^i.;?' 
 
 L I E) RA FlY 
 
 O F THE 
 
 U N IVER.5ITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 ANGLICANISM CONSIDERED IN 
 ITS RESULTS.
 
 ANGLICANISM 
 
 CONSIDERED IN ITS RESULTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM DODSWORTH, M.A. 
 
 LATE PERPETUAL CURATE OF CHRIST 
 CHURCH, ST. PANCRAS. 
 
 A Mil 
 
 LONDON: 
 WILLIAM PICKERING. 
 
 1851.
 
 I 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 NTRODUCTION. 
 
 The step now taken only the conclusion, but lately and 
 slowly apprehended, from principles long maintained 
 and taught 1 
 
 Objections against the Anglican theory have met with 
 no attempt to answer them, save one since retracted . 2 
 
 Reproach of deserting the Establishment in its hour of 
 danger 4 
 
 But the Establishment itself acquiesces in what certain 
 of its members deplore 5 
 
 And deserting the Establishment is, in fact, pronouncing 
 that it is no part of the Church 6 
 
 Objection that baptismal regeneration has not been de- 
 nied, but only made an open question 6 
 
 The " open question " denies the high-churchman's be- 
 lief, and the low-churchman's, at once 7 
 
 Subscription to the Queen "s supremacy, which is now 
 decided to be spiritual 8 
 
 Charges against the manner of conversions .... 9 
 
 The system in which a man has been educated has the first 
 claim upon him 13 
 
 Modified by the fact that the whole religion which comes from 
 God is adapted to the wants of man : so that the apprehen- 
 sion of the truth, which he has already attained, will render 
 him capable of appreciating the more perfect development 
 of that truth 14 
 
 Illustration from an Anglican teaching a dissenter .... 15
 
 VI 
 
 Page 
 
 An Anglican finds in Catholicism the realization of the church 
 principles which he had imbibed 16 
 
 Proposal to consider the legitimate results of what is called 
 Anglicanism 17 
 
 These difficulties do not refer to low-churchmen, who have 
 their own of another class 18 
 
 I. The Unity of the Church 18 
 
 How this is not fulfilled in Anglicanism 19 
 
 A. In reference to the Anglican church's connection 
 with the Church Catholic 19 
 
 B. In reference to its own internal state 19 
 
 A. Anglican church not one with the Catholic Church in 
 
 doctrine, nor in communion, nor in prayers ... 19 
 Objection that unity, like sanctity, is partial .... 20 
 But unity does not admit of degrees, which sanctity does 21 
 Objection that the Anglican church wishes to be one 
 
 with the Catholic .22 
 
 The wish does not answer the contrary fact .... 22 
 Objection that the Anglican church is not responsible 
 
 for the sin and evil of division 22 
 
 Annon, we must refer to the origin of the division . . 23 
 JFirst, suppose that the Synod of London, in 1562, was 
 free to act, and did act without reference to the state : 
 
 consequences considered 23-7 
 
 Secondly, the Reformation was really an act of the State, 
 
 and the wickedness of its agents must be considered . 27 
 Objection that we can ignore the character of the Refor- 
 mation and its agents 29 
 
 But present difficulties, thence arising, do not allow it . 29 
 Again, the Anglican church is not an appellant to a Ge- 
 neral Council, for both the judicial and the legislative 
 divisions of the local church, under the Queen, are 
 
 final 30 
 
 Objection that infallible guidance is guaranteed only to 
 
 an united Church 32 
 
 But it is rather guaranteed to the Church that it may be 
 
 united 33 
 
 Again, whom can the Anglican, compelled to pronounce 
 Rome wrong, believe to be right ? 33 
 
 ^JM»^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 V,»v^
 
 vu 
 
 Page 
 His professed rule is, Scripture interpreted by early tra- 
 dition 34 
 
 Uncertainty of this, and inconsistency in details ... 34 
 Again, on what principles do Anglicans reject the wit- 
 ness of the medieval Church, since the promise which 
 
 gives infallibility insures abidance 35 
 
 Result, that the Anglican church has no consistent 
 
 theory of unity 36 
 
 B. Want of internal unity in Anglicanism 36 
 
 II. The doctrine of Sacramental Grace 38 
 
 Feebleness and equivocation of Anglican formularies, 
 and existence of an heretical school for three hundred 
 
 years, on the subject of Baptism 39 
 
 The same on the subject of the Real Presence ... 41 
 But silence upon, or rather exclusion of, the Eucharistic 
 
 Sacrifice 44 
 
 This Sacrifice, if considered such, seldom ofi"ered . . 45 
 And actually rejected by the vast majority of Anglican 
 
 churchmen 47 
 
 III. The actual state of the existing Established Church . . 49 
 
 IV. Interference of the civil power in matters of a purely 
 spiritual nature 53 
 
 V. Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles 70 
 
 1. Article VI 70 
 
 2. Articles XI. XII. XIII 72 
 
 3. Article XIX 73 
 
 4. Article XXI 76 
 
 5. Article XXII 78 
 
 6. Article XXV 79 
 
 7. Article XXVIII 81 
 
 8. Article XXIX 85 
 
 9. Article XXXI 85 
 
 10. Article XXXV 89 
 
 11. Article XXXVIII 89 
 
 Concluding considerations .... 90
 
 VUl 
 
 Page 
 
 Difficulties meeting Anglicans in Rome 90 
 
 1. The devotion to the saints 93 
 
 2. Use of relics and images 98 
 
 3. The charge of idolatry 99 
 
 4. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception . . . 101 
 
 5. Communion in one kind 101 
 
 6. Purgatory . 102 
 
 7. The Papal Supremacy 102 
 
 Note on Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet, and on the Bishop of 
 
 Exeter's " Considerations" 107 
 
 Note on the Bull of Pope Pius V Ill
 
 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION 
 OF CHRIST CHURCH, ST. PANCRAS. 
 
 My dear Friends, 
 
 BEFORE these lines reach you, you will have 
 learned, that the relationship so long subsisting 
 between us has ceased, and that I have submitted 
 myself to the authority of the Catholic Church. 
 
 I will not dwell upon the struggle, which, as most 
 of you well know, this act has cost me. But I feel 
 that you are entitled to know the grounds upon 
 which I have so determined, and the following pages 
 are sent to the press with a view of giving you, as 
 far as may be within so short a compass, that infor- 
 mation. I cannot doubt but that, upon mature re- 
 flection, these reasons will appear in various degrees 
 satisfactory to many amongst you ; because they are 
 indeed but the legitimate results flowing from those 
 truths which it has been my aim to teach you. I 
 need not say, that of these results, until very recent- 
 ly, I have not been myself fully conscious. I admit 
 indeed that as I have laboured more and more fully 
 to preach the Gospel — to set forth our Lord Jesus 
 Christ " the Author and Finisher of your faith" as 
 filling His sacraments with life and power, or, to use 
 the words of a father (S. Ambrose), to show that 
 
 B
 
 " Christ is not only the Author of all the sacraments, 
 but also their invisible minister, that, He it is Who 
 baptises, He it is Who absolves, although men are 
 appointed by Him the external ministers of the sa- 
 craments" — I admit, I say, that while thus teaching 
 you, misgivings have arisen in my mind as to whether 
 the Church of England was truthful and scriptural. 
 Such thoughts have occasionally crossed and per- 
 plexed me. But, having been once so thoroughly 
 convinced that the church of England was the 
 true Church of Christ in this country, and that she 
 held and taug-ht all Catholic truth — these miso'ivings 
 were at first resisted as temptations ; and it has only 
 been by very slow degrees, after more reading and 
 deeper consideration, assisted by passages in the re- 
 cent history of the Established Church, that I have 
 been forced seriously to entertain them, and far too 
 slowly have they, by little and little, grown into con- 
 victions. At length, by God's undeserved grace and 
 blessing, I am convinced that it is my bounden duty, 
 on peril of my salvation, to submit myself to the au- 
 thority of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. 
 
 I would beseech you then, my dear friends, to 
 ponder over the conclusions imperfectly set forth in 
 the following pages, and see whether they do not in- 
 deed follow from the intelligent reception of those 
 truths which I would fain hope are equally dear to 
 us both. 
 
 And here I would wish you to notice what ought 
 to have considerable weight with every candid mind, 
 namely, that the powerful arguments, which in late 
 years have been brought against the so called Angli- 
 can theory, and in favour of the Catholic Church
 
 have literally met with no attempt to answer them. 
 Anglicans have simply ignored these arguments. The 
 members of the low Church party, have indeed shown 
 no indisposition to enter the lists with Rome. The 
 old high Church school has written something, al- 
 though very little, against her in recent times. But 
 the Anglican school has said literally nothing, if w^e 
 except Mr. Allies' book, (now amply retracted) on 
 " the church of Enofland cleared from schism." I 
 am not aware that since the discontinuance of the 
 " Tracts for the Times" a sino^le controversial work 
 against Rome worth speaking of, has proceeded from 
 the Anglican school. No, nor one which attempts to 
 justify in any detail the position of Anglicans. And 
 this in times certainly not the least eventful to the 
 English church. Much has been written by Roman 
 Catholics, especially by recent converts, to show the 
 untenableness of the Anglican position. Arguments 
 have been adduced, at least worthy of being an- 
 swered, but no answer has been attem'pted. Now I 
 must think this to be a sign. I do not indeed mean 
 to say, that every man is to be at once convinced by 
 an argument which he cannot answer. I fully ad- 
 mit that it is a very fair position for any one to take 
 up for a time to say, " Well, here is an argument 
 which I cannot answer, but that does not prove that 
 it cannot be answered. Some one else may disprove 
 it, or further reading and consideration may enable 
 me to disprove it. I am not to be carried hither and 
 thither by every clever assailant whom I may happen 
 to meet with." This, I say, seems to me a very fair 
 position. But when argument after argument is ad- 
 duced, in times too when men's w^its are fully at
 
 work ; when certain results are clearly shown to fol- 
 low from certain avowed principles ; when this goes 
 on not for days or weeks or months, but for years ; 
 surely it is time for men to look about them. They 
 may not honourably keep a position which they cannot 
 defend themselves, and which, in fact, finds no de- 
 fenders ; or continue to avow principles while they 
 deny their results. Men have no right to go on for 
 ever simply ignoring arguments which seem to prove 
 them wrong. We are rational creatures. Reason 
 has its province, as well as faith. Anglicans as well 
 as others may indeed if they choose, in the depth of 
 their prejudices, say, We cannot and will not submit 
 to Rome; but then why do not they relinquish the 
 principles which legitimately lead them thither? 
 Let them not pretend to that which they really have 
 not. Let us see where the conflict really lies : not 
 between Rome, and Ans'licanism which has nothinof 
 to say for itself; but between Rome, and those who 
 will pronounce the chief bishop of Christ's Church 
 to be antichrist ; between Rome, and those who 
 would involve thousands of saints in a system of 
 IDOLATRY ! between Rome and Evangelicalism, 
 which, professing to rest on the Bible, repudiates the 
 Church which gave it the Bible — and so at last be- 
 tween Rome and Infidelity, where I am persuaded 
 the real conflict will be found to be. 
 
 But here I must notice a reproach which at this time 
 is thrown upon converts to the Catholic Church. It 
 is said that we are deserting the Church in her peril ; 
 — that it is an act of cowardice to go out of her now 
 in her hour of danger ; that recent difficulties, so far 
 from driving us from her, ought to bind us closer to
 
 her, and much is said about faint-beartedness and de- 
 spondency, &c. But now let any one consider what 
 sucb reproaches really mean. Can it really be pre- 
 tended that the Establishment is in that kind of 
 danger which such reproaches indicate? I admit 
 that if it were under persecution it would be a very 
 different matter. If, for instance, instead of acquies- 
 cing in the recent sentence of the judicial commit- 
 tee in the Gorham case and the execution of the law, 
 English Churchmen had been willing to make great 
 sacrifices ; if the bishops and clergy had taken joy- 
 fully the spoiling of their goods rather than betray 
 the cause of their master; if the laity had given 
 some substantial proofs of their zeal ; such a state of 
 things would have made it very difficult to leave the 
 Establishment at this moment ; it would not only 
 have opened the door to unworthy imputations, but, 
 what is more important, it would have made such an 
 appeal to generous feelings as it would have been 
 very difficult to resist.* 
 
 But what is now the real position of the Esta- 
 blishment ? Simply one of non-resistance, of acqui- 
 escence in what the state pleases to dictate to it. 
 The troubles which its worthier members feel, arise 
 
 * The Catholic Church furnishes examples of men who are wil- 
 ling to make sacrifices to preserve her independence, and choose to 
 sufiFer rather than yield up her sacred prerogatives to the civil power. 
 The Archbishops of Turin and Cagliari are at this moment driven 
 into exile, having suffered the loss of all things rather than betray 
 what seems to them a sacred trust. Into the merits of their cause 
 this is not the place to enter. Suffice it to say, that in their case 
 the invasion of the civil power is, confessedly, immeasurably less 
 important, and less affecting vital matters, than it is in the recent 
 case of the Established church.
 
 from that source alone. I distinguish here, as else- 
 where, between persons in the Establishment, and 
 the Establishment itself. I do not charge upon the?n 
 acquiescence in the present state of things: but their 
 trouble is that the church of England itself does so 
 acquiesce. Does it then indicate courage to cling 
 to it under such circumstances ? Is not courao;e 
 rather on the side of those who leave it ; and who 
 make sacrifices of untold bitterness, to maintain their 
 principles, to satisfy their conscience, and to obey 
 their God? 
 
 Or again, the reproach assumes the very point' 
 which is denied. To desert the Church would 
 indeed be unjustifiable under any circumstances. 
 The fact of our desertion is the very strongest expres- 
 sion of a conviction that the Establishment is no 
 part of the Church at all. Suppose a rebellion to 
 be raging in the land, and the royal and rebel forces 
 to be facing each other, and suppose a loyal subject 
 betrayed by mistake into the midst of the rebel force, 
 — is it any want of loyalty or of courage or of devo- 
 tion to his country, that he should openly leave the 
 rebel camp, and enrol himself under the standard of 
 his sovereign ? This is 'professedly the position of 
 converts to the Catholic Church. Of course it is 
 open to any one to prove it to be otherwise. That 
 is another question. But the charge of cowardice 
 or pusillanimity can have no place. 
 
 Acrain it has been said, that recent events ouo-ht 
 not to operate with such urgent pressure on Angli- 
 cans. The recent decision on baptism does not deny 
 to them the right of teaching their doctrine. If the 
 decision had been the other way, as I have heard it
 
 asserted, it might have formed a just ground for the 
 evangelical party to have quitted the Establishment ; 
 for such a decision would have forbidden them to 
 teach what they believe to be true. And it is well 
 known that some of that school were prepared to re- 
 sign their benefices under those circumstances, had 
 they arisen. But, as it is said, this decision simply 
 leaves the question " open," and gives to each one 
 authority to teach as his conscience dictates. 
 
 Now this opinion is founded upon an erroneous 
 notion of what the high-church doctrine is. I will 
 not here refer to what has been so frequently and 
 so justly urged of late, of the impiety of making 
 an essential doctrine of the Christian faith an open 
 question, which, surely, no high-churchman, true to 
 his own principles, can submit to : but I here speak 
 of what the high-church doctrine really is, a point 
 which has been much misunderstood. It is not then, 
 simply that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 in the opinion of high-churchmen is true ; but it is 
 that such is the exclusive doctrine of the Church 
 Catholic ; that it expresses not an opinion, but a vital 
 truth. Now, by the recent judgment, no clergyman 
 of the established Church can teach what he thus 
 believes to be true. He may teach baptismal rege- 
 neration as true hi his belief, it is admitted. But he 
 may not teach that this is exclusively the truth of the 
 Church. Yet this is the high-churchman's belief. 
 I am at a loss therefore to perceive how this alterna- 
 tive of the decision is not just as much a matter of 
 conscience with the high-churchman, as the opposite 
 alternative would have been with the low-churchman. 
 In either case, one side is forbidden to teach what it
 
 8 
 
 believes to he true. Whatever the judgment had 
 been, the principles of one side or of the other must 
 have been compromised. As it happened, the judi- 
 cial committee advised a judgment which has com- 
 promised both. 
 
 Again, on the subject of jurisdiction every clergy- 
 man is compelled to subscribe to a declaration of the 
 Queen's supremacy, which is now virtually decided 
 by almost all the highest courts in the realm to 
 extend over matters most purely spiritual. More- 
 over, at his ordination he most solemnly bound him- 
 self to minister the doctrine of Christ, " as this 
 Church and Realm hath received the same." 
 
 It is therefore no matter of choice with the high- 
 churchman whether he will leave the Establishment, 
 or stay in it, and not believe or teach this doctrine. 
 If he stays in it, he is bound, on all moral grounds, 
 to believe and teach that the church of England has 
 no exclusive doctrine on baptismal regeneration, and 
 that it allows, nay, requires submission to such a 
 supremacy as is above described. 
 
 It may be felt perhaps that this argument, how- 
 ever conclusive upon the clergy, can have no influence 
 upon the laity, who are bound by no subscription. 
 But still it remains for them to consider, whether 
 they can in conscience belong to a body, whose 
 authorized ministers are required to believe and to 
 teach such things. Every argument which tells di- 
 rectly upon the clergy, will indirectly, but ultimately, 
 with equal force tell upon the laity. 
 
 But further ; converts to the Catholic Church are 
 very frequently blamed, not only for their conversion 
 itself, but for the manner and method of it. Some-
 
 times it seems too abrupt, too much on impulse. 
 Sometimes the charge of dishonesty is brought, be- 
 cause it seems to have been too long delayed, and 
 people wonder how the converts can have gone on 
 so long in the church of England with such misgiv- 
 ings about her position. 
 
 Now it is much to be wished that persons who 
 so accuse us would more seriously consider, and try 
 to answer, the following question; — Assuming that 
 conversion itself is justifiable, (for that is the only 
 fair way to put it) what would be an unexcep- 
 tionable mode of effecting it ? Conviction with very 
 few can be instantaneous, and even where it is 
 so, it cannot be regarded as the most satisfactory 
 kind of conviction. Suppose then any one to begin 
 to have some misgivings about his position in the 
 church of England, is he at once to proclaim them 
 to the world ? That will scarcely be maintained, for 
 it would practically cut him off from all retreat; 
 whereas it might be, in the case supposed, that 
 further consideration would prove to him that his 
 misgivings are unfounded. This would be a most 
 unfair course towards the church of England. Is it 
 not his duty to pause until these misgivings have 
 taken some definite form, or until they shall be re- 
 moved ? Must he not shun the responsibility of sug- 
 gesting to others difhculties which, on the suppo- 
 sition, may exist only in the perversity of his own 
 mind? Surely charity demands this of him. In 
 the meanwhile he must continue to throw himself 
 into that system to which he belongs, and still work 
 heartily in it. Any other course would be most 
 treacherous. Of course he cannot avow a confidence
 
 10 
 
 which he does not feel. But suppose him, for in- 
 stance, to have a misgiving about the reality of sa- 
 cramental grace in the church of England. Surely 
 no law human or divine can require that he should at 
 once proclaim it — or, which would be the same thing, 
 that he should at once abstain from receiving holy 
 communion. Rather the plainest dictates of duty 
 to himself, and charity to others require an opposite 
 course. He may not think it right to act upon con- 
 victions even, until they have been sufficiently tested 
 and proved. 
 
