciples of Christ, conscientiously 
 desiring to conform themselves to his laws, and 
 meeting together for the common object of Christian 
 worship and instruction, constitute, according to 
 them, no church of Christ, unless they are governed 
 by ministers inheriting peculiar privileges and pow- 
 ers derived to them by regular succession from 
 the apostles. In answer to this I can say nothing 
 stronger than that I find no such account of the 
 church in the New Testament. There I see, that 
 wherever the people assemble together in the name 
 of Christ, be the number many or few, that as- 
 sembly is denominated a church, and enjoys all 
 the privileges and advantages pertaining to such a 
 community. Of course every society, whatever its 
 nature may be, requires, for the due order and 
 decorum of its meetings, the observance of certain 
 rules and forms, and the appointment of certain 
 officers to watch over its proceedings and to see 
 that the object of its institution is fulfilled. This 
 being so much a matter of course, and having no 
 necessary connection with the essentials of Chris- 
 tianity, Christ left no specific direction upon the 
 
54 LECTURE II. 
 
 subject, but simply commanded his apostles to go 
 and teach his gospel to all nations. 
 
 These disciples of our Lord may be regarded as 
 the first ministers of" the church. They were sent 
 out to preach the gospel, and on that account re- 
 ceived the name of apostles. One great object of 
 their appointment was to be witnesses of Christ 
 after his resurrection. This appears from the de- 
 claration made by Peter in the first chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles on the election of a new 
 apostle in the room of Judas, and also from the 
 language of our Lord himself, who, addressing his 
 apostles, said to them, "And ye also shall bear 
 witness, because ye have been with me from the 
 beginning." From the very nature of the apostolic 
 office, it was necessarily limited to the then existing 
 generation of living witnesses ; beyond them it was 
 incommunicable. After the election of Matthias 
 to fill up the vacancy in the apostleship occasioned 
 by the death of Judas, the next appointment of 
 which we have an account is that of seven persons 
 to assist in the proper distribution of the poor's 
 fund. Respecting this fund some misunderstand- 
 ing had arisen between the Jewish and Hellenistic* 
 Christians, the latter having complained that their 
 
 * That is, according to Lightfoot, Grecian Jews — Jews who 
 id re 
 sDoken. 
 
 had resided in countries where tlie Greek language was 
 
LECTURE II. 55 
 
 widows w^re not justly or equally regarded*. In 
 consequence of this complaint, and the desire of 
 the apostles to be relieved from all cares of a 
 merely temporal nature, the Grecian or Hellenistic 
 converts were advised tochoose from among them- 
 selves a certain number of persons to whom the 
 duty of attending to their poorer brethren might 
 be safely entrusted. This was accordingly done, 
 and seven persons were appointed for the purpose. 
 To these seven is commonly given the name of 
 Deacons, but in the passage recording their ap- 
 pointment they are not designated by this term. 
 Their office was purely of a temporal or secular 
 nature. They were not chosen for any spiritual 
 purpose, but merely to aid others in affording more 
 equal and extensive relief to the poor. 
 
 The ministry of the Church of England is divided 
 into three orders, in conformity, it is said, with 
 apostolic direction, viz. bishops, priests and dea- 
 cons. Now nothing can show more clearly the 
 miserable weakness of the argument for the apo- 
 stolic institution of these three orders than that 
 which is urged in behalf of the third order, the 
 deacons. For, in the first place, those who were 
 elected as guardians or trustees for the poor were 
 not in their original appointment called deacons, 
 nor w^as their office of a spiritual nature ; and, in 
 
 * Acts vi. 1 — 7. 
 
56 LECTURE II. 
 
 the next place, the term Deacon, where it does occur, 
 so far from designating a subordinate class of mi- 
 nisters, is frequently applied to those who are con- 
 fessedly of the first rank, even to the apostles 
 themselves. Thus Paul speaks of himself as ha- 
 ving been made " a minister of the gospel (Greek, 
 deacon) according to the grace of God*." " Who," 
 says he, " who is Paul and who is Apollos, but mi- 
 nisters (Greek, deacons) by whom ye believedf?" 
 It is also frequently rendered in our common En- 
 glish version by the word servant. It does not 
 denote then any particular order of men ; it is a 
 general term applicable to any minister, teacher, or 
 servant of Jesus Christ. 
 
 As Christianity became more diffused and the 
 number of the disciples greatly increased, churches 
 were formed in different parts of the world ; and to 
 the care of these churches the elder persons, or 
 those most distinguished for their wisdom and 
 virtue, were commonly appointed. These persons 
 were called presbyters or elders, bishops or over- 
 seers, all which terms are in Scripture employed to 
 denote the same office ; the first, that is presbyter 
 (which is the Greek word for elder), having refer- 
 ence to the age and character of the person ; the 
 latter, that is bishop (overseer), to the office which 
 he sustained. There is then no scriptural ground 
 
 * Ephcs. iii. 7 ; Coloss. i. 23. 2.5. -|- 1 Cor. iii. 5. 
 
LECTURE 11. 57 
 
 for any distinction of orders in the ministry at all. 
 According to the New Testament, instead of hishops 
 belonging to one order, the first in the ministry, 
 and presbyters (from which comes the English word 
 priest) belonging to another order, the second in the 
 ministry, bishops and presbyters designate the same 
 class, and are, in a great measure, identical terms. 
 
 To the proof of this assertion I will next proceed, 
 after saying a few words respecting the origin of 
 that particular form of church government which 
 obtained in the first ages. 
 
 Archbishop Whately has shown in his ' Treatise 
 on the Errors of Romanism ' and also Neander in 
 his ' History of the Christian Church,' that the first 
 Christian ministers were not priests*, properly so 
 called, and that in the Christian church such an 
 order of men have no place. It was the synagogue 
 and not the temple which furnished the model of 
 the early Christian churches : that was the place 
 appropriated to the religious instruction of the 
 Jews. The priests of the temple were not the or- 
 dinary teachers of the people ; they had to attend 
 to the administration of ceremonies and sacrifices, 
 
 * "The formation of a priesthood," says Neander, "is foreign to 
 the gospel economy;" and Dr. Arnold observes, " the Christian 
 church was absolutely and entirely, at all times and in all places, 
 to be without a human priesthood." — Sei-mons on the Christian 
 Life, Introd. p. 49. 
 
58 LECTURE II. 
 
 and not to the business of instruction. Among the 
 Jews that service was rendered by the prophets, 
 and among the heathens by the philosophers and 
 morahsts. These are they to whom the Christian 
 ministers may be best likened, and not the priests. 
 The first preachers of the gospel were chosen, not 
 from the sacred tribe of Levi, not from the holy 
 order of priests, but from the people, — from those 
 who could sympathize with the people and find ac- 
 cess to the minds of the people. 
 
 The first Christian believers consisted chiefly of 
 converts from Judaism, and for a time continued 
 to form a part of the Jewish community, to ob- 
 serve Jewish rites, and to worship in the Jewish 
 synagogues. When at length they formed churches 
 of their own and met together to worship God in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, they naturally adopted 
 as many of the usages and institutions to which 
 they had been accustomed as convenience and fit- 
 ness dictated. The elders of the synagogue, take 
 notice, were not priests. No peculiar sanctity at- 
 tached to them ; that belonged only to the priests 
 of the temple, an institution which " stood in meats 
 and drinks and fleshly ordinances." The elders of 
 the synagogue were pastors and teachers, and in 
 that character only the first Christian bishops or 
 presbyters were recognised and regarded. 
 
 I now come to the proof of the original identity 
 
LECTURE II. 59 
 
 of these terms. Nelson, in a well-known book en- 
 titled ' Fasts and Festivals of the Church,' lavs 
 down this proposition : — " That in the apostolic age 
 there were three orders in the ministry, bishops, 
 priests and deacons ; distinct and subordinate, de- 
 riving their commission from God, and claiming 
 the reverence and obedience of the people." 
 
 Concerning the last of these orders, as they are 
 called, T have already shown that no scriptural foun- 
 dation for it exists, — that those who were chosen 
 trustees for the poor, as recorded in the book of the 
 Acts, are not there denominated " deacons ;" and 
 moreover that the word itself is used in Scripture in 
 so general and enlarged a sense as to include mini- 
 sters or servants of various kinds, not excepting even 
 the apostles themselves, who, I suppose, will not be 
 placed by any episcopalian in the third or subordi- 
 nate class of the ministry. It is, I think, equally 
 clear, that neither is there in the New Testament 
 any ground for the alleged distinction between bi- 
 shop and presbyter, constituting, as we are told, 
 the first and second order in the ministry ; but 
 that these two words are characteristic of the same 
 office and apphcable to the same persons. 
 
 The term Bishop occurs once in the Acts of the 
 Apostles and four times in the Epistles of Paul, 
 and the connection in which the word stands in 
 all these places, proves that it denoted a presiding 
 
60 LECTURE 11. 
 
 officer of a single church or society, and not a 
 ruler of other officers of the church, or a number 
 of churches. The Greek word 'episcopos' may be 
 rendered most expressively and literally by the 
 English word over-seer. And the question is, whe- 
 ther this oversight or superintendence was to be 
 exercised over a single society of Christians, or 
 over a number of churches and ordained ministers ? 
 In the Acts of the Apostles* we read, that Paul, 
 addressing the elders of the church at Ephesus, 
 said, " Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock 
 over which the Holy Spirit has made you over- 
 seers," that is, bishops. The church at Ephesus 
 therefore had several bishops or elders ; and these 
 bishops, observe, were not, like modern bishops, 
 overseers of other ministers or presbyters, but of 
 the flock, the congregation, the church. These 
 two words, then, elders and bishops, are used 
 of persons holding the same office. The title of 
 elder or presbyter is one of respect borrowed from 
 the synagogue ; and the title bishop or overseer 
 refers to the duty of overlooking, or taking the 
 charge of a Christian church. In further confir- 
 mation of this position we may cite the words of 
 Peterf, who, addressing the elders of the church, 
 says to them, " Feed the flock of God which is 
 among you, taking the oversight thereof; " hterally, 
 
 * Chap. XX. ver. 28. t 1st Epistle, chap. v. ver. 2. 
 
LECTURE II. 61 
 
 performing the duties of bishops. If the elders 
 were to do the work of bishops, the fair inference 
 is, that they luere bishops, persons holding that 
 office and sustaining that character. So Paul, in 
 his Epistle to Titus*, uses the words elder and 
 bishop interchangeably. He directs that elders of 
 blameless character should be appointed in every 
 city, " because," he adds, " a bishop must be 
 blameless." Thus showing that, with him, elder 
 and bishop were significant of the same person. 
 
 From the Scriptures I pass on to consider what 
 is to be found on this subject in the writings of the 
 ancient Christians, 
 
 Of the Apostolic Fathers, as they are called, I 
 shall say nothing, because great doubts are enter- 
 tained of the genuineness of most of the works 
 ascribed to them, at least in their present form. 
 Next after them comes Justin Martyr. Now he 
 speaks of no officers in the church as superior to 
 elders. Those who are well acquainted with his 
 writings assert that he makes no mention, by name, 
 of bishops ; and in the account which he has given 
 us of the manner in which Sunday was observed by 
 the early Christians, he calls the person who con- 
 ducted the services of the church, the president of 
 the brethren. 
 
 Ireneeus is said to have been ordained by pres- 
 
 * Chap. i. ver. 5 — 7. 
 
62 LECTURE 11. 
 
 byters, and Neander tells us that he sometimes 
 uses the names, bishop and presbyter, as wholly 
 synonymous, though at other times he distinguishes 
 the bishop as the president of the presbyters *. 
 
 Jerome, one of the most learned of the Latin fa- 
 thers, gives the following account of the nature and 
 origin of the episcopal office : — "A presbyter is the 
 same as a bishop, and until, by the instigation of 
 the devil, there arose divisions in rehgion, churches 
 were governed by a common council of the presby- 
 ters ; but afterwards, when every one regarded 
 those whom he baptized as belonging to himself 
 rather than to Christ, it was everywhere decreed 
 that one person elected from the presbyters should 
 be placed over the others." Jerome, after assign- 
 ing many reasons for the opinion thus advanced, 
 adds, "These things we have brought forward to 
 show, that with the ancients, presbyters were the 
 same as bishops f." 
 
 To this testimony of some of the ancient Chris- 
 tian writers, I will now give in addition the judge- 
 ment of several distinguished divines and others of 
 the English Church. 
 
 Wickliff rejected episcopacy as a distinct order, 
 
 * Neander's History of the Church, vol. i. p. 194. 
 
 f See Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 187-8; a most use- 
 ful and excellent work, drawn up by an able and learned clergy- 
 man of the Church of England. 
 
LECTURE II. G3 
 
 and maintained the identity of bishops and pres- 
 byters *". 
 
 Archbishop Cranmer, in answer to a question 
 proposed to an assembly of divines in the reign of 
 Edward VI., affirmed, " that bishops and priests 
 (i. e. presbyters) were at one time, and were not 
 two things, but both one office in the beginning of 
 Christ's rehgionf." 
 
 Bishop Jewel also, in the Defence of his ' Apology 
 for the Church of England,' refers with approbation 
 to the passage before quoted from Jerome, and adds 
 another testimony to the same purpose from Chry- 
 sostom, who says, " Between a bishop and a priest 
 (presbyter) there is, in a manner, no differencej." 
 
 Bishop Stillingfleet says, "I believe, upon the 
 strictest inquiry, that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, 
 Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theo- 
 phylact were all of Aerius's judgement as to the 
 identity of both name and order of bishops and 
 presbyters in the primitive church §." 
 
 * Short's History of the Church of England, p. 63. 
 
 t Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 191. 
 
 X The words of Chrysostom, as quoted by Jewel, are these : — 
 " Inter episcopum et presbyterum interest ferme nihil." See 
 Riddle, p. 192. 
 
 § Irenicum, p. 276, ed. 1662. In the year 1641 Archbishop 
 Usher, with the view of uniting the episcopal and presbyterian 
 forms of church government, drew up a plan entitled, " The Re- 
 duction of Episcopacy unto the form of synodical government 
 received in the ancient church." 
 
64 LECTURE II. 
 
 Lord Chancellor King maintains that bishops 
 and presbyters were of the same order, " because," 
 says he, " originally they had one and the same 
 name, each of them being indifferently called bi- 
 shops or presbyters. Hence we read, in sacred 
 writ, of several bishops in one particular church, 
 as the bishops of Ephesus and Philippi : and Cle- 
 mens Romanus sometimes mentions many bishops 
 in the church of Corinth, whom at other times he 
 calls by the name of presbyters, using these two 
 terms as synonymous titles and appellations*." 
 
 Gibbon the historian, who in this matter may be 
 considered as giving an impartial, unbiassed opi- 
 nion, says, that " bishops and presbyters were two 
 appellations which, in their first origin, appear to 
 have distinguished the same office and the same 
 order of persons. The name of presbyter was ex- 
 pressive of their age, or rather of their gravity and 
 wisdom. The title of bishop denoted their inspec- 
 tion over the faith and manners of the Christians 
 who were committed to their pastoral caref." 
 
 To these I will add only one other testimony, viz. 
 that of the excellent and lamented scholar and di- 
 vine. Dr. Arnold. He says, " the churches founded 
 by St. Paul were each, at first, placed by him under 
 
 * Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, pp. 55, 
 56, ed. 1839. 
 
 f Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. ii. p. 116. 
 
LECTURE II. 05 
 
 the government of several presbyters ; but after his 
 imprisonment at Rome, finding that they were be- 
 come greatly corrupted, he sends out single persons 
 with full powers to remodel these churches, and 
 with authority to correct the presbyters themselves : 
 yet it does not appear that these especial visitors 
 were to alter permanently the earlier constitution 
 of the churches ; nor, that they were sent generally 
 to all the churches which St. Paul had founded. 
 Indeed it appears evident from the Epistle of Cle- 
 ment, that the original constitution of the Church 
 of Corinth still subsisted in his time ; the govern- 
 ment was still vested, not in one man, but in 
 many*." 
 
 Respecting the change which early took place in 
 the government of the Church and the probable 
 origin of diocesan episcopacy I shall here say a few 
 words. Both Waddington and Milman, recent 
 writers on Church history, seem to admit the ori- 
 ginal identity of bishops and presbyters, but are 
 also inclined to think that episcopacy, in some 
 form, was very early introduced into the Christian 
 Church, perhaps even in the lifetime of the apostle 
 John. It may be so ; but then I maintain that the 
 episcopacy so introduced amounted to no more 
 than the presidency of one of the presbyters most 
 esteemed for his standing in the Church and the 
 
 * Sermous on Christian Life, Introd. p. 46. 
 
 F 
 
66 LECTUKF, II. 
 
 general worth of" bis character, and was altogether 
 different from the episcopacy of after-times. Ad- 
 mitting, then, that the term ' episcopos,' overseer, 
 became soon to be apphed to the presiding pres- 
 byter, and by which he was distinguished from the 
 other presbyters, still, I contend, he had as yet no 
 other official character than that which the pres- 
 byters had ; he was still but the bishop or superin- 
 tendent of a single church ; not " the pastor of 
 pastors," but the pastor of a congregation. He 
 was still only "primus inter pares," first among 
 equals. Even down to the time of Cyprian we 
 read, that nothing of weight was undertaken by 
 the bishops without calling together the presbyters. 
 Cyprian himself says, that it was his constant prin- 
 ciple to do nothing without their advice. Speaks 
 ing of the relation of the bishops to the presbyters, 
 he gives them the appellation of" compresbyteros," 
 co-presbyters*. 
 
 Now, I ask, is this the way with modern episco- 
 pacy ? Do the bishops do nothing without the ad- 
 vice of the presbyters ? Do they ever call them- 
 selves co-presbyters ? If those who assert that 
 no other form of government but the episcopal had 
 ever been known to the Christian Church, mean by 
 this, the episcopal form of government such as it 
 now exists in England, then I can only express the 
 
 * Neander, vol. i. p. 195. 
 
LECTURE II. 0/ 
 
 utter amazement which such a statement excites in 
 my mind. That soon after the times of the apo- 
 stles a distinction, which had not before existed, 
 was made between bishops and presbyters is ad- 
 mitted, and the change may be thus accounted for : 
 "At first each church was instructed and governed 
 by a presbyter, or, if tlie church was large, by a 
 presbytery or council of elders In course of time 
 and after the removal of the apostles, it became 
 expedient, from the increase of business or other 
 circumstances, that some one member of the pres- 
 bytery should have precedence of the others and 
 be invested with a certain degree of authority over 
 them Besides this, when churches began to mul- 
 tiply in a city or district, it was natural that the 
 chief officer of the oldest church should be regarded 
 as a leader or president of the whole. All these 
 changes actually took place. A presbytery ap- 
 pointed one of its members foreman or chairman ; 
 it then acknowledged him as a representative of 
 the whole body, and afterwards for the sake of 
 good order, and in the natural course of human 
 institutions, it consented to submit to him as go- 
 vernor*." Neander gives very much the same 
 account of the origin of the episcopal office. He 
 says, " Immediately after the apostohc age, the 
 standing office of president of the presbyters must 
 
 * Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 193. 
 
 f2 
 
G8 LECTURE II. 
 
 have been formed, to whom, inasmuch as he had 
 especially the oversight of everything, was given 
 the name of Episcopos, and he was thereby distin- 
 guished from the rest of the presbyters. This name 
 was then at last exclusively apphed to this presi- 
 dent, while the name of presbyter remained com- 
 mon to all*." 
 
 After what has now been said in proof of the 
 original identity of bishops and presbyters, it is 
 but reasonable to consider for a moment what has 
 been advanced on the other side. Of course I 
 cannot go into a minute examination of all the 
 reasons that have been urged in behalf of modern 
 or diocesan episcopacy : that would be wholly im- 
 practicable within the limits to which I am con- 
 fined. I think therefore that I cannot do better 
 than bring before you the argument in its favour, 
 on which the Bishop of London chiefly relies, and 
 as it is expressed in the second of his three Ser- 
 mons on the Church. 
 
 He says then, " There is no one doctrine or tenet 
 of the Christian religion in which all Christians 
 were for fifteen centuries so unanimously agreed as 
 in this of episcopacy. At all times and in all parts 
 of the world, however churches might differ in other 
 opinions or practices, all retain their bishopsf." 
 
 * Neander's Church History, vol. i. p. 194. 
 t Sermons on the Church, pp. 33, 34. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 09 
 
 In proof of this assertion he appeals to the testi- 
 mony generally of the apostolic fathers, and also to 
 that of TertuUian and Cyprian*. 
 
 Upon this I shall content myself with observing, 
 
 * It is hardly ingenuous in the Bishop to appeal without ex- 
 ception to the earlier or Apostolic Fathers as bearing testimony 
 to the prevalence of modern episcopacy, for, in the first place, he 
 could not but have known that to many of the writings which go 
 under their name there attach well-founded doubts of their ge- 
 nuineness and integrity. This is especially the case with Igna- 
 tius, the only one of the Apostolic Fathers from whose writings 
 anything favouring high views of the episcopal character can be 
 extracted. No doubt, in his epistles, as they now stand, much 
 pompous and extravagant language about the dignity and autho- 
 rity of bishops is to be found; but then, it is of those writings more 
 particularly that the strongest suspicions of forgery and interpo- 
 lation are entertained. Out of twelve epistles, five are almost 
 universally considered by the most learned critics as spurious 
 productions, and the remaining seven are generally allowed to 
 be disfigured by various interpolations. So thought Usher, and 
 Archbishop Wake does not attempt to vindicate their freedom 
 from corruption. WTiat argument, deserving the name of argu- 
 ment, can be derived from writings so tampered with as these 
 have been ? As to the other two, viz. Clement and Polycarj), the 
 first describes presbyters as ruling over the Church, and uses the 
 term episcopate in reference to the office of presbyters ; and the 
 second, Poly carp, is said not even to have used the word bishop, 
 but speaks only of elders and deacons. Was his Lordship of 
 London aware of this ? If he was, why did he speak in such ge- 
 neral terms of the earlier or Apostolic Fathers, thereby leading 
 to the belief that they all testified to the truth of his assertion } 
 Whereas two out of the three make more against him than for 
 him, and the third may be considered as uttering no authentic 
 voice on the subject. 
 
70 LECTURE 11. 
 
 that if the Bishop means that there was never a 
 period in the early ages of Christianity, not even 
 in the times of the apostles, when diocesan episco- 
 pacy did not exist, — when the churches of Christ 
 were not ruled and governed by l)ishops, such as 
 they now are, the assertion is made not only in di- 
 rect opposition to what is stated to be the fact by 
 all the learned ecclesiastical historians whom I have 
 had the opportunity of consulting, but contrary to 
 the opinion of the most distinguished divines of his 
 own church. The whole fallacy of his assertion 
 and of the argument founded on it, lies in the lati- 
 tude or ambiguity of the word bishop. It may 
 mean only the pastor of a single congregation — a 
 parochial minister — a simple presbyter, or it may 
 signify the mitred prelate of modern times, glitter- 
 ing with pomp and splendour and exercising a 
 lordly jurisdiction over his ministerial brethren. 
 For bishop, read diocesan bishop ; for episcopacy 
 substitute the word prelacy, and the fallacy be- 
 comes immediately apparent ; the poverty of the 
 argument is instantly laid bare ; the flimsiness of 
 the sophistry is at once seen through. No one, 
 who understands the subject, doubts, — no one de- 
 nies, that, in the Christian Church, there existed 
 from the very first those who are termed bishops. 
 What is denied is, that they were bishops in the 
 modern use and acceptation of the term. It is 
 
LECTURE II. 71 
 
 utterly beside the question to say, lo ! there stands 
 the word bishop, either in Scripture or the earliest 
 ecclesiastical writers. Nay, it is scarcely consistent 
 with fair and honest dealing to do so. One would 
 imagine, from the language of the Bishop of Lon- 
 don, that he supposes if he can show that there 
 was such a thing as episcopacy in the times of the 
 apostles, or in those immediately following, then 
 he is warranted in jumping to the conclusion that 
 the claims of diocesan episcopacy are completely 
 established. But in speaking of the episcopacy of 
 the apostolic age, the question recurs, What is 
 meant by it ? Words, we all know, in process of 
 time, undergo great change in their signification, 
 and carry with them other and different senses at 
 one period from those which they bear at another. 
 To say that there were persons called bishops in 
 the first Christian churches is no doubt perfectly 
 correct. We say so too ; but we say also that these 
 bishops were no more than presbyters, at first sim- 
 ple presbyters, and for some time after only the 
 presiding officer among the presbyters. They were 
 primi inter pares, first among equals. 
 
 The Bishop however, in saying that " the go- 
 vernment of the universal Church, in the age im- 
 mediately succeeding that of the apostles, was epi- 
 scopal," felt, that in the common understanding of 
 the word, this was too sweeping an assertion, and 
 
72 LECTURE II. 
 
 that it became him therefore to add something by 
 way of qiiahfication or exception. Accordingly he 
 subjoins this remark on the word 'episcopal,' " that 
 is to say, abstracting from episcopacy all accidentals 
 and considering only what is essential."" 
 
 Respecting these words I cannot do better than 
 lay before you the comment made upon them in an 
 admirable article contained in the Eclectic Review 
 for September 1842. The writer observes, "The 
 Bishop has not told us what these accidentals are ; 
 and truly he was wise in passing them over in si- 
 lence ; they would have formed a tolerably long 
 catalogue, and would have amused and exercised 
 the faculty of abstraction not a little. A modern 
 bishop ' abstracted' from all things acknowledged 
 to be such, and reduced to the dimensions of a 
 diocesan bishop of the second century, would come 
 forth from the process so altered by it that no man 
 would know him again. In order to figure to our- 
 selves such a transformation as shall divest him of 
 his ' accidentals,' we must exercise our faculty of 
 abstraction almost as vigorously as Crambe in 
 Martinus Scriblerus. Martin declared that he had 
 great difficulty in abstracting a lord mayor from 
 his fur gown and gold chain ; nay, that the horse 
 he saw the lord mayor ride upon not a little dis- 
 turbed his imagination. Crambe, to show himself 
 of a more penetrating genius, swore that he could 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 73 
 
 frame a conception of a lord mayor, not only with- 
 out his horse, gown and gold chain, but even with- 
 out stature, feature, colour, hands, head, feet, or 
 any body which he supposed was the abstract of a 
 lord mayor. In like manner we cannot get the 
 ' abstract' of a bishop, even though he be a dio- 
 cesan bishop of early times, w^ithout unswathing 
 him from a world of curious ' accidentals.' We 
 must suppose him not to be of the house of lords ; 
 710 1 troubled with the duties of a secular jurisdic- 
 tion ; not surrounded by proctors and law^yers ; not 
 to live in a palace ; not to sit on a throne ; not 
 dignified with mitre and crosier ; not disguised in 
 lawn sleeves and silk apron ; not to be in possession 
 of five thousand, ten thousand, twenty thousand 
 a year. Truly, these ' accidentals,' thoroughly 
 stripped oft', will leave a very different-looking man 
 from a modern bishop, but we should have a far 
 better chance of detecting and appreciating his es- 
 sentials*." 
 
 So much for the Bishop's argument in favour 
 of the divine institution of modern episcopacy. The 
 truth of the matter seems to be this : " Under the 
 genus Bishop there is first the Scripture bishop, 
 which is a presbyter ; next, there is the primitive 
 bishop, which is a presbyter acting as the moderator 
 or president of his brethren ; and, thirdly, there is 
 
 * Eclectic Review for September 1842, p. 306. 
 
74 LECTURE II. 
 
 the prelatic bishop of after-times, the lordly claimant 
 to apostolic authority and jurisdiction." Now the 
 first is as difterent from the last as any two things, 
 bearing the same name, can well be. 
 
 The next question for consideration is, how were 
 the primitive bishops or presbyters elected ? What 
 was the mode of their appointment? Here again 
 the high-church divines lay claim to certain extra- 
 ordinary and exclusive privileges, founded, as you 
 will presently see, upon groundless and unautho- 
 rized assumptions. 
 
 The Bishop of London, in his third Sermon on 
 the Church, says, " It was never even thought of 
 that there could be a church without a bishop, nor 
 that any person should claim authority to minister 
 the Word and sacraments who had not been or- 
 dained by a bishop." (Of course by the word 
 "bishop" his Lordship must here mean bishop 
 according to the present use and acceptation of 
 that term.) In Tract 19 the necessity of episcopal 
 ordination to constitute a minister of Christ is 
 strongly insisted on. In No. 7 it is affirmed " that 
 the Church has from the first committed the power 
 of ordination to the bishops ;" and in No. 36 we are 
 told that " by maintaining the validity of ordina- 
 tion by elders only, we err in a fundamental doc- 
 trine." These assertions are not only repeated 
 again and again, but are sometimes given forth 
 
LECTURE II. 75 
 
 with an air of peculiar earnestness and imposing 
 solemnity. Thus in Tract 35 it is said, "A person 
 not commissioned from the bishop may use the 
 words of baptism, and sprinkle or bathe with the 
 water on earth, but there is no promise from Christ 
 that such a man should admit souls into the king- 
 dom of heaven And as for the person who 
 
 takes upon himself without warrant to minister in 
 holy things, he is all the while treading in the steps 
 of Korah, Dathan and Abiram, whose awful punish- 
 ment you read of in the book of Numbers." 
 
 Now upon this I observe, in the first place, that 
 if what has been before stated with regard to the 
 original identity of bishops and presbyters be cor- 
 rect, it follows that ordination, whatever be its 
 meaning and intent, was not what is now called 
 episcopal ordination. But with this reply, suffi- 
 cient as it is, I shall not content myself. I shall 
 show that ordination by presbyters or elders is 
 distinctly spoken of in the New Testament. I 
 shall show that the rite itself was merely a be- 
 coming solemnity, derived from the practice of the 
 Jews, recognising the appointment of some indivi- 
 dual to the ministerial office, and marking the 
 sanction given to such appointment by the assem- 
 bled presbyters or elders. The imposition of hands 
 with which it was accompanied was expressive more 
 particularly of the benediction invoked on the per- 
 
76 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 son ordained, and did not import that any additional 
 gifts or graces were thereby conferred. 
 
 With respect to the mode of appointing officers 
 in the Christian Church in the first ages, it is, I 
 think, clearly established that it generally took 
 place by means of popular election. For though, 
 in the New Testament, no direct information is 
 given as to the way in which the minister or pastor 
 of a church was chosen, we do see that the choice 
 of other officers or functionaries was determined 
 by the suffrages of the people. This was the case 
 in regard to Matthias, who was not elected to the 
 apostleship till the consent of the Church at Jeru- 
 salem had been first obtained*. The same mode 
 of proceeding was observed on the appointment of 
 certain persons as trustees or guardians of the poor. 
 That, too, was done by first calling together "the 
 multitude of disciples" and submitting the matter 
 to their considerationf . Ecclesiastical history also 
 is very clear and explicit in the testimony which it 
 bears to the fact of the popular election of the 
 officers of the Church. The oldest witness on this 
 subject is Clemens Romanus, who mentions that 
 in his time no minister could be appointed without 
 the consent of the Church. Cyprian likewise, the 
 celebrated Bishop of Carthage, says, " Nihil fiat 
 nisi consentiente plebe," — Let nothing be done but 
 
 * Acts i. 15—26. t Acts vi. 1—4. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 77 
 
 by the consent of the people. Of himself he says, 
 he was chosen by the suffrages of the people, 
 " populi suffragio." To the people he ascribes the 
 right of choosing worthy bishops, or rejecting un- 
 worthy ones. He says, " Plebs maximam habet 
 potestatem, vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel in- 
 dignos recusandi." 
 
 Hilary, who wrote a commentary on the Epistles 
 of Paul in the fourth century, says, " Among all 
 people age is honoured, and hence the synagogues 
 and afterwards the Church had elders, without 
 whose counsel nothing was undertaken in the 
 Church. I know not by what neglect this has 
 become obsolete, unless it be by the pride of the 
 teachers who fancy that they alone are of any con- 
 sequence*." 
 
 There are many instances "in which the people 
 of their own accord and bv acclamation elected in- 
 dividuals to the othce of presbyter or bishop f." 
 
 Sir Peter King observes, that when the bishop 
 of a church was dead, all the people of that 
 church met together in one place to choose a new 
 bishop I . 
 
 There can be no need, on such a point, of multi- 
 plying authorities, but I cannot forbear mentioning 
 
 * See Neander's Church History, vol. i. p. 206. 
 
 t Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 283. 
 
 X Constitution of the Primitive Church, p. 25. 
 
78 LECTURE II. 
 
 two others whose judgement, lor various reasons, 
 is entitled to great weight. Waddington, in his 
 ' History of the Church*,' states, " that of most of 
 the apostohcal churches, the first bishops, where 
 they are recorded to have been at all appointed, 
 were appointed by the apostles ; of those not apo- 
 stolical, the first presidents were probably the mis- 
 sionaries who founded them ; but on their death 
 the choice of a successor devolved on the members 
 of the society. In this election the people had an 
 equal share with the presbyters and inferior clergy, 
 without exception or distinction." And Dr. Arnold 
 says that it appears to be the decisive language of 
 Scripture, " that the w^hole body of the Church was 
 to take an active share in its concerns. It was to 
 be a living society, not an inert mass of mere 
 hearers and subjects, who were to be authorita- 
 tively taught and absolutely ruled by one small 
 portion of its members f.' 
 
 But we are told that the election of any one to 
 the ministerial office by the people is not enough 
 to constitute such a person a lawful minister of 
 Christ. To give it the proper sanction and va- 
 lidity the rite of ordination must be added, and 
 more than this, that it must be administered by 
 the hands of bishops lineally descended from the 
 
 * Vol. I. p. 40. 
 
 f Sermons on the Christian Life, Introd. p. 48. 
 
LECTURIi ir. 79 
 
 apostles. Upon no one point, perhaps, has so 
 much misapprehension prevailed as upon this ar- 
 ticle of ordination. It becomes us then to inquire 
 into its origin and intention. What is it ? What 
 is its pm'pose and signification ? When we have 
 made this inquiry you will probably be surprised 
 to find, that so far from there being any scriptural 
 ground for asserting that ordination to be of any 
 efficacy or validity must proceed from the hands of 
 bishops (as we now understand the word bishop), 
 it is itself a rite not limited, not pecuhar to the 
 ministerial office, — is not essential to the discharge 
 of its functions, and is in the New Testament de- 
 clared, in some instances at least, to have been 
 administered by presbyters or elders. 
 
 What then is ordination ? I answer, nothing 
 more than a solemn public recognition of the mi- 
 nisterial character of the person previously elected, 
 agreeably to the custom of the Jews in their syna- 
 gogues, who, on the appointment of any one to the 
 discharge of certain religious duties, marked this 
 appointment by the ceremony called ordination. 
 The imposition of hands with which it was accom- 
 panied was not exclusively employed upon this 
 occasion : it was a common practice whenever, 
 on the occurrence of any interesting or important 
 event, the divine blessing was invoked. Thus we 
 read that Jacob, in blessing the two sons of Joseph, 
 
80 LECTURE II. 
 
 laid his hands upon their heads. When the pro- 
 phets prayed for the restoration of health to the 
 sick, they laid their hands on them. So Moses, 
 when Joshua was appointed his successor, laid his 
 hands on him. And we must all remember the 
 observance of this form by our Lord himself, who, 
 when little children were brought to him, laid his 
 hands upon them and blessed them. 
 
 Out of this rite, so natural in its origin, so simple 
 in its meaning, so beautiful and impressive in its 
 application, what mysterious and extravagant no- 
 tions of its virtue and efficacv have been drawn ! 
 
 Palmer in his work on the Church calls ordina- 
 tion a sacrament ; and Keble, another of the Trac- 
 tarian divines, advocates the literal meaning of the 
 words "receive the Holy Ghost," which are used 
 in the ordination service of the Church of England. 
 He labours to prove that it is the doctrine of that 
 church, that with the imposition of episcopal hands 
 the Holy Ghost is really communicated to the per- 
 son on whom they are laid. He quotes and justi- 
 fies the following language : " ' Receive the Holy 
 Ghost : whose sins soever ye remit, they are re- 
 mitted ; whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' 
 .... Seeing, therefore, that the same power is now 
 given, why should the same form of words express- 
 ing it be thought foolish ? When we take 
 
 ordination we also receive the presence of the Holy 
 
LECTURE II. 81 
 
 Ghost, partly to guide, direct and strengthen us in 
 all our ways, and partly to assume unto itself, for 
 the more authority, those actions that appertain to 
 our place and calUng. Whether we preach, pray, 
 baptize, communicate, condemn, give absolution, 
 or whatever, as disposers of God's mysteries ; our 
 words, judgements, acts and deeds are not ours but 
 the Holy Ghost's*." 
 
 Now if the primitive idea of ordination had been 
 retained, such monstrous notions as these would 
 never have been connected with it. In its original 
 use, the imposition of hands was simply the orien- 
 tal form of giving or asking a blessing. To ordain 
 a man was nothing but a solemn form of introducing 
 him into an office of which he was already in pos- 
 session. Of its being the means or instrument of 
 conveying to him any special authority, any extra- 
 ordinary powers, not the remotest intimation in 
 Scripture is anywhere given. 
 
 But this ceremony of the laying on of hands was 
 not confined, was not peculiar to the pastoral or 
 ministerial office. When spiritual gifts were com- 
 municated to Christians in general it was some- 
 times accompanied with the imposition of hands. 
 Thus we read in the book of Acts, that " when the 
 apostles, who w^ere at Jerusalem, heard that the 
 people of Samaria had received the word of God, 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, pp. 102, 103, 4tli ed. 
 
 G 
 
82 LKCTURh: II. 
 
 they sent unto them Peter and John, who, when 
 they were come down, prayed for them that they 
 might receive the Holy Spirit (which as yet had 
 not fallen upon any of them). Then they laid 
 their hands upon them, and they received the Holy 
 Spirit*." 
 
 Observe also that this ceremony was not only 
 not confined, not peculiar to the ministerial office, 
 but that the ministerial office itself was sometimes 
 undertaken without it. Even the apostles (with 
 the exception of Paul) never, that we are informed, 
 received ordination by the imposition of hands. 
 And when Matthias was chosen to the apostleship, 
 vacant by the death of Judas, no mention is made 
 of the observance of this form. His election was 
 his ordination. 
 
 To complete my answer to the high-church views 
 of this rite I will add, that the ceremonv of ordina- 
 tion, such as it was, instead of being performed 
 only by a peculiar order in the ministry, by those 
 exclusively termed bishops, was administered by 
 any officers of regular standing in the Church. 
 We read that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by 
 the hands of three brethren of the Church at An- 
 tiochf. And Paul writes in his letter to Timothy, 
 " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was 
 
 * Acts viii. 14 — 18. See also chap. xix. 6. 
 t Acts xiii. 1. 
 
LECTURE II. 83 
 
 given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the 
 hands of the presbytery*," When, therefore, it is 
 asserted that ordination, to be vahd, must be per- 
 formed by bishops only, by those who are denomi- 
 nated the first order in the Church, the assertion is 
 made in direct opposition to what is recorded of the 
 ordination of Timothy, and to the fact that Paul 
 and Barnabas, themselves the first officers in the 
 Church, the highest in order and rank (if there be 
 any difference of rank), submitted to be ordained 
 by those who were confessedly below them in office 
 and authority, and who could not possibly be con- 
 sidered as occupying a higher station than that of 
 presbyters or elders. 
 
 Ordination then is obviously a ceremony of mere 
 investiture, founded on Jewish usage, and designed 
 to designate the individual chosen or appointed for 
 the performance of certain duties. 
 
 This is the view taken of it by many of the early 
 reformers and divines both of the English and Scotch 
 Church. WicklifF did not believe in the absolute 
 necessity of ordination. Dr. M'Crie, in his ' Life of 
 Knox,' says, that he not only denied the necessity 
 of episcopal ordination, but that he did not even 
 regard the imposition of the hands of presbyters as 
 a rite of necessary observance. Archbishop Cran- 
 mer says, " In the New Testament he that is ap- 
 
 * 1 Tim. iv. 14. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 LECTURE II. 
 
 pointed to be a bishop or a priest needeth no 
 consecration by the Scripture, for election or ap- 
 pointing thereunto is sufficient*." "The impo- 
 sition of hands on the minister," says Selden in 
 his 'Table Talk,' "when all is done, will be no- 
 thing but a designation of a person to this or that 
 office, or employment in the Church. 'T is a 
 ridiculous phrase, that of the canonists, conferre 
 ordines." And yet, notwithstanding all the evi- 
 dence that has now been produced both from 
 Scripture and other sources in behalf of the ori- 
 ginal identity of bishops and presbyters, and that 
 ordination by the latter has the express sanction of 
 Scripture, we are told by Mr. Palmer that the im- 
 position of the hands of a prelate is essential to the 
 validity of the ministry, and by the Bishop of Lon- 
 don that in the early ages " it was never even 
 thought of that there could be a church without a 
 bishop"!! 
 
 In bringing these observations to a conclusion I 
 beg you to take notice that I have not now been 
 contending for the divine institution, or the abso- 
 lute necessity of any one particular form of church 
 government. No such form, I think, was given by 
 Christ or his apostles as perpetually binding upon 
 
 * See Stillingfleet's Irenicum, p. 392, ed. 1662. The docu- 
 ment from which these words of Cranmer are taken is given 
 entire in Burnet's History of the Reformation. 
 
LECTURE II. 85 
 
 all Christians of all time. The whole, as it ap- 
 pears to me (and as it has appeared to some of the 
 soundest divines of all ages and churches), is a 
 matter to be determined by considerations of fit- 
 ness and expediency. Whether the Episcopalian, 
 the Presbyterian, the Independent, or any other 
 mode of church government be the best, is a fair 
 subject for discussion and inquiry. What I have 
 been most desirous of now is, that you should 
 know and understand how entirely groundless are 
 the preposterous claims and pretensions lately set 
 up by the high-church party in behalf of modern 
 episcopacy. 
 
 The propositions which I believe to have been 
 established in this lecture are these : — 1st, That the 
 Church is the congregation ; that it always bears 
 this sense in the writings of the New Testament 
 and of the most ancient Christians, except when it 
 is used to designate the whole community of be- 
 lievers. This is the only exception. The term 
 when not so used was always employed to signify 
 a congregation of Christian worshippers meeting 
 together in one place. 2nd, That there is no foun- 
 dation in Scripture for the assertion that Christ or 
 his apostles instituted a ministry consisting of three 
 orders, and that to the first of these orders alone 
 belongs the right of ordaining to the ministerial 
 office. 3rd, That the episcopal form of govern- 
 
86 
 
 LECTURE II, 
 
 ment, in its present shape, had no existence in the 
 first Christian churches, and that the whole system 
 of prelacy is a mere human contrivance, devoid of 
 all scriptural authority, and supported only by 
 strained analogies and gratuitous assumptions. 
 
 If these things be so, it follows that the very 
 foundation on which the system of prelacy, as ad- 
 vocated by the Oxford divines, is built, is swept 
 away. The first position taken up by them is 
 altogether untenable. The very ground on which 
 they stand is cut from under their feet. The clergy 
 are not the Church ; their voice is not the voice of 
 the Church ; their election is not the election of 
 the Church ; and prelatical ordination has no more 
 claim to be considered true and valid than the 
 ordination proceeding from presbyters or elders. 
 Having, as I conceive, proved all this, I might 
 dismiss, as altogether needless, any further inquiry 
 into the system of Puseyism, since, the foundation 
 being destroyed, the superstructure raised upon it 
 must fall to the ground. But that no argument 
 may remain unanswered, I shall next proceed to 
 show that, independently of the foregoing consi- 
 derations, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, as 
 advanced by the Oxford divines, rests upon a basis 
 as hollow and insecure as any other part of their 
 system. 
 
LECTURE 111. 
 
 Having first given an account, derived chiefly from 
 their own writings, of the principles advocated by 
 the Oxford divines, ray last lecture was taken up 
 with an examination of the original nature and 
 constitution of a Christian church, the functions 
 and qualifications of its first ministers, the mode of 
 their appointment, and the duties which they had 
 to discharge. From this I think it was made to 
 appear that the very basis of the system now under 
 examination was most unsound, that the assump- 
 tions with which the high-church party set out are 
 altogether wide of the truth, and that from first to 
 last, from the very nature of a Christian church to 
 the office and character of its mmisters, there is 
 scarcely a proposition advanced by them which is 
 not founded in error and delusion. Of the Tracta- 
 rian theology we may say generally, that false prin- 
 ciples, false statements, false reasoning, and false 
 inferences are among its marked and distinguishing 
 characteristics. After having bestowed upon it 
 much attention, I have been brought to the con- 
 
88 LECTURE 111. 
 
 viction that never before was there put forward a 
 theory, — carrying with it such lofty pretensions and 
 pregnant with such momentous consequences, — so 
 utterly wanting in everything like evidence, so en- 
 tirely resting upon far-fetched inferences, subtle 
 distinctions, and unauthorized assumptions. 
 
 It is not because I attach any great importance 
 to the question of church government, abstractedly 
 considered, that I have entered upon the present 
 inquiry ; it is because of the arrogance, the intole- 
 rance, the spiritual usurpation, the priestly domi- 
 nation which cleave to this revived Laudian school 
 that I so strenuously resist and oppose it, and call 
 upon you, if I can carry conviction to your minds 
 of its antichristian spnit and tendency, to do the 
 same. When we think of what is demanded by 
 those who call themselves the successors of the 
 apostles ; when we think of the power which some 
 of them have thereby been enabled to build up for 
 themselves ; when we call to mind all the dreadful 
 evils of which ecclesiastical tyranny has at various 
 times been the occasion ; it will be admitted, I be- 
 lieve, that hardly any question can present features 
 of greater importance to the dignity and freedom 
 of the human mind than the one we are now con- 
 sidering. If the nature and constitution of a 
 Christian church had been rightly understood ; if 
 Christians generally had been duly sensible of what 
 
LECTURE III. 89 
 
 belonged to the office and character of apostles, and 
 the essential difference between their functions and 
 those of the ministers or pastors who succeeded 
 them ; if they had been fully aware of the real ob- 
 ject and purpose of all ecclesiastical rules and regu- 
 lations, it would have been impossible for them to 
 have submitted to the spiritual despotism which 
 afterwards prevailed, — it would have been impossi- 
 ble for them to have been deluded by that miserable 
 sophistry of which they too frequently became the 
 wretched victims. The utility then of the inquiry 
 in which we are now engaged consists in this, that 
 we shall thereby be better enabled to detect and 
 expose the vanity and folly of those proud and lofty 
 pretensions set forth by the Puseyite party. When 
 they say to us, and to all who do not adopt their 
 views of church polity, you are without an author- 
 ized ministry ; your teachers are not rightfully 
 appointed ; they are mere intruders into the holy 
 office ; the temple of the Lord, the temple of the 
 Lord are we ; our answer is, you are playing the 
 part of spiritual despots ; you are aiming at the 
 possession of that to which you have no exclusive 
 title ; and though, in words, you may renounce the 
 pope, you do, in fact, to adopt the language of 
 Milton, still hug the popedom. 
 
 What then is the meaning of this doctrine of 
 apostolic succession of which we hear so much ? 
 
90 LECTURE rii. 
 
 What does it say of the bishops, the clergy, on the 
 one hand ; and what of the people, the laity, on 
 the other ? That I may not be thought to misre- 
 present or caricature the doctrine, I will give a 
 statement of it in words selected from the writings 
 of those who are ranked among its leading advo- 
 cates and supporters. 
 
 In the first number of ' Tracts for the times ' the 
 doctrine of apostolic succession is thus laid down : 
 "The Lord Jesus gave his Spirit to his apostles ; 
 they in turn laid their hands on those who suc- 
 ceeded them ; these on others ; and so the sacred 
 gift has been handed down to our present bishops." 
 The following passage looks almost as if it were in- 
 tended to burlesque the doctrine, but the quarter 
 from which it comes is a suflScient assurance that 
 it is written in sober earnestness. It is contained 
 in the tenth number of the Tracts. " The apostles 
 did not leave the world without appointing persons 
 to take their place ; and these persons represent 
 them, and may be considered, with reference to us, 
 as if they were apostles. When a man dies, his 
 son takes his property and represents him ; that is, 
 in a manner, he still lives in the person of his son. 
 Well, this explains how the apostles may be said 
 to be still among us. They did not indeed leave 
 their sons to succeed them as apostles, but they 
 left spiritual sons. But it may be asked, are these 
 
LECTURE III. 91 
 
 spiritual sons of the apostles still alive ? No ; all 
 this took place many hundred years ago. These 
 sons and heirs of the apostles died long since. But 
 then they in turn did not leave the world without 
 committing their sacred office to a fresh set of 
 ministers, and they in turn to another, and so on 
 even to this day. Thus the apostles had first spi- 
 ritual sons ; then spiritual grandsons ; then great 
 grandsons ; and so on, from one age to another, 
 down to the present time." 
 
 Such then is what is called the doctrine of apo- 
 stolic succession ; and it amounts to this : — there 
 is an order of ministers in the Christian Church 
 distinct from and superior to presbyters, to whom 
 is exclusively appropriated the title of bishops. 
 These hold their office by divine right, and not by 
 human appointment. With them alone is lodged 
 the authority, the right to ordain ; and without 
 such ordination no one can lawfully take upon 
 himself the administration of Christian ordinances, 
 or safely engage in the work of the Christian mi- 
 nistry. The two doctrines, says Dr. Arnold, which 
 are the foundation of the whole svstem are these : 
 " God's grace and our salvation come to us princi- 
 pally through the virtue of the sacraments, and the 
 virtue of the sacraments depends on the apostolical 
 succession of those who administer them. The 
 clergy, therefore, thus holding in their hands the 
 
92 LECTURE III. 
 
 most precious gifts of the Church, acquire naturally 
 the title of the Church itself*." 
 
 Now suppose that the bishops of the Anglo- 
 Catholic Church could make good the fact of their 
 lineal descent from the apostles, I say that that 
 alone would go no way to establish their right to 
 the extraordinary powers and privileges which are 
 claimed for them. Whether they can or cannot 
 do this will be the subject of our immediate in- 
 quiry ; but admitting that they can, nothing in 
 favour of their doctrine follows from it. They 
 must prove that with their lineal descent have also 
 descended to them the power and authority of the 
 apostles. There is no necessary connection be- 
 tween the one and the other. It is not sufficient 
 to say so ; evidence must be brought to prove it. 
 And what kind of evidence must that be ? I answer, 
 nothing less than the clear, direct, positive, unam- 
 biguous declarations of Scripture. Before they 
 attempt to establish the fact of their apostohc de- 
 scent, they must first show that such a fact, if 
 proved, is of any avail towards settling the point 
 in question. This is the first thing to be done. 
 They are not to say, see how, link by link, we can 
 run along the chain which connects us with the 
 apostles, and how clearly, therefore, we establish 
 our claim to apostohc authority. No, I reply, you 
 
 * Christian Life, Introd. ]). 16. 
 
LECTURE III. 93 
 
 must first show that there is any scriptural ground 
 for supposing that, even if you could make good this 
 so-called apostolic descent, you are therefore entitled 
 to appropriate to yourselves apostolic powers and 
 privileges. On the contrary, the advancement of 
 such a claim, — considering what it is and what it 
 implies, — demands the production of the most un- 
 questioned and unquestionable title before it can be 
 seriously attended to. In such a case and for such 
 a purpose, the evidence must not be indirect and 
 inferential merely, but direct and indisputable. If 
 such evidence be not forthcoming, the claim set up 
 deserves to be covered with scorn and contempt. 
 
 When any body of men assume to themselves 
 exclusive rights and privileges, when they assert 
 that they alone constitute the one true Church of 
 Christ, and then go on to pronounce a sentence of 
 withering anathema upon all other denominations 
 calling themselves 'Christian, it is natural and rea- 
 sonable to say to them, show us your title, — pro- 
 duce your credentials, — give us for these superna- 
 tural claims the requisite supernatural proof. If 
 they cannot do this ; if they have no such demon- 
 stration to offer of their high spiritual commission, 
 then the only other witness to which they can ap- 
 peal is that borne by some clear, certain, positive 
 assurance of Scripture. Let us see then whether 
 any such assurance is there given. 
 
94 LECTURE III. 
 
 In the promise which Christ made to his apo- 
 stles in these words, " Lo ! I am with you always, 
 even to the end of the world," we have, it is said, 
 the very proof required. How so, we ask ? What 
 is there in these expressions to warrant the inter- 
 pretation put upon them by the divines of the Ox- 
 ford school ? That interpretation supposes that 
 our Lord, besides the promise which he gave of 
 being present with his apostles, promised also to 
 be with their episcopally-ordained successors, and 
 them only, to the end of the world. Now, in the 
 first place, what ground is there for applying these 
 words to any except the apostles ; and, in the next 
 place, if their application is to be carried beyond 
 the apostles, what reason is there for limiting it to 
 those only who have received regular episcopal or- 
 dination ? One's visual organs must be possessed 
 of extraordinary microscopic power to perceive the 
 identity between these two forms of expression, " I 
 will be with you, my apostles, to the end of time," 
 and, " I will be with you, and after you, with your 
 prelatically-ordained successors only, through all 
 ages." If these two assurances are not identical, 
 what right has any one to say that the first does 
 nevertheless imply the second ? The truth is, there 
 is nothing to show that these words have rela- 
 tion to any persons but the apostles : they are ad- 
 dressed to them and to them only. But suppose 
 
LECTURE III. 95 
 
 that they are not to be thus iimited, and that they 
 were intended to embrace others besides the apo- 
 stles, what reason is there for saying that those 
 others include only episcopally-ordained ministers ? 
 Such a construction of Christ's language is, I ven- 
 ture to say, one of the most arbitrary and unjust 
 tliat was ever attempted to be palmed upon a 
 passage. I might further allege that the word 
 rendered ' world ' should be translated * age *,' 
 which would be an additional reason for beheving 
 that Christ's promise was made more particularly 
 and expressly to his apostles and immediate disci- 
 ples. But whether this translation be allowed or 
 not, it does not signify one jot or tittle as to the 
 question before us ; for, take the words exactly as 
 they are in our common version, and it appears to 
 me to be utterly impossible to screw out of them 
 the Tractarian interpretation. Look at them, I 
 say, with an eye of the keenest inquisition, and see 
 whether anything in the shape of such a construc- 
 tion lies hidden within them. I think that any 
 impartial, unbiassed man might gaze at them till 
 
 * This is the translation of the Greek original according to 
 Archbishop Newcome, Bishop Pearce, Wakefield and others. lu 
 that case the meaning of the passage would be, that Christ pro- 
 mised to be present, in a peculiar manner, with his apostles to 
 the end of the age, that is, of the Jewish economy; after which 
 miraculous powers were withdrawn and Christ no more appeared 
 personally to his apostles. 
 
90 LECTURE HI. 
 
 doomsday, and still be at a loss to perceive the 
 faintest impression of such a meaning. Indeed I 
 feel it to be almost an abuse of your time to ask 
 your attention to such childish reasoning as is 
 sometimes founded upon passages like the fore- 
 going. And I would not have done it now, had it 
 not been necessary for the purpose of showing you 
 w^hat sort of arguments are made use of on behalf of 
 high-church principles, — how poor, and weak, and 
 flimsy they, for the most part, are. In truth they 
 often present so little of the appearance of argument 
 that one hardly knows how to grapple with them. 
 If they had a little more substance about them we 
 could more easily lay hold of them, and handle 
 them ; but as it is, they are so shadowy and shape- 
 less, that they seem, when we endeavour to approach 
 them, to melt away and vanish into " thin air." 
 
 An argument in favour of the high and exclusive 
 claims of modern prelacy is often drawn from a 
 supposed analogy between the Jewish and what is 
 termed the Christian priesthood. My answer to 
 this is, that so far from there being any similarity 
 between the Christian ministry and the Jewish 
 priesthood, there is, on the contrary, an entire and 
 essential difference between them. As institutions, 
 there is no parallel to be drawn between the Mo- 
 saic and the Christian systems. The one is " a 
 law of commandments contained in ordinances," 
 
LECTURE III. 97 
 
 and is a " ministration of the letter ; " the other is 
 a revelation of principles, and is a " ministration 
 of the spirit." In the one, everything is minutely 
 laid down and strictly defined ; in the other, all is 
 open, general, broad, comprehensive. " See," says 
 God to Moses, " that thou make all things ac- 
 cording to the pattern shown to thee in the mount." 
 Where is anything like this addressed to Christ or 
 his apostles ? " The law came by Moses, but grace 
 and truth by Jesus Christ." 
 
 ft/ 
 
 In Scripture the priests, both Jewish and pagan, 
 bear the name, not of presbyter (since contracted 
 into the word priest), but of Hiereus*. This is 
 the Greek term always made use of to denote Jewish 
 and heathen priests ; but is never, in the Scriptures, 
 applied to Christian ministers. These are called 
 ' presbyteros ' or ' episcopos,' elders or overseers. 
 No mention whatever is made of the establishment, 
 under the gospel dispensation, of any office similar 
 
 * On the word Priest, Archbishop Whately, in the Appendix to 
 his Logic, has this remark : — " Etymologically the word answers 
 to presbyter, i. e. elder of the Christian Church. But it is re- 
 markable that it never occurs in this sense in our translation of 
 the Scriptures : the word npeafivrepos being always rendered by 
 Elder ; and its derivative, priest, always given as the translation 
 of lepevs. This latter is an office assigned to none under the 
 
 gospel-scheme except the one great High Priest, who offered 
 
 a sacrifice which is the only one under the Gospel." — " It is in- 
 calculable," he adds, " how much confusion has arisen from con- 
 founding together the two senses of the word Priest." 
 
 H 
 
98 LECTURE III, 
 
 to the Jewish priesthood. This, of itself, is a strong 
 presumj)tion that Christ and his apostles regarded 
 the two functions, of the Christian pastor and the 
 Jewish priest, as essentially distinct. And so it 
 will ap])ear more clearly still, if we consider the 
 nature of the office exercised by Jewish and pagan 
 priests. The Jewish priests were appointed for the 
 express purpose of offering sacrifices in the name 
 and on behalf of the people*. They alone were 
 allowed to make oblations and burn incense to the 
 Lord. They alone were to make intercession and 
 atonement for transgressors. They alone were the 
 mediators between God and men. It was the same 
 among the pagans. With them also the priests 
 were the offerers of sacrifice. They made suppli- 
 cation and atonement for the people. They were 
 the mediators between the worshipper and the wor- 
 shipped. But in the Christian Scriptures the office 
 of priest (in the sense of the Greek word Hiereus) 
 is ascribed to Christ, and to no one else ; and for 
 this reason, that he alone offered up the great sa- 
 crifice for human redemption ; that he alone now 
 liveth to make intercession ; that through him alone 
 we have access by one spirit unto the Father, and 
 that he alone is the one Mediator between God and 
 man. 
 
 * It should be borne in mind that the distinguishing office of 
 a priest (Hiereus) properly so called, is to oifer sacrifice. 
 
LECTURE III. 99 
 
 As for the ministers appointed by our Lord or his 
 apostles, they are altogether distinct from priests in 
 office as well as in name. The duty of the Christian 
 minister, as defined in the New Testament, was to 
 preach the Gospel ; to instruct, admonish, and ex- 
 hort. But the especial duty of the priest, as that 
 word was in use among the Jews and pagans, was 
 entirely of a different nature. Under the Jewish 
 dispensation the instruction of the people belonged 
 not so much to the family of Aaron (with whom 
 alone the priesthood was lodged) as to the whole 
 tribe of Levi ; nor even to them was this duty con- 
 fined ; for we know that persons of any tribe might 
 teach publicly on the sabbath-day. This was done 
 by our Lord himself, who was of the tribe of Judah, 
 and also by Paul, who was of the tribe of Benja- 
 min*. No objection, on the part of the Jews, that 
 
 * This practice passed from the Synagogue into the early 
 Christian Church. " All Christians," says Neander, " had the 
 right to pour out their hearts before their brethren in the as- 
 semblies of the Church, and to speak for their edification." And 
 Archbishop Whately justly observes, " that it should never be 
 forgotten that Christianity is the offspring of Judaism, and that 
 all the institutions and regulations of the Christian Church ema- 
 nated from men who had been brought up as Jews, and who 
 would not have deviated from what they had been used to, on 
 slight grounds." — Errors of Romanism, p. 96 ; Neander's Church 
 History, p. 188. That the rules and regulations of the first 
 Christian churches were founded on the practice and usages of 
 the Synagogue is largely shown in Stillingfleet's ' Irenicum.' 
 
 H 2 
 
100 LECTURE III. 
 
 we read of, was ever made to their doing so. But 
 had they intruded into the priest's office, strictly so 
 termed, the intrusion would, no doubt, have been 
 vehemently resented. 
 
 There is then no similarity between the Jewish 
 priesthood and the Christian ministry. The argu- 
 ment, resting upon the supposed analogy between 
 them, falls to the ground ; and not only so, but 
 the want of this similarity, or, I should rather say, 
 the entire difference between the two, shows that 
 the one is not the type of the other, and that the 
 Christian ministry, in the true sense and meaning 
 of the phrase, is not a priesthood at all. The only 
 sense in which it can be so considered is that in 
 which it is applicable to Christians in general, who 
 are styled by the apostle Peter a holy nation, a 
 royal priesthood, a peculiar people. " It is a com- 
 mon mistake," says Stillingfleet, " to think that 
 the ministers of the Gospel succeed by way of cor- 
 respondence and analogy to the priests under the 
 law ; and this mistake has been the foundation and 
 original of many errors." 
 
 Another argument drawn from Scripture in be- 
 half of the doctrine of apostoHc succession, and 
 which is much relied on, is the address delivered 
 by Christ to his apostles, as given in John xx. 23 : 
 "Receive ye the Holy Spirit : whose soever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose 
 
LECTURE III. 101 
 
 soever sins ye retain, they are retained." These 
 words, you will observe, whatever be their mean- 
 ing, are addressed directly and especially to the 
 apostles, after having received from Christ the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit. If we suppose that by the word 
 " sins" is to be understood sins wilfully committed 
 against God, known transgressions of the moral 
 law, then the passage would authorize us in saying 
 that Christ had conferred on the apostles authority 
 to grant or refuse pardon to the guilty offender as 
 to them should seem meet and right ; but there is 
 not a word to show that this authority was to ex- 
 tend to any others but the apostles. The commis- 
 sion is given to them, and to them only; and for 
 the due performance of its duties, they receive from 
 Christ miraculous powers ; — are gifted with super- 
 natural endowments. Such is the case as it lies 
 literally and plainly before us. Archbishop Whately 
 supposes that by the word " sins " in this passage, 
 we are to understand not so much sins committed 
 against God, as offences committed against the 
 church or congregation, — transgressions of the 
 rules and regulations of the community to which 
 the parties belonged. He considers the passage as 
 having very much the same signification as that in 
 which Christ said to Peter and the apostles gene- 
 rally, that whatsoever they should bind and loose on 
 earth should be bound and loosed in heaven ; that 
 
102 LECTURE HI. 
 
 is, they were authorized to make such laws and 
 regulations for the good government of the Chris- 
 tian Church, and to grant or refuse admission into 
 it, as to them it appeared fitting and expedient ; 
 conducive to the edification of its members, and 
 the order and decorum of its proceedings. " Lan- 
 guage of this kind," he says, " was very common 
 among the Jewish doctors, from whom our Lord 
 probably borrowed it. They were in the habit 
 of using the words, binding and loosing, in the 
 sense of enacting and abrogating "*." Very much 
 of the same signification attaches to the words, 
 " Whatsoever sins ye remit they are remitted, and 
 whatsoever sins ye retain they are retained." The 
 apostles were entrusted v*'ith the duty of inflicting 
 or remitting the penalties of church censure, and 
 of checking such disorderly conduct in the mem- 
 bers of the Christian community as threatened to 
 
 * " Binding and loosing," says Lightfoot, "in our Saviour's 
 sense and in the Jews' sense, from whose use he taketh the phrase, 
 is of things and not o{ persons ; for Christ said to Peter, ' what- 
 soever' thou bindest, and not ' whomsoever' ; and to the other 
 apostles (Matt, xviii. 18), ' whatsoever things,' and not ' what- 
 soever persons.' " After giving, from Jewish writers, various in- 
 stances of the use of the phrase " to bind and to loose," he con- 
 cludes as follows: — " 1. It is used in teaching and in judging 
 regarding things lawful and things not lawful. 2. To bind is the 
 same as to forbid or declare a thing forbidden ; to loose is to 
 permit, or declare a thing permitted." — Hebrew and Talmudical 
 Exercitations on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 
 
LECTURE III. 103 
 
 disturb its peace and mar the purpose of its insti- 
 tution. 
 
 Whether this interpretation of the passage be 
 just or otherwise is of no great moment to the 
 question at issue. I have referred to it now in 
 order to show the reasonable construction which 
 has been put upon it by no less a scholar and di- 
 vine than Archbishop Whately. But leaving this 
 interpretation out of view, and allowing the apo- 
 stles to have been literally and actually invested 
 with the power of forgiving sins ; what then ? 
 what follows? How does this establish the claim 
 of bishops and priests to the possession and exer- 
 cise of the same power? In the service of the 
 English Church for the ordination of priests, the 
 Bishop says to the party ordained, " Receive the 
 Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost forgive, they 
 are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, 
 they are retained." If this be not a sort of legal 
 fiction, a sham, a pretence, tremendous indeed is 
 the power which these imagined successors of the 
 apostles assume to be in possession of. That by 
 them it is intended to be understood according to 
 the plain obvious meaning of the words ; that it is 
 really and bond fide claimed for prelates and priests, 
 is clear not only from the passage quoted in the 
 last lecture from Keble's work on Tradition, but 
 from the language used by the present Bishop of 
 
104 LECTURE III. 
 
 Exeter in one of the charges deUvered by him to 
 his clergy. After citing these words of our Lord 
 addressed to his apostles, he adds, " This was the 
 awful authority given by Christ to his first mini- 
 sters, and in them and through them to all their suc- 
 cessors. This is the awful authority we have re- 
 ceived, and which we must never be ashamed, nor 
 afraid to tell the people that we have received*." 
 
 It is difficult to believe that such pretensions 
 should be really and seriously advanced by any 
 man in his right mind ; but the fact is so, and 
 being so, it must be met and answered. We ask, 
 then, — admitting that the power of forgiving sins 
 was literally conferred by Christ on his apostles, — 
 what pretence is there for saying that it was in- 
 tended to be conferred upon any minister of the 
 Gospel who came after them, or upon those exclu- 
 sively who had received episcopal ordination ? Is 
 there anything in the words made use of to justify 
 such a conclusion ? Is there anything that wears 
 the faintest show or shadow of such an intention ? 
 Upon what ground, then, is the assumption built ? 
 Upon the ground, we are told, that the bishops, 
 being the regularly ordained successors of the apo- 
 stles, inherit the gifts, graces and endowments that 
 were bestowed upon them. Like them they may 
 
 * Bishop of Exeter's Charge at his Triennial Visitation, 1836, 
 p. 44. 
 
LECTURE III. 105 
 
 be considered as the ambassadors of Christ and 
 stewards of the mysteries of God*. 
 
 I must here remind you that the apostles of 
 Christ were chosen for a special and extraordinary 
 purpose, and that for the execution of this purpose 
 they were endowed with peculiar and extraordinary 
 powers. But because in one department of their 
 office, that is, as teachers of Christian truth, cer- 
 tain persons were chosen to succeed them, wliy 
 should it be supposed that they also succeeded 
 them in all other respects and relations ? Why 
 should they who followed the apostles simply as 
 teachers or preachers of the Gospel, but who had 
 not their peculiar duties to perform nor their ex- 
 traordinary mission to fulfill, be thought to inherit 
 powers and privileges peculiarly appertaining to the 
 position in which the apostles were placed and the 
 special functions which they had to discharge ? It 
 is of the very nature and essence of the apostolic 
 office that it died with the apostles. It was not 
 one w^hich could be transmitted to others, — which 
 could be handed down to any who came after them. 
 It has been well remarked, " that the maxim of the 
 canon law, that a personal privilege doth follow the 
 
 * " For many years we have been much in the habit of resting 
 our claim on the general duties of submission to authority, of de- 
 cency and order, — of respecting precedents long established, in- 
 stead of appealing to that warrant which marks us, exclusively, 
 for God's ambassadors." — Tract 4. p. 1. 
 
lOG LECTURE III. 
 
 person and is extinguished with the person, applies 
 here most fully. The privilege of the apostles was 
 purely personal. It rested on the fact that the men, 
 Peter, James, Paul and the rest of them, had, with 
 their own eyes, seen the Lord, and with their own 
 ears heard his words, and in their own persons re- 
 ceived authority from him to tell the world what 
 they had heard and seen, as well as power to work 
 miracles in attestation of the truth of their preten- 
 sions." Lightfoot, in his ' Commentary on the Acts 
 of the Apostles,' has a similar remark. He says, 
 " The end of their election was peculiar, the like 
 to which was not to be in the Church again, — for 
 they were chosen to be with Christ ; to be eye- 
 witnesses of his resurrection, as they had been of 
 his actions and passion. And, therefore, Paul, 
 pleading for his apostleship, says that he had seen 
 the Lord." It is clear, then, that neither prelates 
 nor priests of any description are or can be the 
 successors of the apostles in the proper and pecu- 
 liar sense which that word bears. What right 
 therefore have they to the inheritance of their name 
 and character? Can they exhibit any proofs, or 
 give any sensible demonstrations of their apostolic 
 authority? Paul tells us what the tokens and 
 evidences of the apostleship were: — "They are 
 wrought among you," says he, " in signs and won- 
 ders and mighty deeds." Now where and what 
 
LECTURE III, 107 
 
 are the wonders and mighty deeds that have been 
 wrought by the hands of prelates ? Show us, we 
 say, these signs of an apostle, and we will allow 
 you to boast of your apostolic powers and privi- 
 leges. The Romanists, we know, do pretend to 
 exhibit these signs. They say, that they are able 
 to offer us these proofs of the apostolic character 
 and authority of their bishops. We may think 
 their pretensions to be unfounded and absurd ; but 
 they have, at least, the merit of consistency. We 
 may refuse assent to the premises on which their 
 reasoning is founded, but, granting their premises, 
 their reasoning is sound and just. But to the Ox- 
 ford high-church divines we say, your reasoning is 
 essentially vicious. Without laying down the re- 
 quisite data, you jump at once to the desired con- 
 clusion. You argue not only from false premises, 
 but from premises that have no outward form or 
 fashion. You do not offer to give us the signs of 
 an apostle, and yet you arrogate to yourselves the 
 authority of an apostle*. Not possessing then 
 the proper credentials, not being able to produce 
 
 * That thej' do so is manifest from various passages contained 
 in the Tracts. Take for example the following. Speaking of 
 the bishops they sslj, " They stand in the place of the apostles 
 as far as the office of ruling is concerned ; and whatever we 
 ought to do, had we lived when the apostles were alive, the same 
 ought we to do for the bishops. He that despiseth them de- 
 spiseth the apostles." — Tract 10, p. 3. 
 
108 LECTURE III. 
 
 the requisite and appropriate title, your claims 
 must be dismissed as altogether invalid and un- 
 worthy of attention. 
 
 That the powers bestowed on the apostles were, 
 in many respects, enjoyed by them exclusively, and 
 were never designed for those who should succeed 
 them as Christian ministers or teachers, is the 
 opinion of many learned divines of the Church of 
 England itself. Among these may be reckoned 
 Dr. Mai thy, the present bishop of Durham. In 
 showing what is meant by the Scripture phrase- 
 ology of " binding and loosing," he says, "there 
 is not the slightest suggestion that the power given 
 to the whole body of the apostles was to pass down 
 to their successors, or extend even to their contem- 
 porary associates in the government of the Chris- 
 tian Church*," On the other hand the Bishop of 
 Exeter, as we have before seen, says, that this 
 power did pass down to their successors, and that 
 they of the episcopate have received it. 
 
 Here then we have bishop opposed to bishop, 
 that is, (speaking in the language of the Tracta- 
 rians) we have one successor of the apostles as- 
 serting that he has, another asserting that he has 
 not, the same or the like authority that was granted 
 to them. Can there be a greater exposure than 
 this of the folly of all such pretensions ? Here 
 
 * Maltby's Sermons, vol. ii. p. 462. 
 
LECTURE III. 109 
 
 are two men, the Bishop of Exeter and the Bishop 
 of Durham, each distinguished in his respective 
 walk, the one as a learned and accomplished di- 
 vine, the other as an able and acute disputant, and 
 both of them endowed, as we are told, with the gift 
 of the Holy Spirit and with the power of imparting 
 it to others, — here are these two regularly ordained 
 successors of the apostles directly pitted one against 
 the other in the interpretation of those very texts 
 which relate especially to the nature and qualifica- 
 tions of their own office. The Bishop of Exeter 
 says, the true construction of them is, that we (pre- 
 lates and priests) have the same authority given to 
 us that was given to the apostles. The Bishop of 
 Durham says, no, they signify nothing of the kind. 
 They contain not the slightest intimation that any 
 such power was to pass down from them to their 
 successors. Such a difference as this, upon the 
 particular point before us, is alone decisive of the 
 whole question : it proves at once the utter fallacy 
 and futility of the Puseyite or high-church princi- 
 ples now under consideration. 
 
 The fact is, that the divines of the Oxford school 
 are well aware of the total deficiency of scriptural 
 evidence under which their system labours. They 
 know that from this quarter little or no help can be 
 obtained ; and to parry the force of any objection 
 which on this account might be brought against 
 
1 10 LECTURE III. 
 
 them, thev endeavour to enlist on their side the 
 orthodox feeUngs and prejudices of the people with 
 respect to what are thouglit to be the essential 
 doctrines of Christianity, well knowing that if they 
 can fortify themselves with such an armour as this, 
 and identify their cause with the popular creed, so 
 as to make it appear that they have common inter- 
 ests, that they both rest on the same basis, and 
 must stand or fall together, — if they can do this, 
 they think that they have erected for themselves a 
 barrier which it will not be easy to surmount. In 
 answer, then, to the objection, your system is want- 
 ing in scriptural support, — it has no foundation 
 in the New Testament, — there is no countenance 
 given to it in the language of Christ or his apostles, 
 — they say, it may be so, but this is a matter of no 
 consequence ; for, see, the doctrine of the Trinity 
 is not taught there ; the doctrine of original sin is 
 not taught there ; the doctrine of the personality 
 of the Holy Spirit is not taught there ; — and yet 
 wdio, for this reason, would dare to call them in 
 question? And why then, for the same reason, 
 would you call in question the doctrine of apostolic 
 succession ? If you reject this because you cannot 
 find it in Scripture, you must, to be consistent, 
 reject some of the great essential doctrines of 
 Christianity, and become Socinians or Unitarians. 
 At the mention of these words the people instantly 
 
LECTURE III. 1 1 1 
 
 take alarm ; and shrinking from the very appre- 
 hension of falUng into the gulf of so dreadful a 
 heresy, they are ready to admit anything, to believe 
 anything, rather than take a step which might pos- 
 sibly lead to so dire a result. In justification of 
 what I have now said, it will be proper for me to 
 give you their own words. 
 
 " Where," say they, " is this solemn and com- 
 fortable mystery (the doctrine of the Trinity) for- 
 mally stated in Scripture, as we find it in the 
 creeds ? Why is it not ? Let a man consider whe- 
 ther all the objections which are urged against the 
 Scripture argument for episcopacy may not be 
 turned against his own belief in the Trinity." .... 
 " If the words altar, absolution, or succession are 
 not in Scripture, neither is the word Trinity." 
 
 " A person who denies the apostolical succession 
 of the ministry, because it is not clearly taught in 
 Scripture, ought, if consistent, to deny the Godhead 
 of the Holy Ghost, which is nowhere literally stated 
 in Scripture." 
 
 ' ' Consider whether the doctrine of the Atonement 
 may not be explained away by those who explain 
 away the doctrine of the Eucharist : if the expres- 
 sions used concerning the latter are merely figura- 
 tive, so may be those of the former." 
 
 " On how many texts does the doctrine of ori- 
 ginal sin rest ? On one or two. How do we prove 
 
1 12 LECTURE III. 
 
 the doctrine of justification by faith only ? It is no- 
 where declared in Scripture." 
 
 " The three first gospels contain no declaration 
 of our Lord's divinity, and there are passages which 
 tend at first sight the other way. ... Is it possible 
 that the Evangelists could write any one particle of 
 their records of his life without having the great 
 and solemn truth steadfastly before them, that he 
 was their God? Yet they do not show this. It 
 follows that truths may be in the mind of the in- 
 spired writers which are not discoverable to ordi- 
 nary readers in the tone of their composition 
 
 I conceive the impression left on an ordinary mind 
 would be, that our Saviour was a superhuman 
 being, intimately possessed of God's confidence, 
 but still a creature ; an impression infinitely re- 
 moved from the truth as really contained and in- 
 tended in those gospels." 
 
 All these passages may be found in the forty- 
 fifth and eighty-fifth numbers of the ' Tracts for 
 the times.' 
 
 To these I will subjoin one other quotation from 
 the Lecture-sermons of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, 
 a clergyman nominated, it is said, by the Bishop 
 of London to one of the largest churches in his 
 diocese. I give it as it appeared in the Record 
 newspaper of July the 6th : — 
 
 " If we are satisfied that Scripture is Scripture — 
 
LECTURE III, 1 13 
 
 that is, that our Bibles, as we possess them now, 
 do contain God's real word, — if in this we are sa- 
 tisfied, then let me mark out to you a few things 
 which I do not think you could, or any Christian 
 could, have found out for himself in that Bible, — 
 things which I do not imagine would have been 
 articles of our faith so peremptorily pronounced as 
 they are, had there not been such a thing as tradi- 
 tion, or the teaching of the Church ; for instance, 
 the doctrine of the Hohj Trinity. Is it possible, my 
 brethren, do you think, that you, or I, or any one, 
 be he ever so gifted W'ith the powers of man, could 
 have deduced and invented for himself this most 
 wonderful and mysterious doctrine out of the Bible ? 
 There is no mention of the Trinity in unity to be 
 found in Scripture in so many direct words. That 
 God is one and yet three, three and yet one, is not 
 said, in so many distinct words, in the Bible ; and 
 yet it is a most vital doctrine. We have always 
 had it in the Church*." 
 
 I might produce other passages from the writings 
 
 * Mr. Newman argues in the same manner. According to 
 him it is no sufficient ground of objection to a doctrine that it is 
 not clearly expressed in Scripture. He says, " What is to hinder 
 the multitude of men who have been allowed to reject the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation because they do not find it in Scrip- 
 ture, from rejecting also the divinity of the Holy Ghost because 
 he is nowhere plainly called God.?" — Lectures on Romanism and 
 Popular Protestantism, p, 181. 
 
 I 
 
1 14 LECTURE III. 
 
 of the Oxford divines to the same effect ; but these 
 are amply sufficient to show that they themselves 
 are perfectly aware of the weakness of their cause, 
 as far at least as it rests on the foundation of Scrip- 
 ture. Their stronghold; they allege, is in the tes- 
 timony of antiquity : they can prove, by the records 
 of history, the fact of their apostolic descent. Upon 
 that fact they build, and, as I shall immediately 
 proceed to show, they build in vain. For, in the 
 first place, the fact itself cannot be established ; 
 and, in the next place, if it could, it would not 
 weigh an atom in favour of their system. 
 
 It is asserted, then, by the advocates of Apostolic 
 Succession, that every episcopal ly-ordained clergy- 
 man can trace up his spiritual lineage to the apo- 
 stles, through a line of prelates who personally suc- 
 ceeded them ; and that in this long line there is 
 not a single link wanting, or that is not sound and 
 perfect. As to the fact of the apostolic succession, 
 says one of the Tractarians, that is, " that our pre- 
 sent bishops are the heirs and representatives of the 
 apostles by successive transmission of the privilege 
 of being so, this is too notorious to require proof. 
 Every link in the chain is known from St. Peter to 
 our present metropolitans*." Dr. Hook says the 
 same. According to him " there is not a bishop, 
 priest, or deacon who may not, if he please, trace 
 his spiritual descent from St. Peter or St. Paul." 
 
 •^ Tracts for the Times, No. 7. p. 2. 
 
LFXTURE III. 1 IT) 
 
 Upon this I will first observe, tliat if, in tliis 
 vaunted chain of apostoHc succession, there be 
 found only one link that is broken or any way 
 defective, doubt and suspicion are instantly thrown 
 upon every part of the whole line. Let us see, 
 then, wdiat the fact is in regard to the very begin- 
 ning of the succession — the age immediately follow^- 
 ing that of the apostles. Considering the positive 
 manner in which it is asserted of certain persons or 
 bishops, that they immediately succeeded or were 
 ordained by one of the apostles, many of you will 
 probably be much surprised when I tell you that 
 even here, with respect to this very first link in the 
 chain, all is uncertainty and conjecture. Bold and 
 confident assertions are easily made, and many are 
 as easily deceived by them ; but there are those 
 who care little for such kind of statements, and 
 before they yield the assent demanded require 
 something to be produced in the shape of proof. 
 Many of the high -church advocates draw very 
 largely upon the ignorance and credulity of their 
 readers ; but they may sometimes overstep the 
 mark — presume a little too much; and this, I 
 think, will be found to be the case here. What, 
 I ask, is the proof of the apostolic succession as 
 commencing wdth St. Peter at Rome, and coming 
 down to existing prelates ? So far from the proof 
 being clear and satisfactory, I will show you that 
 
 I 2 
 
1 IG LECTURE III. 
 
 the chain on which this doctrine of the succession 
 hangs is defective at the very commencement, — at 
 the point where it ought to have heen the firmest 
 and strongest. 
 
 It is generally supposed that the first hishop after 
 St. Peter was Linus, and that he was succeeded by 
 Cletus and Clement. This agrees with the account 
 given by Irenaeus ; but TertuUian places Clement 
 first, and so do several others of the Christian 
 fathers. Then come Jerome and Augustine with 
 a different statement. They say that Cletus and 
 Linus were before Clement. Eusebius relates that, 
 after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul, Linus was 
 the first bishop of Rome, and that after him came 
 Anacletus and then Clement. Now if Linus did 
 not become bishop till after the death of the apo- 
 stles, how can it be said that he was made bishop 
 by the apostles ? And what then becomes of the 
 succession ? It terminates in Linus, and not in the 
 apostles. From this very brief summary of the 
 opinions of the early fathers, you will perceive the 
 utter and inextricable confusion in which the first 
 links of this alleged chain of apostolic descent are 
 involved. Nothing can be more uncertain than the 
 order of the succession from the first. " It is," 
 says Stillingfleet, " as muddy as the Tiber itself; 
 for here TertuUian and Rufinus, and several others, 
 place Clement next to Peter ; Irenseus and Euse- 
 
LECTURE III. 117 
 
 bius set Anacletus before him ; Epiplianius and 
 Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus ; Augustine 
 and Damasus, with others, Anacletus, Cletus and 
 Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find 
 to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth * ? " 
 That the apostle Peter was ever at Rome at all is 
 a question on which learned men have entertained 
 different opinions. That he was what is called 
 bishop of Rome is a position still more doubtful 
 and uncertain. On this point the ever-memorable 
 John Hales thus expresses himself: "That St. Peter 
 was bishop at all Cas now the name of bishop is 
 taken) may be very questionable ; for the ancients 
 that reckon up the bishops of Rome until their 
 times, as Eusebius and before him Tertullian, and 
 before them both Irenteus, never account Peter as 
 bishop of that see ; and Epiplianius tells us that 
 Peter and Paul were both bishops of Rome at once, 
 by which it is plain that he took the title of bishop 
 in another sense than now it is used ; for now, and 
 so for a long time upward, two bishops can no more 
 possess one see than two hedge-sparrows can dwell 
 in one bushf ," 
 
 It thus appears that the prime question on which 
 the wdiole cause rests, — the very corner-stone and 
 foundation on which the proud structure of prelacy 
 
 * Stillingfleet's Irenicum, p. 322, ed. 1662. 
 t Hales's Tracts, p. 206, cd. 1721. 
 