 These considerations may go far to account for a 
 feature in many conversions to the Catholic Church, 
 which has proved an offence to protestants ; — I mean 
 the very decided and seemingly abrupt character of 
 the change. As for instance that they should be 
 this week attending the services of the established 
 Church, and the next asserting their belief that it 
 forms no part of the Church of Christ. Let it be 
 borne in mind that such persons for the most part, 
 have long lived in the settled conviction that there 
 is but One Holy Catholic Church. This is with 
 THEM A FIRST PRINCIPLE. The question which cir- 
 cumstances have forced upon their minds has been — 
 Is the Church of England a portion of that one 
 Church ? Being already in it, so long as they have a 
 reasonable hope upon that point, they dare not leave 
 it. But being once convinced that it is not, they 
 can hold no terms with it. It must be to them every- 
 thing or nothing — nay, worse than nothing, for then 
 it usurps the sole prerogatives of our Lord's Body. 
 I grant that if it were a mere matter of preference — 
 a choice between one portion of the Church and the
 
 11 
 
 other ; or as has been suggested " the working in ano- 
 ther part of the vineyard" under the same Master — 
 then indeed such apparently sudden transitions would 
 be unreasonable — not to say culpable. Then our 
 language might be, the church of England is good, 
 but the church of Rome is better. But this is a 
 total misapprehension of the ground upon which 
 alone conversion is justifiable. A convert leaves the 
 church of England, because he believes that salva- 
 tion cannot be obtained in it, and through it; because 
 he believes the Catholic Church to be Ecclesia, extra 
 qiiam non est salus, and that the Establishment is no 
 part of that Church. On these principles how can 
 he do otherwise than at once hold the decisive lan- 
 guage which has been so much blamed ? 
 
 But let me not be misunderstood. In what is here 
 said, it is not of course intended to deny that there 
 may be many persons in the church of England, as 
 in other communions, who may be saved. It is a 
 tenet of the Catholic Church that *' invincible igno- 
 rance" of the precept* may take off the condemning 
 character in the sin of resisting or denying her 
 claims. Who will be able on the great day validly 
 to urge that plea is a most serious question, especi- 
 ally when we remember that there is such a thing 
 
 * I say, invincible ignorance of the precejjt. Some Protestants 
 seem to think that it is an insulting imputation to have their oppo- 
 sition to the Catholic Church ascribed to " invincible ignorance." 
 But this is to misunderstand the meaning of the term. It may be, 
 and probably is in most cases, an ignorance which arises simply 
 from prejudice. And we do not need to be taught that persons 
 otherwise most learned, most acute, and even most candid, have 
 been often the victims of some unconquerable prejudice.
 
 12 
 
 as ivilful ignorance, for which no excuse can be 
 pleaded. But these are not the cases with which we 
 are dealing here. We are assuming the fact that 
 converts, after many struggles it may be, have ar- 
 rived at the conviction that the Holy Roman Catholic 
 Church is the one only Church of Christ, and then 
 assuredly the most decisive language as to the claims 
 of other communions, is the language both of Truth 
 and Charity. 
 
 My dear friends. 
 
 Can I speak words more strongly expressive of the 
 earnest hope and expectation which I venture to en- 
 tertain, that many amongst you may be brought, by 
 God's infinite mercy, to follow this most painful, but 
 as I am now assured, most blessed course of submit- 
 ting to that Body w^hich our Divine Lord left as His 
 representative on earth ; and which is declared, by 
 His Apostle, to be " the Pjllar and Ground of 
 THE Truth ?"
 
 ANGLICANISM CONSIDERED IN ITS 
 RESULTS. 
 
 IT seems to be incumbent upon every one who 
 leaves the relioious communion in which he has 
 been born, or brought up, to be able to assign his 
 reasons for taking such a very serious step. For un- 
 less he can assign reasons, which seem to be satis- 
 factory to himself, it is obviously his duty to remain 
 where he is. Every professing Christian must be in 
 one of two states. Either he knows little or nothing 
 about religion to any practical purpose; in which 
 case he cannot be a fit judge of his duty in the case 
 supposed ; or otherwise, he must have come to the 
 knowledge of religion, and its conseque'nt blessings," 
 chiefly through that communion in which he has 
 been educated. He will be able to say, that through 
 the care and authority of parents or teachers, he has 
 been brought to the knowledge and practice of all 
 that he values, and of all upon which he can rest 
 his hopes for eternity. This then raises a reasonable 
 prejudice in favour of the system in which he has 
 hitherto lived. 
 
 Thus, whether a person has been brought up as a 
 Catholic, or in the established church or in dis- 
 sent, his religious prepossessions are naturally and 
 justly on the side of his own communion. This 
 has been as the voice of God to him. Whatever he 
 knows of himself, and of his God and Saviour, has
 
 14 
 
 come to him through this channel. He knows wnat 
 he cannot in the same way know of any other sys- 
 tem, — he knows by his own experience that the truths 
 learned through his own system have had a whole- 
 some and sanctifyino^ effect on his heart. He knows 
 that he has been made a better man by tliem, and 
 this naturally and justly comes home to his heart, as 
 most powerfully verifying the soundness and truth- 
 fulness of what he has learned. This consideration 
 is, and indeed it ought to be, more weighty than any 
 mere abstract argument, however apparently solid 
 and convincing. It is an argument which reaches 
 his conscience, and to an earnest minded person, is 
 more touching and influential than any mere convic- 
 tion of the understanding can be. 
 
 Perhaps then, it would seem to follow, that con- 
 version from one system to another can scarcely take 
 place on any right ground. For as all Christian sys- 
 tems have some truth in them, and each one in his 
 own communion may learn at least so much truth as 
 is in it, it will follow that each one, who is in earnest, 
 will have a higher proof that he is right, than he 
 possibly can have that he is wrong, and so will abide 
 in " the same calling wherein he has been called. " 
 
 This would seem to be a legitimate conclusion, 
 but for another truth which most immediately bears 
 on the subject before us — I mean that the religion 
 which comes from God — not a mere part or portion 
 of it only, but the whole, is adapted to the wants and 
 necessities of man ; that it is spiritual food designed 
 to meet the cravings of his soul. God who made 
 the soul of man capable of appreciating truth, is Him- 
 self The Truth ; and so it must be, that a soul, truly
 
 15 
 
 in earnest, and diligently pursuing the highest good, 
 can be satisfied with nothing short of perfection. 
 Whatever be its present attainments or apprehensions, 
 it will ever be assaying to reach higher things. 
 Hence it will follow that to an earnest minded Chris- 
 tian the perception of truth in his own system will 
 be no hindrance to his perception of the defects which 
 may be in that system. Nay, the very apprehension 
 of truth to which he has already attained, will render 
 him more capable of appreciating the more perfect 
 developement of that truth. Of course it would be 
 different if his more perfect attainment involved the 
 denial of what had already come home to his consci- 
 ence as true. But if it be only the expanding and 
 perfecting and carrying forward this truth, he will 
 be in a position in which he will the more readily 
 pursue it. 
 
 To illustrate this ; Suppose an Anglican aiming 
 to convince a pious dissenter of his errors ; he would 
 be a veiy unwise man, if he set about this task by 
 adducing some abstract arguments on the errors of 
 dissent; — suppose, for instance, he took up the ques- 
 tion of Apostolical succession in a dry and technical 
 way, enforced it by critical expositions of Scripture, 
 and laboured to prove that our present bishops are in 
 succession descended from the apostles; thus redu- 
 cing the dissenter to this difficulty, that as grace was 
 promised through such a succession, and as the dis- 
 senters have not got it, therefore they are without 
 grace. It is probable that in such a case the dis- 
 senter would feel that he had a conviction within his 
 own heart and soul, which would overbear all such 
 arguments. Feeling, as he believes, God's grace to be
 
 16 
 
 in him, he would regard as trifling, arguments which 
 go to show that he was without it. Nor could he 
 be much blamed for so doing. But now suppose the 
 Anglican were to proceed in a different manner. 
 Suppose he were to begin by acknowledging and ho- 
 nouring some great truth appreciated by the dissen- 
 ter, say, union with our Lord. He might try to 
 lead him on to higher and deeper thoughts of this 
 great mystery, showing how the Church and the 
 Church alone fully developed it. Then, assuming 
 that the doctrine of the Church is true, and that the 
 dissenter is really in earnest, we must believe that 
 as a necessary and obvious consequence, he would 
 soon become conscious of the defects of his own sys- 
 tem. He would become alive to the importance of 
 the sacramental element in religion. The higher 
 doctrines of our faith would come to him not under 
 the aspect of abstract formal theories, but as setting 
 forth spiritual realities, giving meaning, power, sub- 
 stance and enlargement to truths which he already 
 valued. Thus he would begin to discover the prac- 
 tical defects and difficulties of^his own religion.* 
 
 Now this may serve to illustrate the way in which 
 many Anglicans come to feel the defects and diffi- 
 culties of the system in which they have been brought 
 
 * Of course this argument is used without any intended dispa- 
 ragement to the authority of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. 
 Let it be apprehended by any one that any doctrine is from God, 
 and he is bound to beUeve it and to act upon it, without any consi- 
 deration of its moral or spiritual fitness to his wants. I am only 
 speaking of truths of which no such apprehension exists. Of 
 course its absence in any given case may be very culpable : but 
 that is a different subject.
 
 17 
 
 up, or to which they have long adhered. It is not that 
 they begin to repudiate truths which they have hith- 
 erto valued : but their difficulties rather arise from 
 these truths having obtained a fuller possession of 
 their minds ; and because they seem to carry with 
 them conclusions, and to involve consequences, which 
 their own system will not support or tolerate. This 
 is perhaps the only rig4it way in which they can 
 approach such difficulties. Their own system, in 
 which they have learned so much to enlighten and 
 direct them, has the first claim upon their allegiance. 
 But when they find that these very truths involve 
 higher conclusions, and can only be vindicated and 
 realized in something beyond the system in which 
 they have lived — this conviction may fairly be con- 
 sidered as " the finger of God" beckoning them 
 forward. " Ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
 shall make you free." *' If any man will do the will 
 of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be 
 of God." 
 
 Keeping therefore this principle in view, I propose 
 to consider what are the legitimate results of that 
 system which passes under the name of Anglican- 
 ism; — by which term I mean more particularly that 
 system of religion which is adopted by the high- 
 church school in the Establishment. The prac- 
 tical results which I mean to point out are those 
 which affect the allegiance of Anglicans to the esta- 
 blished church, and their continuance in it. The 
 difficulties then involved in these results are such as 
 will not be felt to be difficulties by the low-church 
 school. Men of that party have indeed difficulties 
 
 c
 
 18 
 
 enough of their own — difficulties which one may 
 suppose have risen to a climax, since after having 
 expended the severest censures upon men who were 
 driven to " a non-natural sense" in their exposition 
 of the " articles," they are compelled to adopt the 
 very same " figure of speech" in their interpretation 
 of the ritual of the established church. 
 
 The recent decision in the Gorham case, however 
 distressing to high-churchmen, can certainly be no 
 triumph to those of the opposite school : for it de- 
 cides that the doctrine of " baptismal regeneration," 
 considered by them as " soul-destroying," may be 
 taught in the church of England, as equally true, 
 and of equal autliority, with their own doctrine- In 
 fact both parties, if true to their own principles, are 
 put in a self-destructive position by this decision. 
 
 The difficulties however of which I have to speak 
 are those alone which beset the high-church party 
 in maintaining their principles, and yet continuing 
 in their allegiance to the established church. This 
 must be specially borne in mind as the ground of 
 the following argument. The first difficulty I will 
 mention is that which has reference to 
 
 I. The Unity of the Church. 
 
 I need scarcely remark upon the great stress which 
 Anglicans justly lay upon this note of the Church, 
 The enforcement of unity has ever been a leading 
 feature in the teaching of high-churchmen. It was 
 one main doctrine urged in the "■ Tracts for the 
 Times." Every person of church-principles must
 
 19 
 
 acknowledge tlie importance and necessity of the 
 article of the Christian Faith : " I believe in One 
 Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." 
 
 It is a difficulty which must meet the Anglican 
 on the very threshold of his enquiries, that, even 
 upon his own theory, unity does not seem to be 
 realized as a fact in the English church. This is 
 a difficulty which does not oppress low-churchmen, 
 because they resolve the doctrine into that invisible 
 bond, which, as they say, unites together all real 
 christians of whatever denomination. They do not 
 believe the Church to be a visible body. But the 
 Anglican utterly rejects this theory. It enters as an 
 element into his definition of the Church that it is 
 Visible. His difficulty then is to discover the prin- 
 ciple of unity as existing in that body to which he 
 belongs. The difficulty may be contemplated under 
 two aspects ; 1 . In reference to the connection of 
 the English church with the Church Catholic ; 2. In 
 reference to its own internal character. 
 
 1. Now with respect to the first of these aspects, 
 it is a startling difficulty at first sight that as a mat- 
 ter of fact, the church of England is in a state of 
 separation from what the Anglican regards as the 
 rest of the Catholic Church. He considers the whole 
 Church Catholic to consist of the Roman communion 
 the Greek communion and the Anglican communion 
 (including of course the American.) In point of fact, 
 then, the Eno-lish church is cut off from the rest of 
 the Catholic Church. Try it by the apostolic test 
 of unity, and it cannot be regarded as one either 
 with the Latin or Greek communion. To try it by 
 the Latin communion which most concerns us as part
 
 20 
 
 of the western Church ; it is not one " in doctrine," 
 unless the thirty-nine Articles are identical with the 
 creed of Pope Pius ; it is not one " in fellowship," 
 as the estrangement between Roman Catholics and 
 Anglicans sufficiently testifies ; it is not one " in 
 breaking of bread," for the Roman church will not 
 admit Anglicans to her altars; it is not oxe " in 
 prayers;" for Roman Catholics will not enter into 
 Anglican churches, nor do members of the Estab- 
 lishment, I suppose, as a matter of fact, unite witli 
 Catholics in their devotions to any appreciable extent. 
 The fact then is sufficiently obvious, that the 
 English church is not oxe with the Catholic Church. 
 If the church of England is a branch of the Catholic 
 Church, and also the Roman is a branch (which no 
 Anglican denies), then the fact that the Catholic 
 Church is not one stares us in the face with an obvi- 
 ousness not to be evaded. And this fact of itself 
 apart from any other consideration is a very great 
 difficulty. For it needs to be shewn how the Church 
 of Christ can exist upon the earth, while this essen- 
 tial element in its being- is absent. If the Church 
 is not one, it is not that Church in which we pro- 
 fess one faith, in the Creed. 
 
 In reply to this it has been sometimes urged that 
 the note of unity is as much realized in the Church, 
 in the AnoHcan sense of the term, as any other note 
 is ; as for instance, sanctity. The Church must be 
 HOLY as truly as it must be One. Yet no one 
 will pretend to say that sanctity is perfectly de- 
 veloped in the existing church under any theory of 
 its visibility. But here the different nature of these 
 two qualities is overlooked. Unity is a quality which
 
 21 
 
 in its own nature admits of no degrees. A thing 
 must be either one, or more than one. It cannot be 
 partly one and partly two or more. But sanctity 
 clearly admits of measures and degrees. We call a 
 man boly, who may yet admit of being far more holy 
 than he is. But no man can be more one than he is. 
 In like manner the unity of the Church is an abso- 
 lute quality. To say that unity is broken, is to say 
 that unity no longer exists. It becomes something 
 not merely different, but in this respect contrary to 
 what it was before. It becomes two, or more, and 
 not one. 
 
 If it should be said that this argument is of a 
 kind too abstract and philosophical to be applied to 
 this subject, and that the definition of unity here in- 
 sisted upon is too rigid — it may fairly be asked of 
 those who make the objection to furnish any defi- 
 nition of unity which will really and practically 
 constitute the church of Rome and the church of 
 England, Ox£ Body. The reception of the Creeds 
 has sometimes been adduced as the uniting: bond. 
 But surely this would require not merely the words, 
 but the meaning of the creeds to be understood. And 
 then where would be the unity, when each party 
 explained its meaning of the Article, " One Holy 
 Catholic Apostolic Church?" If it should be said 
 that " the apostolic succession" is the bond, this 
 would be no great improvement on the abstract and 
 rigid character of the definition. Besides, would the 
 Anglican admit a definition which would include 
 Nestorians, and Monophysites and a host of other 
 heretics ? 
 
 But again, it is said, that so far as Anglicans are
 
 22 
 
 concerned the church of England would be one with 
 the rest of the Catholic Church if it could ; as An- 
 glicans will say, ' We do not refuse communion to 
 other Catholics ; it is they that refuse it to us. The 
 fault of the division is not on our side, but on 
 theirs.' How far this is a just view of the matter we 
 will consider by and by. In the mean while, I ob- 
 serve, that, if it be granted, the Anglican difficulty 
 remains the same, namely that the Church is di- 
 vided. The Catholic theory is at least consistent. 
 It admits of but one church, comprehending- all in 
 communion with the See of Rome, and no others. 
 Nay, its theo?y would be vindicated by maintaining 
 that the one Church is that in communion with the 
 See of Canterbury ; for then t/ie theory of unity 
 would still be upheld. But the difficulty which 
 besets the Ano^lican is, that while he admits the 
 church of Rome to be a true church (though as he 
 says corrupt) he maintains that another body, not in 
 communion with it, na}", antagonistic to it, is also a 
 true church. So that he seems to maintain that the 
 Church is one and two at the same time, which is 
 absurd. 
 
 But here another aro^ument is uro^ed in favour of 
 the Anglican position. Anglicans say, 'Although we 
 cannot blind our eyes to the fact that the Church is 
 divided, and that unity is broken, we trust that we 
 are not responsible for the sin and the evil attending 
 on this lamentable state of things ; we are obliged to 
 submit to what we cannot help ; we would willingly 
 be at one with Rome, if she would refrain from en- 
 forcing upon us unlawful terms of communion. Here 
 is the difficulty, and Rome is responsible for it, not
 
 23 
 
 we. At any rate we appeal from the decision of 
 Rome in this matter. We appeal to the decision of 
 a general council- We are in the position of appel- 
 lants, in a provisional state, waiting for an authorita- 
 tive decision upon the points which divide Rome 
 and us.' 
 
 Now in order to examine into the weight and suf- 
 ficiency of this argument, we must consider the 
 original cause or occasion of the separation. How 
 have we come in this divided state ? Once the 
 Church of Eno^land was in communion with the 
 Churches of France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, 
 Italy, arid the rest of the Latin Communion. How 
 comes it then that this communion is broken ? 
 
 First, we will treat of this question apart from all 
 consideration of the interference of the temporal 
 power. This is the most favourable view for the 
 Anoflican, because it leaves out of the account that 
 Erastian element in the church of England which 
 most distresses him. 
 