1 18 LECTURE III. 
 
 is built, is involved in the greatest uncertainty, — 
 in the most impenetrable obscurity. Mr. Riddle, 
 an able and learned clergyman, to whose excellent 
 work on ' Christian Antiquities' I have before re- 
 ferred, observes in his preface to that work, " It is 
 impossible to prove the personal succession of mo- 
 dern bishops, in an unbroken episcopal line from 
 the apostles, or men of the apostolic age. As a 
 matter of history and fact, apostolic succession, in 
 this acceptation of the term, is an absolute non- 
 entity. Call it a theory, a fiction, a vision, or 
 whatever you choose, you cannot give it a name 
 too shadowy and unsubstantial. It exists, indeed, 
 as an honest prejudice in the minds of many sin- 
 cere Christians, and so far it is entitled to consi- 
 deration and respect ; but in itself it is an empty 
 sound*." 
 
 The difficulties, the improbabilities, I had almost 
 said the impossibilities, attending this doctrine of 
 Apostolic Succession cannot be better stated than 
 in the words of two eminent writers of the present 
 day ; the one, a dignitary of the highest order in 
 the English Church and a distinguished ornament 
 of that Church ; the other, a layman no less remark- 
 able for the extent of his acquirements and the 
 vigour of his understanding. I refer, in the first 
 instance, to Archbishop Whately. He says, in his 
 
 * Christian Antiquities, Preface, p. 73. 
 
LECTURE III. 1 19 
 
 work on the ' Kingdom of Christ,' " Tliere is not 
 a minister in all Christendom who is able to trace 
 up, with any approach to certainty, his own spi- 
 ritual pedigree During the dark ages, ir- 
 regularities could not have been wholly excluded 
 
 without a perpetual miracle We read of 
 
 bishops consecrated when mere children ; of men 
 officiating who barely knew their letters ; of profli- 
 gate laymen and habitual drunkards admitted to 
 holy orders ; in short, of the prevalence of every 
 kind of disorder*." Mr. Macaulay, the other au- 
 thor to whom I alluded, says, "The transmission 
 of orders from the apostles to an English clergyman 
 of the present day must have been through a very 
 great number of intermediate persons. Now it is 
 probable that no clergyman can trace up his spi- 
 ritual genealogy from bishop to bishop so far back 
 as the time of the Conquest. There remain many 
 centuries during which the history of the transmis- 
 sion of his orders is buried in utter darkness 
 
 Extreme obscurity overhangs the history of the 
 middle ages ; and the facts which are discernible 
 through that obscurity prove that the Church was 
 exceedingly ill regulated. We read of sees of the 
 highest dignity openly sold ; transferred backward 
 and forward by popular tumult, and sometimes 
 bestowed by a warlike baron on a kinsman who 
 
 * Whately's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 176, 177. 
 
120 LECTURE III. 
 
 was a mere stripling. We read of bishops of ten 
 years old ; of bishops of five years old ; of popes 
 who were mere boys. We are at a loss, therefore, 
 to conceive how any clergyman can feel confident 
 that his orders have come down correctly*." 
 
 After what has now been said respecting this 
 imagined apostolic succession ; after showing that 
 there is no foundation for it in Scripture, and that, 
 as a matter of history, the fact itself of such a suc- 
 cession is involved in the greatest obscurity and 
 uncertaintv, it would seem useless to add another 
 word in refutation of a system so unreasonable, so 
 unscriptural, so intrinsically improbable, and so to- 
 tally devoid of everything in the shape of evidence 
 to sustain it. That there are any persons seriously 
 to advocate this doctrine would be to me, I confess, 
 a matter of unutterable astonishment, did I not 
 know that there is nothing, however foolish and 
 extravagant, — however contrary to reason and com- 
 mon sense and the plain instructions of Scripture, 
 but will meet with its abettors and supporters. 
 Before bringing this lecture to a conclusion, there 
 are one or two other points which I am desirous of 
 submitting to your attentive consideration. 
 
 In the first place let me request you to observe, 
 that the claims set up by the churches of England 
 and Rome were also set up in times past by churches 
 
 * Macaulay's Essays, vol. ii. p. 480. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 121 
 
 now branded with the name of heresy. This was 
 the case with the Arian churches. These churches, 
 it is well known, once prevailed to a considerable 
 extent, and through many countries. As to their 
 ecclesiastical constitution or form of government 
 they were episcopal, and had as fair a claim to the 
 apostolic succession as any churches then in exist- 
 ence. But the orthodox party, in spite of this 
 claim, — in defiance of the apostolic title possessed 
 by their bishops, — denounced them in the fiercest 
 terms of condemnation. In the East the Greek 
 church also, which is at variance on points of faith 
 with the AVestern churches, has quite as good a claim 
 as they have to the grace of " the apostolic succes- 
 sion." But this avails nothing with the orthodox 
 behevers. With them it forms of itself no bond of 
 fellowship and union, — presents no barrier to re- 
 jection and exclusion from the true Catholic Church 
 of Christ. The Nestorian, the Eutychian and other 
 churches, all condemned by councils as heretical, 
 present exactly the same title to the possession of 
 apostolic orders. So that, according to the show- 
 ing of these high-church divines themselves, the 
 simple fact of apostolic succession does not, on that 
 account, imply the inheritance of apostolic endow- 
 ments. For what reason then, I ask, is the fact so 
 earnestly insisted on, and so ostentatiously exhi- 
 bited ■? It seems after all that there may be apo- 
 
122 LECTURE III. 
 
 stolic succession imaccompanied with apostolic gifts 
 and graces. But if the possession of apostoUc orders 
 be no security against the inroads of error and no 
 safeguard for the preservation of the truth, it ceases 
 any longer to be a mark or sign of the true Church. 
 Or, we may state the matter thus. On what ground 
 can one church say to another church possessing 
 the same apostolic commission, w^e are certainly 
 right, and you are as certainly wrong ? I thought 
 that the very object and design, the use and im- 
 portance of these supposed apostolical orders, was 
 to constitute the possessors of them " the heredi- 
 tary witnesses of the truth*." But if, instead of 
 being witnesses of the truth, they become witnesses 
 of grievous and damnable errors, wherein lies the 
 value, the efficacy of these " orders" ? 
 
 In the next place, the Oxford divines claim for 
 the episcopal Church of England, — notwithstanding 
 her separation from the Church of Rome, and that 
 the apostolic succession of her prelates is confess- 
 edly drawn through this channel, — they claim for 
 the Church of England, in her state of division and 
 
 * " The treasure of sound doctrine," says Mr. Keble, " is 
 guarded by the grace of the apostolical succession." — Tradition, 
 p. 42. If so, then it follows that the Arian as well as the Atha- 
 nasian clergy of former days, the Greek and Romish as well as 
 the Anglo- Catholic doctors of the present day, are all the guar- 
 dians of sound doctrine, for they all alike boast of possessing the 
 apostolic succession. 
 
LECTURE III. 123 
 
 alienation from the mother church*, the title and 
 character of the true Church of Christ. And what 
 says the apostolically-descended Church of Rome 
 to this, that church which is acknowledged, by her 
 rebellious daughter, to enjoy " the succession" with 
 the most assured certainty and in the fullest de- 
 gree ? Why she says that the claim is altogether 
 unfounded and invalid ; that the clergy of the 
 English Church, by separating from her commu- 
 nion, have destroyed the only links which con- 
 nected them with the apostles, — have cut them- 
 selves off from the very channel by which alone the 
 apostolic grace or virtue could be conveyed to them. 
 She says that the Church of England is an apostate 
 church — that she is guilty of the sin of schism — 
 that she is no longer in communion with the ge- 
 nuine Catholic Church, and cannot administer, 
 with safety and efficacy, the Christian sacraments 
 and ordinances. I have before spoken of bishops 
 in the same church being opposed to one another 
 respecting this very doctrine of Apostolic Succes- 
 sion ; and here we have two churches, both of them 
 professing to have the signs and characteristics of 
 belonging to the true Church of Christ — both of 
 them asserting their claim to the apostolic succes- 
 sion, and yet existing in a state of separation and 
 
 * " Is it a duty to forget that Rome was our mother, through 
 whom we were born to Christ ?" — Tracts^ for the Times, No. 7 7. p. 33. 
 
124 LECTURE III. 
 
 estrangement from one another, and having no in- 
 tercommunion or fellowship among their respective 
 members. Nor is this all ; for the Church (viz. of 
 Rome) admitted by the other (the English Church) 
 to be in legitimate possession of the genuine apo- 
 stolic title, denies to that other that she has any 
 such title to exhibit. The Church of Rome ex- 
 communicates and anathematizes the Church of 
 England as schismatical in its profession and here- 
 tical in its doctrine*. 
 
 Hence we see that the claim to apostolic succes- 
 sion proves nothing as to the identity of the church, 
 so claiming it, with the true Church of Christ. We 
 may observe various ecclesiastical bodies, with very 
 different forms, ordinances, ceremonies and doc- 
 trines, regarding each other as heretical and schis- 
 matical, and yet all asserting that they inherit this 
 pure, unadulterated, apostolic succession. But how 
 can this be ? How can that be regarded as an in- 
 dex and a guide to the true Church, which is seen 
 to point different ways and to lead the inquirer into 
 diverse and opposite paths ? 
 
 Once more, as the Church of England denies not 
 to the Church of Rome her apostolic descent, she 
 
 * " We are at peace," says Mr. Newman, " with Rome as 
 regards the essentials of faith ; but she tolerates us as little as 
 any sect or heresy. We admit her baptism and her orders ; her 
 custom is to re-baptize and re-ordain our members who chance 
 to join hcr."~ Lectures on Romanism, j). 260. 
 
LECTURE III. 125 
 
 ought not, on that ground, to claim for herself more 
 than is allowed to the church which she has aban- 
 doned. And yet she does claim more. Notwith- 
 standing her acknowledged derivation from the 
 Romish church ; at least, notwithstanding that her 
 chief pretensions to holy apostolic orders are built 
 upon her kindred to, or connection with this church, 
 she does not hesitate, at the same time, to speak of 
 her spiritual relation in the most derogatory and 
 degrading terms. She proclaims her to be polluted 
 and corrupt ; calls her an idolatrous church ; and 
 in the book of Homilies, which, by the twenty-fifth 
 of the Thirtv-nine Articles, is declared to contain a 
 goodly and wholesome doctrine, the Church of Rome 
 is described in language so foul and loathsome that 
 it is impossible for me to repeat it in this place. 
 And yet this very church, thus stigmatized and 
 branded, is admitted to possess the true apostolic 
 succession. What, then, becomes of the wonder- 
 ful virtue ascribed to this " succession," if the very 
 church to whose care it was first committed, and 
 by whose instrumentality it has been conveyed to 
 other communions, could, after all, be guilty of 
 such odious idolatrous practices as those charged 
 upon the Church of Rome ? Can anything, I ask, 
 be more demonstrative than all this of the unspeak- 
 able weakness and folly of the claims and preten- 
 sions set up by the high-church or Puseyite party ? 
 
^1o LECTURE III. 
 
 After what has now been said, nothing more, I 
 think, need be added in condemnation of the doc- 
 trine of ApostoUc Succession. As a bare fact, there 
 is no trustworthy historical evidence to support it, 
 — no evidence that any reasonable, sober-minded 
 man would attach the smallest value to ; and if, as 
 I have before remarked, the fact could be esta- 
 blished, the doctrine founded upon it is a mere 
 gratuitous assumption, and, in no degree, deducible 
 from the premises laid down. You may trace, — 
 I would say to the divines of the Episcopal Church, 
 — you may trace your clerical ordination up to 
 those who were ordained or appointed by some one 
 of the apostles, and what then? What does that 
 alo7ie prove ? Unless the Scriptures have declared 
 that, with such ordination, there was also combined 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit, like power and like au- 
 thority to that possessed by the apostles, no con- 
 clusion in favour of such a gift, in proof of such a 
 possession, can be justly inferred from it. But not 
 only have the Scriptures made no such declaration, 
 but their language implies the very reverse. No- 
 thing analogous to a priesthood, such as that which 
 existed among the Jews and Pagans, was instituted 
 by Christ. It was not the temple but the synagogue 
 that was the model of the early Christian Church. 
 In that there was no altar, no sacrifice, no priest. 
 The Christian ministers are pastors and teachers. 
 
LECTURE III. 127 
 
 They are not lords over God's heritage. They are 
 not to exercise dominion over the faith of their 
 feliow-christians, but as much as possible, to be 
 helpers of their joy. They are not mediators, in- 
 terposing between the creature and the Creator, for 
 there is only one mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus. They are not to be seekers 
 after titles and dignities, fond of greetings in the 
 market-places, and ambitious of being called Rabbi, 
 Rabbi, for there is only one Master, even Christ, 
 and all we are brethren. 
 
 When I take a glance back at this doctrine of 
 Apostolic Succession, and observe what it embraces 
 and what it lays claim to, according to the repre- 
 sentations of the Oxford school, it almost surpasses 
 belief, that what has no foundation in Scripture — 
 wdiat is admitted to have none or next to none — 
 and what is presumed to rest upon a fact, which, 
 though of itself it w^ould prove nothing for the pur- 
 pose alleged, is, after all, involved in total obscu- 
 rity and uncertainty, nay more, is hardly possible 
 to have happened, — when I think of all this, I con- 
 fess, there rises up before me a most humiliating 
 picture of human delusion ; and, but for my faith 
 in the providence of God, and that he will, in the 
 end, make all things work together for good, I 
 should be inclined to despair of any cause, however 
 just and true, that had nothing to rest upon but 
 
128 LECTURE III. 
 
 its own intrinsic evidence and worth. — The next 
 topic that will engage our attention is the autho- 
 rity of Tradition and the Fathers. This forms an- 
 other characteristic feature of the Oxford school of 
 divinity, and, — affecting as it does the very founda- 
 tions of our Christian faith, the rule of our belief, — 
 demands from us an attentive and careful examina- 
 tion. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 Having shown, in the last lecture, that the doc- 
 trine of what is called "Apostolic Succession" is 
 opposed alike to the testimony of Scripture and the 
 evidence of history, as well as to the judgement of 
 some of the most accomplished scholars and divines 
 of the Church of England itself, I now proceed to 
 the consideration of another leading characteristic 
 of the Oxford theology, — one indeed without which 
 the whole fabric must fall to pieces^ — and that is, 
 the authority of Tradition. After what has been 
 said in a former lecture, you will be at no loss to 
 understand why it is that the Anglo-Catholic di- 
 vines call to their aid such a principle as this. 
 Acknowledging, as they do, that the Scriptures 
 alone aflbrd very little substantial or direct argu- 
 ment in their favour — feeling the weakness of their 
 cause as resting solely on this ground — they are 
 under the necessity of looking out for some other 
 basis or foundation on which to take their stand. 
 This foundation or basis they think is to be found 
 in the principle of Tradition. If they can show 
 
 K 
 
130 LECTURE IV. 
 
 that the reports or hearsays, passing from one to 
 another among the early Christians, and recorded in 
 the writings of those called the Fathers, are of co- 
 ordinate authority with the Scriptures, or, at least, 
 of sufHcient authority to determine the sense of 
 Scripture, their system, they imagine, will he placed 
 in a position of greater strength and security, and 
 be less exposed to the attacks of hostile assailants. 
 I suppose it to be the great object, — assuredly it 
 is the professed object, — of all parties of Christians 
 to get at the true meaning of the language of Scrip- 
 ture ; to learn what was actually done and taught 
 by Christ and his apostles ; to obtain possession 
 of the ideas, the thoughts that had passed in their 
 minds, and which they designed to convey to the 
 minds of others. But how is this to be accom- 
 plished ? Language is an instrument of thought ; 
 and if the same word or sentence admitted but of 
 one construction, — if it had always a certain definite 
 meaning which no one could possibly mistake, — if, 
 the moment that it was heard or read, it suggested 
 to every mind exactly the same idea, nothing more 
 would be required. But unfortunately this is not the 
 case : there is no language possessing such a quality 
 as this. A degree of ambiguity frequently hangs 
 over it, especially when it relates to matters of a 
 general or abstract nature, — to things remote from 
 sense and common apprehension. 
 
LECTURE IV. 131 
 
 Attempts therefore have been made to correct 
 this defect, in matters relating to Christian belief, 
 by fixing upon some standard for ascertaining and 
 determining the true sense of Scripture. Instead 
 of leaving it to be discovered by means of serious 
 attention, calm consideration and sober judgement, 
 aided by the lights of learning and research, an- 
 other test is proposed, which, to the mass of man- 
 kind, will, it is said, supersede all further inquiry, 
 and save them from much toilsome and, for the 
 most part, unrequited labour. The Roman Catho- 
 lic asserts that this object can be obtained only by 
 listening to the interpretation of certain authorized 
 persons within the circle of his communion, to 
 whom has been committed the power of infaUibly 
 ascertaining, and the right of formally declaring the 
 true sense of Scripture ; and that all, therefore, 
 which the common Christian believer has to do in 
 this matter is, to follow implicitly the guidance and 
 to bow submissively to the decisions of the Catho- 
 lic Church. In substance the Oxford divines say 
 very much the same thing. Between them and 
 the Romanists there maybe, in words, a trifling di- 
 stinction, but in reality little or no difference. They 
 both agree that the Scriptures are not the only 
 foundation of a Christian faith ; that, in addition 
 to this, there is another ground or basis on which 
 it should be made to rest, and to this is given the 
 
 k2 
 
132 LECTURE IV. 
 
 name of Tradition. Both Romanists and ourselves, 
 says Mr. Newman, maintain as follows : — " that 
 whatever doctrine the primitive ages unanimously 
 attest, whether by consent of Fathers or by Coun- 
 cils whatever may fairly and reasonably be con- 
 sidered to be the universal belief of those ages, is 
 to be received as coming from the apostles *." And 
 again, " the Church enforces a fact. Apostolical 
 Tradition, as the doctrinal key to Scripturef." 
 ** When the sense of Scripture, as interpreted by 
 reason, is contrary to the sense given to it by Ca- 
 tliolic antiquity, we ought to abide with the latter |." 
 That we should not depend upon the Scriptures 
 alone for a knowledge of Christian truth is argued 
 from this circumstance, that the apostles cannot be 
 supposed to have told us, in the brief memoranda 
 which they have left behind them, all that they 
 might have told us (if time and leisure had been 
 at their command) concerning the conduct and 
 conversation of Christ, and their own life and 
 labours. There must be much, which both they 
 and our Lord said and did, which is not contained 
 in the New Testament, but which, notwithstanding, 
 w^as very likely to be impressed upon the minds 
 and memories of those who witnessed them. Such 
 things would, of course, be often talked of and 
 
 * Newman on Romanism, p. 62. f Ibid. p. 232. 
 
 I Ibid. p. 162. 
 
LECTURE IV. 133 
 
 reported from one to another, till at length they 
 were taken down in wTiting and placed on more 
 enduring record. We have therefore, it is said, 
 what may be called the written and the unwritten 
 word. The written word is that which lies before 
 us in the New Testament, and proceeded directly 
 from the hands of the apostles and their compa- 
 nions. The unwritten word is the traditionary 
 matter deposited in the works of the Fathers ; and, 
 containing, as is alleged, the oral instructions of 
 the apostles, is entitled, equally with the written 
 word, to our attention and regard. No one can 
 deny that between what the apostles delivered in 
 writing, and what they delivered by w^ord of mouth, 
 there is little or no difference in the degree of in- 
 terest and importance attaching to each. I say, 
 there is little or no difference, provided it can be 
 clearly ascertained that what they are said to have 
 delivered by word of mouth was actually delivered 
 by them. But here lies the gist of the whole 
 matter. We contend that there is no such cer- 
 tainty to be had. Admitting the authenticity of 
 the books of the New Testament, there are am- 
 ple grounds for believing that we have in them a 
 just and faithful account of what Christ said and 
 did. For, being drawn up by those who were his 
 immediate companions and disciples, no reason- 
 able doubt of their competency to the task they 
 
134 LECTURE IV. 
 
 undertook can well be entertained. But of the 
 competency of those, who came one or two hun- 
 dred years afterwards, to add anything to the ori- 
 ginal record, the strongest doubts may justly and 
 reasonably be felt. In fact, accounts of what took 
 place at any considerable distance of time, derived 
 from mere common reports circulating from mouth 
 to mouth, especially if they relate to opinions or 
 speculations, are seldom worthy of much regard. 
 It is impossible to consider as trustworthy any- 
 thing depending upon so precarious and uncertain 
 a mode of transmission as that of oral delivery. 
 We know that often a few words, a simple fact, 
 become in a little time, by this sort of verbal com- 
 munication, completely discoloured and distorted. 
 To suppose, therefore, that discourses, delivered 
 years ago, and repeated from one to another for a 
 long course of time before they are written down, 
 should descend to posterity in their original form, — 
 untainted and uncorrupted, — with nothing added, 
 — nothing changed, — nothing omitted, — nothing 
 perverted or modified, is a supposition contrary to 
 all probability, and directly contrary to all expe- 
 rience*. 
 
 * " Suppose (what is not a fact) that there existed uninter- 
 rupted reports of certain doctrines delivered only verbally by the 
 apostles, they would be reports made in the words of the reporters. 
 But we well know that a single word added or neglected, an orna- 
 mental figure of speech, an interpretation of the reporter, intro- 
 
LECTURE IV. 135 
 
 From these general observations I pass on to a 
 more particular examination of the theory in ques- 
 tion. As it is important that we should clearl}^ 
 understand what that theory is, the extent to which 
 it goes, and the qualifications with which it is ac- 
 companied, I shall give a statement of it in the 
 words of its advocates and supporters. Of these 
 the chief are the writers of the Oxford Tracts, — 
 called Tractarians, — Mr. Palmer, Mr. Newman, and 
 Mr. Keble. Their views of the nature and autho- 
 rity of Tradition will now be presented in the order 
 here mentioned. 
 
 1. The Tractarians. They say, " Scripture and 
 Tradition taken together are the joint rule of 
 faith*." In Tract 34 they give two quotations, 
 one from Tertullian, the other from St. Basil, in 
 which, after describing various practices that for- 
 merly prevailed in the Church with respect to bap- 
 tism and other rites, it is added, " if you demand 
 a scriptural reason for these and such-like obser- 
 vances, we can give you none ; all we say to you 
 
 duced with the best intentions, may alter a doctrinal statement, 
 so as not to be recognized by the original teacher of the doctrine. 
 Sum up the chances of such additions, wrong illustrations, and 
 mistakes in the course of many centuries, and then calculate the 
 unreasonableness of supposing the salvation of mankind to depend 
 on the acceptance of such tradition ! " — Second Travels of an Irish 
 Gentleman, vol. i. p. 226. 
 * Tracts, No. 78. p. 2. 
 
136 LECTURE IV. 
 
 is, that tradition directs, usage sanctions, faith 
 obeys." And again : "Of those articles of doc- 
 trine and preaching which are in the custody of the 
 Church, some come to us in Scripture itself, and 
 some are conveyed to us by a continuous tradition 
 in mystical depositaries. Both have equal claims 
 on our devotion." 
 
 2. Mr. Palmer, in his work on the Church, says, 
 " The injunction of the English Church to her 
 preachers is, that they shall not teach anything to 
 be religiously held or believed, except what agrees 
 with the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, 
 and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient bishops 
 have collected from the same doctrine. This re- 
 cognizes most fully the guidance of tradition in 
 matters of faith ; and in matters of discipline the 
 
 same is also admitted In short, the reverence 
 
 of the Catholics in England for the tradition of the 
 universal Church in all matters of doctrine and 
 discipline is so manifest, that Walchius accounts 
 them excessive in their reverence for the Fathers, 
 and they were entitled ' the Church of the Tradi- 
 tioners' by the Puritans*." 
 
 3. Mr. Newman, after stating in what way the 
 Protestants and Romanists interpret the meaning 
 of Scripture, — the one by their private judgement, 
 the other by the infallible decisions of the Pope in 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. i. p. 180. 
 
LECTURE IV. 137 
 
 general council, — observes, " We neither hold that 
 the Catholic Church is an infallible judge of Scrip- 
 ture, nor that each individual may judge for him- 
 self, but that the Church has authority, and that 
 individuals may judge for themselves outside the 
 
 range of that authority We consider the 
 
 Church as a witness, a keeper and witness of Ca- 
 tholic Tradition ; and in this sense invested with 
 authority, just as in political matters an ambassa- 
 dor, possessed of instructions from his government, 
 would speak with authority. . . . She bears witness 
 to a fact that such and such a doctrine, or such a 
 sense of Scripture, has ever been received and came 
 from the apostles ; the proof of which lies, first in 
 her own unanimity throughout her various branches, 
 
 next in the w^ritings of the ancient Fathers 
 
 We consider Antiquity and Catholicity to be the 
 
 real guides, and the Church their organ The 
 
 phrase ' Rule of Faith,' which is now commonly 
 taken to mean the Bible by itself, would seem, in 
 the judgement of the English Church, properly to 
 belong to the Bible and Catholic Tradition taken 
 together. These two together make up a joint 
 
 rule We have as little warrant for rejecting 
 
 Ancient Consent as for rejecting Scripture itself*." 
 4. Mr. Keble, the late Oxford Professor of Po- 
 etry, who has written a Treatise expressly on the 
 
 * Newman on Romanism, pp. 328, 329, 330, 333, 335. 
 
138 LECTURE IV. 
 
 subject of Tradition, gives this explanation of the 
 doctrine: " It may help to the understanding and 
 application of the whole argument, if I point out 
 three distinct fields of Christian knowledge, in 
 neither of which can we advance satisfactorily or 
 safely without constant appeal to Tradition. The 
 first is the system and arrangement of fundamental 
 articles, so far as they have come down to us 
 systematic and arranged. We, that is all of the 
 Anglican Church who have had any regular train- 
 ing in theology, are so early taught to trace the 
 creed in the Scriptures, and to refer at once certain 
 portions of both Testaments to certain high myste- 
 ries of the Catholic faith, that it commonly appears 
 to ourselves as though we had learned those myste- 
 ries directly from the Scriptures. But there are 
 few, surely, who on careful reflection would not be 
 compelled to acknowledge that the Creed, or some 
 corresponding catechetical instruction, had pre- 
 possessed them with these truths before ever they 
 thought of proving them from Holy Writ. I need 
 hardly remind you of the unquestioned historical 
 fact, that the very Nicene Creed itself, to which, 
 perhaps, of all formulae, we are most indebted for 
 our sound belief in the proper divinity of the Son 
 of God, — even this creed had its origin, not from 
 Scripture, but from Tradition. The second great 
 subject on which most of us are unconsciously 
 
LECTURE IV. 139 
 
 indebted to the ancient Catholic tradition is the 
 Interpretation of Scripture, especially of those parts 
 which less obviously relate to the mysteries of the 
 Gospel*." 
 
 These passages, selected from the writings of the 
 most eminent of the Oxford school of divinity, will, 
 I think, taken together, convey a tolerably correct 
 idea of their views of Tradition. Hence may be 
 deduced the general proposition that the clergy, in 
 their collective or corporate capacity, are the au- 
 thorized revealers or proclaimers of Christian truth, 
 whose statements and expositions of that truth the 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, pp. 34, 35. There appears to be no 
 diiFerence between the doctrine of Tradition as expounded by the 
 divines of the Oxford school and that maintained by the Roman- 
 ists, as will be evident, I think, from the following explanation 
 of it given by Dr. Milner : " When any fresh controversy," says 
 he, " arises in the Church, the fundamental maxim of the bishops 
 and popes, to whom it belongs to decide upon it, is, not to con- 
 sult their own private opinion or interpretation of Scripture, but 
 to inquire ' what is and ever has been the doctrine of the Church' 
 concerning it. Hence their cry is and ever has been, on such 
 occasions, as well in her councils as out of them, ' So we have 
 received, so the universal Church believes ; let there be no new 
 doctrine, none but what has been delivered down to us by Tra- 
 dition.' " — End of Controversy, Letter xi. 
 
 Bossuet speaks in the same tone, and Bellarmine says, " The 
 first foundation of our faith is the word of God ; only we add, 
 that besides this first foundation another secondary foundation is 
 needed, that is, the witness of the Church. For we do not know 
 for certain what God has revealed, except by the testimony of the 
 Church." — See Newman's Romanism, pp. 72, 73. 
 
140 LECTURE IV. 
 
 people are in duty bound to receive. This is the 
 conclusion necessarily following from the foregoing 
 representations of the nature and office of Tradition, 
 and of the authority of the Church, as may be thus 
 shown. The traditions of the early Church, con- 
 tained in the writings of the Fathers, are to be 
 received as genuine apostolic teaching. Of these 
 traditions the Church is a witness, and has authority 
 to declare what they are, and the sense they put 
 upon Scripture. But the Church, what is it ? 
 what are we to understand by it ? It is but a mere 
 word — a pure abstraction — a general term, and has 
 no signification unless as the sign or abbreviated 
 expression of a certain number of persons more or 
 less. Now who are those persons that, according 
 to the Puseyite scheme, are to stand as the repre- 
 sentatives of the Church, — whose voice is to be 
 considered as the voice of the Church ? Who, I 
 ask, but the clergy — the episcopaliy-ordained " suc- 
 cessors of the apostles," in council or convocation 
 assembled? With them, therefore, it rests to say 
 what is the true sense of Scripture and what is not*. 
 
 * That this is a just inference may be fairly maintained, not 
 only indirectly as a legitimate deduction from the principles of 
 the Oxford school, but directly from the very language, the pre- 
 cise words, made use of by Mr. Newman. He says {Romanism, 
 p. 170), " One chief cause of sects among us is, that the Church's 
 voice is not heard clearly and forcibly ; she does not exercise her 
 own right of interpreting Scripture ; she does not arbitrate, de- 
 
LECTURE IV. 141 
 
 To this the doctrine of Tradition, as above laid down, 
 must bring us at last. Now let us inquire a little 
 into the matter of some of the traditions of the 
 early Church as contained in the writings of the 
 Fathers ; first, generally, in respect to various 
 points of belief and practice ; and next, as they 
 bear upon the subject of Scripture-interpretation. 
 
 I shall begin with Papias and Irenaeus, who lived 
 in the second centurv- 
 
 Among the predictions which our Lord is said to 
 
 cide, condemn." And speaking (p. 193) of the difficulty which 
 is felt by persons of various denominations in interpreting Scrip- 
 ture for themselves, he says, " None can solve the great secret 
 and utter the mystery of its pages. One makes trial, then an- 
 other ; but one and all in turn are foiled. They retire, as the 
 sages of Babylon, and make vs^ay for Daniel. The Church Ca- 
 tholic, the true prophet of God, alone is able to tell the dream 
 and its interpretation." And where and what is this Church 
 Catholic ? He tells us in page 58 that " the Church Catholic in 
 this country manifests herself in the Church, commonly so called, 
 as her representative." These views may be thus expressed in 
 the form of a syllogism : — 
 
 The Church Catholic is the only true interpreter of Scripture ; 
 
 The Church of England is in this country the Church Catholic ; 
 
 Therefore the Church of England is with us the only true in- 
 terpreter of Scripture. 
 
 And if we go a step further and ask who represent the Church 
 of England ? the answer is, the bishops and clergy in convocation 
 assembled ; so that the bishops and clergy are to be regarded as 
 the true interpreters of Scripture. This, I say, is the one inevi- 
 table conclusion growing out of the positions laid down by Mr. 
 Newman and his coadjutors. 
 
142 LECTURE IV. 
 
 have delivered on the subject of what is called the 
 Millenium (a favourite doctrine with the early Chris- 
 tian fathers), Papias mentions this as one ; derived, 
 as he states, from the elders who had conversed with 
 the apostle John : — 
 
 " And the Lord said. The days shall come in which 
 vines shall spring up, each of them having ten 
 thousand branches, and one branch ten thousand 
 shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand twigs, and 
 on every twig ten thousand clusters, and in every 
 cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape, when 
 pressed, shall yield twenty-five firkins of wine. And 
 when any one of the saints shall proceed to gather 
 a cluster, some other cluster shall exclaim, ' I am a 
 better cluster ; take me, and bless the Lord through 
 me.' In like manner a single grain of wheat shall 
 produce ten thousand ears, and each ear shall pro- 
 duce ten thousand grains, and every grain ten 
 pounds of flour ; and all the other fruits and grains 
 and herbs shall abound in the same proportion." 
 
 As early as the close of the first century it was 
 given out by Tradition that Judas, in direct oppo- 
 sition to the account we have of his death in the 
 Acts of the Apostles, did not die in the way there 
 stated, but that he lived sometime afterwards in a 
 frightful state of disease. " Judas," says Papias, 
 *' walked about in this world, a great example of 
 the effects of impiety ; being so much swollen in 
 
LECTURE IV. 143 
 
 his body that he could not find room to pass through 
 an opening which a cart could easily be led through ; 
 and thus he was crushed by a cart, and his entrails 
 squeezed out of his body." Now this is what we 
 get by means of tradition — of common rumour — of 
 hearsay reports. This is the wretched nonsense 
 w^hich Papias treasured up after the lapse of little 
 more than half a century from the death of Christ. 
 So early did the work of fable begin, and so great 
 was the credulity which then prevailed. 
 
 Ireneeus, who was contemporary wdth Justin 
 Martyr, not only declares, contrary to the account 
 given in the Gospels, that Christ was fifty years old 
 at the time of his crucifixion, but that this was the 
 concurrent testimony of all who had lived with St. 
 John and the other apostles. And yet this tradi- 
 tion, which, as it relates not to a doctrine or opi- 
 nion, but to a matter of fact, and running up close 
 to the age of the apostles, is more entitled, perhaps, 
 than any other to attention and respect, is un- 
 doubtedly fabulous and false. If this were the only 
 instance of what is delivered to us by the early 
 fathers as traditional truth, but which we know to 
 be mere fable, it would not be fair to draw from it 
 a sweeping general argument against their trust- 
 worthiness in relations of this kind. But the fact 
 is that such instances are not unfrequent. We 
 have them occurring again and again. At all 
 
144 LECTURE IV. 
 
 events, they are so often to be met with as wholly 
 to destroy all serious belief in statements resting 
 upon no better foundation. In corroboration of 
 what has now been said, I will present you with a 
 few additional examples of the traditions recorded 
 by them. 
 
 Irenaeus affirms, " that all who were truly disciples 
 of Jesus wrought miracles in his name, for the good 
 of mankind. Some cast out devils, so that those 
 from whom they were ejected often turned believers 
 and continued in the church. Others had the know- 
 ledge of future events. Others healed the sick by 
 the imposition of hands. Even the dead had been 
 raised and lived many years afterwards." 
 
 Tertullian, who came a little after Ireneeus, tells 
 a story about a fine city which was suspended over 
 Judzea for the space of forty days, and declares that 
 the miracle was acknowledged by a multitude of 
 Gentile witnesses. 
 
 Cyprian, the scholar of Tertulhan, says, " Be- 
 sides visions of the night, even boys among us are 
 filled wdth the Holy Spirit, and, in fits of ecstasy, 
 see, hear, and speak things by which the Lord 
 thinks fit to instruct us." 
 
 Jerome, the author of the version of Scripture 
 called the Vulgate, declares that he received a se- 
 vere castigation at the hands of angels for the sin 
 of reading the heathen works of Cicero and Virgil. 
 
LECTURE IV. 145 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa relates a curious story about 
 his namesake, St. Gregory of Neo-ceesarea, of which 
 the following is an abridgement. He says, " that 
 being on a journey, he was driven, one stormy night, 
 to take refuge in a heathen temple where the de- 
 mons used to present themselves to the priest. By 
 invoking the name of Christ, he put them all to 
 flight. When the priest came, the next morning, 
 to discharge his usual functions, the evil spirits 
 appeared, and told him that they had been driven 
 away by a stranger and had not the power to re- 
 turn. Upon this the priest grew very angry, but 
 Gregory caring nothing for his anger, assured him 
 that his power was superior to that of devils, 
 and that he could drive them wherever he pleased. 
 The priest then begged that he would bring them 
 back again to the temple. To this Gregory con- 
 sented, and wrote this short notice upon a piece 
 of paper, ' Gregory to Satan, enter.' With this the 
 priest was dismissed, and, laying the paper on 
 the altar, brought the devils back again." It is 
 added that the miracle had the effect of converting 
 the pagan priest. Other stories of the like kind 
 are related in the life of Gregory, one of which 
 states that the Virgin Mary, accompanied by St. 
 John, appeared to him in a vision, and explained 
 to him the mystery of godliness in a short creed, 
 which was taken down in writing, and a copy of 
 
146 LECTURE IV. 
 
 it left as a legacy to the Church of Neo-ceesarea, 
 of which he was bishop. 
 
 Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, declares that, in 
 imitation of our Saviour's miracle at Cana in Ga- 
 lilee, several fountains and rivers were, in his days, 
 annually turned into wine. " This took place," he 
 says, " with a fountain of Cibyra, a city of Caria, 
 and also with one at Gerasa in Arabia*." 
 
 Now these and such like are the tales gravely 
 related in the writings of the early Fathers as au- 
 thentic verities, and entitled to implicit belief. What 
 more, then, is needed to show, how utterly defi- 
 cient they were in all those qualities which are ne- 
 cessary to secure confidence and credit ? But it is 
 not only in traditions of the kind just mentioned — 
 in the ready and undiscerning reception which they 
 gave to all kinds of floating rumours, — that their 
 credulity and weakness are so flagrantly exhibited. 
 The same feebleness of judgement, the same un- 
 soundness of understanding, the same absence of 
 all accurate observation and just discrimination, 
 the same love of the marvellous, the same fond- 
 ness for everything fanciful and mystical, is also 
 conspicuous in their statements of doctrine and in 
 
 * Most of the instances here given are selected from the great 
 number detailed in Middleton's ' Free Inquiry into the miraculous 
 powers of the early ages.' To the general correctness of Middle- 
 ton's account Mr. Newman himself bears testimony in his Essay 
 on the same subject, lately published, p. 35. 
 
LECTURE IV. 147 
 
 their expositions of Scripture ; and yet Mr. Keble 
 says, that in the field of Christian knowledge we 
 cannot advance safely or satisfactorily without con- 
 stant appeal to tradition. He considers it not only 
 as a landmark of apostolic doctrine, but as the best 
 guide to the sense of Scripture. In illustration of 
 its value in this respect, he asks, with great sim- 
 plicity and apparently with entire gravity, "How 
 else could we know wath tolerable certainty that 
 Melchisedek's feast is a type of the blessed Eucha- 
 rist ? or that the book of Canticles (the Song of 
 Solomon) is an allegory, representing the mystical 
 union betwdxt Christ and his Church? or that 
 wisdom in the book of Proverbs is a name of the 
 second person in the most Holy Trinity*?" 
 
 If these interpretations of Scripture appeared to 
 Mr. Keble so striking and beautiful, as to be worthy 
 of being held up as specimens of the extraordinary 
 services which the Fathers have, in this way, ren- 
 dered to the cause of Christian truth, what are we 
 to think of the examples which follow f? 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, p. 36. 
 
 t One would suppose that if we could depend upon Tradition 
 for anything, it would be such things as manners, customs and 
 matters of fact. Opinions are much more liable, in the process 
 of transmission, to be misrepresented and distorted. And yet, 
 notwithstanding this very clear and, as I had imagined, admitted 
 maxim, Mr. Newman, by a perverseness which is almost inexpli-. 
 cable, maintains, " that the Catholic interpretation of certain por- 
 
 l2 
 
148 LECTURE IV. 
 
 In an Epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, the 
 scarlet thread held out by Rahab is described as a 
 sign or type of " the blood of our Lord, by which 
 there is redemption to all who trust and hope in 
 God*." 
 
 The waters that gushed from Horeb are by some 
 of the Fathers represented as an emblem of bap- 
 tism. Justin Martyr regarded almost all the rods 
 and sticks and pieces of wood mentioned in the Old 
 Testament as symbols of the cross of Christ. And 
 pursuing the same idea he says, " When the son of 
 Nun, called Jesus (Joshua), led the people on to 
 battle, Moses employed himself in prayer with his 
 hands stretched out in the form of a cross. And 
 the people did not conquer because Moses prayed, 
 but because Moses was exhibiting the figure of the 
 cross." And the passage in Is. ix. 6, " the go- 
 vernment shall be upon his shoulder," is construed 
 by him, " the power of the cross shall be upon his 
 shoulder." 
 
 Ireuceus's exposition of Scripture is much after 
 the same fashion, equally trifling, and equally con- 
 temptible. Treating of the distinction of animals 
 into clean and unclean, he says, " The Law foretold 
 
 tions of Scripture comes close upon the highest kind of Tradition ; 
 and that, on the other hand, the tradition of facts is very uncer- 
 tain, and often apocryphal." The very reverse, I should say, of 
 .the real truth. — See Lectures on Romanism, p. 305. 
 * See Tracts foy the Times, No. 87. p. 4. 
 
LECTURE IV. 149 
 
 these things figuratively, — by animals, denoting 
 men. Those who divide the hoof and chew the 
 cud it pronounces clean ; those who do neither, un- 
 clean. Who then are the clean ? Those who be- 
 lieve in the Father and the Son. This is their 
 firmness or double hoof; and to meditate day and 
 night on the laws of God, so as to be adorned with 
 good works, is to chew the cud. But the unclean 
 neither divide the hoof nor chew the cud ; that is, 
 neither have faith in God, nor meditate on his 
 laws. This is the abomination of the Gentiles." 
 
 Such is the sort of interpretation in which he in- 
 dulges and in which he is followed by many others 
 who came after him*, especially by Clement of 
 
 * For instance, these two passages from the Psalms, — " Let the 
 lifting up of my hands be as an evening sacrifice," and " I have 
 called daily upon thee ; I have stretched out my hands unto thee," 
 — are quoted by Cyprian as prophetic of our Lord's crucifixion. 
 
 The late Dr. Burton, who has written so much on the opinions 
 of the early Fathers, observes, that " Origen carried to an unwar- 
 rantable length the system of allegorizing the Scriptures. This 
 fanciful method of interpretation was not an invention of Origen, 
 nor of the Christian Fathers. They found it already carried to a 
 
 great length by the Alexandrian Jews It was laid down as a 
 
 principle with expositors of this school, that every passage of 
 Scripture contained at least three meanings : one, which was the 
 literal or historical ; another, which conveyed some moral lesson ; 
 and a third, which was still more sublime and mystical ; which, 
 under the semblance of something visible and earthly, was in- 
 tended to reveal the truths of the invisible and spiritual world." 
 — Dr. Burton s History of the Christian Church, pp. 321, 322. 
 