 We will then, in the first place suppose that the 
 church of England, uninfluenced by any lower or 
 worldly motives, assembled in synod about three 
 hundred years ago, and determined that certain doc- 
 trines and practices which had for a time obtained in 
 the Church Catholic were erroneous or corrupt, and 
 ouoht to be renounced and discontinued. With a 
 view of carrying out this decision, the synod drew 
 up certain articles condemnatory of those doctrines 
 and practices, to which it required the subscription 
 of all who should minister in this church. 
 
 Now on what authority did the synod of London 
 proceed in this important work ? If, as I have said,
 
 24 
 
 we, for a moment, leave out of view all consideration 
 of temporal influence, we must suppose that it pro- 
 ceeded on that authority derived from our Lord, 
 founded on His promise, that He would guide His 
 Church into all truth. The synod must have acted 
 upon the ground of that promise of holy guidance, 
 given to the Universal Church — a promise which 
 might be pleaded by any church acting within its 
 own sphere, subject of course to those higher deci- 
 sions of the universal Church, to which the promise 
 would primarily and most emphatically apply ; — 
 I say this must have been so, because on no other 
 conceivable ground can any set of men require sub- 
 scription to religious dogmas, as a matter of dutif. 
 The Church is not a mere club or association in 
 which the majority of members have a right to enact 
 their own terms of union, and from which, of course, 
 those who dissent have a right to withdraw them- 
 selves. If this were so there could be little practical 
 hardship inflicted on the dissentients. If they did 
 not like this association, they might form another. 
 But the Church is a divinely constituted Body, from 
 which it is sinful to separate. How then can any 
 men possessing authority within the Church have a 
 right to exact subscription from their brethren except 
 upon the plea that they are themselves guided by 
 the Holy Ghost?* Hence all ecclesiastical synods 
 are opened with the special invocation of the Holy 
 
 * " In Protestant bodies subscription to Articles is always un- 
 derstood to be subordinate to the principle of private interpretation 
 .... There are as many faiths therefore as there are subscribers 
 What one man has asserted another man may question . . . Sub-
 
 25 
 
 Ghost. One man's private interpretation of Scrip- 
 ture, or of the Church's doctrine, is as good as ano- 
 ther's ; or as good as the private interpretation of a 
 hundred of others ; for mere numbers are no secu- 
 rity against error. But the point which I am la- 
 bouring to prove will surely not be disputed by 
 any Anglican, namely, that the council or synod of 
 London, which sat three hundred years ago, consi- 
 dered itself as acting under the special guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit — and on this ground urged upon the 
 English clergy the duty of subscription. 
 
 Now, it so happened that another council or synod 
 was sitting about the same time in an acknowledged 
 branch of the Catholic Church. Wavino- for a mo- 
 ment the question of whether the council of Trent 
 has a claim to be considered a General or QEcume- 
 nical Council, it cannot, at least, be denied by any 
 Anglican, that it had equal and co-ordinate authority 
 with the synod of London. It had at least equal 
 right to impose the duty of subscription to its dog- 
 mas. It could plead the same promise. It might 
 assert the same authority. Here, then, are two sy- 
 nods according to the Anglican theory, in different 
 branches of the One Church, possessing an equal 
 authority. The result is on one side the thirty-nine 
 Articles, and on the other side, the decrees of Trent. 
 Now, these two documents either ao^ree with each 
 other or they do not ; and in either case the An- 
 
 scription therefore as it is required in the Church of England im- 
 plies a belief in the guiding care of that Divine Spirit to whose 
 decisions individual consciences are bound to defer." Archdeacon 
 Wilherforce on the Incarnation, p. 533.
 
 26 
 
 glican is placed in a great dilemma. For, first, if 
 tlie thirty-nine Articles agree substantially with the 
 decrees of Trent, then the division in the Church is 
 more inexcusable ; and since this agreement is not 
 pretended on the Roman side, but is made out by 
 bringing the meaning of the thirty-nine Articles 
 into conformity with the decrees of Trent, the blame 
 of the division plainly rests on the Anglican side. 
 For if the Anglican maintains that the thirty-nine 
 Articles only mean, what the council of Trent has 
 expressed in another way, why should not he sub- 
 scribe to its decrees, and put an end to the division ? 
 But I should suppose that this side of the alternative 
 is held by very few. It was the object of the famous 
 No. 90, of the " Tracts for the Times " to uphold it : 
 but from the reception which that Tract has gene- 
 rally met with, especially from all the English bi- 
 shops, it may be concluded that the theory has been 
 repudiated. 
 
 But then the other side of the alternative involves 
 the Anglican in equal difficulty. For if the decisions 
 of the synods of London and Trent are discordant, 
 who is to decide between them ? Plainly, the only 
 appeal, which he will allow, is to a General Council. 
 Is the Anglican then, willing to abide the issue of 
 such an appeal ? No : he cannot, consistently with 
 his own principles, do so, because the twenty-first 
 Article of religion declares that " General Councils 
 may err, and sometimes have erred." But who is to 
 judge when they do err? Each one, as it would seem, 
 for himself. So that here we arrive at the foundation 
 on which the Anglican faith rests, which is each 
 one's PFUVATE JUDGMENT. How tliis cau be reconciled
 
 27 
 
 with the language of another article, the twentieth, 
 which declares that " the Church has authoriti/ in 
 controversies of faith," does not readily appear, unless 
 it be that by " authority" is only meant that power 
 which in every club or association must be vested 
 somewhere for the purpose of maintaining its exist- 
 ence ; for no body can long hold together without 
 some government.* 
 
 In these observations, I have been assuming that 
 the promoters of the Reformation were influenced 
 by considerations of the Church's welfare alone. 
 And it appears that if the Reformation in England 
 had had no other object in view, than to correct 
 abuses, and had been influenced by no other motive 
 than that of the desire of correcting them ; still even 
 in that point of view, it has pursued a course which 
 has led the English church into an unjustifiable 
 position. 
 
 But we must, in all fairness, take a wider view of 
 the subject, and not leave out of our consideration 
 those other influences which, to say the least, mainly 
 contributed to bring about the Reformation in Eng- 
 land. Can any one who reads the history of those 
 times, doubt that the separation of England from Rome 
 was mainly brought about by the atrocious wickedness 
 of Henry VIIL? In considering how the church of 
 England came into its present position, can we fairly 
 
 * The Articles, originalljs were not chargeable with this incon- 
 sistency. The clause "hath authority in controversies of faith" 
 did not exist in king Edward's Articles ; but is said to have been 
 inserted by queen Elizabeth herself, with what intention may be 
 very easily surmised ; — not certainly to invest the Church with any 
 power against the Sovereign.
 
 28 
 
 leave out of view the conduct and character of those 
 through vv^hom the separation was effected, as (for 
 example) the unworthy servility of Cranmer, the pro- 
 testantism (for I am addressing Anglo- Catholics) even 
 of Ridley, as well as Hooper, Latimer, and Jewell ? 
 Or, again, at a later period, the influence of foreign 
 protestants who were formally separated from " the 
 Apostolic Church ? " Then when we consider how 
 much actual wickedness was perpetrated in direct 
 connection with the Reformation ; as for instance, 
 the suppression of Religious houses, and consequent 
 abolition of the conventual life, the sacrilegious de- 
 secration of churches, and spoliation of their pro- 
 perty devoted to religious uses, the profaneness and 
 irreverence, and other such characteristics associated 
 with it: we shall find no little difficulty in tracing- 
 it to a good and holy source. Unquestionably God 
 does bring good out of evil ; and He may have used 
 such instruments as Henry VHI. and the others to 
 effect His gracious purposes. But it may well be 
 doubted, whether the reformed church of England, 
 in its origin, is not too much identified with such 
 persons, and with the objects which they had in 
 view, to admit of their being considered as mere ex- 
 ternal instruments ; and whether we may not much 
 more justly apply the test of our Lord, " Can an 
 evil tree bring forth good fruit?" Can such wicked- 
 ness as was perpetrated by Henry and his counsellors, 
 and afterwards by Somerset and Elizabeth, have 
 issued in the higher purity and holiness of the 
 Church ? 
 
 In reply to such observations as these, it is some- 
 times said, " We take the English Church as we find
 
 29 
 
 it ; all we have to consider is the tenableness of 
 our position now, as it is : we altogether ignore the 
 character of the Reformation : we do not feel our- 
 selves called upon either to defend it, or to condemn 
 it ; or to pass any judgment upon the method by 
 which it was effected : had we lived at the time, 
 perhaps our sympathies would have been rather with 
 More, and Fisher, and Pole, than with Henry VIII. 
 Cranmer, Elizabeth, and Parker ; but that is nothing 
 to us }wiv ; we take things as we find them, and if 
 we can make out that the church of England is 
 more catholic than the character of the Reformation 
 would lead us to expect, there is nothing to hinder 
 our availing ourselves of this advantage." 
 
 Now such reasoning might have perhaps some force, 
 if Anglicans found themselves unequivocally catholic, 
 and in an unexceptionable position. If their present 
 actual state were unattended with difficulties, which 
 are, or threaten to be, fatal, then I admit that the 
 claims of their present position might possibly seem 
 to outweigh all consideration of theoretical difficulty, 
 — at least this would be worthy of consideration. But 
 surely if Anglicans ?iYe feeling present difficulties to 
 be all but insurmountable (as what Anglican is not ?) 
 then can they in justice to themselves leave out of 
 their consideration, the circumstances which have 
 contributed to bring them into those difficulties ? If 
 they find themselves almost, if not quite, in an 
 unjustifiable position, and their catholicity decidedly 
 called in question, are they not bound to review those 
 events and circumstances which have brought them 
 into it? And if they find that the Reformation in 
 England was brought about chiefly by the self-will of
 
 30 
 
 one wicked man, who promoted it in order to gratify 
 his own lust ; and by the agency of others, partly 
 from being his subservient instruments, and partly 
 from having imbibed principles, and holding doc- 
 trines, which Anglicans now utterly repudiate ; and 
 further, that it was an innovation upon a system which 
 had fostered a saintliness, since unknown to itself; 
 and that it was in direct opposition to the aims of 
 such men as Sir Thomas More, and Fisher, and 
 Tunstall, and Pole, &c. — such considerations may 
 well be used to strengthen the suspicion, or to con- 
 firm the conviction, that that Reformation did not 
 come from God.* 
 
 Hitherto I have been arguing upon the assumption 
 that the church of England, as one branch of the 
 Church Catholic, is in the position of an appellant 
 against the church of Rome, another branch, and is 
 awaitins" the decision of a General Council. But it 
 may be questioned how far the principles and laws 
 of the church of England allow any such appeal. By 
 the acts of convocation, and the statutes of Henry 
 VHI. to which our attention has been so much 
 directed of late, it is plain that, in reference to its 
 judicial functions, the decisions of the local church, 
 whether they be by civil or ecclesiastical authority, 
 are final. The church of England can appeal for 
 
 * Any one who wishes to be informed on the true nature of the 
 Reformation, ought to consult the works of Dr. S. 11. Maitland, 
 especially his works on the Dark Ages, and on the Reformation. 
 
 His love of truth has done much to vindicate the characters of 
 men who have been greatly and most unjustly maligned, and to 
 elucidate the motives of many of the prime movers of the Refor- 
 mation.
 
 31 
 
 supreme judgments to no authority out of this king- 
 dom ; and it seems probable that by the same laws 
 it is equally cut off from all external appeal in its 
 legislative functions. There is no appeal from the 
 decisions of its synods, confirmed by the Queen, any 
 more than there is from the decisions of the Queen 
 in Council, under the guidance of the Judicial Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 But even if it were lawful to appeal to a General 
 Council, how is such an appeal practicable ? Suppose 
 convocation or synod assembled for the dispatch of 
 business, and some decision to be taken on the bap- 
 tismal question, could the minority, by the laws of 
 the English church, lodge an appeal to a General 
 Council ? Would the archbishop have the power or 
 authority to receive such an appeal ? Or if he re- 
 ceived it, what could he do with it? I should rather 
 suppose, that by the laws of this church and realm, 
 the decision of convocation would he final. But if 
 so, in what sort of position would it leave the mi- 
 nority? Under a dutyj in a matter involving the 
 truth of God, and the everlasting interests of man, 
 to submit to the decisions of a body which does not 
 even claim for itself infallibility? Surely this can 
 never be. Or again, suppose a council of the western 
 Church were to be assembled now — no impossible 
 supposition — would the bishops of the English 
 church be admitted as members of it? Certainly not, 
 because the Catholic Church does not admit the 
 English Establishment to be a part of the Church. 
 Nor could the English bishops fairly claim admis- 
 sion, because, as we have seen, by their own twenty- 
 first Article, they would be bound not to pledge
 
 32 
 
 themselves to abide implicitly by the decisions of 
 even a General Council. Is it not then an unreal 
 thing, and indeed scarcely honourable, that the Eng- 
 lish church should profess to be in the position of 
 an appellant, when an appeal on her own principles 
 is absolutely impracticable?* 
 
 But it has been urged by some that we can only 
 expect infallible guidance from even a General Coun- 
 cil when the Church is perfectly united. It is only 
 to the decisions of the One Church that we are 
 bound to defer. Hence, it is said, we must labour 
 for unity, and then we shall obtain an infallible au- 
 thority. But is not this manifestly to invert the true 
 
 ♦ I have heard it alleged — but as it seems to me on no sufBcient 
 authority — that the Article does not speak of true oecumenical 
 Councils, but onlv such as pretended to be general, as, e.g. the 
 Latrocinian of Ephesus, and those of Ariminum, and Seleucia. But 
 it is obvious to remark, that the Article does not say Councils called 
 general, or presuming to be so; but without any qualification 
 "■ General Councils." Bishop Beveridge knew no such distinction. 
 In his comment on the Article he says, " If (the controversy) 
 spread over the whole body of the universal Church in all or most 
 places, then it was always thought necessary that an universal 
 
 oecumenical or general Council should put a period to it. 
 
 And it is these General Councih which thus Article speaks of." 
 And he afterwards specifies the true oecumenical Councils — admit- 
 ting it seems that the second Xicene was a true oecumenical Coun- 
 cil and erred — and then distinguishes those which " pretend to be 
 general." 
 
 But even if the distinction were in words sustainable, the word- 
 ing of the Article would exclude it. For if such a distinction were 
 intended, the saving clause in the latter part of the Article would 
 naturally be, " Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary 
 have neither strength nor authority unless " such councils can be 
 declared to be truly oecumenical, or some other such form. Whereas 
 the Article says, " unless it can be declared that they be taken out 
 of Holy Scripture."
 
 33 
 
 order of things? Our blessed Lord invested His 
 Church with authority for this, above all other rea- 
 sons, that it might maintain unity. How is unity to 
 be preserved but by that authority to which men will 
 submit? In the nature of things, authority must 
 precede unity, not unity authority. If otherwise no 
 authority would be needed. To assert then under 
 the existing state of things that authority can only be 
 exercised in a united Church is to make the position 
 of the church of England irretrievable and irremedi- 
 able. 
 
 In connection with this point another consideration 
 presents a great difficulty to the Anglican. Com- 
 pelled as he is to pronounce Rome wrong, whom can 
 he believe to be right? He must have some autho- 
 rity to rest upon ; it is an element in the position of 
 the Anglican. He denies private judgment to be the 
 foundation of his faith as earnestly as the Catholic 
 does. If then he looks out of himself for some au- 
 thority to rest upon, what reason has he to believe 
 that the doctors of Trent were wrong, and the re- 
 formers right.* If he says the decisions of one party 
 were more scriptural, more in accordance with the 
 
 * If the position of the Church of England be right, (the Angh- 
 can must say) the Roman Catholics are so wrong, that it is doubtful 
 whether any terms ought to be kept with them. Bui if they are so 
 wrong as this, what confidence can we have that any religious body 
 is right ? ^lay not the church of England be wrong also ? Surely 
 this theory forces us on the foundation oi private judgment. And 
 if so, what limit is there to this ? Is every individual Christian to 
 determine by his private judgment, first what is Scripture, and next, 
 what Scripture means ? or even to go a step further back (and on 
 this theory why should he not ?) whether there is such a thing as 
 inspiration at all ? or any writings of inspired men ? 
 
 D
 
 34 
 
 fathers, or with the decisions of the first councils, what 
 is this but to appeal to his private judgment ? How 
 can he refuse to another the riffht of forminof the con- 
 trary opinion ? And of course if this be so, all au- 
 thoritative foundation for faith is at an end. Chris- 
 tians may then believe in the correctness of their own 
 judgment, or in the conclusions of their own reason, 
 but they do not believe in the word of the Living 
 
 God, AS SUCH. 
 
 But it has been said, the church of Eno-land dif- 
 fers from other bodies, in that she respects early 
 tradition. She does not take the Bible only for her 
 rule of faith, but Scripture interpreted by early Tra- 
 dition. And this word " early'' is variously inter- 
 preted to mean the first six centuries, or the first four 
 general councils, or the whole period before the di- 
 vision of east and west. Yet how uncertain and un- 
 satisfactory this is, must obviously appear. For if 
 the Church of England denies to private judgment 
 the interpretation of Scripture, with what consistency 
 can she admit it in the writings of the fathers, or 
 in the interpretation of Canons or decrees of coun- 
 cils ? Or ao:ain we mio-ht ask, when did the Church's 
 decisions cease to be binding on her children ? Is it 
 safe that such a matter as this should be left to pri- 
 vate opinion, one to say the third century, another 
 the fourth, and so on ? It is true the Church of Eng- 
 land founds her reception of the canon of Scripture 
 on tradition, [Art. VI.] and this as regards some 
 books, not the very earliest tradition. But if she re- 
 ceives the canon of Scripture on such authority, why 
 not also the practice of praying for the dead, for 
 which there is an earlier tradition than for some of
 
 35 
 
 tjie books of Scripture ? And why not again for tlie 
 number or the nature of the Christian sacraments ? 
 Why does she venture to omit the practice of " a- 
 nointing with oil," an early practice, to be traced up 
 to the command of Scripture itself? In thus disre- 
 garding- some traditions does she not endanger the 
 authority of the rest ? Does she not bring into jeo- 
 pardy the reception of Scripture itself?* 
 
 Further it may be asked. On what principle can 
 Anglicans repudiate or ignore the witness of the 
 mediaeval Church ? The same promise which insures 
 to the Church an infallible Guide into all truth in- 
 sures His abidance in the Church for ever. Why 
 should the first ages be certainly and in all instances 
 the purest ages of the Church ? If it be answered, 
 Because it was then least under the influence of human 
 additions or corruptions ; it may be asked, How can 
 we be sure of this ? Is there no power in the Church 
 to throw off corruptions? If indeed it be said that 
 the Church was corrupted from the very first ; that 
 may be a consistent theory, but it is not the theory 
 of the Anglican, who recognises the purity of the 
 first five or six centuries. But if the Angflican ac- 
 knowledges the first four councils why not the fifth 
 and the sixth ? If he fixes this date to the period of 
 
 * In speaking of the Bible as a Rule of Faith persons seem to 
 confound the office of a judge, with the office of the law. Let 
 the distinction be applied which is so obvious in temporal matters. 
 We all know, that let the law of the land be as plain as possible, 
 it would be utterly useless unless we had a judge to apply and in- 
 terpret it. Holy Scripture then is our law in spirituals. But it 
 is useless as to ihu purpose without an interpreter. Does not 
 experience teach us that this is so ? where is the agreement of men 
 who profess to be guided by it in their doctrines ?
 