150 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Alexandria, who quotes this very passage. Do not 
 suppose that I have picked out the most absurd 
 and contemptible things to be found in the Fathers, 
 for I assure you there is much more of the same 
 kind, if not far worse, which has been left behind. 
 It is truly surprising that any man, with the know- 
 ledge that such things exist, can hold up the wri- 
 tings, in which they are found, as authentic depo- 
 sitories of sacred truths not revealed in the Scrip- 
 tures, or as containing the fullest development of 
 those which have been revealed. And yet this is 
 one of the points for which the Oxford divines are 
 so earnestly striving. They seem almost to regard 
 the works of the Fathers as of equal or concurrent 
 authority with the Scriptures themselves. " Do 
 they not," says Mr. Keble, "employ church tra- 
 dition as parallel to Scripture, not as derived from 
 it ? and, consequently, as fixing the interpretation 
 of disputed texts, not simply by the judgement of 
 the Church, but by authority of that holy spirit 
 which inspired the oral teaching itself, of which 
 such tradition is the record*." Now, of what tra- 
 ditions, — of what oral teaching does he here speak ? 
 Would he include any of the stories before men- 
 tioned ? Would he include that of Irenaeus, — who 
 lived so near the times of the apostles, — when he 
 said, that it was the unanimous tradition of all the 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, pp. 23, 24. 
 
LECTURE IV. 151 
 
 old men then living that Christ was not crucified 
 till he had reached the age of fifty ? Would he in- 
 clude the prediction ascribed to Christ, on the au- 
 thority of Papias, about the vine and its ten thou- 
 sand branches ? Would he include the tale that so 
 early circulated, in opposition to the account given 
 in the Acts, concerning the fate that befell the trai- 
 tor Judas ? And if we are to reject these as mere 
 idle fables, notwithstanding the positive manner in 
 which they are asserted and vouched for, and that 
 too by the earliest of the Christian Fathers, what are 
 we to receive ? How are we to distinguish the true 
 from the false, mixed up together as they are, and 
 woven into one uniform texture ? The Church, we 
 are told, is to determine this. The Church ! what 
 Church ? For there are various churches, all in- 
 scribed with the signature of apostolic descent, yet 
 each asserting the authority of traditions which the 
 other denies. By what criterion, then, are we to 
 decide upon the verity of traditions thus delivered 
 to us ? Are we to trust to our own private judge- 
 ment and make that the test of admission or re- 
 jection ? 
 
 Not so, say the Oxford divines ; "we do not even 
 claim for the Church, in its earliest and purest ages, 
 divine authority, except in its full and unexception- 
 able consent. So that there is material difference 
 between a passage in St. Irenseus, recording the 
 
152 LECTURE IV, 
 
 doctrine delivered by St. John, and a passage in 
 
 the Acts, recording a discourse of St. Peter 
 
 In the Scriptures we find the promise which gua- 
 rantees the infalhbihty of the Church* when she 
 really speaks in her complete and universal cha- 
 racterf." It is not, therefore, what Irenseus or 
 Tertullian may singly or together relate that is to 
 be regarded as divine tradition ; but it is what they 
 and all the other Christian Fathers assert in com- 
 mon. " For this consent and agreement," say the 
 Anglo-Catholics, "whensoever it is full, complete 
 and undeniable, we claim a twofold authority : af- 
 firmatively, to determine a doctrine or practice, 
 apostolical ; negatively, to exclude all doctrines or 
 practices with which it is utterly unacquainted, as 
 unapostolicalj." It is the consent of the universal 
 
 * Strange words these to come from the pen of a Protestant 
 writer, even though he be an Anglo- Catholic ! But they are not 
 peculiar to the authors of the British Critic ; Mr. Newman is also 
 familiar with them. He says, "Our reception of the Athanasian 
 Creed is another proof of our holding the infallibility of the Church, 
 
 as some of our divines express it, in matters of saving faith If 
 
 we inquire the ground of this authority in the Church, the Creed 
 answers, that she speaks merely as the organ of the Catholic 
 
 voice The Church Catholic is pronounced to have been all 
 
 along, and by implication as destined ever to be, the guardian of 
 the pure and undefiled faith, or to be indefectible in that faith." 
 And again, " The Church Catholic is unerring in its declarations 
 of faith or saving doctrine." — Newman's Romanism, pp. 234, 235, 
 259. 
 
 f British Critic, No. 50. p. 461. | Ibid. p. 456. 
 
LECTURE IV. 153 
 
 Church, and not that of any one branch or member 
 of it, which stamps upon the tradition or doctrine 
 the mark of authority, and demands an imphcit 
 acquiescence in its truth. This is, in fact, the same 
 with that celebrated rule or maxim laid down bv 
 Vincentius Lirinensis, viz. Quod semper, quod uhi- 
 que, quod ab omnibus traditum est. We are to be- 
 lieve whatever has been delivered to us always, 
 everywhere, and by all. The criterion is, Anti- 
 quity, Universality, Catholicity. 
 
 If we were to take these words literally and 
 strictly, if we were rigidly and constantly to apply 
 them as a test or measure of apostolic doctrine, 
 I do not say it would, in ev'ery instance, put us in 
 possession of Christian truth, but generally, I think, 
 it would be a sure method of ascertaining what 
 truths are of primary and paramount importance. 
 The points, in which all Christians are agreed every 
 where, now and at all times, are, I should say, the 
 only points that ought to be deemed vital and es- 
 sential. Understood in this sense, and the articles 
 necessary to constitute a Christian believer, instead 
 of being thirty-nine, would be reduced to a very 
 small number indeed. Understood in this sense, 
 and I know of no rule more valuable and important, 
 — more calculated to promote peace on earth and 
 good will among men. Understood in this sense, 
 and it is impossible that any better principle could 
 
154 LECTURE IV. 
 
 be set up around which to rally the divided and 
 scattered members of the Christian community, 
 and form them into one great comprehensive uni- 
 versal church. Understood according to the plain 
 exact meaning of the words, and they embody the 
 true Catholic spirit of genuine Christianity. 
 
 But, unhappily, this is not the way in which we 
 are commonly taught to receive them. This is not 
 the sense put upon them by the Oxford divines. 
 On the contrary, they would, if so construed, 
 spurn and condemn them as leading to the most 
 deadly and destructive heresy. 
 
 According to them, the faith of the universal 
 Church is not the faith common to all the churches 
 of Christ in all places and of all times. That to 
 which the character of antiquity, universality, ca- 
 tholicity is assigned, is not the faith by which all 
 the members of the Christian Church, " howe'er 
 divided here below," are brought under one general 
 denomination, and knit together by one common 
 bond of allegiance to the same Master. No ; they 
 hold out no such generous, enlarged views as these. 
 By the universal Church they mean the orthodox 
 episcopal Church ; by the community of Christians 
 they mean the professors of the orthodox creed. 
 If it could be shown that the Christians of the first 
 ages had been all of one mind ; if they had all 
 agreed in their statements and expositions of Chris- 
 
LECTURE IV. 155 
 
 tian doctrine, there might be some little plausibility 
 in appealing to them as "authority." But when, 
 as Chillingworth says, " there are Fathers against 
 Fathers, the same Fathers against themselves, a 
 consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of 
 Fathers of another age," — when it is notorious that 
 their writings are often so obscure as to perplex 
 the most careful and discerning reader, and that on 
 account of this obscurity their meaning is easily 
 mistaken by any one who, wishing to find his own 
 opinions supported by theirs, imagines that he has 
 found it so, — "just as he did," says Daille, " who, 
 on hearing the ringing of bells, thought they per- 
 fectly sounded out what he in his own thoughts 
 had fancied," — when it is remembered that no such 
 unanimity as that which has been ascribed to them, 
 nor anything approaching to it, existed among them, 
 there remains not the shadow of a reason for the 
 deference which we are required to pay to them, 
 and the confidence which is demanded to be placed 
 in them. 
 
 The plea of apostolic tradition is, however, no 
 new thing. It was taken up by the Fathers them- 
 selves, and used by them as an effectual weapon in 
 resisting the attacks of an adversary. In the con- 
 troversy about the time of celebrating the festival 
 of Easter, apostolic tradition was alike appealed to 
 on both sides of the question. Papias and his fol- 
 
15G LECTURE IV, 
 
 lower Irenseus were the main promoters and as- 
 serters of it. Papias says, " If at any time I met 
 with one who had conversed with the elders, I in- 
 quired after the sayings of the elders ; what Andrew 
 or what Peter said ; or what Philip, what Thomas, 
 or what James had said ; what John or Matthew, 
 or what any other disciples of the Lord were wont 
 to say, — for I was of opinion that I could not profit 
 so much by books as by the living*." Irenseus 
 uses very much the same language. It appears, 
 then, that these two early Fathers were the first 
 chief collectors of those unrecorded tales which go 
 by the name of Tradition. But it is clear, from 
 what Eusebius says of them, that their fabulous 
 character did not long remain undiscovered. He 
 informs us " that Papias was a weak man, of a 
 very shallow understanding, as it appeared from 
 his writings, and by mistaking the meaning of the 
 apostles imposed these silly traditions on Ireneeus 
 and the greatest part of the ecclesiastical writers, 
 who, reflecting on the age of the man and his near 
 approach to the apostles, were drawn by him into 
 the same opinions f." 
 
 Here, then, we have the positive unequivocal 
 assurance of an ancient writer, himself a Christian 
 Father and of as hi^-h a credit as anv one of his 
 
 * Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 107. 
 
 f Second Travels of an Irish Gentleman, vol. i. p. 231. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 157 
 
 age, that the traditions of the early Church con- 
 sisted for the most part of fabulous stories, thus 
 refuting the extravagant pretensions to authority 
 set up for them by the Oxford divines*. 
 
 But even supposing that we should allow the 
 consent of the early Church to be taken as an index 
 or a sign of Christian truth, how^ are w^e to get at 
 the knowledge of this consent? How are we to 
 ascertain what were the various opinions held by 
 the Fathers, scattered as they are among such vo- 
 luminous writings, — writings which are stated to 
 have occupied Archbishop Usher eighteen or nine- 
 teen years of his life to get through, though he read 
 a portion of them every day ? You must learn this, 
 it will be said, from the Church, that is, from the 
 clergy, the episcopal] y ordained clergy, the divinely 
 commissioned successors of the apostles. They will 
 acquaint you with the doctrines which were gene- 
 rally received, with the articles of faith which ob- 
 tained the consent of the universal Church ; that 
 is, you must trust to their representations of what 
 the Fathers say, and rely upon their judgement for 
 
 * " The matter of tradition," says Jeremy Taylor, " is in very 
 many cases so uncertain, so false, so suspicious, so contradictory, 
 so improbable, so unproved, that if a question be contested and be 
 offered to be proved only by tradition, it will be very hard to pro- 
 pose such a proposition to the belief of all men with any impe- 
 riousness or resolved determination." — Liberty of Prophesying, 
 p. 141. 8vo ed. 1817. 
 
158 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the right construction of its meaning. Tradition is 
 the true interpreter of Scripture, and they are the 
 true interpreters of Tradition. Again, you see, all 
 resolves itself into the authority of the priest. He 
 is to be the dictator of your faith. He is to an- 
 nounce to you the decisions of what he calls the 
 church, and with those decisions, as Bishop Horsley 
 once said of our laws, we have nothing to do but to 
 obey them. 
 
 After all, however, we are told that this famous 
 canon of Vincent of Lerins must not be taken in 
 the broad and literal acceptation of its meaning, 
 but must be received with many limitations and 
 qualifications before it can be used as a test of 
 sound Catholic doctrine. That, it is said, is to be 
 regarded as genuine Christian doctrine which has 
 been taught in the Church " always, everywhere, 
 and by all." By ' always,' however, we are to 
 understand the period extending from the second 
 to the end of the fourth century ; * everywhere ' 
 means among those only who are termed orthodox ; 
 and ' by all' is signified a large majority of a certain 
 class of writers denominated the Fathers. 
 
 " What is meant," says Mr. Newman, " by being 
 ' taught always ? ' Does it mean in every century, 
 or every year, or every month ? Does ' everywhere' 
 mean in every country, or in every diocese ? And 
 does ' the consent of Fathers ' require us to produce 
 
LECTURE IV. 159 
 
 the direct testimony of every one of them ? How 
 many Fathers, how many places, liow many in- 
 stances constitute a fulfillment of the test proposed ? 
 It is, then, from the nature of the case, a condition 
 which never can be satisfied as fully as it might 
 have been." 
 
 " If the age of true Catholicism be extended as 
 far as the end of the fourth century, little would be 
 gained by the addition of the fifth or sixth. If the 
 voluminous remains of that era will not afford a 
 standard of Catholic doctrine, there seems little 
 profit to be gained from antiquity at all*." 
 
 We are also reminded by another of the same 
 school with Newman, that if the Fathers appear to 
 disagree, it may have arisen from the reverential 
 reserve which they practised in every part of reli- 
 gion in proportion to its sacredness. " If we would 
 deal fairly with the subject, we must make allowance 
 for this reserve. Knowing for certain that it did 
 exist, we are bound to take it into the account, and 
 often to give those who wrote under its influence 
 credit for a more thorough agreement in high and 
 mysterious doctrines than their words at first sight 
 would otherwise appear to express f." 
 
 But even with these explanations and restric- 
 tions, taking the rule to mean a general agreement 
 
 * Romanism, pp. 68, 252, 253. 
 
 t Tracts for the Times, No. 89. p. 13. 
 
160 LECTURE IV, 
 
 among the Fathers, and not a universal one ; ap- 
 propriating the word "all" to the orthodox party 
 alone, and " always" to the period lying somewhere 
 between the second century and the beginning of 
 the fifth ; it is still inadmissible as a test of Chris- 
 tian doctrine, and fails moreover in fulfilling the 
 purpose for which it is so often referred to. 
 
 Before proceeding with the examination of the 
 rule in question in its modified shape, one prehmi- 
 nary explanation seems to be necessary. When 
 the concurrent voice of the early Fathers is spoken 
 of as evidence of the apostolic character of an in- 
 stitution or a doctrine, w^e must put out of view all 
 such plain facts and doctrines as the Messiahship 
 of our Lord, his crucifixion, resurrection and as- 
 cension. As these are nowhere denied by any one 
 bearing the Christian name, — as all who profess to 
 beheve in Christ admit them as undoubted and un- 
 questionable truths, — as they belong to the com- 
 mon faith of the orthodox and the heterodox, they 
 are not the points for which Tradition or Catholic 
 consent is often, if ever, alleged. They lie plainly 
 and openly before us in the New Testament ; there 
 every one who has eyes to see must see them. No 
 veil of mystery or reserve is drawn over them. 
 " Like stars they shine aloft for all." The way- 
 faring man, though a fool, cannot help perceiving 
 them. It is not for these, therefore, that the test 
 
LECTURE IV. 161 
 
 of Vincent is so ostentatiously put forward. They 
 need it not. It is for those doctrines and practices 
 styled orthodox, which formed part of the creed 
 and institute of the orthodox churches, that the 
 general consent of the Fathers is so often and so 
 much insisted on. Thus Mr. Keble savs, " Not a 
 few fragments yet remain, very precious and sacred 
 fragments, of the unwritten teaching of the first age 
 of the Church. The paramount authority, for ex- 
 ample, of the successors of the apostles in church 
 government ; the threefold order established from 
 the beginning ; the virtue of the blessed Eucharist 
 as a commemorative sacrifice ; infant baptism ; and 
 above all the Catholic doctrine of the most Holy 
 Trinity, as contained in the Nicene Creed : all 
 these, however surely confirmed from Scripture, 
 are yet ascertainable parts of the primitive unwrit- 
 ten system, of which we yet enjoy the benefit. If 
 any one ask how we ascertain them, we answer, by 
 application of the well-known rule. Quod semper, 
 quod ubique, quod ab omnibus*.'" And further on 
 he writes in the same strain : " The points of Ca- 
 tholic tradition are these ; the canon of Scripture, 
 the full doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, 
 the oblation and consecration of the Eucharist, the 
 Apostolical Succession! ." 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, p. 32. f Ibid. p. 41. 
 
 M 
 
162 LECTURE IV. 
 
 So, too, Mr. Newman. He asserts " that the 
 unanimous tradition of the early Church authorizes 
 us to maintain and enforce the doctrine that Christ 
 is the Son of God, in the sense of his being con- 
 substantial with him*." 
 
 It thus appears that among the doctrines which 
 are stated by the Oxford divines to have obtained 
 the almost unanimous concurrence of the early 
 Fathers, that of the Trinity, according to its most 
 orthodox acceptation, and that of the Apostolic 
 Succession, stand forth as the most prominent. 
 It is maintained that the seal of Catholic consent, 
 — the consent of the universal Church down to the 
 Council of Nice, — is affixed to the full doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and the consubstantiality of the Son 
 with the Father. This is asserted, and this asser- 
 tion I take leave to deny. I deny that it is ac- 
 cordant with the facts related in authentic eccle- 
 siastical history. I not only deny its correctness, 
 but I cannot make this denial without at the same 
 time expressing my utmost astonishment at the 
 boldness and hardihood of those who have ventured 
 upon the assertion. Let anyone carefully and im- 
 partially examine the matter for himself, and he 
 will find that on this very cardinal point, so far 
 from there being a general agreement among the 
 
 * Newman's Romanism, p. 136. 
 
LECTURE IV. 163 
 
 primitive Christians, as is confidently asserted, — 
 so far from its being an occasion on which the 
 Church universal gave utterance only to one har- 
 monious note, a thousand discordant voices were 
 to be heard in it, and nothing like unison or con- 
 cord anywhere prevailed. It is well know^n that 
 one large body of Christians, those of the Jewish 
 believers, did not hold the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 or the Deity of Christ, in any shape. It is equally 
 certain that many of the most distinguished of those 
 called the Fathers held only a very modified and 
 what would now be considered an heretical form 
 of the doctrine. And of the common people, the 
 great mass of Christian believers, the majority, ac- 
 cording to Tertullian, not only rejected, but were 
 frightened at the doctrine of the Trinity. Upon 
 each of these three statements I shall here offer a 
 few remarks. 
 
 1. The Jewish Christians, in the second century, 
 were divided into two bodies, respectively known 
 by the terms Ebionites and Nazarenes, A question 
 has arisen whether they were not, in fact, the same 
 people, differing only on one or two subordinate 
 points of belief. Be this question determined as it 
 may, — whether their general identity be established 
 or not, — there can be no doubt that both Ebionites 
 and Nazarenes denied the doctrine of Christ's su- 
 preme divinity. Origen states positively that all 
 
 M 2 
 
164 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the Jewish Christians rejected it, and in this he is 
 joined by Epiphanius, Eusebius and others*. 
 
 2. As to the strict orthodoxy of the Ante-Nicene 
 Fathers I will only observe here, that not only by 
 Unitarians (their judgement in such a case might 
 be supposed to be a partial one, and strongly biassed 
 by their opinions) — not only by Unitarians has the 
 contrary been maintained, but by many learned men 
 belonging both to the Romish and English as well 
 as to foreign Protestant churches. Petavius and 
 Huetius among the first, and Cudworth and Whitby 
 among the second (all men of great learning, and 
 who had made the opinions of the Fathers their 
 particular care and study), contend that the doc- 
 trine of Christ's divinity, as generally held in the 
 second and third centuries, was not the same with 
 that which was determined on by the Council of 
 
 Nice. 
 
 Sanxiius, says the author of ' Ben Mordecai's 
 Apology,' undertakes to prove in his ' Ecclesiastical 
 
 * Gibbon thus speaks of these two bodies of Jewish Christians : 
 " A laudable regard for the honour of the first proselytes has 
 countenanced the belief, the hope, the wish that the Ebionites, 
 or at least the Nazarenes, were distinguished only by their obsti- 
 nate perseverance in the practice of the Mosaic rites But the 
 
 most charitable criticism must refuse these sectaries any know- 
 ledge of the pure and proper divinity of Christ." — Roman Empire, 
 vol. vi. p. 3. See also Lardner — Priestley's JEarly Opinions, and 
 the Controversy between Priestley and Horsley^ 
 
LECTURE IV. 165 
 
 History' that all antiquity was Arian ; and M. Ju- 
 rieu, a French reformer and strongly attached to 
 orthodox views of the Trinity, allov*'s that the infe- 
 riority of the Son to the Father was the unanimous 
 opinion of the ancients of the three first ages*. 
 
 Mosheira also says " that the public teachers (in 
 the early period of Christianity of which we are now 
 speaking) inculcated no other doctrines than those 
 that are contained in w^hat is commonly called the 
 Apostles' Creed ; and, in the method of illustrating 
 them, all vain subtilties, all mysterious researches, 
 everything that was beyond the reach of common 
 capacities, were carefully avoided f." 
 
 Mr. Hallam, who on such a subject may be sup- 
 posed to speak without any professional or sectarian 
 bias, and to give his opinion in accordance with the 
 demands of strict historic truth, thus expresses him- 
 self in reference to Bishop Bull's ' Defence of the 
 Nicene Faith': "Notwithstanding the popularity of 
 
 * Ben Mordecai's Apology, vol. i. p. 46. Moses Stuart also 
 an orthodox American divine, of great reputation in his own 
 country and of considerable popularity in this, tells us, in an 
 article on Schleiermacher in the Biblical Repositor}- for April and 
 July 1825, that the views of the early Fathers " do really and 
 effectually interfere with the true equality in substance, power, 
 and glory of the three persons or distinctions in the Godhead. 
 The Son and Spirit, according to them, are derived beings, and. 
 derivation implies inferiority." 
 
 t Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 164; 
 
106 LECTURE IV. 
 
 this work and the learning it displays, the author 
 was far from ending the controversy, or from satis- 
 fying all his readers. It was alleged that he does 
 not meet the question with which he deals ; that 
 the word oj^ioavaioc, {homoousios), being almost new 
 at the time of the Council, and being obscure and 
 metaphysical in itself, required a precise definition 
 to make the reader see his way before him, or at 
 least one better than Bull has given ; that the pas- 
 sages adduced from the Fathers are often insufficient 
 for his purpose ; that he confounds the eternal es- 
 sence with the eternal personality of the Logos ; 
 and that he does not repel some of the passages 
 which can hardly bear an orthodox interpreta- 
 tion*." 
 
 " Of the Fathers," observes Dr. Arnold, " how 
 are we to know who were sound ? Origen, one of 
 the ablest and most learned of them all, was anathe- 
 matized by the second council of Constantinople ; 
 TertuUian was heretical during a part of his life ; 
 and Lactantius was taxed with heterodoxyf." 
 
 This want of agreement among the Fathers would 
 
 * Hallam's Literature of Europe, vol. iv. p. 152. Bull's ' De- 
 fensio Fidei Nicense ' received a very masterly and, as many think, 
 a complete answer in Whitby's ' Disquisitiones Modestse.' For 
 a fuller statement of the opinions of the early Fathers on the sub- 
 ject of Christ's divinity, showing that they were not what is called 
 orthodox, see Appendix. 
 
 -|- Sermons on Christian Life, p. 472. 
 
LECTURE IV. 167 
 
 have appeared still more striking and palpable, it" 
 those of them, called heretics, had been also de- 
 signated by this term, — as they have as good a right 
 to be as the orthodox, — and if their works had been 
 suffered to come down to us. But as soon as the 
 orthodox party became the dominant party, they or- 
 dered the books of the heretics to be burnt, and none 
 of them therefore now remain. "No fact in history," 
 says the author of * Second Travels of an Irish Gen- 
 tleman,' " is better established than the regular and 
 merciless destruction of every work which opposed 
 the orthodox party. Punishment of death was de- 
 nounced against every person in whose possession 
 heretical books should be found. . . . The orthodox 
 by law allowed no works to exist but those which 
 coincided at least in some degree with their creed ; 
 certainly none that contradicted it. This is the 
 process which has produced the Fathers*." 
 
 I have in a former lecture noticed the remark- 
 able admission made by the modern high-church 
 divines, that several of the orthodox doctrines, such 
 as those of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, are 
 not plainly taught in the Scriptures. But it was 
 said, that though not explicitly taught there, they 
 were clearly announced to us by Tradition, — were 
 
 * Second Travels of an Irish Gentleman, pp. 114, 115. See 
 also Lardner's Works, vol. iv. pp. 191, 396, and Milman's History 
 of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 444. 
 
168 LECTURE IV. 
 
 fully and completely exhibited and developed in the 
 writings of the early Fathers. After this my sur- 
 prise was not a little to find it stated by one of their 
 own party and under their own sanction, " that the 
 early Church did herself conceal these same church 
 doctrines. Viewing that early period as a whole, 
 there is on the whole a great secrecy observed in 
 it concerning such doctrines as the Trinity and the 
 Eucharist ; that is, the early Church did the very 
 thing which I have been supposing Scripture does, 
 — conceal these high truths*." 
 
 After all that has been so boastingly said of the 
 testimony borne by Tradition, — by the general con- 
 sent of the Fathers and the early Church to ortho- 
 dox doctrines, this is assuredly a most singular 
 confession. But the design is too apparent to 
 escape detection. Show that the Scriptures and 
 the Fathers are full of mysterious and recondite 
 meanings, that they do not say what on the surface 
 they appear to say, that they are both characterized 
 by a system of concealment and reserve, and what 
 follows ? Why, that their interpretation must be 
 left in the hands of a privileged class. There must 
 be oracles to consult before their meaning can be 
 made known to the people ; and through whom 
 but the order of the priesthood can the oracular 
 voice or judgement be delivered? They alone have 
 
 * Tracts for the Times, No. 85. p. 68. 
 
LECTURE IV. 169 
 
 access to the inner shrine. They alone can draw 
 aside the mystic veil that covers it. They alone 
 can make its light and its glory completely visible. 
 Whether this be their meaning or not, the confes- 
 sion which they have made remains the same. 
 They have acknowledged that among the doctrines 
 which not only the Scriptures but the primitive 
 Church, the early Fathers, have concealed, the 
 doctrine of the Trinity is one. For this acknow- 
 ledgement I was not prepared. It is a species of 
 testimony to the fact for which I am now pleading 
 that I confess I did not expect. 
 
 3. Having made these observations on the faith 
 of the Jewish Christians and the state of opinion 
 among the early Fathers, I shall now say a few 
 words respecting the sentiments of the great body 
 of the first Christians generally. That they were 
 not believers in the doctrine of the Trinity, as now 
 received, appears from the testimony, the indirect 
 and incidental, but still clear and explicit testimony 
 of Tertulhan, Origen, and Athanasius himself. 
 
 Tertullian, who flourished about the year 200, 
 thus writes : "Simple persons indeed, not to call 
 them ignorant and idiots, who always make the 
 majority of believ'^ers, because the rule of faith itself 
 carries us away from the many gods of the heathen 
 to the one true God, — not understanding that one 
 God is indeed to be believed, but with an economy 
 
170 LECTURE IV. 
 
 (or arrangement) of the Godhead, startle at the eco- 
 nomy. They take it for granted that the number 
 and disposition of the Trinity is a division of the 
 Unity. They pretend that two and even three are 
 preached by us, and imagine that they themselves 
 are worshippers of one God. We, say they, hold 
 the monarchy. Latins have caught up the word 
 monarchia. Greeks will not understand cecono- 
 mia *." 
 
 This language is plain and decisive enough. 
 Here is no ambiguity, no uncertainty. Tertullian 
 (the most celebrated, perhaps, of the Latin Fathers) 
 declares expressly and positively that the majority 
 of believers in his time were frightened at the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, contending that the Tri- 
 nitarians were worshippers of two and even three 
 
 * I have given the translation of Dr. Horsley (Tracts, p. 195) 
 as being the least liable to the charge of a too favourable con- 
 struction. With the exception of rendering the word idiotcB idiots, 
 I make no objection to it. But this is a translation of which a 
 school-boy would have been ashamed. After receiving a severe 
 castigation for it from Dr. Priestley, he explained himself (in his 
 Supplemental Disquisitions) by saying, that he did not mean, 
 by the word idiot, a person deficient in the faculty of reason, but 
 a dull, stupid, ignorant person. The present Bishop of Lincoln 
 (Dr. Kaye) gives this as the sense of the passage to which we 
 are now referring : " The simple, indeed, not to call them unwise 
 and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, 
 are startled at the doctrine of the Trinity, thinking that it divides 
 the Unity." — Ecclesiastical History illustrated from the Writings 
 of Tertullian, p. 531. 
 
LECTURE IV. 171 
 
 Gods, but that they were worshippers of one God 
 only. 
 
 Dr. Horsley attempts to weaken or evade this 
 strong testimony in a manner so extraordinary, 
 that one can hardly beheve him to have been in 
 earnest. He says, " to preclude the plea of num- 
 bers, Tertullian remarks that the illiterate will 
 always make the majority of believers*'." But 
 because the illiterate constitute the majority of be- 
 lievers, how does that preclude the plea of num- 
 bers '? The majority are the majority still, be they 
 composed of the learned or the unlearned. The 
 judgement of one enlightened man may be w^orth 
 more than that of a hundred who are unenHght- 
 ened, but this will not lessen the amount of the 
 actual number that are before us. In this country, 
 for instance, the majority of Christians are sup- 
 posed to be Trinitarians ; and the majority here, as 
 elsewhere, comprise the simple and unlearned ; but 
 would anyone say that the majority, being ignorant 
 or illiterate, are therefore not the majority? The 
 question is not as to their learning or their igno- 
 rance — the worth or worthlessness of their judge- 
 ment, but whether Tertullian does not explicitly 
 state that in his time the objectors to the doctrine 
 of the Trinity constituted the majority of believers? 
 That he does so is as plain as language can make it. 
 
 * Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. 196. ed. 1812. 
 
172 • LECTURE IV. 
 
 " There are," writes Origen, "those who par- 
 take of the logos w^iich was from the beginning ; 
 the logos that was wdth God and the logos that 
 was God. But there are others who know nothing 
 but Jesus Christ and him crucified, the logos that 
 was made flesh, thinking that they have everything 
 of the logos when they acknowledge Christ ac- 
 cording to the flesh. Such is the multitude of those 
 who are called Christians." The same opinion is 
 again expressed by him in another place : — " The 
 multitudes of believers are instructed in the shadow^ 
 of the logos, and not in the true logos of God*." 
 
 The two parties of Christians to whom Origen 
 here refers must have been the receivers and re- 
 jecters of the doctrine of the Trinity. There were 
 some, he says, who admitted this doctrine, and 
 others who did not admit it. They knew Christ 
 only according to the flesh ; probably meaning by 
 this, that they believed him to be, as to nature, 
 simply a human being. Of these, he adds, are the 
 multitude (irXriOoc) of those called Christians. 
 
 There are passages in the writings of Jerome, 
 Athanasius and others, implying the same thing. 
 But I shall cite only that from Athanasius, which 
 I the more readily do, because, perhaps, it was 
 little to be expected that from such a quarter 
 any evidence could be gathered in favour of the 
 
 * Priestley's Early Opinions, vol. iii. pp. 263, 264. 
 
LECTURE IV. 1 73 
 
 Unitariaiiism of the great body of the early Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 Writing against the opinions of Paul of Samo- 
 sata (the learned Unitarian bishop of Antioch in 
 the third century), Athanasius says, " It grieves 
 those who stand up for the holy faith that the mul- 
 titude (the many, tovc ttoWovq), and especially per- 
 sons of low understanding, should be infected with 
 those blasphemies*." And he complains in an- 
 other place that in Pentapolis of Upper Libya some 
 of the bishops embraced the doctrine of SabeUius, 
 and prevailed so much that the Son of God was 
 hardly preached in the churches. 
 
 That the great body of the early Christians were 
 opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity appears to 
 me to be established by evidence of the most unex- 
 ceptionable kind, viz. the testimony of those who 
 lament and complain of the fact, and so let out, as 
 it were, incidentally the secret which might other- 
 wise have remained unknown. According to Ter- 
 tuUian the Unitarians were the majority of believers, 
 'major pars credentium.' According to Origen they 
 were the multitude, ' wXriOoc' ; and according to 
 Athanasius they were the ' ol ttoXAoJ,' the manv. 
 
 Should it be asked why, in discoursing on Tra- 
 dition, so much is said about the opinions of the 
 first Christians, and of the early Fathers in relation 
 
 * Priestley's Early Opinions, vol. iii. p. 269. 
 
174 LECTURE IV. 
 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity, my answer is, be- 
 cause this particular doctrine is selected and point- 
 ed out as pre-eminently the doctrine of Tradition. 
 Here, it is said, we have a striking instance of the 
 value and importance of Vincent's rule, Quod sem- 
 per, quod ubique, quod ah omnibus. The conditions, 
 required by this rule, of Antiquity, Universality, 
 Catholicity, are amply fulfilled in the doctrine of 
 the Trinity. It was taught always, everywhere, and 
 by all. To this I say, no — it was not the faith of 
 the Jewish Christians. It was not, in the strict 
 orthodox sense, the faith of the Ante-Nicene Fa- 
 thers. It was not the faith of the great body of the 
 Gentile believers. For so saying I have given my 
 reasons, and hence the foregoing observations on 
 the state of opinion in the first ages. Allow as 
 much latitude as can be allowed to the terms in 
 which the above-mentioned rule is expressed, it 
 still utterly fails in its application to the doctrine 
 in question*. I will now mention one other in- 
 
 * It is sometimes argued in favour of the universal reception 
 in the first ages of the doctrine of the Trinity, or at least of the 
 proper Deity of Christ, that, in the discussions which took place 
 on this subject, the orthodox alleged for it the authority of apo- 
 stolical tradition. Undoubtedly they did ; but did not the hete- 
 rodox party do the same } Certainly they did. We have then 
 tradition opposed to tradition ; and if the works of the heretical 
 Fathers had been spared — if they had not, when their opponents 
 became armed with political power, been ruthlessly destroyed, 
 it might have been seen perhaps tliat they had better grounds 
 
LECTURE IV. 175 
 
 stance in which its failure is equally signal and 
 complete. 
 
 That Episcopacy (as now understood) is a divine 
 institution, and episcopal ordination a necessary 
 channel for the conveyance of divine grace, is of the 
 very essence of the Anglo-Catholic system. For 
 this also the authority of Tradition is strongly in- 
 sisted on. The consent of the universal Church is 
 here said to be expressed clearly and unequivocally. 
 Episcopacy bears upon it, most conspicuously, this 
 mark or designation of its divine character. So we 
 are told ; but a little examination with our own 
 eyes shows us that there is no truth in this asser- 
 tion, — that Tradition itself tells a different tale, — 
 and that so far from the Church, that is, the great 
 body of professing Christians being unanimous in 
 
 for their tradition than the orthodox for theirs. Jeremy Taylor 
 tells us, " that this pretence, viz. that of tradition, the Arians 
 themselves made, and desired to be tried by the Fathers of 
 the first three hundred years, but that this trial was sometime 
 declined by that excellent man St. Athanasius, although at other 
 
 times confidently and truly pretended The heretic Artemon 
 
 (he was a Unitarian of the second century) having observed the 
 advantage that might be taken by any sect that would pretend 
 tradition, — because the medium was plausible and consisting of 
 so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued, — jjretended 
 a tradition from the apostles that Christ was \Il\6s avdpioTos 
 (simply a man), and that the tradition did descend by a constant 
 succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victor's time, and till 
 Zephyrinus corrupted the doctrine." — Liberty of Prophesying, 
 pp. 118, 119. See also Larrfrter. 
 
176 LECTURE IV. 
 
 its favour, several of the most eminent of the early 
 Christian writers declare (as I have stated in a for- 
 mer lecture) that Bishop and Presbyter were origi- 
 nally the same, that for some time afterw^ards the 
 bishop was merely the presiding presbyter, and that 
 ordination by presbyters was reckoned a perfectly 
 good and valid ordination. 
 
 Now here are two of the leading doctrines of the 
 orthodox system, resting mainly, it is said, on the 
 authority of tradition, the consent of the universal 
 Church, which, when we come to investigate the 
 matter, is found to have no such support to sustain 
 them. Tradition does not say that either the one 
 or the other, — that either the doctrine of Episco- 
 pacy as now held, or that of the Trinity, was uni- 
 versally received, or that the Church of Christ spoke 
 only one voice upon the subject. This test there- 
 fore fails in the especial instances for which its uti- 
 lity and sufficiency are so greatly extolled. 
 
 But this is not all. There is yet another and 
 stronger objection to be advanced against it — 
 against the application made of it by the Oxford 
 divines. For tradition not only gives them no help 
 where help is most needed, but, in many instances 
 where its assistance might be obtained, and where 
 it would be found to be most availing, there — -for 
 the present at least — it is by them neglected and 
 abandoned. 
 
LECTURE IV. 177 
 
 These men of the Oxford school perfectly amaze 
 one by their extravagant assumptions and egregious 
 inconsistencies. They take of Tradition just what 
 they please, and leave what they please. The con- 
 sent of the universal Church, they tell us, is a good 
 plea for the doctrine of the Trinity (though, in fact, 
 no such consent ivas given), but the consent of the 
 primitive Church is no sufficient authority for the 
 celibacy of the clergy*, the monastic institute or 
 the popular election of bishops. 
 
 Among the earliest and best authenticated tradi- 
 tions which have been transmitted to us, may be 
 mentioned that of the Millenium f, of demonology, 
 the lengthened age of Christ, and the sanctity of a 
 solitary and ascetic life. As to demonology, the early 
 Church was full of it. Every child was thought to 
 be possessed by an evil spirit before it was baptized, 
 
 * I am happy to find myself supported in this course of argu- 
 ment by Mr. Hallam, who observes, " that nothing can come so 
 close to the foolish rule above mentioned (that of Vincent) as the 
 observation of celibacy by bishops and priests, not being married 
 before their ordination, which, till the time of Luther, was, as far 
 
 as we have reason to believe, universal in the Church Yet those 
 
 who talk most of the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, set aside with- 
 out compunction the only case in which we can truly say that it 
 may with some share of probability be applied." — Literature of 
 Europe, vol. iii. p. 76, note. 
 
 t This doctrine is expressly taught by Papias, Justin Martyr, 
 Irenseus, Origen, Lactantius and others. Justin Martyr asserts 
 in his dialogue with Trypho, that it was the belief of all orthodox 
 Christians . 
 
 N 
 
178 LECTURE IV. 
 
 and it was decreed therefore that exorcism should 
 precede baptism. If then the unanimity or the 
 general agreement of the early Fathers is to be 
 alleged in prool' of the truth of any opinion or doc- 
 trine, it would follow, that all those monstrous 
 doctrines or practices just spoken of are to be re- 
 ceived as true and obligatory, since it may be shown 
 that on no other points was there so great a con- 
 currence of sentiment among them, or so general 
 a consent of the whole Church, as on these. But 
 why, if Tradition holds good in one case, why 
 should it not in the other? That, of two doc- 
 trines or ceremonies standing precisely on the same 
 ground, we should be at liberty to admit one and 
 reject the other, is, I confess, a proceeding the jus- 
 tice and propriety of which my intellectual optics 
 are not keen enough to discern. We have now 
 seen then what may be gained from Tradition — as 
 far as it can be collected out of the writings of the 
 Fathers,- — how little there is that can be depended 
 upon, and how much that is inconsistent and dis- 
 cordant. Well might Jortin say that Antiquity, 
 sometimes called the handmaid to Scripture, is 
 like Briareus and has a hundred hands, and these 
 hands often clash and beat one another*. 
 
 From the Fathers I pass on to say a few words on 
 the assemblies, called Councils. Does the voice of 
 
 * Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 75, ed. 1805. 
 
LECTURE IV. 179 
 
 the Church speak more harmoniously through them? 
 Are theythe sure organs of delivering tous those doc- 
 trines only which have received the stamp of Catho- 
 lic or universal consent ? Are their decisions and 
 decrees authoritative and infallible ? So, it seems, 
 some high-church divines would have us believe. But 
 why? What is to guarantee their infallibility? Is 
 truth to be determined by numbers, by the votes of 
 a majority, even though it be composed of bishops ? 
 " It was never heard of in any profession," says 
 John Hales of Eton, " that conclusion of truth went 
 by plurality of voices, the Christian profession alone 
 excepted ; and I have often mused how it came to 
 pass that the way, which, in all other sciences is not 
 able to warrant the poorest conclusion, should be 
 thought sufficient to give authority in divinity." 
 But we need not dwell on such general views as 
 these, for the same argument that has been urged 
 against the authority of the Fathers may be directed 
 with equal force and effect against the authority of 
 Councils. In this case, as in that, Chillingworth's 
 objection is perfectly valid. As there are Fathers 
 against Fathers, so there are Councils against 
 Councils. 
 
 To give even a brief account of the different 
 Councils that were called together in the first four 
 or five centuries, — to show how the decisions of one 
 were opposed to those of another, — how, what to- 
 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 day was decreed to be orthodox, was to-morrow 
 decreed to be heterodox, — to put you in possessinn 
 of all the disgusting details attendant upon these 
 meetings, would far exceed the limits within which 
 I must necessarily confine myself. My purpose, 
 however, will be sufficiently answered by a few 
 observations on what is called the first general or 
 oecumenical council, viz. that of Nice, and one or 
 two others that were held soon afterwards. 
 
 Various opinions are entertained among high- 
 church divines as to what councils, and how many, 
 should be accounted general, and received as au- 
 thoritative expositors of the Catholic faith. Some 
 are for the first six — others for no more than the 
 first four* ; but all seem to be agreed as to the 
 pre-eminence and authority of the Council of Nice. 
 Though there had been many councils assembled 
 before, this is considered to have been the first that 
 is entitled to the appellation of ' general or oecume- 
 nical.' As the Christian community had been for 
 some time agitated with fierce and incessant dis- 
 putes about the nature of Christ, a synod of bishops 
 was summoned to meet at Nice in the year 325, by 
 command of the Emperor Constantine, for the pur- 
 pose, if possible, of terminating the Arian con- 
 troversy. 
 
 At this celebrated council, where about three 
 
 * The Roman Catholics reckon as many as eighteen. 
 