 3G 
 
 the division of East and West, what is this but to 
 assume that the Church was then divided ? (an im- 
 possible condition according to our Lord's promise.) 
 Or even on that assumption how can he refuse to be 
 at least provisionally bound by the synods of the 
 western Church, until the voice of the whole Church 
 can be heard? On what conceivable principle, ex- 
 cept that of private judgment, can Anglicans hold 
 themselves to be bound by the synod of London at 
 the reformation, which will not equally, at least, bind 
 them to the previous councils of the later western 
 Church ? 
 
 Thus then it would seem that the church of En- 
 gland has no consistent theory of unity. Her mem- 
 bers are driven to the necessity of maintaining 
 principles which carried out to their legitimate conclu- 
 sions will condemn themselves ; or to the alternative 
 of admitting principles which will justify every form 
 of dissent or schism. 
 
 2. Nor is the position of the English church more 
 satisfactory when we consider the subject of unity in 
 reference to its internal character. Not only does 
 the system fail in preserving unity amongst the seve- 
 ral branches, so called, of the Catholic Church ; it 
 equally fails in enforcing or promoting unity amongst 
 its own members. No reflecting person can doubt 
 that it is the influence of the state which chiefly 
 keeps together the discordant materials of the En- 
 glish church. What sympathy, what bond of union 
 can subsist between parties so discordant as the 
 " anglo-catholic," the " evangelical," and the '* la- 
 titudinarian?" It would be invidious to mention 
 names, but they will occur to every one as illustrative
 
 37 
 
 of this question. If in one parish is taught the or- 
 thodox doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, and of the 
 Incarnation ; in another may be found the teaching 
 of Sabellius or Nestorius. In one, the efficacy of the 
 sacraments ; in another the denial that they are more 
 than mere signs. In one, Luther's doctrine of justi- 
 fication by faith only, in another Bishop Bull's of jus- 
 tification by faith and works also. In one the Pope 
 is admitted to be the first bishop in the Christian 
 Church : in another he is denounced as Antichrist. 
 In one, Roman Catholics are regarded as Chris- 
 tian brethren, with some errors it may be, but with 
 much that deserves and obtains imitation ; in another 
 they are regarded as idolatrous, in the possibility of 
 whose salvation it is a stretch of charity to believe. 
 Many more points of disunion on vital doctrines 
 miofht be mentioned. But let these suffice. No rea- 
 sonable person can maintain that there is any unity 
 of doctrine in members of the church of England. 
 Their own acts refute any such position. In visiting 
 any strange place the earnest " evangelical" asks, 
 " Where the Gospel is preached?" The anglo-ca- 
 tholic fears for himself or for his children that he 
 may hear sacramental grace denied or depreciated, 
 or some subtil form of antinomianism inculcated. 
 Who amongst us, for years past, has gone into any 
 stranofe Church with a feelino; of confidence that 
 the doctrines or practices to be found in it, would not 
 shock his deepest convictions of truth, or his feelings 
 of reverence? Surely this is not Catholic Unity. 
 
 In reference to these admitted features of Anglican 
 disunion, it has been alleged that disunion also is 
 found in the Catholic Church. But will the two
 
 38 
 
 cases admit of the slightest comparison ? There are 
 of course in the Catholic Church matters of opinion 
 in which differences are allowable. But the Anglican 
 differences affect the most sacred doctrines of the 
 Faith. Who can say that he would find any sub- 
 stantial disunion in the Catholic Church from one 
 end of the world to the other, on the doctrines of 
 the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Sacraments, — and 
 herein on Regeneration, the Real Presence, and the 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice — or on Justification, Repentance, 
 Holy Orders, or the constitution of the Church ? or 
 that if such differences were in any instance to be 
 discovered the evil would be beyond immediate re- 
 medy ? 
 
 II. The next subject which I will notice as involv- 
 ing an Anglican difficulty is the method in which the 
 Church of England has dealt with the doctrine of 
 Sacramental Grace. 
 
 As I have just said, very widely different opini- 
 ons prevail on this subject. But there is one point 
 on which one would think all earnest minded persons 
 must agree, namely, that whatever the church's doc- 
 trine on the sacraments is, it ought to be plainly 
 enunciated, so that her humblest member might know 
 what it is. On this point there is at least no differ- 
 ence of opinion amongst sincere persons, whether 
 " high-church" or " evangelical." Both show by 
 their language what their estimation is of the import- 
 ance of the subject. To deny baptismal regeneration, 
 or the real Presence is in the belief of the Anglican 
 a fatal heresy. To assert these doctrines is in the 
 view of the evangelical to destroy souls. Or even
 
 39 
 
 where such strong language is not used, the difference 
 is admitted to be vital. Now if this be so, it can 
 scarcely be otherwise than that the Anglican should 
 feel it a difficulty, that what he believes to be the 
 true doctrine of the sacraments, is put forth by the 
 Church in such feeble or even equivocal terms. 
 
 On the doctrine of baptismal regeneration the 
 church of England has been hitherto thought to be 
 more especially strong. The explicit language of 
 her formularies seemed to many to be absolutely de- 
 cisive on that point. And yet we have lived to see 
 it solemnly decided otherwise in a court constituted 
 of men of the highest legal ability. I know it has 
 been widely said that that decision was manifestly, if 
 not intentionally wrong; that it was a judgment not 
 founded on truth, but upon expediency. With such 
 statements I can feel no sympathy. While I freely ad- 
 mit, that according to the best of my judgment, the 
 fair construction of the words of the Prayer Book 
 would have led to an opposite decision, I cannot deny 
 that there were other elements introduced into the 
 question, which may fairly account for, if they do 
 not justify, the decision. The argument so often re- 
 ferred to, founded on the adoption of an article of 
 at least equivocal meaning for one plain and un- 
 ambiguous ; the absence of a distinctive announce- 
 ment on the efficacy of infant baptism, where at least 
 it might have been expected in the answer to the 
 question, "Why then are infants baptised, &c. ?"; 
 above all, the unvarying practice of the church of 
 England for three hundred years (or at least for by far 
 the largest portion of that period) in allowing cler- 
 gymen to have the cure of souls, who notoriously and
 
 40 
 
 avowedly denied the doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion — these considerations, though not decisive as 
 to the question (as such they are not here urged) are 
 yet amply sufficient to vindicate the court from that 
 most serious and degrading charge of having given 
 a judgment knowingly and intentionally perverse. 
 
 The last of the above named considerations ought 
 surely to weigh much with the Anglican who would 
 zealously vindicate the position of the church of En- 
 gland. For how could he answer such a retort as 
 this from the judges? " You charge us with having 
 perverted or misinterpreted documents which so 
 plainly lay down the doctrine of baptismal regene- 
 ration that no honest mind can possibly misunder- 
 stand them ; you also maintain that this is a vital 
 doctrine : how comes it to pass then, that you and 
 the bishops, and the whole church for three hun- 
 dred years, have endured within her bosom the dead- 
 ly heresy of denying it? Can we suppose that the 
 church of England for three hundred years has not 
 had one bishop faithful enough to banish this strange 
 doctrine from his diocese ; — with documents too in his 
 hand (as you assert) so plain and explicit, that they 
 admit of no doubt of his ability successfully to have 
 taken this course ? " Surely this would be a retort not 
 easily answered. 
 
 I will not here dwell on the point that the ortho- 
 doxy of the English church has at least been brought 
 into question upon this fundamental doctrine by the 
 recent decision in the Gorhara case, whether just or 
 unjust, because this has been of late so much insisted 
 upon. And indeed it seems to be very generally 
 admitted, that if the decision stands, it is such a recog-
 
 41 
 
 nition of false doctrine as is fatal to the claims of the 
 church of England to be a part of the Church Ca- 
 tholic. But I proceed to consider what kind of wit- 
 ness the English church bears to the grace and effi- 
 cacy of the sacrament of the holy Eucharist. 
 
 Now I may assume that the Anglican believes, 
 substantially, the following doctrine ; 
 
 1. That the very Body and Blood of our Lord are 
 in no merely figurative sense, but really and substan- 
 tially present, not merely to the heart and soul of the 
 believer, but " under the form of bread and wine" 
 upon the altar. 
 
 2. That in this sacrament, the priest really offers 
 in commemoration the true and proper sacrifice of 
 that very Body, Which once for all was offered on the 
 Cross, and that in this sacrament is transacted the 
 perpetuation of that one Sacrifice once offered, which 
 is propitiatory for the sins of the whole world. 
 
 This I suppose is also, in substance, the belief of 
 the Catholic, and however others may doubt of, or 
 deny the truth of this doctrine, no one can question 
 its immense and overwhelming importance, if true. 
 And yet how very unsatisfactory is the witness which 
 the English Prayer Book bears to it. Some passages 
 indeed seem explicitly to recognise the real presence. 
 Yet perhaps with one exception (namely the passage 
 in the exhortation which is almost in words a quota- 
 tion from Scripture) the Prayer Book seems to adopt 
 the notion favoured by Hooker, that the real presence 
 is not in the species of bread and wine, but only to the 
 heart and soul of the believer ; which seems equiva- 
 lent to saying that the faith of the receiver, not the 
 act of the priest, consecrates the elements. Hence
 
 42 
 
 in the words of the Catechism, the inward part of the 
 Sacrament is said to be, " The Body and Blood of 
 Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received 
 by the faithful in the Lord's Supper;" and again 
 in the twenty-eighth article it is said, " The mean 
 whereby the Body of Christ," (not merely the benefit) 
 "is received and eaten is faith."* 
 
 Still more unsatisfactory must we consider the his- 
 tory of the words used at the distribution. The old 
 Catholic form, continued till the second Prayer Book 
 of Edward VI., was " The Body of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ keep thy soul to everlasting life;" in which 
 words nothing less could be understood than that that 
 which was delivered was the Body of our Lord. In 
 the second Prayer Book of Edward VI., these words 
 were omitted and there was substituted for them this 
 form only ; " Take eat this in remembrance that Christ 
 died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith 
 with thanksgiving." Now if the true doctrine of the 
 real presence had been intended to be asserted by the 
 later divines of the English church, what would have 
 been more natural and obvious than that when on a 
 subsequent review the Prayer Book was relieved from 
 some of the innovations of the foreign reformers, the 
 ancient form should have been restored to its exclu- 
 sive place ; and that these words so obviously sug- 
 
 * It is obvious to remark that one single expression inconsistent 
 with the holding of high doctrine in the real presence and the Eu- 
 charistic sacrifice, will tell more on one side, than many expressions 
 favourable to high doctrine will tell on the other. For these latter 
 expressions are quite consistent with the supposition that the real 
 presence was intended to be an open question. Whereas it is 
 utterly inconceivable that if the compilers of the Prayer Book, held 
 and intended to enforce that doctrine, they should have allowed 
 one expression of a hostile import to be inserted.
 
 43 
 
 gestive of a lower doctrine of the Sacrament should 
 have been omitted ? This observation is all the 
 stronger from the manifest inconvenience of the longer 
 form, adding so unnecessarily to the length of the 
 service. Yet what was done? The old form of 
 words was indeed restored, but the later form was 
 also retained in addition, suggesting ; whether inten- 
 tionally or not, an uncatholic interpretation of the old 
 form. For it must be observed that while the old 
 form was exclusively in use, the act of distribution 
 was simultaneous with the utterance of the words 
 " The Body of our Lord &c." naturally expressing 
 the truth that the thing given was the very Body. 
 But as the words now stand in the English liturgy, 
 the distribution can scarcely be made, and I suppose 
 usually is not made until, the words " Take and eat 
 this in remembrance &c." so that the more natural 
 interpretation of the sentence as it now stands is 
 that the first words are a prayer, which any one 
 might use without any belief in the real presence, 
 " may the Body of our Lord preserve thy body &c." 
 w^hile the latter words suggest that the Sacrament is 
 only taken in remembrance of a past act, and that 
 the eating is no more than a figurative action of the 
 heart or intention. 
 
 One cannot but suppose then from this history that 
 a sort of compromise was designed, that the doctrine of 
 the real presence was intended to be left an " open 
 question ;" that while no violence was to be done to 
 the prejudices of those who adhere to the old doctrine, 
 no repudiation was intended of the new.* 
 
 * This is as much as avowed by Burnet in the following passage : 
 " It was proposed to have the Communion-book so contrived
 
 44 
 
 But if even the doctrine of the real presence has 
 been left in this unsatisfactory state, much worse is 
 the position of the English church in reference to 
 the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice. For on this 
 the English Prayer Book is all but silent, if indeed it 
 does not intend positively to exclude it. The thirty- 
 first article perhaps may admit of the interpretation 
 which Anglicans put upon it, namely that it only con- 
 demns " the sacrifices of masses " offered under the no- 
 tion, whether truly or erroneously imputed, that they 
 could be substituted for the one sacrifice of the Cross, 
 or be independent of it. And if the doctrine of the 
 eucharistic sacrifice were elsewhere explicitly recog- 
 nized and fully stated, one would gladly put this 
 harmless meaning on the article. But when we con- 
 
 that it might not exclude the belief of the corporal presence : for 
 the chief design of the Queen's (Elizabeth's) council, was to unite 
 the nation in one faith, and the greatest part of the nation con- 
 tinued to believe such a presence. Therefore it was recommended 
 to the divines to see that there should be no express definition 
 made against it; that so it might lie as a speculative opinion, not 
 determined, in which every man was left to the freedom of his own 
 mind. Hereupon the rubric that explained the reason for kneeling 
 at the sacrament, that thereby no adoration is intended to any cor- 
 poreal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood, because that 
 is only in heaven, which had been in king Edward's [second] Litur- 
 gy was now left out. And whereas at the delivery of the elements 
 in king Edward's first Liturgy, there was to be said : The Body 
 or Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, preserve thy body or soul 
 to everlasting life, which words had been left out in his second 
 Liturgy, as favouring the corporal presence too much; and instead 
 of them these words were ordered to be used, Tahe eat this in 
 remembrance &c. they now joined both these in one." Burnet's 
 Hist, of Reform. Vol. ii. p. 784. 
 
 Can anything be plainer than that a compromise was intended, 
 and that it was meant to leave this vital doctrine an open question?
 
 45 
 
 sider that there is no such recognition or statement ; 
 that possibly the words in the first part of the conse- 
 cration prayer may be intended to exclude it ; that // 
 there be any oblation of the Body of our Lord it is 
 (contrary to all Catholic usage) placed after commu- 
 nion instead of before it ; and that the language 
 which by Anglicans is understood to express such 
 oblation " this our sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
 giving," is so obviously capable of another and a 
 lower meaning, — considering all this, I say, it is hard 
 to believe that the thirty-first article was not intended 
 to condemn the idea of sacrifice as in any true and 
 proper sense connected with the Holy Eucharist. 
 
 But even were it otherwise, how can we reconcile 
 it to any consideration of the requirements of the 
 Church, that a doctrine so essential, so overwhelm- 
 ingly important, should be left to be gathered by 
 difficult interpretations, and remote inferences from 
 the Prayer Book ? if the doctrine be true, it is surely 
 the Great Idea which must pervade all Christian 
 vt^orship. It comprehends within itself the grand 
 purpose of our assembling together. We come to- 
 gether, as the first disciples "to break bread," and 
 in breaking it to oflfer this sacrifice. How great is 
 the difficulty to the Anglican, that he should have so 
 slight an authority, if authority at all, for that which 
 he considers to be the very centre of Christian faith 
 and worship. 
 
 And here two thoughts suggest themselves which 
 seem not a little to aggravate this difficulty. 
 
 1. The first is that the church of England so rarely 
 offers this sacrifice ; in a large number of country 
 churches only three or four times a year, and in
 
 46 
 
 tlie greater number of town churches only once a 
 month. This is altogether contrary to the usage of 
 the Catholic Church. It is a serious and solemn 
 question, Does not this infrequency of offering arise 
 from the church of England having lost the doctrine of 
 the Sacrifice ? And is not this suspicion confirmed by 
 the fact that the celebration is made dependent upon 
 the number communicat'mg 1 Nay, so strict is she in 
 enforcing this rule that even in the case of a dying 
 man, he is not allowed to receive — that is, no cele- 
 bration is allowed, " if there be a lack of company 
 to receive with himy [See rubric for communion 
 of the sick.] In that case the priest may not offer 
 the eucharistic sacrifice although it be applicatory 
 of the sacrifice of the Cross for the poor man's sins. 
 Even in that " extremity" the clergyman '\s forbidden 
 to minister to him the Body of his Lord, and is to 
 content himself with an " instruction that if the sick 
 man " truly repent &c., he doth eat and drink the 
 Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to 
 his soul's health, although he do not receive the sacra- 
 ment with his mouth." In a case of necessity^ where 
 the sacrament cannot be had, the Catholic Church has 
 recognised the benefit of spiritual communion. But 
 though the above direction may be consistent enough 
 with the notion that the sacraments are mere figures, 
 does it not seem truly shocking, on the assumption that 
 the Eucharist is a true sacrifice, and a real commu- 
 nion? In that view, which Anglicans hold, can it be 
 a sufficient reason for depriving the dying man of 
 such an unspeakable benefit, that " three or two at 
 the least" cannot be found to receive with him? 
 Perhaps it may be answered here, that we are not
 
 47 
 
 called upon to defend, in minute detail, the rubrical 
 directions of the Prayer Book. These may be erro- 
 neous without making the church heretical. But I 
 beg the reader to observe for what purpose this rubric 
 is appealed to : not for its intrinsic wrongness, which 
 must be apparent enough to every Catholic minded 
 person, but as indicating the doctrinal mind of those 
 who compiled and re-formed the offices, and therefore 
 the mind of the Prayer Book itself. It seems impos- 
 sible that those who composed this rubric could be- 
 lieve in the reality either of sacrifice or communion. 
 2. The other thought to which I referred is, that 
 the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice, is certainly not 
 actually and practically the doctrine of the great 
 majority of English churchmen. If it can be made 
 out that it is sanctioned or allowed in the Prayer 
 Book, it is unquestionably held by comparatively few 
 who use the Prayer Book. The so called anglo- 
 catholics stand alone here. They receive no coun- 
 tenance from the clergy of the old school. No person 
 competently acquainted with the state of the English 
 Church can doubt, that a vast and overwhelming 
 majority of its bishops, priests, and deacons ignore or 
 reject this doctrine.* It is quite different with the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It may be as- 
 
 * Thus the bishop of London, a fair expositor of English church 
 doctrine, says ex cathedra : 
 
 " This notion of an offering, which those who communicate in 
 the Eucharist make in behalf of others, over and above their prayers, 
 seems to me, I confess, to be essentially the same as that which is 
 condemned by our thirty-first article. I consider it to be the plain 
 doctrine of our Church that the efi'ects of that holy Sacrament are 
 limited to the faithful and devout communicant, and that there is
 
 48 
 
 sumed that the majority of the clergy hold that doc- 
 trine in terms, greatly as they would differ in their 
 exposition of the terms. And in the recent con- 
 troversy much has been made of this wide spread be- 
 lief of the bishops and other clergy. The fact has 
 been even adduced as practically nullifying the de- 
 cision of the Queen in Privy Council. It has been 
 said, that the doctrine of the Church is not to be deter- 
 mined by such a decision ; the whole Church (though 
 to say so is an exaggeration) is against it; there 
 cannot be a doubt that if the church could speak it 
 would decide in favour of the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration. But if this argument is good for the 
 maintenance of one doctrine, is it not equally good for 
 the rejection of another? Suppose one of the bishops 
 were to refuse institution to a clergyman for not 
 holding the doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice — is 
 it conceivable that he could maintain his ground ; or 
 that he would be supported if he were to appeal to a 
 
 nothing in it of the nature of a truly propitiatory sacrifice." Charge 
 1846, jt). 17. 
 
 The same opinion, in substance, is expressed by the bishop in 
 his recent answer to an address from the archdeaconry of Middle- 
 sex. " I cannot but suspect that many of the forms which have 
 been of late introduced into the celebration of the holy communion 
 are the expressions of belief in a doctrine emphatically denied by 
 the Church of England, and are nothing less than acts of adoration 
 done to the supposed corporeal presence of the Body and Blood of 
 our Saviour Christ." Setting aside the misunderstanding which 
 might arise from the use of the word " corporeal," I will venture 
 to say that the suspicions of the bishop are well-founded. In the 
 case of many high-churchmen, I would hope in the case of all, 
 these ceremonies have been observed in recognition of the Real 
 Presence of Christ upon the altar. To have adopted them for any 
 other reason would have been both foolish and wicked.
 
 49 
 
 synod of bishops, or to the general belief of the 
 clergy ? Most assuredly not. And if not, must we 
 not say by the same rule, that the church of England 
 rejects the doctrine. 
 
 IIL 
 
 And this brings me to the consideration of another 
 point in the general difficulties of Anglicans, I mean 
 the actual state of the existing established 
 Church. 
 
 It has been truly said by archdeacon Manning in 
 his recent letter to the bishop of Chichester, (p. 36.) 
 that " the doctrine of the church of England is not 
 only in its written formularies, but in the oral teaching 
 of its twenty-eight bishops, its fifteen thousand clergy, 
 its many more thousand school teachers, and its two 
 or three millions of heads of families. Doctrine is 
 the living, ever spreading, and perpetual sense which 
 is taught at our altars, and from house to house all 
 the year round." This is a consideration which very 
 much affects the question before us. If indeed the 
 church of England were what the anglo-catholic 
 would have it to be — if, for instance, as a living 
 body it taught the mysteries of the Faith — the efficacy 
 of sacramental grace — the real presence, the eucha- 
 ristic Sacrifice, with its corollaries, &c. &c. he would 
 be in a very different position. But can this be said 
 to be so? Does the church of England teach thus 
 by her authorised ministry? The real character of 
 the church must be decided, not by what human 
 ingenuity may make the Prayer Book say or allow ; 
 not by such disquisitions as are found in Tract 90, 
 
 E
 
 50 
 
 whatever may or may not be the tenableness of its 
 positions ; but by what it really is, and really says, 
 through the great body of its accredited ministers. 
 And this remark is the stronger when it applies not 
 to times of careless ignorance, such as the latter part 
 of the 18th century; but to times such as these in 
 which we live, in which every doctrine of tha faith 
 is canvassed, and when for twenty years Catholic 
 truths have been thrust upon the church, and prac- 
 tically rejected by her. I say rejected by her, be- 
 cause although it is true that some of her members 
 have become more or less catholic, they are obvi- 
 ously in her rather than of her. The catholic tone 
 and spirit have not infused themselves into her sys- 
 tem. So far as the church of Eno;land can be said 
 to have expressed any feeling on Catholicism, it has 
 been adverse to it. The instances may be few and 
 insignificant in which there has been any expression 
 at all ; but such as it has been, it has been against, 
 not for, Catholicism ; — as, for instance, in bishops' 
 charges ; in the favour shewn to the so called evan- 
 gelical school ; in approximations to foreign protes- 
 tants, as in the Jerusalem bishopric ; and in the 
 discouragement with which any attempt to return to 
 more correct and catholic usage has been met. So ' 
 far then as the actual state of the Church can be 
 adduced as interpretative of the sense of the Prayer 
 Book — it witnesses against the catholic sense. 
 
 And here I cannot but observe, that it tells much 
 against the church of England that zeal and devo- 
 tedness to God are practically discouraged, rather than 
 fostered by her system. Here too her system practi- 
 cally has been a sort of via media. She seems to
 
 51 
 
 study a respectable mediocrity. It has often been 
 remarked, and most truly, that Wesley was driven 
 into his extravagancies, and his followers out of the 
 Establishment by the want of sympathy in his aspi- 
 rations and aims after higher and holier ways. We 
 may all remember how daily services in churches were 
 discouraged a few years ago ; and even yet, those 
 who have restored this usage are regarded with cold- 
 ness and suspicion. Again, the establishment of re- 
 ligious brotherhoods, and sisterhoods of mercy, has 
 more recently been attempted under circumstances 
 still more discouraging. In a word, it will not be 
 denied, whatever partial exceptions may exist, that, 
 on the whole, by the authorities of the church speci- 
 ally, and by its whole body generally, the greatest 
 discouragements have been and are thrown in the way 
 of any extraordinary zeal. It is thought a great 
 matter to get the sanction of a bishop to any good 
 work which seems to rise above the level of ordinary 
 religious practice of the day. I do not presume to 
 blame the bishops — the blame seems to rest rather 
 upon the system they are in, than upon them : but 
 while I would gladly bear witness to great activity 
 manifested in recent years, in such good works as 
 church building-, district visitino;, &c. I believe it 
 would be difficult to name a sino-le instance in which 
 for the last hundred years or more, a bishop of the 
 English church, has originated and systematically 
 encouraged any plan for raising the tone of feel- 
 ing and action amongst the more religious portion 
 of the community. The most that is looked for 
 from them is forbearance, or cold assent ; as if the 
 very office of a bishop was instituted ouly to restrain
 
 52 
 
 zeal, and to guard against too great enthusiasm. It 
 seems no sufficient answer to say that in recent 
 times this zeal has had a tendency towards practices 
 which are more specially identified with the Catholic 
 Church : first because in previous times no such reason 
 could be alleged; and secondly and chiefly because 
 such a reason is in fact an implicit testimony to the 
 excellence of the Catholic system ; and because when 
 occasion seems to call for it, the distinction is much 
 insisted upon by Anglicans, that they do not protest 
 against the Church of Rome, but only against its 
 errors. 
 
 Further it is obvious to remark that the church of 
 England seems to throw off from her, as alien to her, 
 those of her clergy who shew any extraordinary zeal 
 and devotedness to their work. One clergyman gives 
 himself wholly to his work : he devotes his substance, 
 his time, his abilities, to the one object of caring for 
 his parish : he builds churches and schools — de- 
 vises plans for a more Christian mode of education. 
 But because with all this he combines an unusual, 
 and it may be exaggerated attention to the ritual of 
 the church, he is in fact practically cast aside. All 
 his personal devotedness and the excellence of his 
 works go for nothing, when weighed against this 
 little fault, if fault it be, and he is got rid of. Ano- 
 ther clergyman performs his ordinary routine of duty, 
 but makes not one effort to raise the religious tone of 
 his parish. Yet he is cherished and encouraged, and 
 probably acquires that highest title of Anglican ex- 
 cellence — the title of " a safe man^ Nay, let the 
 full truth be told, even immoral men — men convicted 
 of immorality — find a more lenient treatment than do
 
 53 
 
 men of excessive and extravagant zeal. Here again 
 I would not be understood as imputing blame to in- 
 dividual bishops ; but rather as shewing the real 
 tendency of the system to which they belong, which 
 seems to encourage, or to force upon them this une- 
 qual exercise of discipline. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I pass on now to the consideration of another dif- 
 ficulty which recent events have brought more pro- 
 minently into view. I mean the interference of the 
 
 CIVIL POWER IN MATTERS OF A PURELY SPIRITUAL 
 NATURE. 
 
 If there be one thing more than another upon 
 which the Anglican has laid great stress, it has 
 been the spiritual independence of his church. And 
 surely with great justice, for it is this which esta- 
 blishes the direct connection of the Church with her 
 Divine Head. Her truth, her sacraments, her min- 
 isters, and all her mysteries, are endowments directly 
 from Him. And to allow another power, the state, 
 to interpose itself between her and Him, is both an 
 act of unfaithfulness to Him, and of forfeiture of her 
 own position. 
 
 The notion which has generally prevailed amongst 
 Anglicans on the subject of the supremacy, I sup- 
 pose to be this ; that previous to the reformation, a 
 jurisdiction so far as affected the Church, both in 
 temporal matters and spiritual, had been yielded to the 
 Pope, (this of course would include mixed questions 
 partly temporal and partly spiritual) ; and that at the
 
 54 
 
 time of the reformation all that related to temporal 
 matters, whether purely so, or of a mixed character, 
 M^as placed under the supremacy of the crown ; and 
 that all which related to matters purely spiritual, or 
 in mixed questions, so far as they were spiritual, was 
 reserved to the Church, for judgment in its courts, 
 or for legislation in its houses of convocation. An- 
 glicans may perhaps be justly blamed for having 
 formed this opinion, which certainly does not seem 
 to be borne out by the history of the Reformation,* 
 or by the actual state of ecclesiastical law : but thus 
 much may be urged in their excuse, while per- 
 haps it carries with it an imputation on the body to 
 which they belong, that the authorities of the church, 
 
 * Certainly Hooker's description of the extent of the supremacy 
 seems plain enough, and so far as his high authority avails, com- 
 mits the church of England to the full extent of the doctrine which 
 high-churchmen are now reclaiming against. After stating ge- 
 nerally that at the Reformation the power of jurisdiction was trans- 
 ferred from the Bishop of Rome, and annexed unto the King's 
 royal seat and crown, he proceeds ; " From thence the authors of 
 reformation would translate it into their national assemblies or sy- 
 nods, which synods are the only help which they think lawful to 
 use against such evils in the Church, as particular jurisdictions are 
 not sufficient to redress. In which case our laws have provided 
 that the King's supereminent authority and power shall serve : as 
 namely, when the whole ecclesiastical state, or the principal persons 
 therein, do need visitation and reformation ; when in any part of 
 the Church errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, 
 enormities, are grown, which men in their several jurisdictions 
 either do not or cannot help: whatsoever any spiritual aiithurity 
 or potver (such as legates from the See of Rome did sometimes 
 exercise), hnth done or might hereafter have done, for the remedy 
 
 of those evils in lawful sort as much in every degree our 
 
 laws have granted that the king for ever may do, not only hy set- 
 ting ecclesiastical synods on ivuik, that the thing may be their 
 
 1
 
 55 
 
 so far as they have been allowed to act at all, have 
 acted in ^uch subserviency to the state,* that their 
 respective povi^ers have not until recently been brought 
 into rivalry or collision with each other. In fact, the 
 question has not been mooted — and it is only to say, 
 that Ano-licans have Eno-]ish minds, to allege that 
 they have not been alive to the evil of a principle, 
 which however insidiously and fatally it has worked, 
 has not been openly and palpably brought under 
 public notice. They have rather attributed the Eras- 
 tianism of their church to the disposition of individual 
 bishops, than seen that it arises from the constitution 
 of the church itself. 
 
 But now at length the Anglican is placed in a 
 very different position. A bishop has attempted to 
 assert the rights of his church, as represented by 
 him in his own diocese. The whole question of the 
 relationship between church and state has been 
 brought pointedly and vividly before the mind ; and 
 it appears plain, even to demonstration, that the no- 
 tion hitherto entertained by Anglicans, is incorrect, 
 and indeed unfounded : and that the whole spiritual 
 
 act and the king their motion to it" [the very defence now 
 
 set up for what is thought a lawful exercise of the supremacy] 
 " but by commissioners few or many, who having the king's letters 
 patent, may in the virtue thereof execute the premises as agents 
 in the right, not of their own peculiar and ordinary, hut of his 
 superemine7it poiver." Vol. iii. p. 543. Edit. Keble. 
 
 Plainer words could not be used in claiming for the Crown a 
 supreme jurisdiction in matters most purely spiritual. 
 
 * The acts for suppression of bishoprics, for changing the ju- 
 risdiction of existing bishops, for appointing Ecclesiastical Com- 
 missions, above all, for constituting the Jerusalem, the Continental, 
 and the Colonial bishoprics, may be mentioned as instances.
 
 56 
 
 supremacy over the church, enjoyed by the Pope 
 before the Reformation, as distinguished from what 
 belongs to holy orders, has been transferred to the 
 Crown, and is now exercised by it, or rather by the 
 state of which the Crown is the executive. 
 
 And here especial attention is required to the dis- 
 tinction between the power of orders, and the power 
 of jurisdiction, which has not been sufficiently con- 
 sidered. With regard to the power of orders the 
 Reformation professed to make no difference. The 
 right of ministering in the congregation was still 
 reserved exclusively to the ordained ministers of the 
 Church : the Crown did not interfere with that. 
 But with regard to the power of jurisdiction, which 
 consists in giving mission to the clergy, (except so 
 far as it is included in orders); and in judging of 
 the doctrine and discipline of the Church ; it seems 
 that at the Reformation the Crown was invested 
 with this whole jurisdiction. Henceforth the Crown 
 instituted the bishops to their sees, and became the 
 supreme ecclesiastical judge in matters both of doc- 
 trine and discipline. 
 
 Here again it is important to distinguish between 
 the mere iwm'uiation of bishops by the Crown, the 
 fitness of whom is to be tried by the Church — and the 
 actual i)istitutio7i of bishops to their dioceses. In the 
 mixed relationships of church and state, something 
 may be said in favour of the right of the Crown to 
 nominate persons to bishoprics; and no one will main- 
 tain that this is ^^nj fatal intrusion into the Church's 
 prerogatives. But the right to institute bishops, 
 which is the giving them mission and jurisdiction; 
 and the right to judge of their fitness for their office
 
 07 
 
 — these are unquestionably the exclusive prerogatives 
 of the Church, and yet these are what the Crown of 
 England now claims and exercises in the Establish- 
 ment. That such is the law of the land, acquiesced 
 in by the church, is sufficiently obvious by the re- 
 cent case of Dr. Hampden. Even had the arch- 
 bishop in that case refused to obey the command of 
 the Crown to confirm Dr. Hampden, it was by the 
 law competent for the Crown to issue a commission 
 to any other bishops to perform this office, and so 
 far to supersede the authority of the archbishop. 
 So absolutely and entirely is the appointment of 
 bishops in the Crown, that as Her Majesty's Attorney 
 General maintained on that occasion, the Queen 
 might, if she pleased, appoint " a convicted feloir 
 to a bishopric, and there would be no legal means of 
 redress on the part of the Church. 
 
 That the Crown is the supreme ecclesiastical judge 
 in matters purely spiritual is sufficiently shown in the 
 recent case of Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Now that these powers were conferred upon the 
 Crown at the Reformation, with the consent of the 
 church, and were intended to be so conferred, I 
 think no one will doubt who gives himself the trou- 
 ble to enquire. For, 
 
 1. The statutes of Henry VHI. revived by Queen 
 Elizabeth, do plainly and unequivocally confer these 
 powers. When the case of Mr. Gorham was in the 
 law courts, these statutes were made the ground of 
 his proceedings against the bishop. And in all the 
 three courts there was a unanimous judgment in his 
 favour. 
 
 2. The thirty-sixth canon seems explicitly to
 
 58 
 
 claim this supremacy for the Crown. " The King's 
 Majesty under God, is the only supreme governor of 
 this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions 
 and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical 
 things, or causes, as temporal." * 
 
 3. The whole history of the Church, from the 
 Reformation, shows that these powers were then con- 
 ferred on the Crown. No instance has occurred in 
 which the Church (not merely individuals in it) by 
 its executive, or otherwise, has claimed the right to 
 judge of the appointment of the Crown to bishoprics, 
 or to be the final judge in matters of its own doctrine 
 and discipline. 
 
 4. These powers have been frequently claimed by 
 the Crown, and never reclaimed again on the part of 
 the English Church. Thus to mention a few in- 
 stances ; 
 
 At the opening of the first parliament of Elizabeth, 
 1559, the Queen says that she had called the two 
 houses to2:ether to consult amono; other thinos " re- 
 
 * Edward the Sixth granted a dispensation to archbishop Cran- 
 raer and others to eat flesh meat during Lent, as the following 
 document will shew : 
 
 Cran. Reg. Feb. 8, 1550. 
 
 " Licentiam dedimus et concessimus Reverendissimo in Christo 
 Patri Thoraae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, necnon toti ejus familiae 
 ac omnibus ad eundem Thomara accedentibus — deinceps durante 
 vitae naturali ipsius Thomas, temporibus Quadragesimalibus et 
 aliis diebus jejunalibus quibuscumque, carnibus et lacticiniis vesci 
 libere et impune valeant et possint, aliquo statuto, actu, proclama- 
 tione, constitutionibus aut ordinationibus quibuscumque — non ob- 
 stantibus." 
 
 Cran. Reg. 10 Sep. 1531. 
 
 Similar licence for Coverdale, Bishop of Exeter, and his wife, 
 to eat meat on fast days with " sex convivis " at table.
 
 59 
 
 specting an uniform order of religion;" but at the 
 same time asserted her right if she had so pleased, 
 " to effect them of her own authority."* 
 
 The same Queen issued her commission to four 
 bishops to confirm archbishop Parker ; and when a 
 doubt arose of the competency of his consecrators, 
 the defects, whatever they might be, were pretended 
 to be supplied by act of parliament. 
 
 By some it has been alleged that our sovereigns 
 claim no other supremacy than has been claimed by 
 Christian sovereigns since Constantine. Against 
 this, place the uncontradicted testimony (so far as 
 appears) of Lord Montague f in 1563, who in speak- 
 ing in the House of Lords against a bill to enforce 
 the oath of supremacy says, " Now that the right of 
 the Queen to ecclesiastical supremacy must appear 
 to many men doubtful, was evident from this, that 
 though enforced by law in England, it was contra- 
 dicted by the practice ami opinion of every nation 
 ivJiether reformed or anreformed in Christendom.'"' 
 
 When archbishop Grindal favoured the puritans 
 more than pleased the Queen, "she suspended him 
 from the exercise of his authority ; a threat of depri- 
 vation was added : and more than two years elapsed 
 before he was restored, at his humble petition, and 
 after a sincere acknowledgment of his offence. He 
 could not however recover her favour ; in a short 
 time he received a royal order to resign his see ; and 
 if he was spared the mortification, it was only by his 
 death." J 
 
 * Ling. vi. 3. 17. f Ibid. vi. 3. 85. 
 
 :|: Ibid. vi. 326. Cf. Strype's Grindal pp. 231, 272, 277, 286.
 
 60 
 
 Charles I. acting under the influence of Laud, sus- 
 pended archbishop Abbot, and again restored him. 
 