LECTURE IV. 181 
 
 hundred bishops were come together, Arius was 
 condemned and sentenced to banishment ; his doc- 
 trines were pronounced to be heretical ; Christ was 
 declared to be of the same substance (homoousios) 
 with the Father, and the Creed, well known by the 
 name of the Nicene Creed, was then affirmed to be 
 the faith of the Church. Of this creed, Mr. Pal- 
 mer says, that "it is to be accounted an irrefra- 
 gable, unalterable rule, which cannot be disputed 
 without heresy, and for which, as the Egyptian 
 synod wrote, ' we should be ready even to lay down 
 our lives*.' " Respecting this and other so-called 
 general councils, I must here observe that there 
 probably never was assembled a general council in 
 the strict and proper meaning of the word. They 
 were, for the most part, called together under the 
 influence of emperors or popes, and confined to 
 the Roman empire. Certainly this noted Council 
 of Nice has no particular claim to the denomina- 
 tion of a general council. It was in fact a council 
 of the Oriental Church alone, the Spanish Bishop 
 Hosius and two Roman presbyters being the only 
 ecclesiastics from the West by whom it was at- 
 tended!. 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 132. 
 
 t Riddle's Antiquities of the Christian Church, p. 227. While 
 this sheet is passing through the press I have received from my 
 excellent friend the Rev. G. E. Ellis of Charlestown, near Boston, 
 a valuable sermon entitled ' the Bible or the Church,' in which I 
 find the following passage, showing, by a few clear and emphatic 
 
182 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Of the bishops who composed this council and 
 of their general character and conduct, it may be 
 well for us to observe what is said by various com- 
 petent judges. " Sabinus, bishop of Heraclea in 
 Thrace, in his ' Collectio Conciliorum,' writes that 
 the bishops who met together at Nice and formed 
 the Creed were imperiti, rudes, inscii, indocti, om- 
 niumque rerum ignari, — without skill, or experience, 
 or knowledge, or learning, and ignorant of all things. 
 Petavius calls them rude and illiterate. Arch- 
 bishop Wake speaks of the violence, the passion, 
 the malice, the falsehood, the oppression, which 
 reigned in most of the synods held by Constantine 
 the First, and after him by the following emperors, 
 on occasion of the Arian controversy. And Sir 
 Isaac Newton observes, that as soon as the empire 
 became Christian, the Roman emperors began to 
 call general councils out of the provinces ; and by 
 prescribing to them what points they should con- 
 sider, and influencing them by their interest and 
 power, they set up what party they pleased*." 
 
 statements, how little pretension the Council of Nice has to the 
 title 'general': — "The habitable part of Africa, then crowded 
 and as large as the whole of Asia Minor, and which, says Bing- 
 ham (the great episcopal annalist), had at that time nearly seven 
 hundred bishops, sent only one to the council. All Spain sent 
 but one. AH Gaul or France sent but one. Rome had not even 
 one." And yet, as if in defiance of common sense and the com- 
 mon meaning of the simplest words, it is contended that the 
 Council of Nice was still a general council. 
 
 * Ben Mordecai's Apology, vol. ii. p. 1024—1026. 
 
LECTURE IV. 183 
 
 But did the decrees of this council restore peace 
 to the Church and estabUsh uniformity of belief? 
 Nothing like it. The Church continued as much 
 divided as ever, and the Arian controversy, in- 
 stead of being laid to rest, was roused into stronger 
 and fiercer activity than before. Sometimes one 
 party prevailed, sometimes another. Council was 
 arrayed against council, and anathema was hurled 
 against anathema. All was discord and confusion. 
 "The East and the West," said Hilary (who lived 
 in the middle of the fourth century), " are in a 
 perpetual state of restlessness and disturbance. 
 Deserting our spiritual charges ; abandoning the 
 people of God ; neglecting the preaching of the 
 Gospel ; we are hurried about from place to place, 
 sometimes to great distances, some of us infirm 
 with age, with feeble constitutions or ill-health, and 
 are sometimes obliged to leave our sick brethren on 
 the road*." 
 
 It was only ten years after the Council of Nice 
 that a council was held at Tyre, where Athanasius 
 appeared at the head of forty Egyptian bishops. 
 But notwithstanding that he came attended by so 
 many followers, he was treated as a criminal and 
 sentence of deposition was pronounced against him. 
 At the expiration of another ten years the Council 
 of Sardica met, consisting of ninety-four bishops of 
 
 * Milman's History of Christianity, vol. iii. p. 45. 
 
184 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the West, and seventy-six of the East. These two 
 parties, not agreeing, separated and formed two 
 rival synods, who, as Gibbon remarks, hereupon 
 hurled their spiritual thunders against their ene- 
 mies. A few years further on two more councils 
 decided in favour of Arianism, or Semi-Arianism, 
 viz. one at Antioch and the other at Ariminum 
 (Rimini). At the last of these no fewer than four 
 hundred bishops were present, — some say six hun- 
 dred, — and if numbers can entitle a council to be 
 called ' general,' this was undoubtedly more of a 
 general council than that which assembled at Nice. 
 As Bishop Jeremy Taylor observes, " The Arian 
 councils were convened by that authority which all 
 the world knows did at that time convocate coun- 
 cils, and by which (as is notorious) the first eight 
 generals did meet ; that is, by the authority of the 
 Emperor all were called, and as many or more did 
 come to them than came to the most famous 
 Council of Nice*." Bellarmine also admits that 
 the council at Ariminum was a general council. 
 Many others, besides those which I have men- 
 tioned, were held in the course of the fourth cen- 
 tury, — some deciding for the orthodox party, and 
 some for the heterodox, — but giving, with close 
 approximation to the truth, as the total result, 
 about forty councils, of which more than one-half 
 
 * Liberty of Prophesying, p. 151. 
 
LECTURE IV. 185 
 
 "were in favour of Arian or Semi-Arian opinions. 
 Then, says Vincentius Lirinensis, the poison of 
 Arianism defiled not only a small part, but ahnost 
 all the whole world. And Austin likewise declares 
 that the professors of error surpassed the numbers 
 of the professors of the truth as the sands of the 
 sea do the stars of heaven*. 
 
 And yet we are told that what is called the or- 
 thodox doctrine of the Trinity obtained the general 
 consent of the Church, — was the doctrine always, 
 everywhere, and by all received, — that from the first 
 it bore the inscription of Antiquity, Universality, 
 Catholicityf! Alas! where will prejudice carry us, 
 and to what extent will it blind us ? 
 
 From the representations of Dr. Pusey, Mr. New- 
 man, Mr. Palmer, and other divines of the same 
 school, you would be led to suppose that down to 
 the Nicene age there reigned in the Church nothing 
 but peace and harmony, there being little or no 
 discordance as to doctrine, and little or no cor- 
 ruption in practice. Very different, however, from 
 
 * Ben Mordecai's Apology, vol. ii. p. 1007. 
 
 t " It is a very great mercy," says one of the Tractarians, 
 " that the Church Catholic over the world, as descended from the 
 apostles, does at this day speak one and the same doctrine about 
 
 the Trinity and Incarnation as it has always spoken This 
 
 majestic evidence, however, does not extend to any but to the 
 articles of the Creed, especially those relating to the Trinity and 
 Incarnation." — Tract 71. p. 28. 
 
186 LECTURE IV. 
 
 this is the real state of the case, as you will see 
 from the facts which I shall now place before you. 
 Dr. Middleton has observed that learned men have 
 reckoned about ninety different heresies which all 
 sprang up within the first three centuries. " Who 
 knows not," says Bishop Jewel, "what a number 
 of heresies arose when the Gospel was first propa- 
 gated in the world in the times of the very apostles ? 
 Who, before those times, ever heard of Simon Ma- 
 gus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, 
 Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Secundus and others? 
 But why should I mention this contemptible num- 
 ber? Epiphanius reckons eighty, and Augustine 
 more, distinct heresies which grew up with the 
 Gospel." Notwithstanding all this, there are those 
 who talk much of the unanimity of faith which, 
 according to them, characterized the Christian 
 community in the first four centuries. This, too, 
 it is said, was the era of the Church's purity. 
 " The termination of the era of purity," observes 
 Mr. Newman, " cannot be fixed much earlier than 
 the Council of Sardica, a.d. 347*." The period 
 extending from the end of the first to the middle 
 of the fourth century, the era of purity ! To what 
 lengths will this exaggeration — this lavish extrava- 
 gance of assertion go ? In making such statements 
 as these, the Puseyite divines must presume largely 
 
 * Newman's Romanism, p. 253. 
 
LECTURE IV. 187 
 
 upon the ignorance or credulity of their readers. 
 As to the boasted purity and perfection of the 
 Ante-Nicene church, Mr. Isaac Taylor (the author 
 of the ' Natural History of Enthusiasm ') contends 
 that it is an entire mistake. He has written a long 
 and elaborate work, under the title of ' Ancient 
 Christianity,' m proof of this. He says, that ha- 
 ving read all the Greek and Latin Fathers, he con- 
 siders himself qualified to give an opinion on this 
 matter. This opinion he delivers in these words : 
 "There is absolutely nothing in the ripe popery of 
 St. Dominic (certain elaborate modes of proceeding 
 excepted) which is not to be found in the Chris- 
 tianity of the times of Cyprian and Tertullian, . . . 
 I boldly say that Popery, foul as it is and has ever 
 been in the mass, might yet fairly represent itself 
 as a reform upon early Christianity*," 
 
 There is one important consequence, it is al- 
 leged, resulting from this rejection of the authority 
 of tradition which it becomes me to notice, and 
 which I will endeavour to do as shortly as I can. 
 It is said, then, if you distrust the testimony and 
 the judgement of the Fathers in respect to one 
 class of facts, you detract from the weight of their 
 testimony in other matters. But how, without 
 their testimony, can you establish the authenticity 
 of the gospels for instance? Do you not get at 
 
 * As quoted in the Christian Examiner, vol. xxviii. p. 258. 
 
188 LECTURE IV. 
 
 the knowledge of the antiquity and general recep- 
 tion of the Christian Scriptures by means of tra- 
 dition*? You say that the four gospels existed 
 and were generally received as authentic documents 
 as early as the beginning or middle of the second 
 century, that is, within little more than fifty years 
 of the death of the last of the apostles. It may be 
 so, but how do you prove it ? How, but by the 
 assertion of those very Fathers whose credit, as 
 
 * " I have been engaged," writes one of the authors of the 
 ' Tracts for the Times,' " in showing that the canon of Scripture 
 rests on no other foundation than the Catholic doctrines — that 
 those who dispute the latter should, if they were consistent, dis- 
 pute the former ; that in both cases we believe mainly, because 
 the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries unanimously be- 
 lieved."— Trac^ 85. p. 102. 
 
 Mr. Newman {Romanism, p. 350) also says, " I suppose it is 
 undeniable after all that we do receive the New Testament in its 
 existing shape on Tradition." Most certainly, I should say, we 
 do not. I'radition and testimony are perfectly distinct sources 
 of evidence. There is not a juryman in this country, possessed 
 of a little common sense, who, in judging of a cause, would not 
 readily distinguish the one from the other. To confound them 
 together — to make testimony the same as tradition, is doing 
 grievous wrong to the argument in favour of the authenticity of 
 the Christian Scriptures, arising from the fact that they were 
 known, seen, read and abundantly cited by Christian writers of the 
 second and third centuries. What wretched nonsense therefore 
 (for I cannot give it a more appropriate name) is it to say, that 
 we believe it because the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries 
 believed it ! But the question is more fully considered in the text, 
 to which, therefore, the reader's attention is particularly directed. 
 
LECTURE IV. 189 
 
 faithful narrators, you have been endeavouring to 
 undermine. If you reject their testimony in the 
 one instance, why do you admit it in the other? 
 Because, I answer, there is an essential difference 
 between the two kinds of testimony. I know that 
 it is common to confound them, and it may answer 
 the views of certain parties to do so, but they 
 are clearly and manifestly distinct, both in their 
 own nature and in the impression which they leave 
 upon the mind. The Fathers fthat is, the early 
 Christian writers) bear witness to the existence 
 and wide circulation, in their day, of certain 
 books under certain names or titles. But how 
 is this witness borne ? Not simply by saying that 
 so it had been reported to them by Tradition. 
 If this had been all, it would not, I admit, have 
 amounted to much. But it is a great deal more 
 than this ; for they not only say that they had 
 heard of certain books being in existence, but that 
 they themselves had seen and read them ; and as 
 evidence of this fact, their own writings contain 
 long and numerous quotations from them. These 
 quotations also, made by so many different hands 
 and in various parts of the world, are found sub- 
 stantially to agree with one another, thereby proving 
 that they are drawn from a common source. They 
 cite passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ; 
 and Irenaeus, one of the earliest of the Fathers, 
 
190 LECTURE IV. 
 
 assigns certain reasons why there should be four 
 gospels, and only four. These reasons are fanciful 
 and foolish enough, but with his fancies or his rea- 
 sons we have nothing to do, except to show that 
 they are evidence of the fact for which they were 
 invented to account. Testimony and Tradition, 
 then, are not to be confounded. Thev have essen- 
 tially distinct characters. 
 
 Take, as an illustration of this, what may be 
 supposed to pass in a court of justice. Proof is 
 required, say, of the existence of certain manu- 
 scripts at a certain distant period, and of their 
 identity with one another, not only as to their 
 general import but as to their exact language. The 
 first witness who is called can say no more than 
 that he has heard that such was really the fact. 
 He has been told so. It was a common rumour. 
 Beyond this he knows nothing. Another witness 
 then steps forw^ard, and he testifies to having ac- 
 tually seen and handled one of these manuscripts 
 with his own hands. This is a considerable step 
 towards establishing the point desired. Still of 
 itself it is not conclusive. He may have been 
 mistaken, or he may intend to deceive. Upon 
 this, other witnesses are summoned to appear, and 
 they too, though coming from different and distant 
 countries, declare that they had personal knowledge 
 of manuscripts of the kind described. Of course 
 
LECTURE IV. 191 
 
 this vastly increases the probability in favour of 
 the thing required. But if, in addition to this, 
 these various witnesses could produce works written 
 by themselves and sent abroad into the world some 
 time back, in which long and numerous passages 
 are introduced as quotations from these manu- 
 scripts, all of which, bearing the same designation, 
 substantially agree with one another, the evidence 
 for the actual existence and wide circulation of the 
 wTitings in question and at the period mentioned 
 would rise to the highest pitch, and no room for 
 doubt or suspicion could possibly be left. But 
 wlio will say that this last species of testimony is 
 to be put in the same category with the hearsay 
 testimony to which reference was first made ? And 
 yet the Oxford divines do say so, when they affirm 
 that the authenticity of the books of the New Tes- 
 tament rests upon tradition — the same tradition to 
 which they are in the habit of appealing for the 
 truth and reality of their church nursery tales. 
 
 Parallel to the supposed case above described is 
 that of the Christian records. The testimony borne 
 to their existence at a certain period, under certain 
 titles or designations, is precisely the same as in 
 the instance of which we have been speaking. So 
 many are the witnesses that present themselves, 
 and so long and numerous are the quotations out 
 of the New Testament which their writings contain, 
 that did we possess nothing more than these, they 
 
192 LECTURE IV. 
 
 would, if collected together and properly arranged, 
 very nearly make up the whole four gospels exactly 
 as we now have them. Assuredly this is something 
 very different from what is commonly understood 
 and designated by the term Tradition. No one can 
 reasonably doubt that when Irenneus, Tertullian, 
 and Origen composed their works, the books of the 
 New Testament were then in existence, and widely 
 circulated under the names wiiich they now bear. 
 For passages are quoted from them so often, and 
 they are so mixed up with the train of thought, the 
 subject-matter of their writings, that the suppo- 
 sition of their being subsequently foisted in is in- 
 admissible even for a moment. The testimony 
 given by them to the existence, in their day, of the 
 New Testament, together with its extensive diffu- 
 sion and general reception as the work of evange- 
 lists and apostles, is as clear, strong, and satisfac- 
 tory as human testimony can well be. 
 
 Having made these observations on the nature 
 and authority of Tradition, I wish, before I con- 
 clude, to say, that in noticing, as I have sometimes 
 done, the absurd extravagancies and contemptible 
 puerilities chargeable upon those ancient Christian 
 writers called the Fathers, it is not because I have 
 had any pleasure in such an exposure*, but because 
 
 * " Wherever." says Milton, " I have laid open the faults and 
 blemishes of Fathers, martyrs, or Christian emperors, or have 
 otherwise inveighed against error and superstition with vehement 
 
LECTURE IV. 193 
 
 it was necessary in order to lay bare the almost 
 unaccountable infatuation of those who hold them 
 up as our spiritual guides and instructors, and de- 
 mand for them a reverential attention and deference 
 due only to those who speak to us as the author- 
 ized and commissioned servants of Almighty God. 
 While we cannot but acknowledge that the gross 
 absurdities of opinion into which they fell, and the 
 silly fanciful expositions of Scripture in which they 
 indulged, afford ample evidence of the weakness of 
 their judgements and the credulity of their under- 
 standings, large allowance must be made for them 
 on account of the times and circumstances on which 
 their lives were cast. Brought up, as most of them 
 had been, in the principles of a degrading poly- 
 theism, it could scarcely be expected that on em- 
 bracing Christianity they should all at once be 
 emancipated from its errors and follies, or that 
 they would not carry into their new faith some- 
 expressions ; I have done it neither out of malice, nor list to speak 
 evil, nor any vain glory, but of mere necessity to vindicate the 
 spotless truth from an ignominious bondage, whose native worth 
 is now become of such a low esteem, that she is like to find small 
 credit with us for what she can say, unless she can bring a ticket 
 from Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, or prove herself a retainer to 
 Constantine and wear his badge. More tolerable were it for the 
 Church of God that all these names were utterly abolished like 
 the brazen serpent, than that men's fond opinion should thus 
 idolize them, and the heavenly truth be thus captivated." — Prose 
 Works, p. 3. ed. 18.38. 
 
 O 
 
194 LF.CTUKE IV. 
 
 thing of the leaven of their old creed. In whatever 
 way we may account for the state of things existing 
 in the first ages of Christianity, and whatever apo- 
 logy on this ground may be made for the class of 
 writers we are now speaking of, it presents no 
 reason for the peculiar veneration* with which we 
 are asked to regard them, and the unquestioning 
 submission which we are urged to yield to them. 
 
 "There are some," says Jeremy Taylor, "who 
 think that they can determine all questions by two 
 or three sayings of the Fathers, or by the consent 
 of so many as they please to call a concurrent tes- 
 timony ; but this consideration will soon be at an 
 end ; for if the Fathers do not always speak truth, 
 as it happened in the case of Papias and his nu- 
 merous followers, then is their testimony more 
 improbable when they dispute or write commenta- 
 
 riesf- 
 
 The great advantage to be derived from the 
 Fathers is, that they give us in their writings a 
 
 * When occasion offers, the high-church divines can treat the 
 Fathers with as little ceremony as any one. Witness the con- 
 duct of Bishop Horsley, who, when pressed with the weight of 
 Origen's testimony against some point for which he was con- 
 tending, made no scruple of charging this, the most learned and 
 celebrated of the Fathers, with the guilt of wilful falsehood. — See 
 Horsley' s Tracts in Controversy with Dr. Priestley, p. 173. Dun- 
 dee, ed. 1812, 
 
 t Liberty of Prophesying, p. 215. 
 
LECTURE IV. 195 
 
 picture of the times in which they lived, — that they 
 make us acquainted with the state and condition of 
 the primitive Christian Church, — that they tell us of 
 the opinions and practices that prevailed in the early 
 ages, and above all, that they furnish us with most 
 satisfactory evidence of the existence of the books 
 of the New Testament at such a period of the 
 Christian era as to render it almost impossible for 
 them, widely diffused as they were, to have been 
 forged and palmed upon the world, in so short a 
 time, as the genuine writings of apostles and apo- 
 stolic men. This view of the subject accords with 
 that of the present learned Bishop of Lincoln. He 
 says, " the principal value of the writings of the 
 Fathers consists, perhaps, in the testimony which 
 they bear to the authenticity of the books of the 
 New Testament*." As to anything more than 
 this, I believe, they are not only without value, but 
 oftentimes positively pernicious. By their " vain 
 babbling," their spiritualizing and allegorizing per- 
 versions of Scripture, they so perplex and bewilder 
 the understandings of those who give themselves 
 up to the study of their writings, that rc3ason and 
 good sense lose all their just authority and controul, 
 and feeling and fancy alone bear sway. Hence we 
 see in the works of the Puseyite or Oxford divines 
 
 * Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, 
 p. 133. 
 
 o2 
 
196 LKCTURli IV. 
 
 the same want of judgement and discrimination, 
 the same love of the marvellous and the mystical, 
 the same fondness for extravagances and conceits, 
 which characterize those to whom they so reve- 
 rentially look up as their leaders and guides. If, 
 with singleness of mind, and casting off the yoke 
 of creeds and systems of man's device, they would 
 direct their attention more to the words of Christ 
 and his apostles, and less to those of councils and 
 Fathers, their learning and accomplishments would, 
 I humbly conceive, redound more to their own ho- 
 nour and credit, as well as to the instruction and 
 improvement of their fellow-men. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 The claims of tradition and the authority of the 
 Fathers were the subjects treated of in my last lec- 
 ture. I there endeavoured to show the fallacy and 
 unsoundness of the pretensions set up for them by 
 the advocates of high-church principles. In speak- 
 ing of the Fathers, and for the purpose of enabling 
 you to form some judgement of the deference said 
 to be due to them, I was led to bring under your 
 notice a few specimens of the weakness and cre- 
 dulity, the gross absurdities and the monstrous 
 extravagances by which their writings are distin- 
 guished, and which prove them to be deficient in 
 all those qualities which would entitle them to our 
 confidence and reliance. They deliver to us, as ve- 
 ritable traditions of the Church, tales which are ut- 
 terly unworthy of the slightest attention, and some 
 of which are in direct opposition to the statements 
 contained in the gospels themselves. Their expo- 
 sitions and interpretations of Scripture are often so 
 exceedingly childish and contemptible, that one 
 wonders how any man in his sober mind could for 
 
198 LECTURE V. 
 
 a moment have entertained them, and still more 
 that such expositions should now be received with 
 approbation and favour, and the authors of them 
 be held up as the best lights and guides to the 
 attainment of Christian truth. It is said, indeed, 
 in exphination, that it is not their individual judge- 
 ment and opinion — it is not what they singly and 
 separately affirm, that claims our implicit acqui- 
 escence and assent — it is their unanimous declara- 
 tion, their united voice ; that is, it is the testimony 
 of the Catholic or universal Church which is to be 
 taken as a sure mark of certainty and truth. With- 
 out admitting the justness of this rule, it was replied, 
 that no such united voice is to be heard, — that no 
 such general testimony is to be discovered ; that, 
 on the contrarv, abundant evidence is to be found 
 in the earliest periods of the Christian Church of 
 great divisions and differences among its members, 
 and that as to anything like general unanimity or 
 agreement, it nowhere existed, except upon those 
 points* before mentioned, and which, for the pre- 
 
 * Such as the celibacy of the clergy, the doctrine of the Mil- 
 lenium, the sanctity of an ascetic or solitary Hfe, and the practice 
 of exorcism. On these matters there was a nearer aj^proach in 
 the early Church to unanimity of opinion than on almost any 
 other points, if we except those few great facts and principles 
 which are believed by all who call themselves Christians, hete- 
 rodox as well as orthodox, but for the truth of which tradition is 
 never appealed to, and the reception of which, without- the ac- 
 
LECTURE V. 199 
 
 sent at least, are rejected or disallowed by the high- 
 church party themselves *. Even with respect to 
 customs and usages, which, generally speaking, are 
 more easily handed down by tradition than doc- 
 trines or opinions, — even with respect to these, the 
 Christians of the first ages were by no means 
 agreed. As early as the second century a contro- 
 versy arose about the time of observing the festival 
 of Easter, the churches in Asia taking one side of 
 the question, and those in Europe another ; and 
 so great was the importance attached to it, and so 
 bitter the animosity excited by it, that at length 
 Victor, Bishop of Rome, actually proceeded to the 
 severe extremity of excommunicating the Asiatic 
 churches for their disagreement with him upon this 
 point. Now if, with respect to a custom or prac- 
 tice of this kind, and at the distance of little more 
 than a hundred years from its original institution, 
 no unanimity prevailed in the early Christian 
 Church, how can we trust the recorded traditions 
 
 companiment of those other doctrines pecuHarly termed orthodox, 
 and for which the authority of tradition is appealed to, would not 
 even entitle a man, in the estimation of the Oxford divines, to the 
 name of Christian. 
 
 * " That," says Hallam, " which came nearest, both in anti- 
 quity and in evidence of Catholic reception, to the name of apo- 
 stolical, were doctrines and usages rejected alike by all denomi- 
 nations of the Church in modern times." — Introduction to the 
 Literature of Europe, vol. iii. p. 76. 
 
200 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 of the Fathers of a still later age, and when they 
 relate, not to usages or practices, but to opinions 
 and doctrines ? 
 
 In the New Testament itself w^e have a singular 
 example of the manner in which a statement or an 
 expression may be so distorted by tradition as to 
 make it wear in a short time a totally different 
 aspect from what it originally bore. The instance 
 to which I allude will be found towards the conclu- 
 sion of John's gospel. We there read that " Peter, 
 seeing John, said to Jesus, Lord, and what shall 
 this man do ? Jesus said unto him, If I will that 
 he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? Follow 
 thou me. Then went abroad this saying among 
 the brethren that that disciple should not die ; yet 
 Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die, but if I 
 will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " 
 Now if John had not corrected the error, which 
 began to be spread among the brethren, this false 
 tradition would, most probably, have been handed 
 down to us as a true one, — it would have figured 
 away among the "pie credibilia'' delivered to us 
 by the Fathers ; and not only so, but in all like- 
 lihood additions w^ould have been made to it, and 
 w^e should have been told, perhaps, that the inti- 
 mation or prediction contained in the words of our 
 Lord was actually fulfilled, and that the apostle 
 John was still alive on the earth. In fact this very 
 
LECTURE V, 201 
 
 tradition, whose misrepresentation of wliat Christ 
 said was corrected hy John himself, is stated to 
 have given rise to the legend of the wandering 
 Jew *, so easily does one fable beget and sustain 
 another. 
 
 The appeal to Tradition, as I observed in the last 
 lecture, is no new thing. It was much in vogue 
 with some of the early Fathers, especially Papias 
 and Ireneeus ; and I will now add, that it was a 
 practice of a date still older. In the time of Christ 
 it was held in high estimation by the Jews. It was 
 not to "the Law and the Testimony" only that 
 they were in the habit of referring ; they looked 
 also, if not chieflv, to the traditions of the elders. 
 On them they relied as their main stay and sup- 
 port. But what was the judgement which our 
 Lord pronounced on the force and value of such 
 an authority ? What did he think of it, and how 
 did he speak of it ? We read in the gospel of 
 Matthew, that w^hen the Scribes and Pharisees 
 came, saying. Why do thy disciples transgress the 
 traditions of the elders ? Jesus answ^ered the ques- 
 tion, just as a sound and consistent Protestant 
 would now answer a like interrogation from a 
 Catholic or Anglo-Catholic divine : " Why do you 
 transgress the commandments of God by your tra- 
 ditions?" And the same rebuke is repeated on 
 
 * Aspland's Sermons, p. 270. 
 
202 LECTURE V. 
 
 another occasion. Jesus told the Pharisees plainly, 
 as we may plainly say to some modern high-church 
 men, " Ye have made the commandments of God 
 of none effect by your traditions." 
 
 If then we are not to trust to Tradition ; if we 
 are not to look in this direction in order to be 
 instructed in the faith once delivered to the saints, 
 the only other sure source of information to which 
 we can turn is that contained in the Scriptures. 
 In the books of the New Testament alone is to be 
 found a trustworthy record of the life and conver- 
 sation of Christ, — of all that he said and did, — of 
 his labours and sufferings, of his death and resur- 
 rection, — and of the efforts, happily the successful 
 efforts, of the apostles in diffusing far and wide the 
 glad tidings of his gospel. But having these, says 
 the genuine Protestant, we have all that is needed. 
 They are all-sufficient for the purpose of making 
 us acquainted with the great truths of Christianity ; 
 with the mind and character of Christ ; with the 
 principles, the spirit, and the genius of his rehgion. 
 If we cannot learn from the New Testament all 
 that is essential and necessary to make a man wise 
 unto salvation ; if, from this source, we cannot de- 
 rive an adequate knowledge of all that Christ taught 
 as most important to be beUeved, then there are no 
 other authentic documents to which we can have 
 recourse, and in which such knowledge is to be 
 
LECTURE V. 203 
 
 found. If it exists anywhere, it exists in the wri- 
 tings of those who were his immediate followers and 
 attendants. There, then, we shall seek it, and there, 
 — notwithstanding what the pretended successors 
 of the apostles may say to the contrary, — there we 
 hope to find it. We shall not refuse the aid to be 
 derived from the judgement and learning of others, 
 in our endeavours to discover the true meaning of 
 what has been revealed. We shall be grateful for, 
 and shall cordially w^elcome, — come from whatever 
 quarter it may, — all the light which may guide our 
 minds to the true sense, to the right understanding 
 of the sacred book. But in that book alone, we 
 say, are contained the law and the testimony, 
 and no other wTitings will w^e acknowledge as of 
 co-ordinate authority wuth them ; as possessing si- 
 milar claims upon our attention and reverence. 
 
 This is w^hat w^e mean by the sufficiency of Scrip- 
 ture. In contending for that sufficiency, it is not 
 meant that Scripture alone should be read and 
 studied, and that we should throw aside every 
 means, — that w^e should despise and reject every 
 help, that might enable us more correctly to ascer- 
 tain its meaning, and more fully to enter into its 
 spirit. This w^ould be a monstrous perversion, a 
 most pernicious abuse of the maxim, " that the 
 Bible only is the rehgion of Protestants." All that 
 is to be understood by it is, that no other work 
 
204 LECTURK V. 
 
 carries with it the same title to our regard and 
 submission, and that when once its principles are 
 clearly ascertained, they furnish the only authori- 
 tative rule for Christian faith and practice ; that 
 no other writings, of whatever age or country they 
 may be, can be allowed to come into competition 
 with them, — to qualify their statements or to su- 
 persede their authority ; that on every question, 
 where they speak positively and explicitly, their 
 decision is paramount and final ; and that no opi- 
 nion or practice, unsanctioned by them, is to be 
 received as a necessary and essential part of the 
 Christian scheme. The works of the Fathers mav 
 be consulted by those who have the necessary re- 
 quirements for doing so, as may be the works of 
 any other man, for the purpose of gaining such in- 
 formation as is likely to contribute to the illustra- 
 tion and explanation of obscure and difficult pas- 
 sages. But more than this they must not be al- 
 lowed to exact from us. In themselves they have 
 no pretensions, as already shown, to peculiar de- 
 ference and regard. The advantage, the use of 
 them, consists not in their own intrinsic, indepen- 
 dent excellence and worth, but in the help they 
 may occasionally afford towards a better under- 
 standing of the language of Scripture. As sub- 
 sidiary to this purpose we should avail ourselves 
 of whatever assistance thev are able to render us. 
 
LECTURE V. 205 
 
 As far as they may conduce to such a result it be- 
 hoves us to value and respect them ; but the mo- 
 ment they are called in as independent judges, as 
 authoritative expounders of Christian truth, as rival 
 claimants with the apostles upon our attention and 
 obedience, we put them away from us, saying, 
 " Jesus we know and Paul we know, but who are 
 ye?" 
 
 They, who look upon the Scriptures as of them- 
 selves insufficient to give us an accurate knowledge 
 of what Christianity is, and who say that for this 
 purpose we must have recourse to the traditions of 
 the Church, as treasured up in the writings of the 
 Fathers, seem to me to labour under a total mis- 
 apprehension of the nature, intention and spirit of 
 the Gospel. That is not a code of laws — of mi- 
 nute regulations and specific observances, like the 
 Mosaic institute. It is not a system of doctrines 
 elaborately wrought out into a series of distinct 
 propositions, and then demanding our implicit as- 
 sent. It does not consist of a vast number of po- 
 sitive commands and prohibitions, applicable to all 
 the varying circumstances and exigencies of the 
 human condition. It is a manifestation of truth 
 and grace, — a revelation of a few great general prin- 
 ciples which should serve as a beacon-light to guide 
 us safely through our earthly pilgrimage, — an ex- 
 hibition of the character and will of God as dis- 
 
206 LECTURE V. 
 
 played and exemplified in the life and actions of 
 Jesus Christ. Instead of presenting us with a long 
 catalogue of the things to be done and the things 
 not to be done, it aims, after enunciating one or 
 two fundamental truths as the basis of its instruc- 
 tion, to imbue us with the very spirit of duty — 
 with the vital quickening breath of genuine piety — 
 with the life and soul of pure religion ; and, for this 
 purpose, places before us the character of Christ as 
 the most complete and perfect pattern of all true 
 greatness and goodness. Christianity lays down a 
 few cardinal principles for the regulation of our 
 conduct, and leaves them to be expanded and 
 applied, as conscience dictates, in all the situa- 
 tions and circumstances in which we can be placed. 
 In the New Testament, therefore, we have all that 
 is needed or required. We have a clear statement 
 of those truths concerning God and man, concern- 
 ing our duty and our destiny, that are necessary 
 for our guidance, support, comfort, and hope. We 
 have them not only authoritatively announced, but 
 strikingly and beautifully illustrated in the conduct 
 of him who was sent to announce them. They ex- 
 ist not in idea merely — in notions or abstractions. 
 In Christ they are personified. In him they live 
 and breathe. Through him they not only speak to 
 our intellects, but address our sympathies and find 
 a way to our hearts. The spirit and purpose of the 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 207 
 
 Gospel, then, are clearly before us. They could not 
 be more so by any additions that might possibly be 
 made to the Evangelical records. What we have 
 to do is to fulfill that purpose and to imbibe that 
 spirit, bearing in mind the memorable language of 
 our Saviour, that it is the letter that killeth and 
 that the spirit maketh alive. 
 
 The nature of Christianity, however, it may be 
 said, is to be learnt from the contents of a certain 
 book, the language of which is often obscure and 
 difficult to be understood, and not fit therefore to 
 be left to every man's individual judgement to in- 
 terpret as he may please. The Roman Catholic 
 asserts, that in his church there is lodged, either in 
 the pope or ecclesiastical councils, a power of in- 
 fallibly determining the true sense of Scripture, 
 and that all private judgement, therefore, is not 
 only perfectly needless, but positively criminal and 
 injurious, — it being the duty of the Christian be- 
 liever to receive with ready and unquestioning ac- 
 quiescence whatever this power may proclaim to 
 be Christian truth. The Tractarian divines hold 
 very much the same language. They tell us to 
 obey, not indeed the pope or the councils alone, 
 but the A'^oice of the universal Church, of which 
 voice they are the appointed official organs*. We 
 are not to determine for ourselves, either what 
 
 * See Lecture I. p. 32. 
 
208 LECTURE V. 
 
 Scripture says or what the Church says, but we are 
 to learn the one from the other, and both from the 
 clergy. Most certainly, if it can be shown that 
 any one man, or that any body of men are gifted 
 with infalhbiUty, — that the judgement, in any case, 
 pronounced by them must be right, there is no pre- 
 sumption in asking me to yield unhesitatingly to 
 their decisions. But that, since the time of Christ, 
 such a property has been lodged in any one indivi- 
 dual or number of individuals, there is not an atom 
 of evidence to prove. Some tell us that it is pos- 
 sessed by the pope ; others that it resides with 
 certain ecclesiastical councils ; and others that it 
 belongs to the Church universal. This last is the 
 ground taken by the Oxford divines*. They say, 
 our faith rests not on the judgement of this man or 
 that, not on the decrees of this council or the other, 
 but on the judgement, the consent of the Catholic 
 or universal Church. 
 
 " We do not," they observe, " set up the Church 
 against Scripture, but we make her the keeper and 
 interpreter of Scripture. . . . The Church Catholic 
 
 * " Whensoever the Church of God is certainly cognizable ; 
 when she has a clear, certain, single form or body ; when she acts 
 cecumenically by councils ; speaks uniformly and without diversity 
 in her doctors, then the peculiar promise of the Holy Spirit of 
 God to lead her into all truth guarantees the essential certainty 
 of her teaching, and invests her decisions with full and divine 
 authority." — British Critic, No. 50. p. 256. 
 
LECTURE V, 209 
 
 is not only bound to teach the truth, but she is 
 ever divinely guided to teach it ; her witness of the 
 Christian faith is a matter of promise as well as of 
 duty. She is indefectible in it, and not only has 
 authority to enforce, bat is of authority in declaring 
 it. . . . The Church not only transmits the faith by 
 human means, but has a supernatural gift for that 
 purpose*." 
 
 I know not that I could suggest a better answer 
 to these statements than is contained in the follow- 
 ing objections w^hich Mr. Newman has himself men- 
 tioned, in a subsequent part of the same work from 
 wdiich the foregoing passage is extracted, as likely 
 to be urged against him : ' ' You speak of the Ca- 
 tholic Church, of the Church's teaching, and of 
 obedience to the Church. What is meant by the 
 Church Catholic at this day ? Where is she ? What 
 are her local instruments and organs ? How does 
 she speak ? When and where does she teach, for- 
 bid, command, censure ? How can she be said to 
 utter one and the same doctrine everywhere when 
 we are at war with all the rest of Christendom, and 
 not at peace at homef ? " 
 
 These questions, fairly and forcibly put as they 
 are, one would have thought, Mr. Newman was 
 bound to answ^er. But this he does not even at- 
 
 * Newman's Romanism, pp. 233, 235. 
 t Ibid. pp. 317, 318. 
 
'210 LECTURE V. 
 
 tempt. Nay more, he admits that there may be 
 something of truth in the objections thus made to 
 his doctrine about the Church, and simply contents 
 himself with the remark, that " he cannot believe 
 that what he has been drawing out is, therefore, a 
 mere tale of other times, when addressed to those 
 who are really bent on serving God as well as they 
 can, and who consult what is most likely to please 
 him*." 
 
 After this it seems to be almost superfluous la- 
 bour to say anything further in refutation of the 
 high-church doctrine concerning the authoritative 
 teaching of the Church. But as I am desirous of 
 passing by no argument that may appear to carry 
 with it the smallest weight, 1 will proceed at once 
 to the examination of what I take to be the strong- 
 est ground occupied by the opponents of private 
 judgement, viz. the difficulty, on the part of people 
 generally, of interpreting Scripture for themselves. 
 There is so much of it, it is contended, that is deep 
 and mysterious, — so much that is dark and obscure 
 and hidden from common observation, that none 
 but those who have " a commission from God to 
 guide the Church" can dive into its depths, — can 
 penetrate into its secret places, and bring out its 
 true and genuine signification. 
 
 " I have been arguing," says a Tractarian, " that 
 
 * Romanism, p. 319. 
 
LECTURE V. 21 1 
 
 Scripture is a deep book, and that the peculiar 
 doctrines concerning; the Church contained in the 
 Prayer-book are in its depths. Now let it be re- 
 marked in corroboration, that the early Church 
 always did consider Scripture to be what I have 
 been arguing from the structure of it, viz. a book 
 with very recondite meanings : this they considered, 
 not merely with reference to its teaching the par- 
 ticular class of doctrines in question, but as regards 
 its entire teaching. They considered that it was 
 full of mysteries*." 
 
 In the same manner, also, writes Mr. Newman : 
 " The explanations given by Protestants of parti- 
 cular texts of Scripture will be found to involve 
 an inconsistency and want of intelligible principle, 
 which show how impossible it is for the mass of 
 men to contemplate Scripture without imparting 
 to it the colouring which they themselves have re- 
 ceived in the course of their education f." 
 
 And are the clergy under no temptation or bias 
 to give to the Scriptures one interpretation rather 
 than another, to impress upon them the image of 
 their own opinions, to make them reflective of 
 their own views and inclinations ? But, not to 
 insist upon this, I pass on to the consideration of 
 the principle deduced from the alleged obscurity 
 
 * Tracts for the Times, No. 85. p. 68. 
 t Newman's Romanism, p. 183. 
 
 p2 
 
212 LECTURE V. 
 
 of Scripture. In consequence, it is said, of that 
 obscurity and the difficulty, thence resulting, of 
 getting at its actual meaning, it is necessary that 
 some test or standard should be set up for the 
 purpose of ascertaining and determining what it is. 
 There must be some external guide to conduct the 
 inquirer into the true path ; and what can that be 
 but the Church, — the Church as she speaks in her 
 catholic or universal character? " It is necessary," 
 says Vincent of Lerins, as approvingly cited by 
 Mr. Newman, " that the heavenly sense of Scrip- 
 ture be explained according to the Church's under- 
 standing of it, principally in those questions only 
 on which the foundations of the whole Catholic 
 doctrine rest*." According to the Church's un- 
 derstanding ! What church ? the Roman CathoUc ? 
 No, answer the Oxford divines. But you acknow- 
 ledge her to be a branch of the Catholic Church of 
 Christ t, — you admit the genuineness of her orders, 
 — you allow her to be in possession of the true 
 apostolic succession: why, therefore, refuse to ac- 
 knowledge her as the organ of the Church ? Be- 
 cause, it is replied, of her errors and corruptions. 
 Then regular orders, apostolic succession, and the 
 grace of the sacraments, are no security that the 
 
 * Lectures on Romanism, p. 309. 
 
 t " Romanists and we are both branches of the one Catholic 
 Chnrch."— Ibid. p. 322. 
 
LECTURE V. 213 
 
 church possessing them conveys to us the genuine 
 traditions or judgements of the Church CathoUc. 
 But why am I required, on this ground, to grant 
 to the Church of England what I am forbidden to 
 grant to the Church of Rome ? Admit, however, 
 the superior claims of the English Church, — allow 
 that she is the true interpreter of Catholic tradition 
 as Catholic tradition is of Scripture ; to whom am 
 I to look as the organ through which she speaks to 
 the people ? The answer, no doubt, will be, to the 
 clergy. But the clergy are not agreed among them- 
 selves as to what the judgement of the Church, in 
 many cases, is. For instance, upon the great 
 question of apostolic succession, some of the doc- 
 tors of the English Church affirm that certain texts 
 of Scripture support it ; while others again, equally 
 learned and accomplished, affirm the contrary. So 
 with respect to baptismal regeneration ; the corpo- 
 ral presence ; the office of the Christian priesthood, 
 and other important points, the English clergy are 
 divided into two or more parties, and hold the most 
 discordant opinions. Nor is this all ; for, even when 
 they come to the exposition of their own authorized 
 formularies, — the thirtv-nine articles for instance, 
 framed to prevent diversity of opinion, — no agree- 
 ment exists among them — some contending that 
 they are to be understood in one sense, and some 
 in another. " Still," says Mr. Newman, " in spite 
 
214 LECTURE V. 
 
 of differences within and without, our own Church 
 may surely be considered among us as the voice of 
 her who has been in the world ever one and the 
 same since Christ came — She professes to be the 
 Catholic Church, and to transmit that one ancient 
 Catholic faith ; and she does transmit it, simply 
 and intelligibly*." 
 
 There really seems to be no end to the daring 
 and reckless assertions of these modern high-church 
 men. One would imagine, from the passage just 
 quoted, that the English Church has been always 
 the same, always maintaining the same doctrines, 
 and uniformly speaking the language of the Catho- 
 lic Church. But a moment's reference to history 
 will utterly dispel this delusion ; for in the year 1537 
 Archbishop Cranmer, in connection with others, 
 drew up a certain number of articles f, which, 
 
 * Newman's Romanism, p. 320. 
 
 t They amounted in number to ten. They were sent, by order 
 of King Henry VIII., to the Convocation then sitting at St. Paul's, 
 and were by them passed unanimously. About a year after this, 
 that is, in 1538, the Statute of the Six Articles was passed, all 
 which articles strictly accorded with the doctrines of the Romish 
 Church. 
 
 In 1552, being the fourth year of the reign of King Edward VI., 
 the doctrines of the English Church were represented in forty- 
 two articles (as mentioned in the text), drawn up by Cranmer 
 and Ridley, and which were subsequently approved in Council 
 and received the royal sanction. 
 
 Ten years later, viz. in 1562, the fifth of the reign of Queen 
 
LECTURE V. 215 
 
 having passed the Convocation, constituted at that 
 period the faith of the Church of England. These 
 articles inculcated the doctrine of baptismal rege- 
 neration, auricular confession, and transubstantia- 
 tion. According to them "it was a meet thing 
 that the images of Christ and our Lady should 
 stand in the churches to promote the devotions of 
 the congregation ; it was very laudable to pray to 
 saints, and it was a very good and charitable deed 
 to pray for the souls departed^." Thus spake the 
 Church of England in the year 1537. Did she 
 then utter the voice of the Catholic Church ? Was 
 she then divinely guided to teach the truth ? If so, 
 she was otherwise guided in 1552, and the voice 
 which was then heard sounded a different note from 
 that which was given out fifteen years before ; for 
 in the forty-two articles which were now framed 
 by Cranmer, Ridley and other divines, those just 
 referred to were entirely omitted, and others of a 
 different and opposite character were substituted 
 in their place — thus showing that if the Church of 
 England was right in 153" she was wrong in 1552, 
 and vice versa. 
 
 Elizabeth, these forty-two articles having been reduced to thirty- 
 nine, were in this shaj^e presented to the Convocation by Arch- 
 bishop Parker and received their unanimous approbation. With 
 some trifling alteration, made in them in 1571, they constitute 
 the present existing articles of the Church of England. 
 * Fuller's Church History, book v. pp. 221, 223. 
 
216 LECTURE V. 
 
 " Should it be asked," observes one of the writers 
 of the 'Tracts,' "whence our knowledge of the 
 truth should be derived, since there is so much of 
 meagreness and mistake in our more popular ex- 
 pounders of it, it may be replied, first, that the 
 writings of the Fathers contain abundant directions 
 how to ascertain it *." And Mr. Newman, re- 
 marking upon the tenacity with which Christians 
 of this age and country maintain the notion, that 
 truth of doctrine can be gained from Scripture, and 
 that of tradition they are no adequate judges, fol- 
 lows it up by saying, " It does seem a reason for 
 putting before them, if possible, the principal works 
 of the Fathers, translated as Scripture is, that they 
 may have by them what, whether used or not, will 
 at least act as a check upon the growth of an undue 
 dependence on the word of individual teachers, and 
 will be a something to consult, if they have reason 
 to doubt the Catholic character of any tenet to 
 which they are invited to accede f." 
 
 This, it must be confessed, is an extraordinary 
 proposal. The Scriptures, it is urged, are difficult 
 of interpretation. The people require a guide to 
 the right understanding of them, and therefore let 
 the works of the Fathers be translated and put into 
 their hands for this purpose. This assuredly is 
 
 * No. 71. p. 35. 
 
 t Lectures on Romanism, pp. 203, 204. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 217 
 
 piling difficulty upon difficulty. If the Scriptures 
 are not easy to be understood, are the Fathers more 
 so ? What are we to think of the common reader 
 poring over the contents of huge volumes of the 
 ancient Christian writers in order to discover the 
 sense which they have put upon Scripture ? Was 
 anything so preposterous ever advanced before? 
 Unquestionably, I say, where there is one difficult 
 passage to be found in the Scriptures there are a 
 hundred more difficult to be met with in the Fathers. 
 And there is moreover this essential difference be- 
 tween them, that while the great facts and princi- 
 ples of Christian truth — those facts and principles 
 which constitute the substance of the Gospel, and 
 which alone are sufficient to make a man wise unto 
 salvation*, — are so plainly and broadly inscribed 
 on the pages of the New Testament that he " who 
 
 * "Why," says Chillingworth, "does every one of the four 
 Evangelists entitle their book the Gospel, if any necessary and 
 essential part of the Gospel were left out of it ? Can we imagine 
 that either they omitted something necessary out of ignorance, 
 not knowing it to be necessary, or, knowing it to be so, ma- 
 liciously concealed it ? or, out of negligence, did the work they 
 had undertaken by halves ? If none of these things can without 
 blasphemy be imputed to them, then certainly it most evidently 
 follows that every one of them writ the whole Gospel of Christ ; 
 I mean all the necessary and essential parts of it. So that if we 
 had no other book of Scripture but one of them alone, we should 
 not want anything necessary to salvation." — Chilli/igworth's Re- 
 ligion of Protestants, Works, p. 131. ed. 1836. 
 
218 LECTURE V. 
 
 runs may read" them, the writings of the Fathers 
 are everywhere involved in clouds of obscurity, and, 
 oftentimes, scarcely a ray of light is to be seen 
 penetrating through the darkness. The mists of 
 bad metaphysics, of subtle distinctions, of typical 
 constructions, and allegorical interpretations, hang 
 around them in such abundance, that frequently it 
 is almost impossible to grope our way through 
 them, and to arrive at anything like clearness and 
 certainty. " Let the Scriptures," said Milton, " be 
 hard ; are they more hard, more crabbed, more 
 abstruse than tbe Fathers ? He that cannot under- 
 stand the sober, plain, and unaffected style of the 
 Scriptures will be ten times more puzzled with the 
 knotty Africanisms, the pampered metaphors, the 
 intricate and involved sentences of the Fathers*." 
 And yet these are the writings which it is proposed 
 to place under the eye of the Christian reader, to 
 serve as a protection from error and a guide to 
 scriptural truth ! What is this but taking the blind 
 to lead the blind ? 
 
 According to Mr. Newman, Catholic tradition is 
 the " doctrinal key" to the interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture. But who has possession of this key ? Not 
 the people. They of themselves know nothing of 
 it. It may be in the hands of the clergy. They 
 may imagine that they have got hold of something, 
 
 * Of Reformution in England. Works, p. 9, ed. 1838. 
 
LECTURE V. 219 
 
 called tradition, which will open the dark passages 
 of Scripture, and let in upon them the full light of 
 truth. As for the general body of Christian be- 
 lievers it is an instrument placed quite beyond 
 their reach, and which, if it were not, they would 
 be unable by themselves alone to use properly and 
 efficiently. How then are they to obtain it, and by 
 whom are they to be instructed in the use of it ? 
 They must go to the priest. He will deliver it to 
 them, and he will instruct and guide them in the 
 right application of it. Hence it follows, that as 
 the clergy are the sole judges of what Catholic tra- 
 dition is, — as they are the appointed keepers and 
 guardians of this precious deposit, — as it is their 
 office and privilege to bring it forth and exhibit it 
 to the people, they are, in fact, themselves pos- 
 sessors of the authority and certainty ascribed to 
 Tradition. They might, therefore, as well begin at 
 the beginning. They might as well tell us plainly 
 the Scriptures say so and so ; that we pronounce 
 to be their meaning as laid open to us by the use 
 of the " doctrinal key," and that therefore you 
 must believe. They might as well do this at once 
 as proceed by the circuitous road of the Church 
 and Tradition and the Fathers, for the result is 
 precisely the same. They now say to us, in read- 
 ing the Scriptures and in giving them the right 
 construction, the true interpretation, you must take 
 
220 LECTURE V. 
 
 for your umpire and guide the judgement of the 
 universal Cathohc Church*. On asking what 
 that judgement is and where it is to be found, the 
 answer is, leave that to us ; we will tell you what 
 it is and where it is. We will show you the sense 
 which it gives to Scripture, and that and no other 
 is the sense in which you must understand it f . 
 This is the course pursued by the Anglo- Catholic 
 divines ; and who does not see that it amounts to 
 precisely the same thing as if they were, without 
 concealment or reserve |, to declare that they are 
 the authorized and infallible expounders of Scrip- 
 ture, and that their expositions must be received as 
 the only just and true ones ? 
 
 But as it happens that these supposed infallible 
 expounders of Tradition and Scripture take difFer- 
 
 * " The Bible is in the hands of the Church, to be dealt with in 
 such a way as the Church shall consider best for the expression 
 of her own mind at the time." — British Critic, No. 60. p. 453. 
 
 t So says Archbishop Whately : " It is plain that to recom- 
 mend ordinary Christians to give up their judgement to the 
 guidance of ' the Church,' is to refer them to the guidance of the 
 pastors of their own denomination. They not only will, but they 
 must so understand the recommendation ; they have no means of 
 complying with it in any other way." — Essays on the Dangers to 
 the Christian Faith, p. 181. 
 
 J Perhaps the art of concealment and disguise is one which 
 they think themselves justified in adopting, following in this re- 
 spect, as they assert, the example set them by the apostles and 
 the early Fathers. 
 
LECTURE V. 221 
 
 ent sides of the same (question, by what criterion 
 am I to determine which of them is right ? How 
 am I to know whom to follow — whose judgement 
 to abide by ? The mark of ' apostolic succes- 
 sion' will not assist me, nor will the possession 
 of genuine holy orders direct me, for there are 
 churches and ministers differing widely from each 
 other, — but all of them impressed, it is said, with 
 these characteristic signs of the true Church. 
 What then is to be done ? 
 
 It is not however upon this negative ground 
 alone, — upon the impossibility of finding among 
 human beings any authorized or infallible judge of 
 truth and error, — that I would take my stand in 
 the assertion and vindication of the right of private 
 judgement; though it follows of course that if no 
 one else can establish a claim to decide for us, it 
 belongs to us to decide for ourselves. But we 
 have a stronger position to take up and maintain, 
 which is this ; — these very parties, the Roman Ca- 
 tholics and the Anglo-Catholics, in asking us to 
 submit to and abide by the decisions of their church 
 or clergy, are still appealing to our private judge- 
 ment, and that too upon the most important ques- 
 tion that can be proposed for our consideration. 
 They ask us to judge of the necessity, the propri- 
 ety, the reasonableness, of making their judgement 
 the standard of ours. The great previous ques- 
 
222 LECTURE V. 
 
 tion to be determined is, whether it would be right 
 in us, — whether we should be justified in making 
 any other person's creed the rule and ground of 
 our own, and, if so, whose it shall be ? 
 
 It is not because a man says, you must follow 
 me, that, therefore, we are to follow him ; for, in 
 this case, truth would no longer be one and uni- 
 form, but diverse and discordant. We must judge 
 for ourselves whether he is entitled to this deference 
 and submission ; whether it is safe or just to follow 
 him. They, who deny to us the right of judging 
 for ourselves, and insist upon the obligation of our 
 being guided by them, are, by this very act, re- 
 quiring us to exercise our own judgement upon the 
 most important of all questions, viz. whether we 
 ought to make this surrender of our own under- 
 standings to those of any other men. If I do 
 make this surrender, what but my own individual 
 judgement of its necessity or propriety can deter- 
 mine me to do so ? Still more imperative upon us 
 is the exercise of this judgement when we are call- 
 ed upon to arbitrate between different claimants. 
 Trust me, says the pope, or the Church of Rome. 
 No, exclaims the Anglo-Catholic divine ; if you 
 do, you will, in many important matters, be led 
 astray. Ours is the genuine Catholic Church — 
 rely upon her, and you cannot go wrong. Here- 
 upon the Greek Church thinks that she has a right 
 
LECTURE V. 223 
 
 to be heard, and accordingly steps forward and de- 
 clares that the truth lies with her, and that all else 
 are in error. Suppose that by one of them the 
 claim can be really substantiated, and that with this 
 one infallibihty and certainty actually dwell ; the 
 question then arises, which of them it is ? And to 
 decide this question must of necessity be left to our 
 own judgement. So that after all, private judge- 
 ment must be appealed to, and must be exercised. 
 
 To this it may be said, all men are not compe- 
 tent to judge in sacred matters. Some, from their 
 education and the circumstances of their lives — 
 from being altogether unaccustomed to think and 
 reflect, are wholly disqualified for coming to a sound 
 conclusion upon the various questions pertaining to 
 religion. It is, therefore, proper that there should 
 be some authorized guide, — some fixed and certain 
 standard to look up to, and by which the true doc- 
 trine should be distinguished from the false. 
 
 Upon this I observe, first, that right, and com- 
 petency properly to use the right, must not be con- 
 founded with one another. The one is not neces- 
 sarily the accompaniment of the other. A man 
 may have the right to do, what he is ill qualified 
 for doing wisely and beneficially. You have the 
 right to choose your physician, your lawyer, your 
 engineer, and it is important that you should choose 
 well ; and yet, from the circumstances in which you 
 
224 LECTURE V. 
 
 are placed, you may not be very competent to make 
 a good choice. In such a case we cannot say, it 
 does not belong to you to determine the matter. 
 That is left to another who will do this for you, and 
 to his decisions you must unhesitatingly bow. We 
 could not address to any one language hke this ; 
 but we might reasonably and becomingly say to 
 him, before you come to a decision upon a matter 
 of such great importance, take care that you have 
 qualified yourself to judge rightly. Avail yourself 
 of the knowledge and experience of others. Learn 
 from them the facts which will give you the means 
 of coming to a sound and satisfactory conclusion. 
 The power, the right of deciding is unquestionably 
 yours. That we do not deny. You may choose 
 whom you please. All we say is, see to it that you 
 render yourself competent and qualified to choose 
 well. Such advice — such recommendation as this 
 would be reasonable and proper. And if this were 
 all that is meant by questioning the right of private 
 judgement on the subject of religion, — if it were 
 only intended to check presumption, to curb rash- 
 ness, to prevent haste, to make men cautious and 
 careful in their inquiries, willing to receive instruc- 
 tion and anxious to avail themselves of all the light 
 which the labours and learningof others might throw 
 upon the subject of their meditation, — if no more 
 than this were intended by the advocates of ' Church 
 
LECTURE V. 225 
 
 principles,' there would be little or nothing to ob- 
 ject to. On the contrary, as has been judiciously 
 observed in a discourse on this subject by Dr. Haw- 
 kins, Provost of Oriel College, Oxford, there is a 
 duty as well as a right involved in the exercise of 
 this privilege of judging for ourselves. In con- 
 tending for the right, we are too apt to overlook 
 and forget the duty. The duty is, to see that we 
 are competent to judge of the questions that come 
 before us ; that we have duly qualified ourselves, 
 both intellectually and morally, for forming an opi- 
 nion upon the matter under consideration. If this 
 were done oftener than it is, there would be far less 
 of ignorance and presumption displayed on the sub- 
 ject of religion than, unhappily, we have now not 
 unfrequently to encounter. It would then be felt, 
 perhaps, that we are not at liberty to sport with 
 opinions, and to scatter about at random the mere 
 reveries of our fancy, careless whether they operate 
 for good or for evil. There would then be im- 
 pressed upon our minds the belief, that there is a 
 right and a wrong use of the faculties of the intel- 
 lect as well as of the body, — that we are answerable, 
 not indeed to man, but to God, for the principles 
 we adopt, — and that, with the power and the privi- 
 lege which we possess of seeking the truth for our- 
 selves, there is bound up the obligation to seek it 
 
 Q 
 
226 LECTURE V. 
 
 in a right spirit and with the aid of the proper ap- 
 phances. 
 
 Undouhtedly, every man should ask himself, be- 
 fore coming to a positive judgement upon the ques- 
 tion submitted to his consideration, am I qualified, 
 am I in a right position, to judge fairly? There is 
 no assumption, there is no unreasonableness in re- 
 quiring of any man such a preliminary step as this. 
 But when you say to him. You have no right in this 
 matter to judge for yourself, — your private judge- 
 ment must bend to my private judgement, or to 
 that of a collective body called the Church or the 
 Clergy, — the mind is very apt to feel indignant and 
 to revolt at such audacious usurpation. He may 
 fairly say, Who gave you this authority ? I see 
 that churches differ from one another, and that in- 
 dividuals belonging to the same church differ also. 
 I know that it becomes me to pay attention to wha 
 wise and good men have said on the subject of my 
 inquiries, and I trust that I shall not be backward 
 in availing myself of all the assistance which they 
 are able to afford me; but to tell me that I am only 
 to hearken and obey, that I must yield unresist- 
 ingly to their decisions, be they what they may, is 
 in itself not only an unjust, but an absurd require- 
 ment ; and the absurdity becomes still more mani- 
 fest and glaring when I consider that wise and good 
 
LECTURE V. 227 
 
 men differ among themselves, and that no greater 
 difficulty belongs to the inquiry, What is truth? than 
 belongs to the question. Which of these wise and 
 good men are in possession of the truth ? It would 
 therefore be as useless and vain, as it is prepos- 
 terous and absurd, to deny to any man the right of 
 private judgement*. But let him be told that there 
 is a duty, a great and sacred duty, going along with 
 the right : let him be told that the great law, un- 
 der which man is placed, is, that he shall receive 
 illumination and impulse from tliose who are wiser 
 and better than himself: let him be told that, in 
 the pursuit of rehgious truth, he is morally bound 
 to seek those aids which he would be glad to ac- 
 cept in all other cases of interest and importance : 
 let him be told that, from age, education, capacity, 
 or acquirements, he may not possess the means of 
 
 * " The question," says Archbishop Whately, " when plainly 
 stated, is not whether men should follow the guidance of incli- 
 nation and fancy ; nor, again, whether they should reject all 
 human teaching, and refuse all assistance in their inquiries after 
 religious truth ; but, supposing a man willing to avail himself of 
 all helps within his reach and to divest himself of all prejudice, 
 is he ultimately to decide according to the best of his own judge- 
 ment and embrace what appears to him truth ? or, is he to forgo 
 the exercise of his own judgement, and receive implicitly what is 
 decided for him by the authority of the Church, labouring to 
 stifle any different conviction that may present itself to his mind?" 
 — Dangers to Christian Faith from the teaching or the conduct of 
 its professors, p. 179. 
 
 q2 
 
228 LECTURE V. 
 
 coming to a just and sound conclusion, and that 
 therefore it will be wise and proper in him to sus- 
 pend his judgement for a while, or to defer to the 
 opinions of those who stand highest in general esti- 
 mation for their learning and virtue, the extent of 
 their attainments, the vigour of their understand- 
 ings, and the soberness of their conclusions. 
 
 We are, all of us, a good deal dependent upon 
 one another ; we are, all of us, obliged to take 
 much upon trust. This is the case not only with 
 men of little learning and little information, but 
 with men well accomplished in both these respects. 
 Take as an example the case of two or three men 
 of different talents and attainments inquiring into 
 the evidences of the Christian religion. The first, 
 we will say, is a scholar, and well read in all the 
 branches of Christian literature. The second is 
 one who, though not able to read the New Testa- 
 ment in the original or the works of the Greek and 
 Latin Fathers, has still leisure and opportunity for 
 reading such translations as have been made of them, 
 or such writings as contain the best and fullest in- 
 formation concerning them. The third is possessed 
 of plain good sense, but has little or no time for 
 reading works of any considerable extent, and de- 
 rives therefore most of his knowledge on the sub- 
 ject from those who are able to give him, in a small 
 compass, the result of their reading. Now each 
 
LECTURE V, 
 
 229 
 
 of these gets hold of the same facts, though in dif- 
 ferent ways ; and, possessing these facts, the one 
 may be as competent to draw from them the just 
 inference, as the other. Tlie first will say that, 
 from his own personal examination, he knows that 
 the books of the New Testament (with some slight 
 exception) existed in their present form at a very 
 early period of the Christian aera, as is testified by 
 the large quotations made from them in the works 
 of the first Christian Fathers, and which have come 
 under his own observation. The second will say 
 that he also has ascertained the same fact, not in- 
 deed from a perusal of the ancient authors them- 
 selves, but from the account given of them in the 
 works of Lardner, Less, Paley and others, in whose 
 representations he places the most entire confidence. 
 Then comes the third, and he tells us that he has 
 learnt this fact, neither from the Fathers them- 
 selves, nor from the writings of those by whom 
 the Fathers are largely quoted, but from the verbal 
 testimony or assurance of those who did thus ob- 
 tain their knowledge, and on the truth and inte- 
 grity of whose statements he firmly relies. Now, 
 in these cases, it might perhaps be said that the 
 last person, the poor unlettered man, is altogether 
 disqualified for drawing any argument in favour of 
 the authenticity of the New Testament from the 
 fact in question, because he has not been able to 
 
230 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 obtain a knowledge of it by means of his own per- 
 sonal examination of the authorities on which it 
 depends. To this I answer that, availing himself 
 as he may of the labours and learning of others for 
 the desired information, he then becomes (unless 
 there are other disqualifications to hinder him) quite 
 as competent to reason from the fact thus made 
 known to him, as the other two that have been 
 mentioned, though without their aid and apart 
 from their testimony no such competency would 
 be possessed by him. It is certainly true that on 
 the subject of religion, — on matters connected with 
 the interpretation of the New Testament, — there is 
 much concerning which many persons, from their 
 situation and circumstances, from their state and 
 condition intellectually and morally considered, are 
 not very well qualified to form a correct judgement. 
 If they think about them at all, their thoughts will 
 probably be very crude and ill-digested ; and hence 
 perhaps we shall be told that they, more especially, 
 stand in need of guidance and direction. Undoubt- 
 edly they do ; but, instead of saying to them, You 
 have no right to look into these matters, you have 
 no right to inquire and to judge of such things, 
 you must look up to us and take our opinions as 
 the rule and measure of your own, — instead of ad- 
 dressing them in a style of this sort, which might 
 be justly felt and resented as an insult, the wiser 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 231 
 
 course would be to say to them, The great essential 
 points of Christian belief, all that it is most neces- 
 sary and important for you to know, are so clearly 
 and explicitly and emphatically taught in the scrip- 
 tures of the New Testament, that all may under- 
 stand them, from the least to the greatest. " Secret 
 things belong unto the Lord, but those which are 
 revealed belong unto us and to our children." Upon 
 these let your thoughts be chiefly exercised ; give 
 most of your attention to them ; they will instruct 
 you in the one thing needful, they will make you 
 wise unto salvation ; and if you are desirous of 
 extending your inquiries beyond these, — if you are 
 anxious to become acquainted not only with the 
 leading principles, the object, the purpose, the 
 spirit of Christianity, but with the letter of the 
 New Testament, with the exact meaning of all its 
 various contents, argumentative as well as didactic, 
 controversial as well as historical, obscure as well 
 as plain, — remember that, for this purpose, certain 
 qualifications are absolutely necessary, and that 
 without these you will only trouble and perplex 
 yourselves in vain. Unquestionably you have the 
 right — as great a right as any one has — to in- 
 quire into the meaning of every part and portion 
 of Scripture ; the right, I say, to do so, provided 
 you have rendered yourselves competent to do so. 
 But it does not follow that, because the right is 
 
232 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 with you, you are therefore in a fit state to exer- 
 cise it wisely and beneficially ; that will depend 
 upon the means and opportunities now in your 
 possession. Bound up with the right, which we 
 all possess, is the duty of seeing whether we have 
 the requisite qualifications for using it properly and 
 advantageously. In this respect we all stand upon 
 the same ground of obligation and responsibility. 
 We may, and should, all of us, judge for ourselves 
 in every case where we are competent to judge ; 
 and though that competency may not be possessed 
 by all, on all questions lying within the province of 
 theology or religion, it is possessed by all men of 
 plain good understandings with respect to those 
 questions which are of the first necessity and the 
 greatest importance. As ChiUingworth observes, 
 " the Scripture is so plain in those things which 
 concern our duty, that whosoever desires and en- 
 deavours to find the will of God there, he shall 
 either find it, or at least not dangerously mistake 
 it*." And the same sentiment is expressed by one 
 not inferior in force of reasoning, or variety of 
 learning : " In Scripture," says Jeremy Taylor, 
 " all that is necessary is plain : if a man retain 
 honesty and simplicity, he cannot err in a matter 
 of absolute necessity: God's goodness hath secured 
 all honest and careful persons from that ; for other 
 
 * Works, p. 720, ed. 1836. 
 
LECTURE V. 233 
 
 things he must follow the best guides he can, and 
 he cannot be obliged to follow better than God hath 
 given him*." 
 
 We are told however by the Oxford divines, 
 that saving Christian truth is in the keeping of the 
 Church alone, and that of this truth the priest, as 
 her organ, is the proclaimer and expounder. But 
 why am I to believe that what he announces as the 
 doctrine of the Church is therefore Christian truth ? 
 Because he tells me so ? because he tells me that 
 he has authority to declare it ? Why here is an- 
 other minister of the same Church, possessed of 
 the same episcopal ordination and holding precisely 
 the same office, who assures me that this assump- 
 tion of authority is all a delusion ; that neither of 
 them are endowed with any such power or privilege 
 as that laid claim to, and that what are called the 
 traditions of the Church are entitled to little con- 
 sideration or respect. 1 find also, upon further in- 
 vestigation, that what is declared to be primitive 
 and catholic truth by one, is denounced and con- 
 demned by another as mischievous error, as a spu- 
 rious addition to the genuine Christian doctrine. 
 Thus placed in a strait betwixt two, there is no 
 other course left to me than to examine the matter 
 for myself and decide thereon according to my own 
 honest judgement. 
 
 * Liberty of Prophesying, pp. 234, 235. 
 
234 LECTURE V. 
 
 There is one topic more, bearing upon the sub- 
 ject before us, upon which I must here offer a few 
 observations. The Anglo-Cathohc Church, which 
 certain divines now pronounce to be the only true 
 Church, is but a Umb torn away and separated from 
 the body of the Roman CathoUc Church. On w^hat 
 ground, I ask, was this separation made ? On the 
 ground, it is replied, of the errors and corruptions 
 which had grown up in the Romish Church. But 
 who are the judges that have come to such a con- 
 clusion ? The majority of her members ? her bi- 
 shops and clergy in council assembled ? No — only 
 a few, a small minority. A certain number of per- 
 sons, members of her communion, choose to de- 
 clare her corrupt, and thereby are separated from 
 her : that is, they set up their judgement in op- 
 position to that of the Church to which they be- 
 longed ; the few decide against the many. Allow- 
 ing that the Church of Rome had become corrupt, 
 who, according to the doctrine of the Oxford di- 
 vines themselves, had a right to convict and con- 
 demn her ? Was this the right of the minority ? 
 If it was, the whole theory of Church authority is 
 overturned and uprooted from its very foundation ; 
 for if the Church (then the universal Church as 
 much as a church could be expected to be) is not 
 to be attended to and obeyed when she speaks 
 through her councils and doctors, ivhen is that at- 
 
LECTURE V, 235 
 
 tention due and that obedience to be paid ? Either, 
 therefore, the right of private judgement belongs 
 aUke to all, or the Church of England, upon the 
 principles of her own advocates, cannot be justified 
 in her separation from the apostolically descended 
 Church of Rome. 
 
 In answer to this, a new mode of defence has 
 lately been adopted for the Church of England, and 
 it is pretended that she did not alienate herself from 
 the Church of Rome, but was by that Church re- 
 jected and cut off from her communion, and that 
 therefore her separate independent existence is one 
 not of choice but of necessity. 
 
 " I deny absolutely," says Mr. Palmer, " that the 
 English Church did, either in fact or in intention, 
 separate herself from the communion of the rest of 
 the Catholic Church." And again : " Neither the 
 Church of England nor king Henry Vllf. had any 
 notion of separating themselves from the commu- 
 nion of the rest of Christendom when they removed 
 the papal jurisdiction, which they justly held to be 
 an usurpation altogether unsupported by the word 
 of God or by the laws of the Church*." 
 
 Surely this is little better than mere verbal tri- 
 fling. Say that the Church of England did not 
 separate herself from the Church of Rome, can it 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. i. pp. 339, 341. 
 
236 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 be denied that she did that which necessarily led 
 to a separation ? Did she not refuse any longer to 
 comply with the conditions which were deemed es- 
 sential to Catholic communion ? Did she not rise 
 up in rebellion against that authority which she 
 had hitherto acknowledged and obeyed ? But the 
 papal jurisdiction, it is alleged, being an usurpa- 
 tion unauthorized by the word of God, the English 
 branch of the Church Catholic was justified in cast- 
 ing off the intolerable yoke. But had not this 
 jurisdiction been established by the consent of the 
 majority ? And what right had any smaller num- 
 ber to place themselves in opposition to the sense 
 of the general body '? Then again, I ask, would 
 the Church of England have been contented with 
 the mere rejection of the Romish jurisdiction? 
 This might be all that King Henry cared about, 
 but was it all that the Church cared about, — that 
 the best and wisest of her children contemplated ? 
 Or do Mr. Palmer himself and others of the same 
 school intend to say, that they would have been 
 satisfied if nothing more had been done? They 
 talk sometimes of the errors and corruptions which 
 had gathered about the Romish Church. Would 
 they have had such errors and corruptions remain? 
 Would they have made no protest against them ? 
 Would they have continued to sanction them, — to 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 237 
 
 sanction not only corrupt practices and erroneous 
 proceedings, but false principles, errors of faith*? 
 If not, what course could they have pursued, but 
 either voluntarily to have separated themselves 
 from all contact and fellowship with them, or have 
 adopted such a line of conduct as must have com- 
 pelled the Church of Rome, without an entire change 
 in her constitution, to expel them from her bosom? 
 In either case the division would have been caused 
 by them, — by setting up their judgement in oppo- 
 sition to that of the general body of Catholic be- 
 lievers. The Church of Rome only did in their 
 case what the Church of England did in the case 
 of the Nonconformists. When the latter refused 
 compliance with the despotic requirements of the 
 Act of Uniformity, the Church of England rejected 
 them from her communion ; and it might, with just 
 as much reason and truth, be asserted, that by this 
 proceeding the English Church departed from the 
 Nonconformist churches, as that the Roman Ca- 
 tholics departed from the Church of England. In 
 both instances the separation or division that took 
 place arose out of the resistance that was made by 
 
 * We read in the nineteenth article, to which of course Mr. 
 Palmer and his colleagues have given their unfeigned assent and 
 consent, that " as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and An- 
 tiochhave erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only 
 in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of 
 faith." 
 
238 LECTURE V. 
 
 one party to the usurpations of the other, and in 
 both instances the justification, the defence, is the 
 same. 
 
 But consider, it is said, — consider the conse- 
 quences flowing from the admission of the right of 
 private judgement. Look at the false doctrines, 
 the ridiculous opinions, the foolish extravagances, 
 the absurd and mischievous practices which the 
 exercise of this pretended right has often led to. 
 Ye shall know it by its fruits, and see by its fruits 
 the evils of which it has been productive, and 
 for which it should stand condemned and pro- 
 scribed. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the exercise of private 
 judgement may be abused and misapplied, and so 
 be, sometimes, the occasion of much mischief. But 
 this is the case with all our powers and privileges : 
 we possess nothing that may not be made an in- 
 strument of evil. It is a condition of all our bless- 
 ings that they may be perverted and turned to a 
 bad account. The surrender of our own judge- 
 ments to the opinions of other men, — this tame 
 unquestioning submission to Church authority, of 
 the advantages of which we now hear so much, — 
 must be admitted, even by its own abettors, to be 
 and to have been the occasion of great and lament- 
 able errors and corruptions in the Church of Christ. 
 If not, why do they keep aloof from the Romish 
 
LECTURE V. 239 
 
 communion ? And if it should be alleged that the 
 right of individual judgement may be conceded to 
 some and refused to others, — that, while it is al- 
 lowed to the cultivated and the learned, it must be 
 denied to the illiterate and unlearned, — my answer 
 is, that learning and other acquirements are, in 
 themselves, no security for the possession of sound 
 understandings and sober judgements, for the ex- 
 ercise of calm and dispassionate inquiry, for a 
 careful examination of premises and a cautious de- 
 duction of inferences. It is not the uninstructed 
 and unlearned classes alone that have fallen into 
 gross absurdities of opinion and still grosser extra- 
 vagances of conduct. Those among the well-edu- 
 cated and the learned, — men issuing from cloisters 
 and colleges, — have, in proportion to their number, 
 been betrayed into errors as ridiculous and into 
 practices as contemptible as any of those that can 
 be traced to the humbler ranks of society. Look 
 into the writings of some of the Oxford divines 
 themselves, and I will venture to say that no men, 
 be their condition in life wdiat it may, have ever 
 put forth more wild, fantastic, silly, odious opinions 
 than they have. In proof of this I need only recall 
 to your recollection some of the extracts from 
 their writings which were given in former lectures. 
 These I cannot again bring forward, but I will refer 
 to one or two others of a somewhat different kind. 
 Dr. Pusey, in his ' Treatise on Baptism,' approves 
 
240 LECTURE V. 
 
 of the Catholic practice of anointing with oil in the 
 administration of this rite, and of the ceremony for 
 casting out the evil spirit that lurks in the body of 
 the infant. He makes also the passage through 
 the Red Sea and over the river Jordan types of 
 baptism, and contends that baptism itself is the 
 washing of regeneration and a renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost. Mr. Sewell, the late moral philoso- 
 phy professor at Oxford, maintains (in his work 
 entitled ' Christian Morals ') that by episcopal bap- 
 tism the devil is literally expelled from the bodies 
 of new-born babes ; and he speaks favourably of 
 the form of exorcism as practised in the early ages, 
 and with an evident desire that it should be restored 
 to the Church. That form is thus represented by 
 him : " When the person, whose education the 
 Church was undertaking, was brought to be bap- 
 tized, he w^as first, either in his own person or in 
 his sponsors, placed towards the west, barefooted 
 and stripped of his outer garments, — his hands 
 stretched out, as if pushing an enemy from him — 
 his head averted, — and thrice he was bidden to spit 
 in the face of Satan, as a form of abhorrence and 
 rejection, and thrice to renounce him and all his 
 works. And then he was turned to the east, — his 
 eyes lifted up to heaven, his hands stretched out in 
 prayer, — and he was called on to make a solemn 
 profession of entering into the service of another 
 master, Christ." 
 
LECTURE V. 241 
 
 He also maintains that "in the Scriptures the 
 cross of Christ is seen in the tree of life, in the 
 wood of the sacrifice laid on the shoulders of Isaac, 
 in the rod of Moses, in the pole on which the ser- 
 pent hung, in the staft' of David, in the wood of the 
 ark, in the bough thrown into the bitter waters. 
 So the mystery of baptism is read in the deep which 
 covered the earth, in the waters of the deluge, in 
 the Red Sea, in Jordan, in the waters of the Nile 
 turned into blood, in the pitcher of water changed 
 into wine for the marriage of Cana, in the water 
 borne by the man who prepared the room for our 
 Lord's passover ; and so of the other mysteries of 
 Christianity*." 
 
 What sillier things than these could the exercise 
 of private judgement lead to among the humblest 
 and the lowest of the people '? Is it not also noto- 
 rious that controversies of the most foolish and 
 frivolous kind have originated with and been car- 
 
 * See Edinburgh Review, No. 154. pp. 473, 474. In the 
 Fathers may be found, as is shown in the fourth lecture, many- 
 interpretations of Scripture parallel to this of Mr. SeweU's. The 
 following, not before quoted, may serve as a specimen, Jerome 
 (who flourished in the fourth century), writing to Pope Damasus 
 concerning a portion of Scripture in the Old Testament, makes 
 " Isaac to represent God the Father, Rebecca the Holy Spirit, 
 Esau the former people multiplied by the Devil, and Jacob the 
 Church of Christ." Yet these are the expounders of Scripture 
 to whom we are instructed to look up as guides, and to follow 
 with undoubting steps ! 
 
 R 
 
242 LECTURE V. 
 
 ried on by those who are pre-eminently styled the 
 learned ? We know that some of the worst errors 
 and the greatest corruptions with which Christianity 
 has been burthened were introduced into it, not by 
 the unlearned, the plain common people, the ' sim- 
 plices,' the * idiotse,' as Tertullian calls them, but by 
 those who had come out of the schools of heathen 
 philosophy. It was they who talked so much about 
 essences and hypostases, of unity in plurality and 
 plurality in unity, of the divine nature incorporated 
 with the human nature, and the Godhead blended 
 with the manhood, while the great body of the 
 people, the plain simple Christians, could not un- 
 derstand this jargon, and for a long time strenu- 
 ously maintained and held fast to the pure intelli- 
 gible doctrine of one God, and one Mediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus, And we have 
 this fact recorded in the gospels, that while the 
 learned Scribes and Pharisees cavilled at the dis- 
 courses of Christ, the common people listened re- 
 verentially to the gracious w^ords which fell from 
 his lips, and went away rejoicing that they had 
 heard him. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 From what has been said in the foregoing lectures 
 of " the Church principles" so strenuously main- 
 tained by divines of the Oxford or Tractarian 
 school, it will be seen on what high ground of 
 authority they place that branch of the Catholic 
 Church denominated the Church of England. Ac- 
 cording to them it is divine in its origin, episcopal 
 in its form, descends to us in direct succession 
 from the apostles, and is the appointed judge in 
 religious controversies. Its rulers are the bishops, 
 assisted by the clergy of their respective dioceses, 
 and in them is vested the right to manage and 
 direct all its affairs. This is the theory of the 
 polity of the Church according to the views of the 
 Anglo-Catholic party. They maintain that a visi- 
 ble society w as established by Christ and his apo- 
 stles, whose constitution and government are one 
 and uniform, that in this constitution prelacy forms 
 an essential element, without which no community 
 of professing Christians can be considered a part 
 of the Catholic Church of Christ, and that by the 
 
 R 2 
 
244 LECTURE VI. 
 
 grace of the episcopal order alone is any efficacy 
 imparted to the administration of the word and 
 sacraments. 
 
 Now with such lofty pretensions as these, — with 
 such high notions of the independent power and 
 authority of the Church, its whole history and its 
 present condition in this country are entirely at 
 variance. Of the truth of this statement the party 
 referred to are perfectly sensible. Their writings 
 abound with complaints and remonstrances against 
 the existing state of the Church, of its dependence 
 Hpon and subjection to the secular power. This 
 dependence and subjection they feel to be not a 
 little troublesome and perplexing to those who, 
 like themselves, are contending for the divine 
 origin and institution of the episcopal form of 
 church government, the perpetual and unalterable 
 nature of the Christian priesthood, and the absolute 
 right and duty of the Church, through the instru- 
 mentality of that priesthood, to be its own ruler 
 and director. 
 
 Nothing is more certain than that the Church of 
 England, ever since its separation from the Church 
 of Rome, does not correspond, in its external form, 
 with the views entertained by the Oxford divines 
 of what a Church should be. Instead of being in- 
 dependent of the civil powder and enacting its own 
 laws and regulations, the Church, as a separate 
 
LECTURE VI. 245 
 
 estate, has no independent jurisdiction at all. It 
 exists only by and through the State, and cannot 
 change an article of its creed, or effect a single 
 alteration in its discipline without the express 
 sanction of an Act of Parliament. Respecting this 
 position of the Church, and its bearings upon the 
 principles of the Oxford school, some further ob- 
 servations will be made presently ; meanwhile, I 
 will here say a few words to show that it has not 
 only been doubted, but positively denied by some 
 of the greatest scholars and divines of which our 
 country can boast, that any invariable fixed form of 
 church government was laid down by Christ or his 
 apostles. 
 
 The first name that I shall mention is that of 
 Hooker, the celebrated author of the ' Ecclesiastical 
 Polity.' "It was maintained," says Hallam, " by 
 this great writer, not only that ritual observances 
 are variable, according to the discretion of eccle- 
 siastical rulers, but that no certain form of polity 
 is set down in Scripture as generally indispensable 
 for a Christian Church*." In confirmation of 
 this statement, let Hooker's own words be cited : 
 " To change those things that are not essential 
 to salvation (as forms of church government) is, 
 no otherwise to change the plan of salvation than 
 a path is changed by altering only the uppermost 
 
 * Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 294. 
 
246 LECTURE VI. 
 
 face of it, which, be it laid with gravel, or set with 
 grass, or paved with stone, remaineth still the same 
 
 path Is it an oversight that we reckon these 
 
 things (external rites and matters of government) 
 in the number of things accessory, not things ne- 
 cessary ? Let them who think us blameable con- 
 sider their own words. Do they not plainly com- 
 pare the one unto garments, which cover the body 
 of the Church ; the other unto rings, bracelets and 
 jewels, that only adorn it ? The one, to that food 
 which the Church doth live by ; the other, to that 
 which maketh her diet liberal, dainty, and more 
 delicious ? Is dainty fare a thing necessary to the 
 sustenance, — a rich attire to the clothing of the 
 body ? If not, how can they urge the necessity of 
 that which themselves resemble by things not ne- 
 cessary* ?" 
 