 In the reign of Charles II. a. d. 1675, in high- 
 church times, on occasion of a bill being brought 
 into parliament, to impose a certain oath against 
 attempting to alter the government of church aud 
 state, the bishops were asked, "From whom they 
 professed to derive their powers. The}'^ replied that 
 the priesthood, and the powers of the priesthood 
 came to them from Christ ; the licence to exercise 
 those poivers [i. e. jurisdiction] from the civil magis- 
 trate. 'But,' exclaimed Lord Wharton, 'excommu- 
 nication is one of those powers, do you derive from 
 the sovereign the licence to excommunicate the 
 sovereign?' This it was answered was to suppose 
 an extreme case which had never arrived, and pro- 
 bably never would arrive."* 
 
 That the Crown or the State still claims and ex- 
 ercises the same substantial supremacy over the Es- 
 tablishment, is manifest from many recent acts. For 
 instance, the stale by its own authority, and without 
 any formal assent of the church, has constituted and 
 reconstituted bishoprics, divided dioceses, taking from 
 one and adding to another ; has sent forth a bishop 
 to the continent, and another to the east, investing 
 its nominees with power to confirm, and ordain, &c. 
 as the case may be. 
 
 I have said the Crown or the State exercises this 
 supremacy, for ecclesiastically viewed the objection 
 is the same in either case. Mr. Gladstone, in his re- 
 cent able pamphlet on the subject, if I understand 
 
 * Lingard, ix. 269.
 
 61 
 
 liim aright, seems to think that it takes off part of 
 the objection to the present anomalous state, that 
 the Queen can only act constitutionalli/ ; that the 
 Queen is only the head of the church, as she is head 
 of the state. So he seems to think that she could 
 not constitutionally have decided the recent case 
 otherwise than as advised by her privy council. It 
 is natural for one who views the question rather as 
 a statesman than as a divine, to take this ground ; 
 and supposing the ground maintainable, it may be 
 thus proved that the English Church cannot be ty- 
 rannized over by an individual sovereign. Bat this 
 does not in any respect meet the difficulty (it rather 
 admits it), that the temporal poicer, whether in the 
 Crown or in the State, has intruded itself into the 
 spiritual. It is true that though the temporal law 
 is administered in the name of the Queen, and under 
 her jurisdiction, she has no individual authority to 
 acquit or condemn. This might be equally true of 
 the spiritual law, (though it seems to be otherwise) ; 
 yet this would not relieve men's consciences, which 
 are compelled to reclaim against the spiritual juris- 
 diction of the Crown, or of the State, in whatever 
 way exercised.* 
 
 Hitherto, however, Anglicans have not felt this 
 difficulty. They have understood the interference of 
 the civil power to be confined to such points as had 
 reference to civil matters, such as have been described ; 
 that inasmuch as bishops have great temporal power, 
 the king might exercise an influence over their ap- 
 pointment, so long as the person appointed was ap- 
 
 * See Note at end.
 
 62 
 
 proved of by the cliurch. And, again, as the sen- 
 tence of spiritual courts involved civil privileges — 
 the king might place himself at the head of those 
 courts, so far as to see that justice was done to his 
 subjects. Supreme head or governor of the church 
 might be an objectionable title ; but as it seemed to 
 be a mere title, or as the power implied in it seemed 
 to lie dormant, no one, I suppose, felt the ascription 
 of this title to the king to lie very heavy on his con- 
 science. But recent events have placed these things 
 under a very different aspect. The civil headship 
 of the church has been proved to be no empty title, 
 but a monstrous reality ; and the power expressed in 
 it has come into vigorous life and activity. The 
 civil power has successfully claimed and appropriated 
 to itself two of the most sacred prerogatives of the 
 church ; — the absolute appointment of her bishops, 
 superseding all trial of their qualification or fitness on 
 her part ; and the right to decide upon her doctrine ; 
 so as on a matter purely spiritual to overrule and set 
 aside the decisions of her own courts. 
 
 I will not enter into any lengthened observations 
 on this subject, which has been so fully treated of 
 late : but I must point out one feature in the case 
 which more especially bears on my present subject, 
 namely, that the Reformatiox invested the Ci- 
 vil AUTHORITY WITH THIS PERILOUS POWER. Whe- 
 ther as Mr. Gladstone thinks the reformers did not 
 foresee the consequences of their own acts, or as 
 others think, they were personally more culpable, is 
 a matter of comparatively little moment. The fact 
 remains the same, that the statutes which cut off all 
 appeals to Rome, conferred these extraoi-dinar}^ powers
 
 G3 
 
 on the Crown. And hence, the only remedy for 
 this invasion of the church's rights is by a partial 
 repeal of those laws on which the Reformation in 
 England is founded. No mere restoration of powers 
 of convocation (which perhaps it is not hopeless for 
 Anglicans to expect) will deliver the establishment 
 from its position. No new arrangement of a court 
 of appeal, however unexceptionable, will suffice un- 
 less it goes the length of repealing in part the statutes 
 of Henry Vlll-t 
 
 Now let me ask any reasonable man whether there 
 is the most distant possibility, except by miracle, that 
 such a measure should be obtained ? Repeal the 
 statutes of Henry VHI ! why, as recent events suf- 
 ficiently show, the serious proposal to touch those 
 statutes would set the nation in a ferment. The 
 whole protestant feeling of the country would rebel 
 against it. What is it but to ask the reformation to 
 undo itself? 
 
 If anything were needed in order to show how 
 truly protestant the established Church is, it may 
 
 f The bishop of London's bill, did not proceed to this length, 
 and therefore it left the matter, as to principle, just where it was 
 before. It appears by the report of the debate on the bill, that 
 Lord Campbell objected to it, on the ground that it would interfere 
 with the queen's prerogative, that is, the prerogative of deciding 
 upon the Church's doctrine — because it would make the decision 
 of the whole bench of bishops on a matter of doctrine binding on 
 the Queen. The bishop of London is reported to have met the 
 objection, not by contending that the judgment of the bishops on 
 such a matter ought to be binding upon her Majesty ; but that 
 in fact the bill was not designed to bind her; but only to bind 
 the Judicial Committee in the advice it should give to her Majesty. 
 As no objection was made to this explanation, it must be assumed 
 that the other bishops assented to it.
 
 64 
 
 be found in the recent proceedings of its clergy and 
 laity, in reference to the change which has been in- 
 troduced in the Catholic hierarchy in this country. 
 And this more especially when we contrast the spirit 
 with which those proceedings have been carried on, 
 with the all but apathy and indifference with which 
 the assaults on the sacraments and on the spiritual 
 independence of the English Church was received. 
 When the sacrament of baptism was openly im- 
 pugned in the highest court for ecclesiastical suits in 
 the land, the excitement which followed, though con- 
 siderable i?i one jyartij, was yet partial and confined. 
 The result only tended to show how really weak the 
 hioh-church party is. So again when the depen- 
 dence of the church upon the state in matters most 
 purely spiritual was shown, (and this even under the 
 aggravated form, in which the highest court of ap- 
 peal is constituted, not even requiring its members 
 to be in communion with the Church), it scarcely 
 produced any strong feeling. Although the circum- 
 stances of the recent case made it notorious that even 
 socinians, deists, or atheists, might by the law of 
 the land sit in judgment on most sacred doctrines, 
 and that the church of England would be bound to 
 accept their decision, still only a very partial excite- 
 ment was produced. The very moderate statement 
 put forth by archdeacon Manning and others, ob- 
 tained I believe not quite 2000 signatures, out of 
 16,000 or 17,000 clergy ; and the laity seem to have 
 been generally indifferent on the subject. 
 
 Such is the method in which the assault on the 
 catholic aspect of the church of England has been 
 received. But no sooner is the protestant aspect of
 
 Go 
 
 it touched, than the English church is at once in a 
 iiame, and declares in the most unmistakable way 
 against the imputation of Catholicism, Anglicans 
 have all along maintained that the church of Eng- 
 land is catholic, and would declare herself to be so 
 if she could ; that it has been rather by accident 
 than design that she is ranked amongst the protes- 
 tant sects. How could we have a more direct and 
 practical refutation of this theory than the last few 
 months have afforded ? 
 
 But, to make impossibilities even more impossible, 
 consider with what view would it be proposed to re- 
 peal those statutes. Would it be with the view of mak- 
 ing; the Establishment more liberal ? of brino-ino- it into 
 greater harmony with the spirit of the age ? No ; but 
 wdth the express intention of making it more exclu- 
 sive ; and this at the instance of a party, now shown 
 to be comparatively small, wishing to obtain the 
 enactment of canons, which mio-ht have the effect of 
 excludino- a school of relis^ionists existinof within her 
 bosom from the time of the Reformation. Surely to 
 expect this is absolutely preposterous. Some persons 
 would make the case of the church of Eng-land ana- 
 loo^ous to that of the dissenters in obtaininsf the re- 
 peal of the test and corporation acts, or to that of 
 the Roman Catholics in obtaining the emancipation 
 Bill. But the cases are not merely different from 
 this, but, politically viewed, the exact opposite to it. 
 Their causes involved the progress of what are called 
 liberal principles ; and hence they were successful. 
 The present cause of the church of England involves 
 a move in the opposite direction. Its success would 
 be to deprive many persons, on account of their faith 
 
 F
 
 66 
 
 or opi}iio?is, of advantages or privileges which they 
 now enjoy. With the temper of the times, and the 
 constitution of the House of Commons, before us, 
 can we imagine any thing more impossible than the 
 accomplishment of such an object ? 
 
 As the alternative to this, has been mentioned the 
 separation of Church and State. But the attainment 
 of this remedy is scarcely less improbable than the 
 last : for in the first place, it is quite certain that a 
 very large number of those who are dissatisfied with 
 the present state of things would not join in advo- 
 cating such a remedy. The dissenters, it has been 
 said, would help. Would then high-churchmen ac- 
 cept of such assistance ? would they combine with 
 the restless spirits of the age in effecting such a re- 
 volution ? I cannot think it, and I hope not. But 
 suppose the separation were accomplished, is it not 
 certain that the church of England would break up 
 into several distinct bodies, of which the Anglican 
 party would not be the largest? And even then, 
 what would be the course pursued ? already there 
 is a cry for a new constitution for the government of 
 the church, into which a lay element is to be intro- 
 duced. A new constitution for the Church in the 
 nineteenth century would prove a somewhat prolific 
 source of new divisions. 
 
 But it has been said, may we not even expect that 
 the times themselves will change, that the unsound- 
 ness of many so-called liberal opinions will be made 
 manifest, and that at length "justice to the church" 
 will be obtained ? and in hope of this does it not 
 become us to wait with patience for those more favour- 
 able times 1
 
 C7 
 
 Now although I cannot think this very probable, 
 there might be some force in the appeal, if in 
 the mean while the position of Anglicans were an 
 honest position. If the struggle were merely for 
 what is desirable and expedient, any amount of de- 
 lay in attaining the object would be justifiable. But 
 if the struggle is for an object which is requisite to 
 make the Anglican position " lawful and right,''' then 
 delay is unjustifiable, for we may not do evil that 
 good may come. Now it would seem that the pre- 
 sent position of the high-church clergy (and that of the 
 laity must be at least eventually involved in it) is 
 absolutely unlawful. Every Anglican clergyman at 
 his ordination, bound himself " to minister the doc- 
 trine, and sacraments, and discipline of Christ, as 
 this church and realm hath received the same." 
 And it appears, by the recent interpretation of the 
 statutes, that at the Reformation, the decision on the 
 church's doctrine was resigned to the civil power. 
 By the recent decision of this authority it has been 
 determined, that according " as this Church and 
 Realm hath received" "the doctrine of Christ," the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration is an " open ques- 
 tion." If then, as is assumed, the Anglican believes 
 that by the law of Christ, the Church alone is the 
 judge of its own doctrines, and that baptismal rege- 
 neration is the exclusive doctrine of the true Church ; 
 how can he, as an honest man, continue to minister 
 in the church of England ? Is not such a course in 
 direct contravention of his most solemn engagement 
 at ordination? 
 
 I have heard it alleged, indeed, that this solemn 
 pledge at ordination only binds those who take it to
 
 68 
 
 what both church and realm have received, and 
 that they have received nothing since the year 1661. 
 But I ask does not the pledge which binds us to the 
 reception of a law, bind us to the legal interpretation 
 of it also? Both church and realm received the 
 laws of Henry VIII. which conferred spiritual juris- 
 diction on the Crown. And if these laws be now 
 interpreted to empower the Queen to pronounce one 
 whom the Church Catholic regards as holding heresy, 
 nevertheless fit to be instituted to the cure of souls ; 
 if the bishop or archbishop recognises this interpre- 
 tation by instituting the clerk to the cure of souls, 
 and by enjoining his parishioners to attend upon his 
 ministry — is not this both theoretically and practi- 
 cally a reception of this interpretation on the part of 
 the church ? And can it then be urged that a solemn 
 pledge to administer the doctrine of Christ according 
 to this law, does not bind to a iwW recognition of the 
 law with its interpretation? 
 
 In connection with this subject of jurisdiction ano- 
 ther difficulty must be felt by at least a large section 
 of the Anglican party ; I mean in reference to the 
 power of spiritual jurisdiction in foro interno. It is 
 now tolerably well known that the practice of auri- 
 cular confession is extensively practised amongst An- 
 glicans. In other words, the English clergyman pro- 
 fesses to administer the sacrament of penance ; and 
 many receive special sacramental absolution from his 
 lips without doubting its validity. But unquestion- 
 ably the apparent want of jurisdiction in the clergy- 
 man so administering, throws, at least, great doubt 
 over the validity of the absolution, even supposing 
 that there were no question as to the validity of his
 
 eg 
 
 orders. It is indeed a fearful thing to thrust oneself 
 unauthorised into the tribunal of penance. Fearful 
 on both sides — both for him who thus undertakes the 
 office, and for those who rely upon its exercise. 
 
 Now the only authority which an English clergy- 
 man can plead for the exercise of this office is derived 
 from the words in the exhortation in the Communion 
 Office, where after warning his parishioners to exa- 
 mine themselves previous to holy communion, he 
 proceeds, " because it is requisite that no man should 
 come to the holy communion, but with a full trust 
 in God's mercy, and with a quiet conscience ; there- 
 fore if there be any of you, who, by this means can- 
 not quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth 
 further comfort or counsel, let him come to me or to 
 some other discreet and learned minister of God's 
 word and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's 
 holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, 
 &c. But in the first place it is to be observed that 
 this passage only conteJiiplates the case of one who 
 cannot quiet his conscience previous to holy com- 
 munion. It does not seem to give the clergyman 
 authority to administer generally the sacrament of 
 penance. And next, if it could be pleaded as con- 
 ferring jurisdiction for this purpose, upon a clergy- 
 man over his own parishioners, which is doubtful, it 
 could not give him the needful jurisdiction over others, 
 not his parishioners. As to the words " some other, 
 &c." they only seem to apply to those who had law- 
 fully received jurisdiction, or authority to exercise the 
 office of a confessor.* Here again we must carefully 
 
 * See this matter extensively treated in Mr. Maskell's Letter to 
 Dr. Pusey.
 
 70 
 
 note the distinction between orders and jurisdiction. 
 The order of the priesthood confers power to ab- 
 solve, but this power cannot be validly exercised 
 where no jurisdiction is given. 
 
 V. Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 For some time I have had miso-ivino-s about some 
 passages in the thirty-nine Articles. But my mis- 
 givings have been suspended rather than laid asleep 
 by such considerations as these ; that the Articles 
 were intended to be articles of comprehension ; that 
 they have in fact been subscribed by Catholic-minded 
 men ; and tliat on the whole they admit of a Catholic 
 sense as much as of a Protestant sense. 
 
 I now feel, on further consideration, the untenable- 
 ness of these reasons, chiefly on grounds which recent 
 events have led me to examine ; First, that it is an 
 impiety to allow of comprehension on such subjects 
 as some of those on which the Articles treat. It is 
 in fact to make "open questions' of distinct dogmas 
 of the Church. And next that some of the Articles 
 do not admit of a Catholic sense. And further that 
 it is no real reason for subscribing them, to say that 
 there are others which equally condemn a protestant 
 subscription. This may be a good argument ad ho- 
 minem, but not ad conscientiam. 
 
 I will notice the passages in the order in which 
 they occur in the Articles. 
 
 1. And first, the definition of the Canon of Scrip- 
 ture in Article VI. presents some difficulty. " In 
 the name of the holy Scripture we do understand
 
 71 
 
 those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment, of whose authority icas never amj doubt in the 
 Church'' It would seem that this definition is adopt- 
 ed in order to supersede the necessity of appealing 
 directly to the authority of the Church for the deci- 
 sion of this important point. But not to mention the 
 clumsiness of this effort, language is adopted to which 
 it is very difficult indeed to subscribe in its literal 
 sense. For it is notorious that some of the Books 
 which we admit into the Canon, for example, the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, the 2nd 
 Epistle of St. Peter, and the Epistle of St. James, 
 were the subject of much doubt in the early Church. 
 
 The way in which the xA.uthor of Tract 90 endea- 
 vours to get over this difficulty is far from satisfac- 
 tory. He admits the above mentioned fact, (who in- 
 deed can deny it ?) but says that although such doubts 
 were felt in different parts or portions of the Church, 
 they were never doubted of by the whole Church at 
 once, "that is, at the very first time the Catholic or 
 whole Church had the opportunity of forming a judg- 
 ment on the subject it pronounced in favour of the 
 Canonical Books," and he concludes by saying "The 
 phrase must mean this, because from the nature of 
 the case it can mean nothing else." The plain answer 
 to this is, that then the Article does not mean what it 
 says, for it would have been quite as easy to have 
 expressed this less obvious meaning, if it had really 
 been intended to express it. 
 
 Mr. Perceval, in a tract published about that time 
 was naturally dissatisfied with this explanation ; but 
 offers one which appears to me equally objectionable. 
 He maintains that the books of which a doubt has
 
 t'l 
 
 been entertained, are to be excluded from this cate- 
 gory. That the article only pronounces upon those 
 books of which there has been literally no doubt, — 
 that the article does not pronounce the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, for instance, to be canonical, though of 
 course it does not pronounce the contrary. This in- 
 terpretation seems to me equally far-fetched with the 
 last. Surely the article means to give such a defini- 
 tion as will include all the canonical books : this 
 is sufficiently indicated b}^ its last words; "All the 
 books of the New Testament as they are commonly 
 received, we do receive and account them canonical." 
 It remains then to be explained how this article can 
 be subscribed in " its literal and o^rammatical sense." 
 2. Articles XI. XII. XIII. certainly seem to favour 
 the Lutheran doctrine, which asserts a putative righte- 
 ousness, and excludes even Christian works from the 
 office of justifying. It is indeed startling to find 
 asserted as a dogma of the church, the very identical 
 words which Scripture mentions only in order to con- 
 demn, namely, " that we are justified by faith only." 
 But assumino^ that the words admit of an orthodox 
 interpretation, can it fairly be maintained that these 
 articles were not constructed with a reference to the 
 Lutheran heterodoxy ; and were not expressly de- 
 signed, not perhaps to enforce it on the church as its 
 exclusive doctrine; but at least to allow it; in fact, 
 to make the doctrine of justification an open question 1 
 This view of the matter seems rather confirmed than 
 contradicted by the fact which is sometimes urged 
 in defence of these articles, that on comparing them 
 with the Lutheran Confession, it appears that the 
 Lutheran doctrine is here less dogmatically asserted.
 