 Bishop Warburton makes these observations on 
 the 'Ecclesiastical Pohty: ' "The great Hooker 
 was not only against, but laid down principles that 
 have entirely subverted, all pretences to a divine 
 unalterable right in any form of church government 
 whatever. Yet, strange to say, his work was so 
 unavoidable a confutation of puritanical principles, 
 which, by the way, claimed their presbytery as of 
 divine right, that the churchmen took advantage 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Polity, book iii. pp. 210, 211 ; Kanbury's ed. 
 1 830. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 247 
 
 of the success of their champion, and now hegan to 
 claim a divine right for episcopacy on the strength 
 of that very book that subverted all pretences to 
 every species of divine right whatsoever*." 
 
 Whitgift, whom Mr. Keble calls the Church's 
 defender, maintained, according to the representa- 
 tion of Neal in his ' History of the Puritans,' " that 
 though the Holy Scriptures were a perfect rule of 
 faith, they were not designed as a standard of 
 church government and disciphne, but that this 
 was changeable and might be accommodated to the 
 civil government we live under ; that the apostolic 
 government was adapted to the Church in its in- 
 fancy, but was to be enlarged and altered as the 
 Church grew to maturity." 
 
 " Whitgift, in his answer to Cartwright's ' Ad- 
 monition'," says Hallam, "rested the controversy 
 in the main, as Hooker did, on the indifferency of 
 church discipline and ceremony. It was not till 
 afterwards that the defenders of the established 
 order found out that one claim of divine right was 
 best met by anotherf." 
 
 Bishop Burnet says, that the direction of the apo- 
 stles " to appoint elders in the several cities where 
 Christianity prevailed is not a sufficient ground to 
 
 * Notes on Neal's History of the Puritans in Warburton's 
 Works, 4to ed. 1788, vol.vii. p. 898. 
 
 t Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 21)3, note. 
 
248 LECTURE VI. 
 
 go upon for calling the order of the clergy a posi- 
 tive institution of Christ, because it does not appear 
 that Christ gave any directions about that matter, 
 and because the apostles never mention it as such, 
 but only as a prudential, proper and useful office*." 
 
 Dr. Paley has clearly shown that the apostolic 
 usages and directions do not warrant any exclusive 
 form of ecclesiastical government. " While," says 
 he, " the precepts of Christian morality and the 
 great articles of its faith are for the most part pre- 
 cise and absolute, of perpetual and universal obli- 
 gation, the laws which respect the discipline and 
 government of the community are delivered in terms 
 so general and indefinite as to admit of an applica- 
 tion adapted to the mutable condition and varying 
 exigencies of the Christian Churchf." 
 
 To these names I shall only add one more, — 
 that of Lord Bacon, w^ho thus expresses himself: 
 "That there should be but one form of discipline 
 in all churches, I, for my part, do confess that on 
 revolving the Scriptures I could never find any 
 such thing ; but that God hath left the like liberty 
 to the church government as he had done to the 
 civil government, to be varied according to time 
 and place and accidents. For all civil governments 
 
 * Burnet's ' Full Examination of several important points,' p. 
 109. 
 
 f Paley 's Works, vol. vii. p. 90. ed. 1825. 
 
LECTURE VI. 249 
 
 are restrained from God unto the general grounds 
 of justice and manners, but the pohcies and forms 
 of them are left free. So likewise in Church mat- 
 ters the substance of doctrine is immutable, and so 
 are the general rules of government ; but for rites 
 and ceremonies and for the particular hierarchies, 
 policies and disciplines of churches, they be left at 
 large. And, therefore, it is good that we return 
 again unto the ancient bounds of unity in the Church 
 of God which was one faith, one baptism, and not 
 one hierarchy, one discipline*." 
 
 It thus appears that the Oxford divines hold very 
 different opinions, respecting the constitution and 
 government of the Christian Church, from those 
 which were held by some of the most illustrious 
 members of the Church of England itself in former 
 times. Instead of maintaining that any particular 
 form of administration or discipline was essential 
 to the character of a true church, those distin- 
 guished men asserted that no directions as to the 
 necessity of such a form were ever given by Christ 
 or his apostles. They considered the whole matter 
 to be one entirely of expediency, a question to be 
 determined by the existing state of society, — by 
 the usages and habits of the people whom it im- 
 mediately concerned. They might have preferred 
 the episcopal to any other mode of church govern- 
 
 * Bacon's Works, vol. iii. p. 1.50, quarto ed. 1765. 
 
250 LECTURE VI. 
 
 ment. They might have regarded it not only as 
 more expedient, but as approaching nearer to the 
 apostoUc modeh But they did not, on that ac- 
 count, claim for it the title of a divine ordinance. 
 They did not ascribe to it the extraordinary virtue 
 and efficacy which are now attributed to it. They 
 did not put it forward as the necessary character- 
 istic of a true church — as the one thing needful, 
 without which condemnation immediately followed. 
 On the contrary, they earnestly contended for the 
 Christian rights and character of the Reformed 
 Churches which had adopted a different mode of 
 superintendence or government from that of Epi- 
 scopacy, and strongly urged the propriety of holding 
 communion with them, — of regarding and treating 
 them as members of the same common family. — 
 What names can the revived Laudian school pre- 
 sent to us that will bear a comparison with those 
 of Bacon, Hale, Selden among laymen, and those 
 of Hooker, Usher, Chillingworth, Burnet, Tillotson, 
 Sherlock, Paley among the divines ? Who, then, 
 can hear without wonder, and, at the same time, 
 without indignation and disgust, such language as 
 the follow^mg : " Why should we not seriously en- 
 deavour to impress our people with this plain truth, 
 that by separating themselves from our communion, 
 they separate themselves not only from a decent, 
 orderly, useful society, but from the only Church 
 
LECTURE VI. 251 
 
 in this realm which has a right to be quite sure that 
 she has the Lord's body to give to his people^?" 
 And, again, Ministers duly ordained are to be ho- 
 noured " as those who are entrusted with the keys 
 of heaven and hell, and with the awful and my- 
 sterious privilege of dispensing Christ's body and 
 bloodf." 
 
 What, I ask, is the tendency, the end of all this, 
 but the exaltation of the clerical office, — the revi- 
 val of the old priestly domination, — the restoration 
 of the power and authority possessed by the clergy 
 in the dark ages ? There is, however, one great 
 obstacle to the accomplishment of such a purpose, 
 and that is the jurisdiction, the controul, which the 
 State exercises over the Church. This, as before 
 observed, the Oxford party deeply feel, and deplore. 
 With their notions of what the Church should be, 
 they are greatly indignant at what it is. They know 
 and feel that the episcopal church in this country 
 is not its own ruler — does not ordain its own rites — 
 does not appoint its own bishops — does not manage 
 its own concerns, — that, in fact, all this is in the 
 hands of the Sovereign and the Parliament. The 
 Church of England is the church as by law esta- 
 blished. Its authority lies not in a council of bi- 
 shops, but in the great Council of the nation ; and 
 whatever little jurisdiction or power has been allow- 
 
 * Tract? for the Times, No. 4. p. o. t I^id- No. 10. p. 5. 
 
252 LECTURE VI, 
 
 ed to the Bishops, may be exercised by them with- 
 out the advice or assistance of the inferior clergy. 
 So that the ideal of a Catholic Church, as painted 
 in the dreams of the Puseyite party, is certainly not 
 realized in the existing Church of England. Hence 
 their frequent and indignant assertion of the grie- 
 vances which they allege the Church of England to 
 be now suffering from the usurped authority of the 
 State. Hence the bitter complaints which they 
 make of the injustice done to her in depriving her 
 of certain advantages and monopolies of which she 
 was formerly in possession. Hence their doleful 
 lamentations at seeing Christians of other denomi- 
 nations admitted by the State to the common rights 
 and privileges of British citizens. That I may not 
 be supposed to give a false or exaggerated repre- 
 sentation of their views and feelings I will place 
 before you a statement of their regrets and remon- 
 strances in their own words. I shall begin with 
 the authors of the ' Tracts for the Times.' 
 
 " Let me call your attention," says the writer of 
 the second number, " to what seems a most dan- 
 gerous infringement on our rights, on the part of 
 the State. The Legislature has lately taken upon 
 itself to remodel the dioceses of Ireland* ; a pro- 
 
 * " The suppression of bishoprics in Ireland some years ago, 
 being obviously intended not for the welfare but for the injury of 
 the Church, — nothing but the apprehension of still greater evils. 
 
LECTURE VI. 253 
 
 ceeding which involves the appointment of certain 
 bishops over certain clergy, and of certain clergy 
 under certain bishops, without the Church being 
 consulted in the matter. . . . Are we content to be 
 accounted the mere creation of the State, as school- 
 masters and teachers may be, or soldiers or magis- 
 trates, or other public officers ? Did the State make 
 us ? Can it unmake us ? Can it send out missio- 
 naries ? Can it arrange dioceses ? Surely all these 
 are spiritual functions. Would St. Paul, with his 
 good will, have suffered the Roman power to ap- 
 point Timothy, Bishop of Miletus, as well as of 
 Ephesus ? Would Timothy, at such a bidding have 
 undertaken the charge ? Is not the notion of such 
 an order, such an obedience, absurd? Yet has it 
 not been reahzed at what has lately happened ? 
 For in what is the English State at present differ- 
 ent from the Roman formerly ? Neither can be 
 accounted members of the Church of Christ. No 
 one can say the British Legislature is in our com- 
 munion, or that its members are necessarily even 
 Christians. What pretence then has it for not 
 merely advising, but superseding the Ecclesiastical 
 powder*?" 
 
 and especially those which might have arisen from the want of 
 unanimity in the Church herself on that occasion, could have im- 
 posed on that Church any obligation of yielding to so unjust an 
 act." — Palmer on the Church, vol. ii, p. 260, note. 
 * No. 2. pp. 1,2. 
 
254 LECTURE VI. 
 
 In the same strain writes Mr. Keble : " What," 
 he asks, " is the hne to be taken by those clergy- 
 men who feel serious objections, in conscience and 
 principle, to the course of ecclesiastical regulation 
 now in progress ; who consider our Saviour's char- 
 ter to be violated by the admission of a body, con- 
 stituted as the British Parliament now is, to legis- 
 late for the Church of Christ, especially without 
 controul or authority from the Bishops synodically 
 assembled ? Under such persuasion can we help 
 regarding the law^s so passed, or hereafter to be 
 passed, as having in themselves no canonical force, 
 and only then claiming the submission of Christ's 
 ministers and people, when enforced on us seve- 
 rally by command of our respective diocesans ? Or 
 can we avoid entertaining fears that the whole may 
 amount in God's sight to the concurrence of the 
 Church in a great national sin* ?" 
 
 My next quotation will be made from the British 
 Critic, which, at the time, when the following pas- 
 sages were written, was the recognized organ of the 
 modern high-church party. They are all contained 
 in the fiftieth number of that periodical. 
 
 " We need not go through the concessions made 
 by the Church to the State in order to prove the 
 unfair and evil use that has been made of them 
 against the Church itself. We use the word un- 
 
 * Keble on Tradition, p. 64. 
 
LECTURE A^I. 255 
 
 fairness, though it may seem ridiculous to do so, 
 when it is remembered that ten changeable gene- 
 rations of men and a hundred different political 
 factions, have been the aggressor. We are only 
 speaking of the fact, and the fact is all we have to 
 do with, when we are considering the important 
 question, whether the existing relation of the Church 
 and the State is worth having; worth taking our 
 stand upon ; w^orth struggling for ; worth the sa- 
 crifice of higher ground ; worth anything, in fact, 
 but resignation. 
 
 "It is not too much to say that all religious 
 bodies in England have liberty but the Church. 
 She cannot admit or exclude from her pale at her 
 discretion. She cannot administer, or refuse her 
 ordinances as she thinks fit. She must profane 
 them if called upon. She cannot make new ar- 
 rangements for new emergencies. She cannot re- 
 cast her services, or add to them, if need be. She 
 cannot amend one hasty or violent alteration. She 
 cannot either speak or authorize as a whole, for she 
 has lent her signet to the State. She cannot make 
 commissions for missionary or other purposes. She 
 cannot praise or blame ; for attempting the latter, 
 she w^as deprived of the last remaining semblance 
 of a deliberative body. She cannot put forth a sin- 
 gle homily, a single revision of the old homilies, or 
 a single tract, or the simplest comment on her ca- 
 
256 LECTURE VI. 
 
 techism, — all which things every other religious 
 body in the realm can do, and does abundantly." 
 
 " We are fain to ask ourselves the question, which 
 nothing but the most calamitous circumstances can 
 render loyal and reverential, whether it is our duty 
 to defend and maintain strenuously the present po- 
 sition of the Church, and her de facto relations to 
 the State ? We do not know where we are. Nei- 
 ther sun nor stars have for many days appeared, 
 and no small tempest lies upon us." 
 
 Of all these passages taken together what are we 
 to think ? One is almost tempted to ask, is it pos- 
 sible for them to have been WTitten by persons who 
 are really members and ministers of the Church of 
 England ? Could a stronger bill of indictment 
 against that Church have been drawn up by its 
 bitterest opponents ? If the English Church be in 
 this state of degradation and debasement ; if it be 
 thus dragged at the chariot-wheels of the State ; if 
 it be thus manacled in all its limbs and hampered 
 in all its movements ; why not burst asunder the 
 bonds of its oppression, and assert its freedom and 
 independence ? Or I should say rather, why do 
 not those who take this view of the present condi- 
 tion of the English Church — so inconsistent, ac- 
 cording to them, with God's ordinance, which com- 
 mits to the ministers of the Church alone the exer- 
 cise of all spiritual jurisdiction and the right of 
 
LECTURE VI. 257 
 
 ordering and directing all Church ceremonies and 
 observances — why do they not, under these circum- 
 stances, set up a genuine Anglo-Catholic Churcli 
 disenthralled from that State bondage and capti- 
 vity of which they so loudly complain ? We should 
 then be able to understand better what it is that 
 they are really aiming at. If they think that they 
 are seriously aggrieved by the relation in which 
 they at present stand to the State, let that relation, 
 as far at least as they are concerned, be put an end 
 to. Let them come out, and be separate, and no 
 longer touch the unclean thing. Let them re- 
 sign the State's emoluments, and the grievances 
 as regards themselves will instantly cease. The 
 State says, for such a service you shall have such 
 a reward. They are willing to take the reward, but 
 are reluctant to comply with the conditions. Give 
 ap the reward, and the conditions drop with it. 
 
 These so-called possessors of holy apostohc orders 
 complain bitterly of the encroachments and usur- 
 pations of the State. They complain that their 
 power has been unjustly curtailed — that the autho- 
 rity, which of right belonged to them alone in 
 virtue of their apostolic descent, has been taken 
 away from them, and that the State has assumed 
 to itself the administration of a trust which was 
 committed exclusively to them, and by them only 
 can be properly discharged. These are the accu- 
 
 s 
 
258 LECTURE VI. 
 
 sations and complaints, and for what purpose are 
 they made? Is it to assert the rights of their 
 Church purely as a Church? Is it to get it re- 
 leased from the thraldom of the State ? Do they 
 want to dissolve the connexion, to break away 
 from the bondage which so mortifies and annoys 
 them ? If so, it is an object completely within 
 their power. There is nothing to hinder them. 
 There is nothing to prevent them from setting up 
 an Anglo- Cathohc Church, emancipated from all 
 State shackles, and governing itself by laws of its 
 own ordaining. All this they can do if they please. 
 They have but to say to the State, No more of your 
 endowments, and they are instantly free. Let them 
 do this, and we shall honour them for their fidelity 
 to conscience and duty. We shall have proof that 
 their complaints arose from a sense of the intole- 
 rable yoke under which they groaned, being burth- 
 ened ; and because they could no longer bear that 
 the Church, which they reverenced and loved, 
 should be kept under the controul and government 
 of the State. But seeing what we do, the question 
 recurs, Is this the one great purpose contemplated ? 
 Is it their main object to throw off from their necks 
 the yoke of an usurped dominion, and to stand, in- 
 dependently, on their own foundation ? If this be 
 the case — if the State's domination be the evil that 
 so wounds and afflicts them, they have the remedy 
 
LECTURE VI. 259 
 
 in their own hands. The means of redress are in 
 their own power. The door is open to them, and 
 they may go forth and assert and exercise their 
 freedom and independence without let or hindrance. 
 But it requires no great insight into human cha- 
 racter to perceive that this they will probably not 
 do, and that they have other purposes to answer 
 and other objects to gain. They sigh after the flesh- 
 pots of Egypt. They long for the restoration of 
 their lost privileges. They desire to be reinstated 
 in their old chair of authoritative command, and 
 that their dictum should be received with reverence 
 and submission. Hence their exaggerated repre- 
 sentations of the sacredness and dignity of the 
 priestly office, and the efficacy they attach to the 
 priestly administration of ordinances and sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 The Oxford divines object then to the dependence 
 of the Church upon the State, and deprecate the 
 dominion which the latter exercises over the former. 
 But so it was in the beginning, and always has been. 
 It is no new thing : it is no modern innovation. 
 From the first moment of its severance from the 
 Church of Rome this was the condition of its exist- 
 ence, — the mode in which it had its being. It may 
 pretend to have the power of decreeing rites and 
 ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith, 
 but it is only a pretence. Apart from the State it 
 
 s2 
 
260 LECTURE VI. 
 
 never possessed and never did exercise such an au- 
 thority. It came into existence by the will of the 
 State, and has all along been subject to the controul 
 of the State. So observes Mr. Hallam. " The 
 first measure adopted in throwing off the yoke of 
 Rome was to invest the Sovereign with an absolute 
 controul over the Anglican Church* ; so that no 
 part of its coercive discipline could be exercised, 
 but by his authority, nor any laws enacted for its 
 governance without his sanction. This supremacy, 
 indeed, both Henry VIII. and Edward VI. had car- 
 ried so far that the bishops were reduced almost to 
 the rank of temporal officers taking out commis- 
 sions to rule their dioceses during the king's plea- 
 suref." And in these commissions it was acknow- 
 ledged that " all sort of jurisdiction, as well eccle- 
 siastical as civil, flowed originally from the regal 
 power as from a supreme headj." Mr. Speaker 
 
 * " In whatever sense the preposterous claim (of head of the 
 Church) is taken, it is too indicative of the position which she 
 was to hold." — Tracts for the Times. No. 86. p. 74. 
 
 ■\ Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 252. 
 
 X Burnet's Hist, of Reform, part ii. At the very commence- 
 ment of the Reformation it was decreed that " the king's majesty 
 justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the 
 Church of England." And by the thirty-sixth canon, every per- 
 son, before he enters the ministry, must acknowledge that " the 
 king's majesty is, under God, the only supreme governor of the 
 realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as 
 temporal." 
 
LECTURE VI. 261 
 
 Onslow, in mentioning the king's supremacy, de- 
 clared that "his ecclesiastical jurisdiction and au- 
 thority is an essential part of our Church Consti- 
 tution, renewed and confirmed by Parliament, as 
 the supreme legislature of the Church, which has 
 the same extent of true power in the Church of 
 England as any church-legislature ever had ; and 
 may therefore censure, excommunicate, deprive, 
 degrade, or may give authoritative directions to the 
 officers of the Church to perform any of them ; and 
 may also make laws and canons to bind the whole 
 Church, as they shall judge proper, not repugnant 
 to the laws of God and nature*." 
 
 In like manner. Lord Hardwicke asserts ** that 
 the constant uniform practice, ever since the Re- 
 formation, has been that when any material ordi- 
 nances or regulations have been made to bind the 
 laity as well as clergy, in matters merely ecclesias- 
 tical, they have been either enacted or confirmed 
 by Parliament. Of this proposition the several acts 
 of uniformity are so many proofs, for by those the 
 whole doctrine and worship, the very rites and cere- 
 monies, and the literal form of public prayers are 
 prescribed and established f." 
 
 These authorities in proof of the entire depen- 
 dence of the Church upon the State for its consti- 
 tution, government, discipline and laws, would 
 
 * Edinburgh Review, vol. Ixxvi. p. 480. f IWd. p. 482. 
 
262 LECTURE VI. 
 
 seem to be decisive enough. " But," says Mr. 
 Palmer, " I must protest that the doctrine of the 
 Church of England is not to be determined by pre- 
 ambles of Acts of Parliament or the assertions of 
 lawyers*." By what else then is it to be deter- 
 mined ? Does Mr. Palmer mean to set up his 
 judgement in opposition to the concurring autho- 
 rity of Coke, Hale, Holt, and Hardwicke ? He may 
 be allowed to say what, in his opinion, it ought to 
 be, but this is very different from saying what it 
 actually is. He may, therefore, be assured that, 
 on this point, his opinion w^ill have no weight 
 when set against that of the judges just mentioned. 
 Perhaps, however, he means only that the laws thus 
 expounded by them have, in a great measure, be- 
 come obsolete ; that they have fallen into desue- 
 tude, and have no longer any practical existence. 
 If so, he is as much opposed to the facts, as to the 
 theory of the case, as will be evident from the state- 
 ments which I shall now subjoin. 
 
 Allusion has already been made to the commis- 
 sions which the bishops were required to take out 
 in the reigns of Henry VIH. and Edward VI. Those 
 commissions declared that " all jurisdiction, eccle- 
 siastical and secular, emanates from the king, that 
 it was fitting that those who had hitherto exercised 
 it only precariously, should acknowledge that it was 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. ii. p. 270. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 263 
 
 conferred by the king's liberality, and should be 
 ready to relinquish it when he judges right*." In 
 the year 1536 injunctions were issued by the king 
 concerning several matters of discipline to be exe- 
 cuted in the churches, and it is said by Burnet that 
 the clergy were much troubled at the king's giving 
 such injunctions to them without the consent of 
 the convocation. Again in 1547, another injunc- 
 tion was issued directing the clergy to pray for the 
 king, as supreme head of the Church of England ; 
 and the violation of this mandate was made punish- 
 able by suspension, deprivation, and excommunica- 
 tion. So too in the reign of Edward VI. several 
 bishops were deprived of their bishoprics by means 
 of a royal commission. Bonner, bishop of London, 
 Gardiner of Winchester, Heath of Worcester, Day 
 of Chichester, and Tonstal of Durham were suc- 
 cessively driven from their sees. " These irregu- 
 larities," says Mr. Palmer, " I do not pretend to 
 justifyf." 
 
 In the second book of Edward VI. certain eccle- 
 siastical changes w^ere recommended by the king ; 
 and the recommendation was preceded by a decla- 
 ration, " that if the bishops would not take it into 
 consideration, he would do it himself with the aid 
 of his Parliament!." 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, vol. i. p. 359. t Ihid. p. 365. 
 
 X Preface of the Editor to the two books of Edward VI. p. 1 7. 
 Oxford, 1838. 
 
264 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Passing over the reign of Queen Mary, when the 
 Church of England was again brought into com- 
 munion with the Church of Rome, we come next 
 to that of Queen Ehzabeth. Ahnost the first mea- 
 sure which she adopted, on her accession to the 
 throne, was to deprive by act of ParUament all the 
 bishops but one of their episcopate, because they 
 refused to take the oath required by the Act of Su- 
 premacy. " No one denies," says Mr. Newman, 
 " that this was a violent proceeding, though una- 
 voidable under her peculiar circumstances*." In 
 the year 1.558 a proclamation was issued by her 
 commanding her subjects " to forbear teaching or 
 preaching or giving audience to any manner of doc- 
 trine or preaching, other than to the gospels and 
 epistlesf." The same royal Lady, by virtue of her 
 supremacy, seems to have disposed of bishops as 
 she pleased. " She suspended Fletcher, bishop of 
 London," says Hallam, " of her own authority." 
 The same author also mentions thaf'Aylmer, having 
 preached too vehemently against female vanity in 
 dress (which came home to the Queen's conscience) 
 she told her ladies that if the bishop held more dis- 
 course on such matters she would fit him for hea- 
 ven, but he should walk thither without a staff", and 
 leave his mantle behind him." In the same spirit of 
 despotic haughtiness she addressed, to another bi- 
 
 * Newman's Romanism, p. 417. 
 
 t Price's Hist, of Nonconformity, vol. i. p. 132. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 265 
 
 shop of the name of Cox, in consequence of some 
 opposition made by him to a measure which she 
 countenanced, the following laconic epistle : "Proud 
 prelate — you know what you were before I made 
 you what you are ; if you do not immediately com- 
 ply with my request, by G — I will unfrock you *." 
 
 King Charles I. also, in a declaration designed 
 to be prefixed to the thirty-nine articles, commanded 
 the clergy not to preach on the subject of predesti- 
 nation. And when Bishop Davenant was thought 
 to have contravened this order in a sermon preached 
 by him in the presence of the king and court, he 
 was summoned to appear before the privy council, 
 and received from them a severe reprimand f. 
 
 At a still later period, in the reign of Queen 
 Anne, the celebrated William Whiston pubhshed 
 a work on the doctrine of the Trinity which gave 
 great offence to the clergy. Of such consequence 
 indeed did they conceive this publication to be, that 
 the two houses of Convocation assembled to take 
 into consideration its character and merits, and to 
 determine upon the course which it became them 
 to adopt. After due deliberation the work was 
 pronounced by them to be heretical and dangerous. 
 But their censure, before it could be of any force, 
 required the sanction and authority of the queen, 
 
 * Hallam's Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 305. 
 t Fuller's Church History, book xi. p. 138. 
 
266 LECTURE VI. 
 
 That sanction she refused to give, and the result 
 was that her single judgement, even on a question 
 of heresy, prevailed over that of the assembled 
 bishops and clergy, and the proceedings of the Con- 
 vocation were overruled and set aside*. 
 
 A similar proceeding to this took place in the 
 reign of George I. A sermon was preached before 
 the king by Bishop Hoadly on the nature of 
 Christ's kingdom, and afterwards printed by spe- 
 cial command. This and another publication of 
 his on the principles of the non-jurors, exhibiting 
 large and liberal views of Christian liberty, excited 
 no little clamour among the clergy of the high- 
 
 * Of this transaction Bishop Burnet thus writes: "In 1712, 
 the censure that was passed on Whiston's book in the former 
 sessions (i. e. of the Convocation) had been laid before the queen 
 in due form for her approbation ; but at the opening of this ses- 
 sions in December, the bishops, finding that no return was come 
 from the queen in that matter, sent two of their number to re- 
 ceive Her Majesty's pleasure in it. The queen had put the cen- 
 sure into the hands of some of her ministers to whom she gave 
 it ; so a new extract was sent to her ; and she said, she would 
 send her pleasure upon it speedily, but none came during the 
 session. So all future proceedings against him were stopped, 
 since the queen did not confirm the step that we had made. 
 This was not unacceptable to some of us, and to myself in par- 
 ticular. I was gone into my diocese when that censure was 
 passed ; and I have ever thought that the true interest of the 
 Christian religion was best consulted when nice disputing about 
 mysteries was laid aside and forgotten." — Whiston's Memoirs, 
 vol. i. pp. 188, 189. ed. 1753. 
 
LECTURE VI, 267 
 
 church party. This led to a meeting of the Con- 
 vocation for the purpose of examining into the 
 character of these pubhcations. The lower house 
 proceeded so far as to draw up a representation in 
 censure of their doctrines ; but before this repre- 
 sentation could be brought into the upper house, 
 that assembly was prorogued by a special order of 
 the king*. 
 
 In our own time a certain number of bishoprics 
 in Ireland have been suppressed by an act of the 
 legislature ; and there can be no doubt, from the 
 bitter terms of disapprobation in which many high- 
 churchmen have expressed themselves concerning 
 it, that, had it been submitted to the consideration 
 and decision of a convocation of the clergy, it would 
 by them have been strenuously resisted and indig- 
 nantly rejected. 
 
 More recently still, as observed in the ' Tracts 
 for the Times,' " a new arrangement of dioceses 
 and sees has been made by authority of a royal 
 commission, composed of members, the greater 
 part of whom w^ere laymen, and without confirma- 
 tion of their acts on the part of the Church f." 
 
 The facts, thus briefly detailed, completely make 
 good the point, that the bishops and clergy of the 
 
 * See articles, ' Convocation' and ' Hoadly,' in Rees's Cyclo- 
 paedia. 
 
 t Tracts for the Times, No. 38. p. 7. 
 
268 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Church of England have of themselves no power to 
 enjoin or abrogate one single ceremony, — to esta- 
 blish or annul one single article of faith. It is with 
 the sovereign and the parliament that this po'wer is 
 lodged. Bishop Warburton acknowledges that the 
 Church has resigned her independence, and made 
 the Magistrate her supreme Lord, without whose 
 approbation and permission she can direct, order, 
 and decree nothing. And Judge Blackstone ob- 
 serves, that the Act of Ehzabeth, called the Act of 
 Uniformity, " was passed with the dissent of all the 
 bishops ; and therefore the style of Lords spiritual 
 is omitted throughout the whole*." 
 
 What are we to understand then by the language 
 of the twentieth of the thirty-nine articles, that 
 *' the Church hath power to decree rites and cere- 
 monies, and authority in controversies of faith?" 
 In what sense are we to take the word ' Church ? ' 
 Does it mean the clergy met in convocation ? No. 
 The bishops in their respective dioceses ? No. The 
 collective body of episcopal worshippers ? No. 
 "What then ? The sovereign and the parliament. 
 They alone have power to decree rites and cere- 
 monies, and authority in controversies of faith. 
 And not only does this power legally belong to 
 them, but, as shown in the preceding pages, it is 
 
 * Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 156, note; Coleridge's 
 ed. 1825. 
 
LECTURE VI. 269 
 
 a power which they have exercised again and 
 
 agani. 
 
 If, then, the Anglo-Cathohc divines really think 
 that they are spiritually descended from the apo- 
 stles, and that by virtue of this descent they are 
 authorized and entitled to rule and govern the 
 Church, it is on their part nothing less than a 
 gross dereliction of principle, or a melancholy in- 
 stance of pitiable weakness, to bow before the 
 shrine of human greatness, and surrender to the 
 Civil Magistrate the authority and the trust which 
 they solemnly declare Christ delegated solely to the 
 " successors of the apostles." Let them give up 
 the notion of divine right, of apostolic succession, 
 of an authoritative priesthood, or cease to act in a 
 way that puts all such claims and pretensions to 
 shame and confusion. 
 
 Connected with the State, and aided by its powder 
 and wealth, it is well, — well for freedom, humanitv, 
 and justice, — that the Church should be ruled and 
 governed by the State. Separated from it, and 
 resting on her spiritual character alone, her clergy 
 may take the guidance and direction of her affairs 
 in their owm keeping, and advance what pretensions 
 they please. Their dream of apostolic descent may 
 be innocently indulged in, as far at least as other 
 churches and communions are concerned, however 
 it may inflate their own vanity, or flatter and ag- 
 
270 LECTURE VI. 
 
 grandize their own self-importance. As long as 
 the State will throw its broad shield of protection 
 alike over all, rehgious liberty is safe ; and, proudly 
 as the ministers of the Anglo-episcopal Church may 
 boast of their apostolic descent, that boast, when 
 all temporal power has been taken out of their 
 hands, will excite no alarm, and may, peradven- 
 ture, be the occasion of some little amusement. 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 Having finished our examination of the most di- 
 stinguishing or characteristic principles of the Ox- 
 ford school of divinity, I now proceed to the con- 
 sideration of what constitutes the basis of a genuine 
 Catholic Christian Church. There are churches 
 assuming this name, to which, as it seems to me, 
 they have no just right or title. They call them- 
 selves Catholic for the very reasons that would lead 
 me to call them Anti-Catholic. They say that they 
 only are in possession of the true faith which was 
 once delivered to the saints — the faith which was 
 universally held and professed in the first and purest 
 ages. This faith is embodied and expressed in their 
 respective articles and creeds. To these all who are 
 desirous of holding communion with them must 
 give their unfeigned assent. No departure from 
 them is permitted or tolerated. They are to be re- 
 ceived as authoritative and decisive. If any doubts 
 arise they are to be solved, not by individual be- 
 lievers for themselves, but by the rulers or represen- 
 tatives of the Church acting for them. By virtue of 
 
272 LECTURE VII, 
 
 the authority lodged in their hands, they are em- 
 powered to declare what the true sense of Scrip- 
 ture is, and no private judgement is to be set up 
 against it. 
 
 These are the principles of what are called the 
 Roman Catholic and Anglo-Catholic Churches. 
 And there are other churches, which, — though not 
 claiming for their ministers or clergy positive di- 
 vine authority — though they do not pretend that 
 any body of men derive, by what is termed aposto- 
 lic succession, the right of pronouncing absolutely 
 what is true and what is false, — do yet determine 
 that certain opinions shall be believed and a certain 
 profession made of them, before any one can be re- 
 ceived into Christian fellowship or communion with 
 them. They may not, like the Roman Catholic or 
 Anglo-Catholic Church, assert in words that they 
 are possessed of divine or apostolic authority, but 
 they do, nevertheless, exercise a power, a jurisdic- 
 tion, which nothing short of this can justify or ex- 
 cuse. Now I maintain that all churches, arrogating 
 to themselves such pretensions, — let them be called 
 by what names they may, — have nothing in them 
 answering to the title Catholic, That is a word 
 expressive of what is general, comprehensive, uni- 
 versal ; and my objection to the Romish Church, to 
 the English Church, to the Presbyterian Church, 
 and various other churches is, that the basis on 
 
LECTURE VII. 273 
 
 which their communion stands is not lars-e and 
 broad as a genuine Catholic Church ought to be, 
 but httle, narrow, and confined. My objection to 
 them is that they are not what they pretend to be — 
 that they are not Cathohc — that they are limited 
 and exclusive in their principles — that the faith 
 which they require is not the faith " always, every- 
 where, and by all professed," but the faith only of 
 a certain number to whom is given the name of 
 * orthodox ' — that even with them uniformity of 
 profession does not ensure unity of opinion, and 
 that unity of opinion, beyond the acknowledgement 
 and reception of Jesus as the Christ, as the divinely 
 authorized Teacher and Redeemer of man, ought 
 not to be required as a necessary condition of Chris- 
 tian communion. Between the exercise of indivi- 
 dual freedom of thought and action, and the autho- 
 rity assumed by the Church of Rome to determine 
 absolutely what is Christian truth and what, there- 
 fore, we are to believe and profess, there lies no in- 
 termediate ground or position. If we deny to man 
 the rights of reason and conscience, and establish 
 an ecclesiastical domination in their place, it be- 
 comes merely a matter of calculation and prudence 
 how far that domination shall be carried — whether 
 it shall or shall not proceed to the length to which 
 it has sometimes proceeded, that is, to the enforce- 
 ment of its decrees by the infliction of pains and 
 
 T 
 
274 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 penalties. The Church of England and other 
 churches besides have substituted, instead of the 
 infalHble authority of the Pope or general councils, 
 a priestly authority or a church authority, which is 
 equally inconsistent with the right and the duty of 
 individual judgement. But as this judgement will 
 and must be exercised ; as it is impossible to pre- 
 vent men from exercising it ; as all attempts to do 
 so have been as vain and impotent as they have 
 been cruel and unjust ; no church, which does not 
 recognize and concede this right, can have any claim 
 to be called a Catholic or universal Church. It be- 
 comes at once a limited and exclusive church, not 
 a general and comprehensive one. It draws around 
 it a line of demarcation by which the wisest and best 
 men must often be kept out of its communion. 
 
 That our Lord did not intend to found a church 
 or society based on such a principle as this, is evi- 
 dent both from his own declarations and those of his 
 apostles. By them we are told to call no man mas- 
 ter on earth ; to consider one only as our Master, 
 even Christ ; and to regard one another as brethren. 
 We are required, of ourselves to judge what is right ; 
 to be fully persuaded in our own minds ; to search 
 the Scriptures, and see whether the things asserted 
 to be true, be so or not ; to prove all things and to 
 hold fast that which is good. Where the spirit of 
 the Lord is, there is liberty. The unity, therefore, 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 275 
 
 which Christ and his apostles were desirous of esta- 
 bhshing among Christians, must have been a unity 
 of spirit, of feeUng and aft'ection, and not a unity of 
 judgement and opinion. After the emphatic con- 
 demnation pronounced by our Lord on the autho- 
 rity which was exercised by the princes of the Gen- 
 tiles, and after the positive disclaimer on the part 
 of the apostle Paul of all dominion over the faith of 
 the first converts, it is quite clear that they never 
 intended the formation of an institution which would 
 be inconsistent with that intellectual and moral free- 
 dom which is man's best privilege and noblest birth- 
 right. 
 
 " The rehgion introduced by Christ," says Arch- 
 bishop Whately, " was manifestly designed by him, 
 — and so understood by his immediate followers — 
 to be a social religion. It was not merely a reve- 
 lation of certain truths to be received, and of prac- 
 tical rules to be observed, — it was not a mere system 
 of doctrines and precepts to be embraced by each 
 individual independently of others — but it was to 
 be a combination of men who should be ' members 
 of the body of Christ ' ; living stones of one spiri- 
 tual temple ; ' edifying — building up — one another 
 in their faith' ; and brethren of one holy family*." 
 
 " The Church is one, not as consisting of one so- 
 ciety, but because the various societies or churches 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ, p. 52. 
 
 t2 
 
276 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 were at first modelled, and ought still to be so, on 
 the same principles ; and because they enjoy com- 
 mon privileges, — one Lord, one spirit, one baptism. 
 — In short, the foundation of the Church by the 
 apostles was not analogous to the work of Romulus 
 or Solon ; it was not properly, the foundation of 
 Christian societies which occupied them, but the 
 establishment of the prmciples on which Christians 
 in all ages might form societies for themselves*." 
 
 The chief thing, then, to be considered with re- 
 spect to any given church is, not whether the form 
 of government, the rules and regulations which it 
 has prescribed for itself, be, in all respects, exactly 
 conformable to those mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment, but whether such forms and regulations be 
 consistent or inconsistent with the principles and 
 spirit of Christ and his gospel ? If they are in- 
 consistent with those principles and that spirit ; if 
 any body of Christians, constituting themselves a 
 Christian church, demand, as an indispensable 
 condition of fellowship or communion, the belief 
 or the practice of anything which is not clearly 
 in harmony with the laws and commandments of 
 Christ, such demands are unreasonable and unjust, 
 and the church so making them cannot strictly and 
 properly be called a Catholic Church. The term 
 Catholic may be applied to churches differing much 
 
 * Kingdom of Christ, p. 140. 
 
LECTURE VII. 277 
 
 in their external form and administration. An 
 Episcopal Church may be a Catholic Church. So 
 may a Presbyterian Church. So may an Inde- 
 pendent Church. If they are pervaded by the true 
 Christian spirit of love and charity ; if they are 
 governed by a careful application of the principles 
 laid down by Christ and his apostles ; if they lay 
 no yoke upon the consciences of their members and 
 interfere not with that liberty with which Christ 
 has made all his disciples free, I see not that this 
 title can justly be denied them. But if, after adopt- 
 ing one particular form of government as the most 
 fitting and expedient, as tending most to mutual 
 edification and convenience, they set up claims to 
 be considered as the only true Church of Christ, 
 and authoritativelv demand assent to articles and 
 submission to practices which are inconsistent with 
 that individual freedom of opinion and action which 
 Christianity recognizes and enjoins, then they can 
 no longer be regarded as Catholic Churches, be- 
 cause their communion is no longer general and 
 comprehensive, but limited "and exclusive. " It 
 would be strange," says Stilhngfieet, "if the Church 
 should require more than Christ himself did, and 
 make other conditions of her communion, than our 
 Saviour did of discipleship. What possible reason 
 can be assigned why such things should not be suf- 
 ficient for communion with a church, which are 
 
278 LECTURE VII. 
 
 sufficient for eternal salvation ? What ground can 
 there be why Christians should not stand upon the 
 same terms now which thev did in the time of Christ 
 and. his apostles? What charter hath Christ given 
 to the Church to bind men up to more than himself 
 hath done ? or to exclude those from her society 
 who may be admitted into heaven* ?" 
 
 It may be said, I am aware, that every society, 
 every community has a right to make what laws it 
 pleases for its own regulation and government, and 
 that there is no hardship or injustice in exacting 
 conformity to them as necessary conditions of mem- 
 bership. No injury is done to any one, who, re- 
 fusing to comply with these conditions, is not allow- 
 ed to join it. Undoubtedly this is a right belong- 
 ing to all societies existing of their own accord, and 
 intended to promote purposes of their own choosing. 
 Christians, holding certain peculiar opinions, may 
 form themselves into an association for the further- 
 ance of those opinions, and may, without any im- 
 peachment of their charity and liberality, exclude 
 whomsoever they think proper. This they may do 
 with any society or institution originating with and 
 created by themselves. But the case is totally 
 altered when they associate together as a Christian 
 Church — as a society united together by their rela- 
 tion to one common head, and founded expressly 
 
 * Stillingfleet's Irenicum, Preface, p. 8. 
 
LECTURE VII, 279 
 
 upon the principles which he has laid down. They 
 have then to consider not their own partialities and 
 predilections, but the spirit and intentions of their 
 acknowledged Lawgiver. Their communion, as a 
 Christian Church, is one not instituted by them, 
 but for them. It is not for them to determine the 
 conditions on which admission to it shall be grant- 
 ed. That has been already done by their ruler and 
 head. When they meet together in his name, and 
 as subjects of his kingdom, they have no right to 
 impose other terms of citizenship than those pre- 
 scribed by himself. If they erect any bar to Chris- 
 tian communion which has not been placed there 
 by their common Master, they are displaying an 
 Anti- Catholic spirit, and are invading the preroga- 
 tive which belongs to him alone. Much misappre- 
 hension, as it appears to me, respecting the rights 
 and duties of a Christian Church, has arisen from 
 confounding the rights of an association purely vo- 
 luntary, depending upon its own will and intended 
 for objects of its own selection, with a society 
 formed in obedience to the injunctions of an au- 
 thorized teacher and upon principles inculcated by 
 himself, A church, assuming the name of a Church 
 of Christ, should be governed by the laws and spi- 
 rit of Christ. No man's liberty is invaded by re- 
 quiring him to conform to such outward regulations 
 and observances, as the majority of the society to 
 
280 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 which he is desirous of belonging, may see fit to 
 ordain. If any number of persons meet together 
 for the purpose of freely discussing all questions — 
 even then, it will be necessary to attend to certain 
 forms or rules in order to prevent the meeting from 
 falling into confusion and disorder. It would be 
 absurd for any one to pretend that his liberty is 
 restrained, because he is called upon to submit to 
 such conventional arrangements as these. So in 
 the Church of Christ there must be a certain order 
 and method observed by all its members — since no 
 society could possibly exist without them. These 
 are matters which Christ has left open — left to be 
 determined by considerations of fitness and expe- 
 diency — but he has not left open the principles on 
 which the society should be constituted, and the 
 laws by which it should be governed. These are 
 clearly and plainly stated, and no church that vio- 
 lates them — that acts inconsistently with the liberal 
 and generous spirit which they breathe, can justly 
 be entitled to the name of Catholic. 
 
 I may perhaps be allowed to introduce here a fa- 
 miliar illustration or two for the purpose of making 
 my meaning better understood. 
 
 I will suppose, then, that in some foreign coun- 
 try where a number of Englishmen reside, a meet- 
 ing is summoned, for some common purpose, of all 
 who bear that name. When come together, the 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 281 
 
 order and form of their proceedings are of course 
 left to the decision of those who are assemhled. 
 Now if any one presented himself to take part in 
 the business to be transacted who was not an En- 
 glishman, there would be no breach of propriety or 
 kindness in excluding him from the assembly. But 
 suppose an attempt w^as made to exclude one who 
 2vas an Englishman, — not on the ground of charac- 
 ter, — not because he was chargeable wdth any kind 
 of misconduct, — but because he belonged to a cer- 
 tain profession, or because he entertained certain 
 opinions ; who does not feel that, in such a case, 
 the attempt to deprive him of the privileges of his 
 birth would be a gross infringement of the principle 
 on which the meeting was called together ? If, in- 
 deed, it had been announced as a meeting of law^yers 
 or physicians, they who w^ere not lawyers or phy- 
 sicians could not justly complain of their exclusion ; 
 or if it had been a meeting of persons entertaining 
 peculiar political or religious opinions, no fault 
 could fairly be found for refusing admittance to 
 those who held different sentiments. Let people 
 be allowed to form w^iat associations they please, 
 and to impose such conditions of membership as to 
 them seem fit, as long as they do so in their own 
 name, and for purposes chosen by themselves. But 
 when they meet together in the name of Christ to 
 form a society upon the principles laid down by 
 
282 LECTURE VII. 
 
 him, to carry out his designs, and for the accom- 
 phshment of his purposes, then they have no longer 
 the choice of their own path, hut the course which 
 they are to follow is marked out for them. They 
 have no liberty to alter the terms on which their 
 communion as a Christian Church is to be based, 
 or to depart from the objects which that communion 
 was intended to promote. If they meet as English- 
 men, no one sustaining that character can be justly 
 excluded on account of his condition, profession, or 
 creed ; and if they meet as Christians, no one can 
 fairly be rejected, because, while admitting the au- 
 thority of Christ and his apostles, he puts a different 
 construction upon their language, in some instances, 
 from what others do. The Christian name fully 
 and properly belongs to him who is walling and 
 ready to make the same confession of his belief in 
 Christ which, in the days of the apostles, was the 
 one, and the only one, then required. And what 
 was this ? The writings of the apostles will tell us. 
 " These are written," says John at the end of his 
 gospel, " that ye might believe that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might 
 have life through his name." So also he writes in 
 his first Epistle : " Whosoever believeth that Jesus 
 is the Christ, is born of God*." When the apostle 
 Peter made this confession, " Thou art the Christ, 
 
 * 1 John V. 1. 
 
LECTURE VII. 283 
 
 the Son of God," our Lord was perfectly satisfied, 
 and demanded no other. Martha's confession, made 
 in similar language, met with similar acceptance. 
 In like manner, when Paul and Silas were asked 
 by the jailer what he should do to be saved, they 
 rephed, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 thou shalt be saved*." And, in the Epistle to the 
 Romans, Paul, after expressing his wishes for the 
 salvation of his countrymen the Jews, states, in a 
 few words, the faith which he earnestly desired 
 them to embrace and profess : "If thou shalt con- 
 fess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be- 
 lieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
 the dead, thou shalt be saved f." To maintain, 
 therefore, that they who are ready to avow their 
 belief in Christ in the very form and words which 
 were approved by our Lord himself — in the exact 
 terms and expressions adopted by the apostle Peter, 
 and prescribed by the apostle Paul — in the precise 
 language which was made use of when anything 
 like a confession of faith was made or demanded, — 
 to say, that they who are thus ready to conform to 
 apostolic precept and to follow apostolic example 
 are nevertheless unfit to be received into the com- 
 munion of a Christian Church, is an outrageous 
 aflfront to common sense, and a gross violation of 
 that Catholic spirit by which alone the various 
 
 * Acts xvi. 31. t Rom. x. 9. 
 
284 LECTURE VII. 
 
 members of the Christian community can be formed 
 into one body 
 
 Whatever rules or regulations, then, any number 
 of Christians, associated together for the promotion 
 of a particular object, may see fit to ordain for their 
 mutual convenience and comfort, they have an un- 
 doubted right so to do ; but, as it appears to me, 
 and for the reasons just assigned, they have not the 
 right (that is, consistently with the injunctions of 
 Christ and the spirit of his gospel) , when they form 
 themselves into a Christian church, to require from 
 any one, as a necessary and indispensable prelimi- 
 nary to its communion, the profession of any doc- 
 trine or opinion which Christ and his apostles have 
 not expressly authorized. When, therefore, a body 
 of men, calling themselves a Christian Church, act 
 upon any other principle, and declare that their 
 opinion, and theirs alone, is to be received as the 
 standard of truth, they are throwing stumbhng- 
 blocks in each other's way, and are fixing upon the 
 conscience fetters which it ought not to be made to 
 wear. In the Church of Christ there should be a 
 combination of the greatest freedom with the great- 
 est charity, liberty to exercise our owm judgements, 
 without imposing the slightest shackles upon the 
 consciences of others. Where these rights are se- 
 cured, all minor differences sink into comparative 
 insignificance and unimportance. The only basis 
 
LECTURE VII. 285 
 
 on which a genuine Catholic church can be erected 
 is that which is large enough and broad enough to 
 admit every sincere disciple of Christ on the terms 
 prescribed in the New Testament. Anything nar- 
 rower than this — anvthinir more restricted and con- 
 fined, should be a signal to every man, within whose 
 breast burns the faintest spark of the love of truth 
 and freedom, to keep aloof from it, and go in search 
 of another and, it may be, a humbler temple, but 
 whose doors are wide open to receive every Chris- 
 tian who is sincerely desirous of entering in. 
 
 But where, it may be asked, is such a temple to 
 be met with — where is such a church to be found ? 
 You call your church a Unitarian church, and by 
 that very designation you necessarily exclude from 
 your worship and communion those who are not 
 Unitarians, and, consequently, you have no right 
 to call your church a Catholic Church. In answer 
 to this I have no hesitation in saying, that I should 
 have been glad if we could have dispensed with the 
 word Unitarian : it would have been as well if we 
 could have designated ourselves by a term which 
 to many would have been less objectionable, and, 
 in appearance at least, more Catholic. I should 
 have rejoiced if we could have called ourselves 
 Catholic Christians instead of Unitarian Chris- 
 tians. There would have been no better word by 
 which to have distinguished ourselves than this. 
 
286 LECTURE VII. 
 
 But as it had long been employed to denote other 
 bodies of Christians, the use of it by us as a di- 
 stinctive title would not only have led to much 
 misapprehension and confusion, but would have 
 exposed us to accusations of artifice, insincerity, 
 and fraud. Some discriminating term was neces- 
 sary, and, after the word Catholic, I know of none 
 so general and comprehensive, and at the same 
 time so appropriate and characteristic, as the term 
 Unitarian. It does define strictly and properly the 
 nature of our worship. One of our chief differences 
 from other Christians consists in the restriction of 
 religious worship to one object, — to 07ie being or 
 person. We adhere literally to the commands of 
 Christ, which direct us to pray to one God only; 
 we take for our model the form of prayer which he 
 himself has left us ; we follow his own example, he 
 having always prayed to one God the Father, and 
 having frequently joined in the worship of the tem- 
 ple and the synagogue, which was strictly Unitarian 
 worship. Now all Christians are so far agreed with 
 us as to admit, in words at least, that there is only 
 one God, and that that one God is to be the object 
 of our highest adoration and homage. They do 
 not deny that the Being called the Father, the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the proper 
 object of worship. They can, therefore, unite with 
 us in our devotional services. There is nothing in 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 287 
 
 those services to prevent them from doing so. 
 They do not and they cannot say, that their prayers 
 ought not to be addressed to the Being called the 
 Father. If they did they could not use the Lord's 
 Prayer, for that, like our prayers, is addressed to 
 the Father only. By their own admission, then, 
 our worship is so far a Catholic worship. It is in- 
 clusive of all ; it is exclusive of none. This cannot 
 be said of Trinitarian worship. No consistent Uni- 
 tarian can join in that worship. It necessarily ex- 
 cludes a considerable body of believers in Christ. 
 It is not therefore like ours, universal and compre- 
 hensive, and therefore not Catholic. The worship 
 of our churches is one in which all Christians can, 
 without any violation of principle, unite. Even a 
 Trinitarian will find nothing in our devotional ser- 
 vices to offend him. There may be omissions which 
 he would wish to have supplied ; but as far as they 
 go, his thoughts and feelings may go wuth them. 
 They contain nothing abhorrent to the one, nothing 
 revolting to the other. He will, I think, find no- 
 thing in them condemnatory of any peculiar theo- 
 logical views which he may have been led to em- 
 brace, — nothing that can disturb or disquiet his 
 devotional feehngs. If there were anything of this 
 kind, — if they contained anything injuriously re- 
 flecting upon his peculiar opinions, he could not, I 
 admit, any longer unite with us in our worship ; 
 
288 LECTURE VII. 
 
 and then the Catholic principle would be wanting. 
 But when, as I believe it to he the case, and as it 
 certainly should be the case, no censure of other 
 men's belief is conveyed in our forms of prayer, 
 then the Catholic principle is strictly preserved, 
 and our worship is one in which all Christians can 
 cordially and sincerely join with us. 
 
 The basis of our union, as a Church, is simply 
 that of agreement as to the object of worship, the 
 divine commission and authority of our spiritual 
 lawgiver, and the right of every individual to inter- 
 pret for himself the records of revelation, and to 
 form, hold, and profess whatever opinions that in- 
 terpretation may lead him to adopt. The principle 
 on which our rehgious communion is founded is 
 wide and comprehensive, — designed to include all 
 who are content with scriptural forms of worship 
 and scriptural terms of fellowship. 
 
 I do not mean to say that our churches are, in 
 all respects, what they should be. In their organi- 
 zation and government there are, no doubt, many 
 defects ; they need, probably, more of superintend- 
 ence, order and discipline. The mode, too, of con- 
 ducting their public services may admit of various 
 improvements. Still I must maintain, that, in the 
 great essential requisites of a Catholic Christian 
 Church, they are not materially deficient. Our 
 communion is open to all who acknowledge "Jesus 
 
LECTURE VII. 289 
 
 to be the Christ, the Son of God." We draw no 
 narrow line of exclusion ; we lay down no unau- 
 thorized terms of admission. To every one who 
 can unite with us in the worship of one God, -the 
 Father, as a disciple of Jesus Christ, we hold out 
 the right hand of fellowship, and welcome him as 
 a friend and a brother. 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor, after quoting the words 
 of the apostle Paul, which are contained in Romans 
 X. 9*, observes, " this is the great and entire com- 
 plexion of a Christian's faith ; and since salvation 
 is promised to the belief of this creed, either a snare 
 is laid for us, with a purpose to deceive us, or else 
 nothing is of prime or original necessity to be believed 
 but this, Jesus Christ our Redeemer." 
 
 " It has never gone well with the Church of 
 Christ," says Archbishop Wake in one of his ser- 
 mons, " since men have been so narrow-spirited as 
 to mix the controversies of faith with their public 
 forms of worship, and have made their liturgies, 
 instead of being offices of devotion to God, become 
 tests and censures of the opinions of their bre- 
 thren f." 
 
 * " This is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou 
 shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in 
 thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt 
 be saved." — See Liberty of Prophesying, p. 9. 
 
 t Sermons and Discourses on several occasions, p, 282. ed. 
 1690. 
 
 U 
 
290 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Dr. Paley contends, that " to state any doctrine 
 in a confession of faith with a greater degree of 
 precision than the Scriptures have done, is in effect 
 to say, that the Scriptures have not stated it with 
 precision enough ; in other words, that the Scrip- 
 tures are not sufficient." And also, " that 
 
 keeping people out of churches who might be ad- 
 mitted consistently with every end of public wor- 
 ship, and excluding men from communion who 
 desire to embrace it upon the terms that God pre- 
 scribes, is certainly not encouraging, but rather 
 causing men to forsake the assembling of them- 
 selves together*." In the same tract he says, 
 " Let the Church discharge from her liturgy con- 
 troversies unconnected with devotion, and let her 
 try what may be done by worshipping God in that 
 generality of expression in which he himself has 
 left some things — and the few who, after all, shall 
 think it necessary to recede from her communion 
 will acknowledge the necessity to be inevitablef ." 
 
 " The unity of the Church," observes Bishop 
 Stillingfleet, " is a unity of love and affection, and 
 not a bare uniformity of practice or opinion |." 
 
 These are the principles upon which, not a Roman 
 Catholic or an Anglo-CdithoWc, but a genuine Chris- 
 
 * Works, vol. iii. pp. 311, 312. ed. 1825. 
 t Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 309, 310. 
 X Irenicum, Preface, p. 10. 
 
LECTURE VII. 291 
 
 tian Catholic Church should he founded. These 
 are the principles which many of our old illustrious 
 English divines have nobly advocated and defended. 
 These are the principles which, I trust, do and will 
 guide our conduct and proceedings. And these are 
 the principles which, I pray, may more and more 
 prevail in all communions. 
 
 " What is a church ? Let truth and reason speak. 
 And they will say, the faithful, pure, and meek. 
 From every fold, the one selected race, 
 Of all communions, and in every place." 
 
 Crabbe. 
 
 u2 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 When I first entered upon the course of lectures 
 
 which are now drawing to a conclusion, I stated 
 
 that my chief object was to put you in possession 
 
 of the distinguishing principles of that party in the 
 
 English Church who are commonly known by the 
 
 name of Puseyites, and to lay before you the 
 
 grounds and reasons on which it appeared to me 
 
 they should be opposed and rejected. That object 
 
 has, I trust, been in some degree answered. It has 
 
 been shown, I think, that the foundations on which 
 
 such opinions rest are so thoroughly weak and 
 
 unsound — are so entirely wanting in solidity and 
 
 strength, that the first strong blast of a keen and 
 
 searching inquiry is sufficient to overthrow them. 
 
 In the present lecture I propose to take a brief and 
 
 rapid review of the ground over which we have 
 
 lately travelled. 
 
 The first point to which our attention was di- 
 rected related to the nature and constitution of a 
 Christian Church. What are we to understand by 
 the word Church, and what directions were given 
 
LECTURE VIII. 293 
 
 by Christ and his apostles with respect to its ge- 
 neral administration and government ? I observed 
 that, in common with Hooker and other celebrated 
 divines of the Church of England itself, I did not 
 consider that any particular form of Church polity 
 was prescribed by Christ and his apostles, but that 
 all matters relating to external regulations and ar- 
 rangements were, for the most part, to be deter- 
 mined by the exigencies of the occasion, — by the 
 peculiar situation and circumstances of those for 
 whose benefit they were designed. In considering, 
 therefore, what was the primitive or apostolic form 
 of church government and discipline, the inquiry 
 was made, not because I regarded any one parti- 
 cular form to be always binding upon Christians 
 of all ages and all countries, but principally because 
 an acquaintance with the original state of the Chris- 
 tian Church will completely lay bare and expose the 
 absurdity of those lofty pretensions to exclusive 
 authority and power which have been raised upon 
 the ground of the supposed constitution of the early 
 Church. 
 
 One of the first questions, then, to be settled is, 
 What are we to understand by the word Church ? 
 Notw^ithstanding its evident signification in the 
 New Testament, various senses have been attached 
 to it, and in this way it has been made to 
 minister to much delusion and mischief. Thus, 
 
294 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 when a certain species of property is called the 
 property of the Church, the word Church is used 
 to signify, not an assembly of the people, not the 
 general body of Christians, but the clergy, — a sense 
 in which the word is perverted from its true and 
 legitimate signification. The term rendered Church, 
 first implied, according to its use in the New Tes- 
 tament, a religious assembly among Christians. Its 
 original and strict meaning is an assembly of per- 
 sons who meet together for any specific purpose, and 
 so it was used by the ancients. By the apostles, 
 however, and since their time, it has been conse- 
 crated to the purposes of religion : and accordingly, 
 any assembly of Christians, meeting together to 
 worship God, whether in a public building, or in a 
 private house, is a Church of Christ. 
 
 The ministry of the Christian Church consists, it 
 is said, of three distinct orders, bishops, priests, 
 and deacons — designated by different names, and 
 exercising different powers. 
 
 Now if Jesus had intended that the ministry of 
 his Church should consist of three orders, and that 
 n this form it should be transmitted through all 
 succeeding ages, it is not a little remarkable that 
 he should have given no directions whatever in re- 
 lation to such an appointment. Not a hint is to 
 be found in the whole four gospels that he designed 
 to establish or perpetuate any form of government 
 
LECTURE VIII. 295 
 
 like the one just mentioned. He said nothing of 
 three orders of the ministry — nothing about bishops 
 or deacons — nothing about any particular mode of 
 ordination — nothing about any description of per- 
 sons by whom this ceremony was to be administer- 
 ed. And what is the natural conclusion from this, 
 but that he did not think it important what mode 
 his followers should adopt with respect to the out- 
 ward forms of religion, provided they were careful 
 to imbibe its spirit and to live by its precepts ? 
 
 That the terms Elder and Bishop are given in the 
 New Testament to the same individuals is a point, 
 I think, clear beyond all dispute. The passage 
 (Acts XX. 17, 28) to which I have before referred is 
 quite sufficient to establish this position. By the 
 advocates of modern Episcopacy we are told that 
 to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of 
 ordaining ministers, and that all ministers out of 
 the pale of Episcopacy have usurped an office to 
 which they have no claim or title, and are therefore 
 guilty of violating the prescribed rul^s of the gos- 
 pel. When such doctrines are maintained and such 
 charges are advanced, it is of some little importance 
 to inquire whether there is any real foundation for 
 them. In this case, it must have appeared, from 
 what has been before said, that the Scriptures 
 furnish no ground from which such a conclusion 
 can be fairly drawn. It is nothing to the purpose 
 
296 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 to refer to the mere use of the word Bishop by the 
 apostles and some of the early Christian authors. 
 The question is, in what sense was it used by 
 them ? Evidently, I answer, in its original sense 
 of overseer or inspector — one who has any care or 
 charge. The primitive bishops were persons se- 
 lected to superintend the affairs of the little frater- 
 nity of Christian believers in the place where they 
 dwelt. They are called indiscriminately bishops or 
 presbyters. I do not mean to say that these two 
 words, though denoting the same class of persons, 
 are exactly of the same import. The word pres- 
 byter or elder has more immediate reference to the 
 station and character of the person, and the word 
 bishop to the office which such a person might 
 hold. All I contend for is, that in the New Tes- 
 tament, bishop and presbyter do not imply different 
 offices. 
 
 The first change that took place after the times 
 of the apostles was that of making the most distin- 
 guished of the elders or presbyters a constant pre- 
 sident in their assemblies, and appropriating to him 
 exclusively the title of Bishop — a title, observe, 
 which had previously been common to all the pres- 
 byters or elders. The next step in the change was 
 made by converting this bishop into the bishop, not 
 of one church or congregation, but of a certain dis- 
 trict, including several congregations. This was 
 
LECTURE VIII. 297 
 
 called a diocese, and hence the origin of diocesan 
 Episcopacy. 
 
 Instead, then, of there being three orders of mi- 
 nisters, there was originally but one. But is there 
 not, in the New Testament, mention made of dea- 
 cons ? And were they not an order of the ministry? 
 So thev are said to have been, but for this there does 
 not appear to be any valid reason, — any reason in- 
 deed deserving of the name. It is impossible for me, 
 in this rapid summary, to detail the evidence before 
 adduced in proof of the assertion which I have now 
 made. Suffice it to observe that I showed, on a 
 former occasion, that those called deacons were a 
 set of persons appointed in the first Christian 
 churches to take charge of the funds for the poor, 
 and to see to their proper and faithful administra- 
 tion. Though called deacons afterwards, these 
 trustees were not so denominated at first. Their 
 office was wholly of a temporal nature, and made 
 no part of the ministry properly so called. There 
 is no ground, then, for saying that deacon was a 
 term denoting the third order in the ministry. 
 On the contrary, the word deacon is a general term 
 appUed at first to any one who was a servant in the 
 cause of the Gospel. And, accordingly, we find 
 that Paul in one of his Epistles speaks of certain 
 brethren as able ministers (the original is, deacons) 
 of the New Testament. And Paul and Apollos 
 
298 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 tliemselves, whom no Episcopalian would rank in 
 any but the fii'st order of ministers, are styled 
 deacons. 
 
 Where, then, I would ask, is the authority to be 
 found in the New Testament for those different 
 orders of Christian ministers, wdiich are considered 
 by the Anglo-Catholic divines essential to the con- 
 stitution of a genuine Christian church ? No scrip- 
 tural precedent or sanction for it can be found. 
 
 We are also told by the Oxford divines that to 
 the order of bishops alone belongs the power of or- 
 daining ministers, and that no ministers otherwise 
 appointed can be justly said to have received ordi- 
 nation at all. They have usurped an office to which 
 they have no title : they have undertaken the dis- 
 charge of duties for which they have not been in- 
 vested with the necessary qualifications, and no 
 value or beneiit, therefore, can attach to their mi- 
 nistrations. What, then, are we to understand by 
 ' ordination ' as received and practised in the first 
 ages ? Was it the communication by the hands of 
 a bishop of some extraordinary power or divine 
 right and authority, not before possessed ? It was 
 nothing of the kind. It was simply prayer for the 
 blessing of God, accompanied with the laying of 
 the hands of those who prayed on the heads of the 
 persons who were prayed for. But this ceremony 
 was not peculiar to the occasion of introducing any 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 299 
 
 one to the ministerial office. It was a custom in 
 the East, when blessing a person, to lay the hand 
 on his head. Tliis was all that was done in the 
 much misunderstood ceremony of ordination. The 
 minister or deacon, the presbyter or bishop was 
 elected by the people, and then supplication was 
 made to God for his blessing to accompany the 
 transaction. Could anything be more rational, more 
 proper, or more simple ? 
 
 There is also this fact to be found in the Scrip- 
 tures in refutation of the extravagant claims set up 
 for the virtue and efficacy of episcopal ordination, 
 that the ceremony itself, instead of being performed 
 by any peculiar order of the ministry, by those 
 termed bishops, was administered not only by 
 presbyters, but by those who bore the name neither 
 of bishops nor presbyters. Paul and Barnabas 
 were ordained by the hands of three brethren of 
 the Church at Antioch, called, in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, prophets and teachers ; thus showing that 
 even the first in rank and order received ordination 
 at the hands of those who were below them in 
 office and authority. So utterly false and ground- 
 less is the doctrine of the exclusive validity of epi- 
 scopal ordination. 
 
 If the Oxford divines are thus mistaken in their 
 views of the constitution of the primitive church, 
 — if there were not three orders of ministers, — if 
 
300 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 bishops and presbyters, instead of being two di- 
 stinct orders, were, in fact, one and the same, — if 
 deacons, as they are called, instead of being a 
 third order in the ministry, w^ere, in reality, no 
 order of the ministry at all, — and if ordination, 
 instead of being a rite appropriated only to the 
 ministerial office, and administered by no hands 
 but those of bishops, was a rite employed on other 
 occasions and for other purposes, and signified by 
 the hands of teachers and jiresbyters, it follows 
 that the very foundation on which is built the 
 Anglo-Catholic system of church authority, is swept 
 away. Nothing then remains on which the doc- 
 trine of what is termed ' Apostolic Succession ' 
 can rest. But with this course of argument I did 
 not content myself, but proceeded to show that in- 
 dependently of all these considerations, and looking 
 at the question apart from its relation to other 
 points, this leading doctrine of the Puseyite school 
 is justified neither by the language of Scripture nor 
 the evidence of historv. 
 
 With respect to Scripture, the defenders of 
 ' apostolic succession ' are ready to confess that 
 the ground on which they here stand is narrow and 
 weak. They admit that the scriptural proof in 
 favour of their doctrine is poor and scanty, and 
 therefore to be little relied on. But they argue 
 that this is the case as respects other doctrines, 
 
LECTURE VIII. 301 
 
 which yet are received by the orthodox, not only 
 as true, but as most important and essential. They 
 say that if the doctrine of apostolic succession be 
 wanting in scriptural evidence, it is the case also 
 with that of the Trinity and of original sin, and 
 that the same reasons which cause us to receive 
 the one should induce us to receive the other. 
 Of course this affords no satisfaction to those who, 
 for the deficiency of scripture authority, reject both 
 alike. Something like an argument, however, has 
 been attempted to be raised on the supposed ana- 
 logy between the Jewish priesthood and the Chris- 
 tian ministry. But Archbishop Whately and the 
 lamented Dr. Arnold have demonstratively shown 
 that no such analogy exists, and not only so, but 
 that from the difference in the design and cha- 
 racter of the two bodies, a directly contrary con- 
 clusion may be drawn. The argument of the Anglo- 
 Catholics, if it can be called argument, is this : as 
 Aaron and his family were appointed by God to be 
 the exclusive priests of Israel, so Jesus Christ ap- 
 pointed the apostles and their successors, by means 
 of episcopal ordination, to be exclusively the priests 
 or ministers of the new dispensation. 
 
 There is no doubt that to Aaron and his descend- 
 ants the priesthood, under the old dispensation, 
 was confined. Here all is plainly set down. On 
 this point there can be no mistake. According to 
 
302 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 the law of Moses, the Jewish rehgion was to have 
 its priests, and these priests were to belong to the 
 family of Aaron. But where is anything similar to 
 this to be met with in the New Testament ? Where 
 are the first preachers of the gospel denominated 
 priests? Where is it said that they are to consist, 
 first, of the twelve apostles, and, next, of their 
 lineal descendants, by episcopal ordination, for all 
 time to come ? I can find nothing of the kind in 
 any part of the New Testament. In the Old Testa- 
 ment an order of men are distinctly pointed out as 
 those only to whom the priesthood is to belong ; 
 but in the New Testament what class or order of 
 men are there set forth as the only destined pos- 
 sessors of the Christian ministry ? 
 
 Next comes the question of historical fact, with 
 the argument founded upon it. It is asserted, then, 
 that the bishops can trace up their episcopal origin 
 to the apostles themselves ; that by means of the 
 rite of ordination they are descended in a direct 
 line from them, and consequently inherit a peculiar 
 grace, power and authority, — such as belong to no 
 other persons. In answer to this, it was, I think, 
 clearly shown that the fact of such a succession 
 cannot be established ; that the very first links in 
 the chain are wanting; that we do not know 
 whether Peter himself was ever at Rome at all ; 
 that there is no saying who the first bishops or 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 303 
 
 presbyters of that city were, — some of the Fathers 
 naming one, some another, and others another 
 still, — and that there is not a single prelate living 
 who can, with any degree of certainty, establish his 
 lineal descent from the apostles. But suppose that 
 he could, — suppose that the fact itself could be 
 ascertained of who the immediate followers of the 
 apostles were, and that all existing bishops could, 
 through them, trace up their origin to the apostles, 
 there is no proof that such a succession carries with 
 it the privilege and the authority now claimed for 
 it. The fact, I say again, cannot be established, 
 but if it could it would prove nothing. The con- 
 clusion attempted to be drawn from it is a perfectly 
 gratuitous assumption, having no warrant or sup- 
 port whatever from reason or Scripture. And so 
 say some of the best and most accomplished divines 
 of the Church of England itself. 
 
 After examining the doctrine of what is termed 
 ' Apostolic Succession,' I next directed your atten- 
 tion to the opinions set forth by the Tractarian 
 party in favour of the authority of Tradition. One 
 of the distinguishing principles of Protestantism is, 
 (to make use of the common phrase) the sufficiency 
 of Scripture ; that is, that the Scriptures alone con- 
 tain a true and authentic account of the Christian re- 
 ligion, and that their statements alone are to be re- 
 ceived as authoritative and decisive. In opposition 
 
304 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 to this it is contended by the Anglo-CathoUcs, that 
 there is another authentic source of information, 
 besides that which we have in the books of the New 
 Testament, — that in the writings of the Fathers are 
 contained the traditions of the Church, and that in 
 those traditions are embodied many things con- 
 cerning Christ and his doctrine which, though not 
 recorded in the New Testament, or only obscurely 
 intimated there, are nevertheless to be received and 
 regarded as genuine Christian verities. To this it 
 was replied, that if we could ascertain with anything 
 like certainty that, in the writings of the Fathers or 
 the traditions of the Church, there is to be found 
 something which Christ said or did over and above 
 what is contained in the New Testament, it would 
 no doubt be entitled to as much attention and con- 
 sideration as that which now lies before us in the 
 pages of Scripture. But we contend that no such 
 certainty is to be obtained — that the traditionary 
 matter relating to Christ and his apostles which the 
 Fathers have delivered to us, is for the most part of 
 such a character as at once to set at defiance all 
 claim to credit or respect ; that the credulity, the 
 superstition, and the weakness of judgement evinced 
 by them necessarily awaken a degree of suspicion 
 and distrust totally incompatible with the deference 
 and submission required to be paid to them. Be- 
 sides there is no uniformity or consistency in the 
 
LECTURE VIII. 305 
 
 traditions recorded by them, or in their expositions 
 of Christian doctrine. Some of the thinj^s men- 
 tioned by the Fathers as traditions of the Church 
 are directly at variance with tliose contained in 
 Scripture. Some of them are intrinsically absurd 
 and ridiculous. Some related by one Father are 
 contradicted by those which are related by another 
 Father, and all of them are mere hearsay reports, 
 unauthenticated by any trustworthy testimony 
 whatsoever. In addition to this v,^e say there is 
 no occasion for going out of the New Testament 
 to gain a full and accurate knowledge of all that 
 Christ taught and did ; of the great facts and essen- 
 tial principles of the Christian religion. All that 
 it is important for us to know and understand is 
 contained there. Christianity is not a religion of 
 detail — of minute precepts and specific directions 
 — but a revelation of principles, and that revela- 
 tion w^e have unfolded to us not only in the dis- 
 courses of Christ, but still more in his conduct and 
 life, in his actions and character. All that is need- 
 ful and essential we have there, and if that should 
 fail in imparting to us a just understanding of what 
 Christianity is, we shall look elsewhere in vain. 
 
 It is easy to see why so much stress is laid upon, 
 and so much importance is attached to the doctrine 
 of Tradition by the advocates of Church authority, 
 for it is one of the great means by which such au- 
 
 X 
 
30G LECTURE VIII. 
 
 thority is maintained and upheld. For, — let it be 
 admitted that the Scriptures are not of themselves 
 sufficient, that they require to be explained and in- 
 terpreted by the traditions of the Church, and that 
 those traditions lie scattered over the voluminous 
 writings of men called the Fathers, extending over 
 a period of five centuries, and needing almost the 
 whole of a long life to read and understand them, 
 — it is obvious at once that the great bulk of the 
 people, that almost every one not belonging to the 
 clerical profession, must look to the clergy for the 
 purpose of learning what the traditions of the Church 
 are, and what is the sense which they put upon 
 Scripture. Accordingly they do thus apply the 
 doctrine in question. They say to the people. You 
 must come to us to learn what are the traditions of 
 the Fathers, and what is the voice of the universal 
 Church. We are the only proper organs, the only 
 authorized interpreters of that voice. The Scrip- 
 tures are not to be read without the aid and the 
 hght of tradition. That is to be your instructor 
 and guide in their interpretation, and for that you 
 must look to us. Your own private judgement must 
 never be opposed to the judgement of the Church. 
 You have no right to judge for yourselves what the 
 truth, as contained in Scripture, is. The Church 
 is the sole depository of the truth, and what the 
 Church says is to be learned from us. 
 
LECTURE VIll. 307 
 
 This denial of the right of private judgement 
 constitutes another characteristic feature of the 
 Oxford school of divinity. One lecture was almost 
 entirely devoted to the assertion and vindication of 
 this right, and to the refutation of the objections 
 which have been urged against it. In this lecture 
 I first endeavoured to show that the right of pri- 
 vate judgement is one with which it is impossible 
 to dispense. It has been exercised — ivill be exer- 
 cised — and must be exercised. There is no possi- 
 bility of doing without it. The man who assumes 
 to himself infallibility and asks me on that account 
 to submit my judgement to his, appeals in this 
 very instance and by this very act to my private 
 judgement. I am required to judge whether it is 
 fitting and proper for me to surrender up my own 
 reason to his. He says perhaps that he cannot err, 
 or that he has authority to declare to me what the 
 truth is, — which truth it is my duty to receive. It 
 may be so. It may be that this extraordinary pri- 
 vilege has been conferred upon him. But how am 
 I to know it ? Am I at once to admit it upon his 
 bare assertion ? No one can contend that I ought 
 — for if so, it might and would lead to all kinds of 
 contrary faiths, principles, and practices. What then 
 am I to do ? I must ask him to furnish me with 
 the necessary credentials for the authority which he 
 claims. He must lay before me the reasons why I 
 
 x2 
 
308 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 should submit my understanding to his. But who 
 is to judge of the sufficiency of these credentials, — 
 who is to decide upon the validity of these reasons ? 
 Who, but the individual to whom the claim is 
 addressed, and from whom submission is exacted? 
 So that, after all, private judgement must be exer- 
 cised, and that too upon the most important ques- 
 tion that can be proposed to a rational being. He 
 who chooses to abide by another man's opinion and 
 not his own, must first determine that it is better 
 for him thus to act. He comes to this conclusion, 
 and can come to it only by the exercise of his own 
 judgement. He thinks that on certain points it is 
 better for him to accede to the opinions which 
 others have arrived at than to form his own. 
 
 The competency to judge on religious subjects 
 must not, as I before observed, be confounded with 
 the right. The right in all cases belongs to all ; 
 but not to all, in all cases, belongs the competency. 
 There is a duty, an obligation, connected with the 
 right, as there is indeed with all rights ; and one 
 great part of that duty consists in seeing that, be- 
 fore coming to a decision upon any important sub- 
 ject submitted to our examination, we endeavour 
 to acquire the qualifications necessary for forming 
 a just decision. The right, no doubt, is more 
 thought of and talked about than the duty, — the 
 ohligation which it involves ; and hence the import- 
 
LECTURE VIII. 309 
 
 aiice, while contending for the right, of insisting 
 upon the necessity and importance of preparing and 
 quahfying ourselves to make a proper and faithful 
 use of it*. Thus guarded and explained, the right 
 of private judgement is one of the most indisputable 
 and inalienable privileges of our nature. 
 
 The last lecture was occupied with a considera- 
 tion of the principles essential to the constitution, 
 not of a Roman Catholic or an English Catholic, 
 but of a Christian Catholic Church. I then ob- 
 served, that many Churches calling themselves 
 Catholic are founded on principles which appear 
 to me to be most Anti-Catholic. Instead of fixing 
 upon the points in which Christians are agreed, as 
 the basis and bond of their association, they have 
 had respect chiefly to the points on which they 
 differed ; and instead of making the foundation of 
 their communion as wide and comprehensive as 
 
 * I cannot withhold Hallam's admirable observations on Chil- 
 lingworth's position, " that the Bible only is the religion of Pro- 
 testants, and that each man's own reason is to be its interpreter." 
 " This," says he, " must always be understood with the condition 
 
 that the reason itself shall be competently enlightened The 
 
 case is parallel in jurisprudence, medicine, mechanics, and every 
 human science : any one man, primd facie, may be a competent 
 judge, but all men are not so. It is hard to prove that there is 
 any different rule for theology ; but parties will always contend 
 for extremes ; for the rights of bigots to think for others, and the 
 rights of fools to think for themselves." — Introduction to the Lite- 
 rature of Europe, vol. iii. p. 77. 
 
310 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 possible, they have sought rather to make it as 
 narrow and contracted as they could. Of course 
 there must be an acknowledgement of some great 
 general principles held in common, or there could 
 be no union. The sectarian spirit, as I have ob- 
 served on another occasion, is, needlessly to mul- 
 tiply those principles, and rigidly to define them. 
 The Catholic spirit is to reduce them to the fewest 
 possible number, and to give them a large and ge- 
 nerous meaning. Every man who acknowledges 
 " that Jesus is the Christ and that God hath raised 
 him from the dead," is so far a Christian, and is 
 entitled under that character to all the benefits and 
 coQiforts of Christian communion. This, I con- 
 ceive, to be the only basis of a truly Catholic 
 Church, and upon this basis our Church (whatever 
 be its defects in other respects) is founded. The 
 worship here offered is the worship prescribed by 
 Christ himself. It is expressive, not of the pecu- 
 liarities of individual opinion, but of the common 
 faith of Christians. It is the vehicle, not of the 
 sentiments by which we are divided, but of the 
 feelings which unite us together ; which make us 
 all one ; which bring us all in humility and de- 
 pendence before the mercy- seat of Him who is the 
 Father of all the families of the earth, and ahke the 
 Rewarder of all who truly and diligently seek him. 
 
NOTE TO PAGE IGG. 
 
 " The first century was characterized hy great simplicity of 
 doctrine. The primitive Christians, it is true, appear to have 
 sometimes applied the title God to Christ, but in a sense totally 
 different from that in which it came afterwards to be attributed 
 to him. His miraculous birth, his Messiahship, and the state of 
 glory to which he was advanced after a painful and ignominious 
 death, — God having 'raised him up,' and ' highly exalted him,' 
 making him ' both Lord and Christ/ for the ' suffering of death' 
 crowning him with ' glory and honour,' — were circumstances on 
 which they dwelt with wonder, delight, and gratitude ; and they 
 did not hesitate occasionally to bestow, on a being thus favoured 
 and exalted, some of the epithets of Divinity. Thus they some- 
 times call Christ, God, and Jewish usage fully sanctioned such 
 an application of the term. Magistrates and judges are repeat- 
 edly denominated Gods in the Old Testament, and our Saviour 
 alludes to this application of the word as well known to the Jews ; 
 John X. S5. It is not surprising that the primitive Christians, 
 who as Jews, were familiar with this use of the term, should 
 sometimes apply it to their master. Accustomed to hear the 
 great and good prophets, judges, and magistrates of their nation 
 called Gods, they would very natin-ally suppose that there could 
 be no impiety in occasionally bestowing the title on Jesus, whose 
 extraordinary birth, character, and offices were so fitted to in- 
 spire admiration and love. They never, however, thought of 
 confounding him with the One Infinite Father, or making him in 
 any sense his equal. The title in question was one of dignity 
 and honour, applied primarily to the Supreme One, but in a se- 
 condary sense to beings inferior to him, to angels and men ; and 
 this use of it was too common to occasion any surprise, error, or 
 embarrassment. 
 
 " But when Christianity, in the second century, began to num- 
 ber among its converts men wearing the garb and claiming the 
 character and name of philosophers, this simplicity of faith, which 
 till then remained, became corrupted. Educated as Platonists of 
 the Alexandrian school, these philosophers were familiar with the 
 belief of a sort of second God, logos, or reason, originally ema- 
 nating from the fountain of the Divinity. This doctrine they took 
 along with them on embracing the religion of Jesus ; and misled 
 
312 NOTE. 
 
 by some obscure and figurative expressions employed by the 
 Evangelists and Apostles, especially by John, they gradually in- 
 corporated it with the Christian system. Thus Jesus, who, be- 
 fore this time, had been called divine, and sometimes God, solely 
 on account of his miraculous birth and exalted character and 
 office, now began to be termed such in a different sense, that is, 
 as a being from eternity existing in God, not personally, but as 
 an attribute, as his reason, wisdom, or energy ; which, a little 
 before the creation of the world, was emitted, or thrown out, that 
 is, converted into a real being or person, a kind of second God. 
 After this event, he became, as these Fathers imagined, a being 
 wholly distinct from God, was inferior to him, and his agent in 
 forming and governing the world, 'lliey never apply to him the 
 title 'God over all'; never ascribe to him supreme divinity. 
 They did not suppose him eternal, except as an attribute of the 
 Father. He existed in God, as reason exists in us, so existed 
 from eternity, a mere quality or attribute. He was produced, 
 that is, became a real being, when God, being about to create 
 the world, had occasion to use his ministrations. Thus, as an 
 attribute, he was, in their view, eternal ; as a person, or being, 
 he was not so, having been begotten or made (for they originally 
 used both terms) in time. This is what these Fathers meant by 
 the generation of the Son, which, as we have seen, was regarded 
 by them as temporal, not as eternal. 
 
 " The logos, or Son, being then produced, afterwards became 
 incarnate, was made flesh, and became susceptible of suffering, 
 and, as they thought, actually suffered, in his whole nature. To 
 suppose that part of his nature was exempt from suffering, though 
 deemed orthodox now, was then pronounced heresy. 
 
 " Such is a general view of the doctrine of the Fathers, who 
 ■were converts from Platonism, during the second and third cen- 
 turies. This doctrine, which contains the germ of the Trinity, 
 w^as introduced into the Church by Justin Martyr, who wrote 
 about the middle of the second century*." 
 
 The learned writer from whose article the above has been ex- 
 tracted, then proceeds to justify the view thus taken of the doc- 
 trine of the Fathers, by specific references to the language of 
 Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Irenseus, Tertullian and Origen. 
 This it was once intended should have been inserted as an ap- 
 pendix to these lectures, but that intention has been abandoned 
 on account of the length to which it w^ould have extended. 
 
 * Christian Examiner. Boston, U.S. vol. ii. pp. 24 — 26. 
 
 Printed by R. and J. E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C28(25l ) tOOM 
 
 
 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0035519312 
 
 957.12 
 
 M26 
 
 9 3-lJ 
 
 
 APR 2 
 
 9 1952 BrNr)ep 
 
 
 
 BRITTLE DO NOT 
 PHOTOCOPY