 73 
 
 This circumstance might indeed be fairly urged 
 ao-ainst those who should maintain that the articles 
 hind to the Lutheran sense ; but it is quite com- 
 patible with the hypothesis that these articles were 
 drawn up with the view of comprehensmi, and were 
 expressly intended not to exclude from the office of 
 teaching those who rigidly adhere to the Lutheran 
 doctrine. 
 
 The practical question then for Anglicans to decide 
 is, whether they are content to have such a doctrine 
 left open ? May they by subscribing these articles 
 make themselves parties to the teaching of a doctrine 
 which they believe to be fatally fals^ ? Is it a suffi- 
 cient reason in the sight of God to say, The articles 
 admit a good sense, in which sense we sign them ? 
 It is hard to suppose that such a course can be satis- 
 factory to any honest mind.* 
 
 3. Very much the same line of argument may be 
 pursued in reference to Art. XIX. Of the visible 
 Church. No one of course can deny the truth of 
 
 * Dr. Pusey in his recent speech at the Churcli Union is re- 
 ported to have adduced the doctrine of Justification as one upon 
 which the Churches of Rome and England are agreed. Yet there 
 is no little difficulty in reconciling the XI. Article, with the XI. 
 Canon of the VI. Session of the Council of Trent, which declares, 
 " If any one saith that men are justified either by the sole imputa- 
 tion of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the 
 exclusion of the grace of the charity which is poured forth in their 
 hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them ; or even that 
 the grace whereby we are justified is only the favour of God ; let 
 him be anathema." 
 
 The English Article must be understood to exclude "inherent 
 grace" altogether from the office of justifying. None can den}' 
 that it seems to favour that view. Most persons will admit that 
 the difi'erence is vital.
 
 74 
 
 this definition, so far as it extends. The Visible 
 Church is all that the article asserts — " A congrega- 
 tion of faithful men (caetus fidelium) in which the 
 pure word of God is preached, &c." But is not the 
 article purposely so constructed as to leave open the 
 question whether bodies which have not the succes- 
 sion, or which are otherwise defective in the essen- 
 tials of the constitution of the Church, are yet a part 
 of the Church ; whether, for instance, we may not 
 include Lutherans, Calvinists, and dissenters of all 
 kinds under this definition. Here again then I would 
 ask, Can Anglicans be content to be parties to leav- 
 ing such a question open ? Is this a lawful defini- 
 tion of the Church Catholic, in face of the schisms 
 and heresies which prevail outside of her? In sub- 
 scribing such an article, are not men doing very much 
 the same as those did, who, in the face of the Arian 
 heresy, would content themselves with subscription 
 to the Apostles' Creed? 
 
 The conclusion of this Article states, "As the 
 Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have 
 erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not 
 only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but 
 also in matters of faith." 
 
 Now assuming that in some sense these latter words 
 are true, and that the Church of Rome has so erred, 
 is it true that she has thus erred in the sense most ob- 
 viously suggested by the Article? Why are these 
 other churches referred to but as supplying fair ob- 
 jects of comparison ? Is it not intended to imply that 
 the Church of Rome has erred in something of the 
 same way with those Churches? Now how have 
 those Churches erred ? Every one of them has been
 
 75 
 
 presided over by a bishop who in one way or other 
 has impugned the doctrine of the Ixcarxatiox. 
 Every one in one way or other has denied that the 
 Son of God has come in the flesh. *' So also/' says 
 the Article, " the Church of Rome hath erred." 
 Does this mean only a resemblance in fact, that is, in 
 the simple fact that all have erred ? (Even this would 
 need to be proved.) But does it not suggest or ifi- 
 sinuate more? Is it fair and honourable thus to put 
 in the same categoiy a Church which all admit has 
 from the beginning until this day upheld the true 
 doctrine of the Incarnate Word, and those heretical 
 churches which have notoriously denied Him ? Will 
 Anglicans be satisfied to be parties in such an act 1 * 
 
 * The following passage is earnestly recommended to the con- 
 sideration of those who really believe the Christian Creeds, and 
 can appreciate the fatal character of error in the fundamentals of 
 the Faith. 
 
 " Xor was the developement of dogmatic theology which was 
 then (after the conversion of Constantine) taking place, a silent 
 and spontaneous process. It was wrought out and carried through 
 the fiercest controversies, and amid the most fearful risks. The 
 Catholic Faith was placed in a succession of perils, and rocked to 
 and fro like a vessel at sea. Large portions of Christendom were, 
 one after another, in heresy or in schism ; and leading churches, 
 and the most authoritative schools fell from time to time into serious 
 error; three Popes, Liberius, Vigilius, Honorius, have left to pos- 
 terity the burden of their defence: but these disorders were no in- 
 terruption to the sustained and steady march of the sacred science 
 from implicit belief to formal statement. The series of ecclesiasti- 
 cal decisions, in which its progress was ever and anon signified, al- 
 ternate between the one and the other side of the theological dog- 
 ma especially in question as if fashioning it into shape by opposite 
 strokes. The controversy began in Apollinaris, who confused or 
 denied the two natures in Christ, and was condemned by Pope Da- 
 masus. A reaction followed, and Theodore of Mopsuestia ventured
 
 76 
 
 4. Article XXI. asserts that " General Councils 
 may not be gathered together without the command- 
 ment and will of princes." This is a very broad as- 
 sertion. The first Council of Jerusalem was gathered 
 without any such commandment, and it is obvious to 
 perceive that circumstances might arise when the 
 same course must be taken. Some have endea- 
 voured to get over the difficulty by supposing the 
 Article to assert a mere truism, namely, that under 
 the existing state of Christendom^ it is impossible 
 that a Council can be gathered together in any other 
 
 to teach the doctrine of two persons. After Nestorius had brought 
 that heresy into pubhc view, and had incurred in consequence the 
 anathema of the third Ecumenical Council, the current of contro- 
 versy again shifted its direction ; for Eutyches appeared, main- 
 tained the One Nature, and was condemned at Chalcedon. Some- 
 thing however, was still wanting to the overthrow of the Nestorian 
 doctrine of Two Persons, and the Fifth Council was formally di- 
 rected against the writings of Theodore, and his party. Then fol- 
 lowed the Monothelite heresy, which was a revival of the Eutychian 
 or Monophysite, and was condemned in the Sixth. Lastly, Nestorian- 
 ism once more showed itself in the Adoptionists of Spain, and gave 
 occasion to the great Council of Frankfort. Any one false step would 
 have thrown the whole theory of the doctrine into irretrievable 
 confusion ; but it was as if some one individual and perspicacious 
 intellect, to speak humanly, ruled the theological discussion from 
 first to last. That in the long course of centuries, and in spite of 
 the failure, in points of detail, of the most gifted fathers and saints, 
 the Church thus wrought out the one and only consistent theory 
 which can be taken on the great doctrine in dispute, proves how 
 clear, simple, and exact her vision of that doctrine was. Is it not 
 utterly incredible, that with this thorough comprehension of so 
 gi-eat a mystery, as far as the human mind can know it, she should 
 be at that very time in the commission of the grossest errors in re- 
 ligious worship, and should be hiding the God and Mediator, whose 
 Incarnation she contemplated with so clear an intellect, behind a 
 erowd of idols ?" — Newman's Essay on Development, pp. 448-9.
 
 77 
 
 way. Surely this needs no answer. It onljT^ shows 
 to what shifts men are driven when they try to put 
 aside the plain meaning of words ; in this case all the 
 plainer, because it was notoriously the intention of 
 the civil power to restrain the liberty of the Church. 
 But the Article proceeds to say that General 
 Councils " may err, and sometimes have erred in 
 things pertaining to God." If this be so, how and 
 where is the promise of our Lord fulfilled, that He 
 would "guide His Apostles into all truth?" The 
 only attempt to reconcile the Article with the promise, 
 that I am aware of, is that suggested by the author 
 of Tract No. 90, who says, " that bodies of men 
 deficient in this respect [that is, liable to err] may 
 err, is a self-evident truth," [then why put it in the 
 Article ?] " unless indeed they be favoured with some 
 
 divine superintendence General Councils then 
 
 may err (as such — may err) unless in any case it is 
 promised, as a matter of express supernatural privi- 
 lege, that they shall 72ot err Such a promise 
 
 however does exist, in cases when General Councils 
 are not only gathered together according to "the 
 commandment and will of princes," but in the Name 
 o/" Christ, according to our Lord's promise." p. 21. 
 Thus it is supposed that the Article means, that 
 General Councils not gathered together in the Name 
 of Christ may err, while it is silent respecting the au- 
 thority of General Councils which are gathered to- 
 gether in His Name. But who ever heard of a Ge- 
 neral Council not professedly gathered together in 
 the Name of Christ 1 Or if such a thing ever existed, 
 who would think of attributing infallibility to it? 
 And is it not really preposterous to suppose that the
 
 78 
 
 Article should intend to define this non-existent 
 thing- under a name notoriously applicable to assem- 
 blies, to which, upon this hypothesis, the Article 
 does not so much as allude ? Surely this is an im- 
 possible interpretation ; and if so, it only remains that 
 the Article is intended in the broadest terms to deny 
 the infallibility of the Church. All General Coun- 
 cils, however assembled, however Catholic, however 
 truly representing the Church at large, may err. And 
 hence, consistently enough, the following words in 
 the Article throw us upon the foundation of private 
 judgment, " Wherefore things ordained by them 
 (General Councils) as necessary to salvation, have 
 neither strength, nor authoritif, unless it may be de- 
 clared that they be taken out of holy Scripture." Is 
 this the doctrine which Anglicans are prepared to 
 abide by ? 
 
 5. Article XXII. condemns the Romish doctrine 
 concerning purgatory, pardons, images, relics, and 
 invocation of saints. 
 
 We cannot have forgotten the outcry which was 
 raised a few years ago against " the non-natural 
 sense " which was put upon this article by the au- 
 thor of Tract 90. He chiefly insisted upon the fact 
 that it is the Romish, and not the primitive doctrine 
 upon these subjects, which is here condemned. How 
 far the word Romish will sanction such an interpre- 
 tation each one must decide for himself. At least I 
 will not again open that controversy. But even as- 
 suming that it may satisfy a conscientious subscription, 
 it may be asked, If there is a primitive doctrine of 
 purgatory and relics, and invocation of saints, as that 
 writer maintains, and as Anglicans generally believe,
 
 79 
 
 is it a satisfactory course of proceeding thus to con- 
 demn the error, without one word of recognition of 
 the truth to which it is opposed ? Are men really 
 dealing with the truths of God, and are they sa- 
 tisfied to subscribe a condemnation of errors in terms 
 which in the minds of most men include those truths, 
 without one word of qualification or restriction ? This 
 seems to me scarcely consistent with any sense of our 
 responsibility for maintaining religious truth. Surely 
 if we believe the primitive doctrine on any of these 
 subjects, faithfulness requires that we should avow 
 it, when we are condemning errors which have arisen 
 out of it. What should we think of persons who, con- 
 demning the Arian or Eutychian heresies should re- 
 frain from declaring their belief that Christ is both 
 God and Man ? 
 
 6. The XXV. Article denies five holy rites "com- 
 monly called Sacraments/' to be sacraments of the 
 Gospel, namely, " Confirmation, Penance, Orders, 
 Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, being such," it 
 continues, *' as have grown partly of the corrupt fol- 
 lowing of the Apostles, partly from states of life al- 
 lowed in Scripture." 
 
 This part of the Article certainly involves the An- 
 glican in no little difficulty. 
 
 i. It seems to disparage confirmation, at least un- 
 der the aspect of a Sacrament, as a corrupt following 
 of the Apostles, for it can scarcely be brought under 
 the other category as a " state of life allowed in Scrip- 
 ture." And yet I suppose Anglicans in general do 
 regard confirmation as possessing all the elements of 
 a sacrament, and only falling short of the definition 
 in the Catechism from its outward sign not being
 
 80 
 
 certainly " ordained by Christ Himself." And even 
 in reference to this point, most persons will admit 
 the great probability of its having been ordained by 
 Christ during those forty days after His resurrection 
 in which He spake " of the things pertaining to the 
 kingdom of God." One might ask then, Is this a 
 justifiable way of speaking of a holy rite coming to 
 us commended as this does ? 
 
 ii. Next, it is tolerably notorious that Anglicans 
 very extensively observe the Sacrament of Penance. 
 I say *' the Sacrament," because I believe there is no 
 difference whatever in the mode of administration 
 between Anglicans, and Roman Catholics. It consists 
 in auricular confession, the imposition, if need be, of 
 penance, and the conveyance of special priestly ab- 
 solution. I am sure I shall but speak the sentiments 
 of those concerned, when I say that very great bless- 
 ing has followed the revival of this practice in the 
 Establishment. But can men be content then to 
 speak of this blessing as they do in this Article ? to 
 call it a corrupt following of the Apostles ? and this 
 too while they go on administering or receiving it? 
 Surely this is not straight-forward. 
 
 iii. " Extreme Unction" is in like manner dispa- 
 raged ; and yet it is difficult to see how the Anglican 
 church on her own professed principles can neglect 
 the administration of Unction after some method. 
 For it is unquestionably a primitive ordinance pos- 
 sessing Scriptural authority. James v. 14, 15. It 
 seems wholly unjustifiable to condemn an ordinance, 
 thus recommended, without one word of qualification 
 in the whole Prayer-Book to explain how the com- 
 mand of Scripture may be obeyed.
 
 81 
 
 7. Article XXVIII. in terms condemns the doc- 
 trine of Transubstantiation. 
 
 " Transubstantiation, or the change of the sub- 
 stance of Bread and Wine, in the Supper of the 
 Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ ; but is repug- 
 nant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth 
 the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion 
 to many superstitions." 
 
 "What is here opposed as Transubstantiation," says 
 a learned writer, " is the shocking doctrine that 'the 
 body of Christ' as the Article goes on to express it, 
 is not given, taken, and eaten after an heavenly and 
 spii^itual manner, but is carnally pressed with the 
 teeth." [Tract No. 90, p. 47.] And I suppose An- 
 glicans generally reconcile their subscription to this 
 Article by adopting substantially this interpretation 
 of it. Hence the moderation of the Church of En- 
 gland has sometimes been commended for not ven- 
 turing to define in such a mystery — affirming the 
 Real Presence, but abstaining from any assertion as 
 to the method in which so great a mystery is accom- 
 plished. But if we look more narrowly at the lan- 
 guage of the Article we shall see that such reasoning 
 is far from satisfactory. For although it be true that 
 the Church of England has no where positively af- 
 firmed how the Real Presence is accomplished, she 
 has in this Article negatively asserted that it cannot 
 be by "Transubstantiation, or the change of the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine." Now I cannot but be- 
 lieve that there are many Anglicans who sign this 
 Article, and yet would not venture to say that such 
 a change cannot be ; or that it would, if true, over- 
 throw the nature of a sacrament. They would ra- 
 
 G
 
 82 
 
 ther say, * The accidents of Bread and Wine cer- 
 tainly remain (which no Catholic denies) and it is 
 probable that the article only contemplated some 
 popular error, which denied, or was thought to deny 
 this;' but believing as I do that in this great mys- 
 tery, Christ is really and substantially present, I am 
 far from being so presumptuous as to assert that this 
 mystery cannot or may not be effected by Transub- 
 stantiation as defined by the article ; I am content 
 neither to assert nor to deny this mode of accounting 
 for the mystery ; but to leave it in that indefinite- 
 ness, in which, as I think, it is left by Holy Scripture.' 
 This I say is probably the language wdiich many 
 Anglicans substantially adopt. The question is, Is 
 it reconcileable with the plain words of the article ? 
 They do not leave the question open. They posi- 
 tively deny that there can be any " change of the 
 substance of Bread and Wine." Are Anglicans pre- 
 pared to deny this in so positive a manner?* 
 
 Here it may seem proper to notice the explanation 
 
 * I am indebted to a friend for the substance of the following 
 remark. 
 
 It may be suggested that, setting aside the question of the au- 
 thority of the Church, to which all are bound to submit, Transub- 
 stantiation properly defined is the most reasonable expression of 
 the doctrine of the Real Presence. The substance of a thing, as 
 distinguished from its accidents, is the thing itself (Res Ipsa) con- 
 sidered apart from the sensible properties by which its nature is 
 manifest. The substance therefore of a thing is incapable of be- 
 coming an object to the senses ; otherwise it would be capable of 
 being manifested, which is contrary to the definition of it. The 
 accidents are but a sign. 
 
 For example, when a piece of bread is eaten by us, it undergoes 
 a twofold change. Its physical and sensible properties disappear^ 
 and are succeeded by the accidents of flesh and blood. But the
 
 83 
 
 appended to the Communion Office, as to kneeling 
 at the time of reception. In one point of view it is 
 of more weight, and more imperatively calls for a 
 clear exposition than any passages in the articles. 
 For the articles are constructed more especially for 
 the clergy ; and for them, learned and recondite ar- 
 guments to shew their consistency with Catholic 
 truth may be more allowable. But here is a pas- 
 sage professedly ad jwpuliun ; designed as an in- 
 struction for the common people. It professes to 
 give an account of the reason why they receive Holy 
 Communion kneel'uig. And first, it is important to 
 observe the omission of any reason to be derived from 
 the fact that our Lord is really and truly present in 
 this Holy Sacrament. Surely if it were the doc- 
 trine of the Church of England, the plain recognition 
 of that doctrine might be expected here. For as- 
 suming that the passage is directed against an abuse; 
 what could be more needful than that it should guard 
 against an opposite abuse, especially in the face of 
 the errors of the Sacramentarians, who reduced the 
 
 substance of the bread is still present, and is changed into the 
 substance of our bodies. The transformation and the transuh- 
 stantiation are here synchronous. But is there any necessity that 
 they should be so in all cases ? So far as we know, have not all 
 substances a capacity for conversion, without change of form, as 
 they also have for change of form without change of substance ? 
 
 It may be said that all this is too subtle to form an article of 
 faith. But then would not the same modesty restrain us from pro- 
 nouncing against it? Besides, is it more subtle than the definition 
 of three Persons in one God ? Transubstantiation is no attempt 
 to explain the mode of the Real Presence. It does no more than 
 proclaim the fact, in terms borrowed from analogous facts : like 
 "generation " and " consiibstantial" to express the Eternal Son- 
 ship of the Uncreated Word.
 
 84 
 
 Sacraments to mere signs, which error notoriously 
 prevailed at the time. This remark is more important 
 from the consideration that the " explanation" was re- 
 stored at the last review under the Caroline divines. 
 For although it be true, as has been often observed 
 in extenuation, that the "explanation" was then ren- 
 dered less objectionable by the omission of a denial 
 of the Real Presence which it had previously con- 
 tained ; yet this seemed to make it only the more 
 imperative that a distinct assertion of the true doctrine 
 of the Real Presence should now be recorded. That 
 no such assertion is to be found seems strikingly to 
 coincide with the conclusion, otherwise come to, that 
 it was intended to be left an open question. Mem- 
 bers of the Church of England, as they do, may as- 
 sert the doctrine, or deny it. 
 
 But if this were designed, the leaning of the 
 passage is most decidedly to the Protestant or Sacra- 
 mentarian side of the question. It is indeed so 
 worded as possib/i/ to assert no untruth. Thus, all 
 Catholics would agree that " no adoration ought to 
 be done unto the sacramental bread and wine," nor, 
 (if we may understand corporal or natural to mean 
 carnal) " unto any corporal presence of Christ's na- 
 tural flesh and blood." And again, if we may 
 understand substances to mean accidents, " the sa- 
 cramental bread and wine remain still in their very 
 natural substances : " and " the natural body and 
 blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not 
 here," if we understand this assertion in reference to 
 change of locality, apart from all consideration of 
 mystery. 
 
 The exceptions and allowances, however, are here
 
 85 
 
 very considerable, and without disputing sucli very 
 acute and subtle arguments as have been adduced by 
 Anglicans in vindication of the passage, I would ask 
 what other conclusion plain, unlearned men of ordi- 
 nary common sense (for whom be it remembered it 
 was written) could draw from the language, except 
 that it is intended to deny that there is any Real 
 Presence of Christ, to be adored, under the form of 
 bread and wine. Are Anglicans prepared to subscribe 
 to this conclusion ? If not, is it honest to express 
 their assent to the passage ? 
 
 8. The next Article, XXIX. strongly confirms the 
 view which has just been taken of the preceding one, 
 for it explicitly asserts that " the wicked" are " in 
 no wise partakers of Christ" in this sacrament. All 
 of course will admit that they are not thereby par- 
 takers of the benefits of Christ's salvation. But the 
 wording of the article seems intended totally to con- 
 tradict the notion of any real objective presence of 
 Christ upon the altar, under the species of bread and 
 wine ; and is reasonably consistent with that lower 
 notion of the Sacrament, already referred to, which 
 makes the presence to be in the heart and soul of 
 the believer. And it is to be carefully observed that 
 these words " in no wise are partakers of Christ" are 
 not to be found in the passage of St. Augustin from 
 which the rest of the article is quoted. 
 
 9. Article XXXI. has been already noticed in 
 the observations upon the eucharistic sacrifice. I 
 ■will only add here that it is hard indeed to believe, 
 in the absence of all other evidence in the Prayer 
 Book to the contrary, that this Article does " not 
 speak against the mass in itself, nor against its being
 
 86 
 
 an offering*, though commemorative, for the quick 
 and the dead, for the remission of sin." Tract 90, 
 p. 63. 
 
 An additional and independent argument to show 
 that the church of England rejects the doctrine of 
 the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, may be derived 
 from the form of oath which the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury administers to the Sovereign of these realms 
 in the office of the coronation. Indeed, until recent 
 times, every bishop was required to take this oath 
 when he entered parliament ; and for a long series 
 of years every bishop of the English cliurch did 
 actually take it. 
 
 " I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the 
 elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and 
 Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof 
 by any person whatsoever ; and that the invocation 
 or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, 
 and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used 
 in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idola- 
 trous." 
 
 Now the arguments so ingeniously urged by the 
 author of Tract 90, will not avail here. It is not 
 " the sacrifices of masses," but the sacrifice of the 
 Mass, or of the holy Eucharist (for they are con- 
 vertible terms) which is here expressly repudiated. 
 And this agrees with the other facts of the case, 
 namely, with the careful exclusion from the liturgy 
 of all words expressive of a real sacrifice, and with 
 the wording of the thirty-first Article. 
 
 It will scarcely be urged that the Church of Eng- 
 land is not implicated in an oath or declaration, for
 
 87 
 
 a long time actually taken by its bishops, and still 
 administered by its archbishop to the Sovereign on 
 the most solemn occasion. 
 
 10. Article XXXV. asserts that " the Homilies con- 
 tain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary 
 for these times." Certainly this is a very general 
 assertion, and considering the bulk of the book, and 
 the subjects on which it treats, can scarcely fail to be 
 true according to the letter. The book contains 
 what it is asserted to contain, whatever else it may 
 contain. But though this article is true in the letter, 
 I cannot but think that an Ano'lican, under other 
 circumstances, would hesitate before he would, with- 
 out any qualification, say so much of a book, which 
 besides much other objectionable matter, calls the 
 chief bishop of the Church, antichrist ; which puts 
 Torth Lutheran doctrine sometimes in a very promi- 
 nent and offensive way ; and declares that for eight 
 hundred years the Church was sunk in the sin of 
 idolatry. 
 
 11. Article XXXVIII. treats on the subject of the 
 royal supremacy, and spiritual jurisdiction. Some- 
 thing has been already said on these points, and they 
 have been so much the subject of observation in 
 other quarters, that little here need be added. I will 
 only observe, that after the best consideration which 
 I have been able to give to this matter, it appears to 
 me, that this article, taken in connection with Ca- 
 nons and Acts of parliament, is intended to recognise 
 a spiritual supremacy in the temporal sovereign. 
 The very exception which the article makes, with 
 regard to the reservation of the power and functions 
 of orders, seems to imply that as to the rest, includ-
 
 88 
 
 ing all spiritual jurisdiction, it belongs to the temporal 
 power. The example adduced of " godly princes in 
 Holy Scripture," seems to confirm this, for it confuses 
 the principles of Jewish polity, with those of the 
 Christian Church. Solomon consecrated the temple, 
 and deposed Abiathar from the priesthood. In the 
 kingdom of Israel spiritual and temporal laws and 
 government were intermingled and combined. The 
 Christian Church is a kingdom of itself, capable, it 
 may be, of being loiited with temporal kingdoms, but 
 distinct from and independent of them. 
 
 I have thus reviewed several of the thirty-nine 
 Articles, which certainly present a considerable dif- 
 ficulty to Anglicans ; some greater and some less, 
 but altogether an amount which is sufficiently great 
 to call for most serious reflection. But here it will 
 probably be asked of me, If you feel this difficulty 
 so decidedly, how is it that you have so long gone 
 on ministering under a subscription to these Arti- 
 cles ? Is this quite a new light that has broken in 
 upon you, or how are we to reconcile your past prac- 
 tice with your present convictions? To these questions 
 I would offer the following observations rather in the 
 way of explanation than of defence. 
 
 1. I suppose that under the circumstances in which 
 along with so many others, I have been placed, it is 
 in the nature of things that such convictions should 
 come upon the mind gradually. First, they take the 
 form of mere suspicions, and are perhaps put away 
 as sinful to be indulged. Then, when more urgent, 
 they are for a time resisted as interfering with present 
 duties ; and it is only by slow degrees that they get 
 full possession of the mind.
 
 89 
 
 2. Next, I would say that the Articles have seemed 
 to stand upon their own proper ground, not as arti- 
 cles of faith, which are practical, and to be made 
 daily use of; but rather, as marking off a prohibited 
 ground ; that they are chiefly negative, and protes- 
 tant, and no otherwise binding than as keeping the 
 clergy from a certain line of teaching, marked out 
 as forbidden. Under such circumstances, it may 
 have seemed lawful to put the consideration of them 
 aside, more or less, so long as a certainty could be 
 felt, that the boundaries which they prescribed were 
 not transgressed ; as for instance, a clergyman might 
 fairly feel that he was not called upon to consider the 
 Article on purgatory, while he said nothing at all 
 upon the subject, nor had, in fact, any definite belief 
 upon it. 
 
 So likewise while teaching the Real Presence, and 
 abstainino^ from all comment on the mode in which 
 the great mystery is accomplished, he might not feel 
 imperatively called upon to consider the subject of 
 Transubstantiation ; or rather might assume that the 
 Article only protested against an erroneous aspect of 
 the doctrine. 
 
 3. An Anglican might fairly feel that on the whole 
 the Prayer Book is on his side ; that is, in reference 
 to the existing parties of the day. He might feel 
 that so far as it has any definite principles, he was 
 acting up to them more nearly than the " Evangeli- 
 cal." For the difficulties presented by the Articles 
 would seem far less practical, and far less momentous, 
 than those which the Offices of Baptism, and Con- 
 firmation, and Ordination, and the Visitation of the 
 sick, &c. present to the "Evangelical."
 
 90 
 
 4. Above all, a person who has lived in sub?7iission 
 to the Church, as such, will be slow to discover and 
 admit even to himself a discordance between what 
 he receives as its authoritative teaching, and his own 
 private opinion. 
 
 I offer these observations, as I have said, in expla- 
 nation, not as a defence or excuse for my own con- 
 duct. For I now see, what I ought to have seen 
 sooner, that as the church of England makes its 
 appeal to private judgment, I ought to have been 
 more ready to use it. And, again, that a body situ- 
 ated as it is, in reference to the Church Catholic, is 
 necessarily upon its trial, and has need to justify its 
 position ; and this, by God's blessing, might have led 
 me to an earlier perception of those defects and con- 
 tradictions which have been noticed. Under the 
 pressure of recent events, these considerations seem 
 to be forced upon Anglicans, and to lay them under 
 still heavier responsibilities. Assuredly these are 
 times in which such questions cannot be put wholly 
 aside without sin. 
 
 And now, in conclusion, I would add some con- 
 siderations of a more general nature, which certainly 
 seem to draw the eyes of English churchmen towards 
 Rome. 
 
 The recent revival of a more religious spirit in 
 the church of England, to which the Oxford move- 
 ment of 1833 gave such an impulse, has often been 
 appealed to as a proof of life in the church, and of 
 God's blessing resting upon it. Such an appeal is 
 of course very plausible, and the more effective from 
 the comfort which it seems to bring with it. But if 
 we look at the matter more closely, perhaps we shall
 
 91 
 
 be driven to a somewhat different conclusion. Un- 
 questionably the revival itself has been very extensive, 
 but, as is most manifest from recent events, connected 
 with the so called " Papal aggression," its influence 
 upon the Established church has been very slight;* 
 whereas I think its tendency towards Rome has been 
 very decisive and very extensive. Look at the church 
 of England as it was fifty years ago, or even thirty. 
 At that time it would have been thought Popish to 
 speak of the Real Presence ;t the doctrine of the Eu- 
 charistic sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching 
 of the church. Auricular confession, counsels of per- 
 fection, the conventual life, as well as less important 
 matters, such as the use of the crucifix &c. were all 
 identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and 
 usages are quite current amongst Anglicans. May 
 we not appeal to the common sense of men to say 
 whether these things are not a decisive approxima- 
 tion to Rome? Nay more, are not Anglicans indebted 
 to Rome for them? Supposing for one moment that 
 the communion of Rome were blotted out of exist- 
 ence, does anyone believe that the church of England 
 of itself would have found its way back to these 
 doctrines and usages ? And then, if it be admitted, 
 as it must be, that they enter vitally into the truth 
 of our holy religion, and have a most decisive influ- 
 ence upon religious practice, must it not also be ad- 
 mitted that the revival of these thino^s amoncrst An- 
 
 * See No. II. of Newman's Lectures. 
 
 •j- The highest doctrine then held in the church of England was 
 probably a Real Presence in the heart of the believer, and not on 
 the Altar.
 
 92 
 
 glicans is so fa?' a witness in favour of Rome ? she 
 had retained much that was lost, or at least sus- 
 pended, amongst Anglicans. 
 
 And here I must notice another feature in the case 
 which ought not to be without its influence upon 
 truthful minds. I mean the comparison between the 
 converts from Catholicism to Protestantism, and those 
 from Protestantism to Catholicism. It would obvi- 
 ously be improper even to hint at examples ; nor would 
 I address this appeal to low-churchmen, who from 
 their prepossessions, will be unable to feel its force ; 
 but, speaking to Anglicans, I may fairly ask them to 
 institute this comparison, and to say if it is not im- 
 measurably in favour of Catholicism ? whether in 
 their vieic the testimony on the ivhole of such men 
 as those who have come over to Rome, does not 
 outweigh to a degree scarcely calculable that which 
 is afforded on the opposite side ? To those who 
 feel this to be so, the fact cannot but appear to be 
 very considerable. And further, it is a remarkable 
 fact for the Anglican to consider, that the conversions 
 from Catholicism to Protestantism, have been almost 
 entirely to the evangelical or latitudinarian school ; 
 whereas those in the opposite direction have at least 
 been marked by no dereliction of the Catholic Faith. 
 
 Nor ought it to be left quite out of sight, that many, 
 may I not say most, of the conversions to the Catholic 
 Church have involved sacrifices of all kinds, so large 
 as at least to give weight to their witness. 
 
 I have thus touched upon some of the principal 
 difficulties which seem to press upon the Anglican 
 position. They certainly suggest the very serious 
 inquiiy, whether that position is tenable ; and again.
 
 93 
 
 whether they do not furnish a sufficient indication, 
 that safety to our souls can only be secured by sub- 
 mission to the Church of Rome. For, in the first 
 place, it has appeared that the acts of the Reformation 
 were in themselves unjustifiable. All will agree that 
 the primary motives which led to the Reformation in 
 England were iniquitous, (for I may assume that 
 Henry VIII. will find no defenders.) The Reformation 
 itself in this country was the intrusion of the temporal 
 power, as such, within the sacred precincts of the 
 church. And, in the next place, we have seen that 
 this first fault has been productive of fruits which at 
 this moment are being reaped by English churchmen, 
 and which involve them in inextricable difficulties. 
 
 But it may be said, on the other side, should we 
 gain anything by submission to Rome ? Do not at 
 least equal difficulties meet us there ? 1 would say a 
 word or two in answer to this question, which I now 
 consider to be proposed by Anglicans only. 
 
 Low churchmen have a multitude of difficulties, 
 but my present concern is not with them. Anglicans 
 have but a very few difficulties, and to these I would 
 now briefly address myself, in a very few observations 
 of course suggestive only of the answers which might 
 be given. 
 
 1. First and foremost of these stands the repug- 
 nance which Anoflicans feel to the devotions to the 
 Saints, and more especially those addressed to the 
 blessed Virgin Mary. These devotions seem to them 
 to invade the sole prerogative of God, as the hearer 
 and answerer of prayer. But here it is surely rea- 
 sonable that we should take the Catholic's own ex- 
 planation of the meaning of his own words. And
 
 94 
 
 there can be no doubt that the Catholic Church denies 
 utterly that she invades the prerogative of God. We 
 may safely take the explanation of a theologian such as 
 Bellarmine, who thus writes ; " It is not lawful to ask 
 the saints to grant to us, as if they were the authors 
 of divine benefits, glory, or grace or the other means 
 of blessedness ; this is proved, first from Scripture, 
 * The Lord will give grace and glory.' Secondly, 
 from the usage of the Church ; for in the mass- 
 prayers, and the saints' offices, we never ask any- 
 thing else but that at their prayers benefits may be 
 granted to us by God. Thirdly, from reason ; for 
 what we need surpasses the powers of the creature, and 
 therefore even of saints ; therefore we ought to ask 
 nothing of saints beyond their impetrating from God 
 what is profitable to us. Fourthly, from August in and 
 Theodoret, who expressly teach that saints are not 
 to be invoked as gods, but as able to gain from God 
 what they wish. However, it must be observed, when 
 we say that nothing should be asked of saints but 
 their prayers for us, the question is not about the 
 words, but the sense of the words. For as far as 
 words go it is lawful to say, ' St. Peter, pity me, save 
 me, open for me the gate of heaven,' also ' Give me 
 health of body, patience, fortitude, &c.' provided that 
 we mean, save and pity me by praying for me. Grant 
 me this or that by thy prayers and merits. For so 
 speaks Gregoiy Nazianzen, and many others of the 
 ancients," which is only one amongst a hundred si- 
 milar cases. De Sand. Beat. i. 17. quoted Tract 90, 
 p. 42. 
 
 Surely every one has a right to explain the meaning 
 of the words which he uses, and nothing can be more
 
 95 
 
 satisfactory as to the special objection here conside?'ed, 
 than this explanation.* 
 
 I may illustrate this point further by referring to 
 the word me7Vt here used. It is a word almost dis- 
 carded from Protestant theology, because it is under- 
 stood to imply a sort of worthiness which would 
 interfere with the alone worthiness of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. And yet even Protestants do not object to 
 the doctrine that the piety and prayers, of a Chris- 
 tian conofreo-ation, mav brino* down a blessins; on a 
 whole parish. Well, then, this is just what a Ca- 
 tholic would express by saying that the blessing was 
 granted to the merits of the pious people, without 
 meaning (as little as the Protestant) any thing that 
 would interfere with the sole merits of our Lord and 
 Saviour. 
 
 But it may be said, such language as is addressed 
 to the saints is very dangerous, and will naturally 
 lead to their being put in the place of our Lord ; — 
 persons will be induced to be more devoted to the 
 saints, than to our Lord. To this it might be replied, 
 in the first place, that in such a matter it is presump- 
 
 * In reference to such observations as these, it is sometimes re- 
 plied, ' But then in all fairness you ought to allow the Anglican 
 church or her divines, the same liberty to explain her doubtful 
 or ambiguous language : I fully grant this ; nay, my complaint is, 
 that neither she, nor her writers with any adequate unanimity, do 
 explain what is doubtful in her language or usages. If, for instance, 
 the real presence, the eucharistic sacrifice and other mysteries of 
 the faith were asserted by church of England divines, with the same 
 unanimity that Roman Catholic Divines repudiate the notion of 
 paying Divine honours to the blessed Virgin, then we should have 
 less right to complain of omission, or dubious expressions in the 
 Prayer Book upon those subjects.
 
 96 
 
 tuous to set up our private judgment against that of 
 the Church, and against her constant usage for ages. 
 In such a case can we doubt that the probability at 
 least is greatly on the side of our judgment being 
 wrong? Is the CImrch itself, or a person outside 
 the Church, the best judge in such a matter? 
 
 But further, we may appeal to matters of fact. 
 Our Blessed Lord has given us a rule of judgment. 
 " By their fruits ye shall know them." Now where 
 do we find the warmest and deepest devotions to our 
 Lord, and the deepest sympathy with His sufferings 
 and His life ? Certainly in the writings of Catholics. 
 As a proof of this, it may be remarked, that when an 
 Anglican writer set himself upon providing devotions 
 of a deeper tone, and more specially addressed to our 
 Lord, and expressive of sympathy in His sufferings, 
 he was forced out of Anglican into Catholic writings. 
 It is not from English authors, but by translations 
 from Catholic authors, that the aim has been made 
 to feed the minds of Anglicans with higher, richer, 
 deeper devotions — devotions more especially keeping 
 our Lord before the mind. And no person compe- 
 tently instructed can possibly doubt, that the Catholic 
 books of devotion breathe a far deeper and richer 
 tone, especially in reference to our Lord, than do the 
 Anglican. Is not this fact then amply suilficient to 
 overwhelm a mere suspicion, that veneration of the 
 saints interferes with devotion to our Lord ? Is not 
 the objection really analogous to that often urged 
 against Anglicans by low churchmen, and felt to be 
 utterly futile and absurd, namely, that the Church has 
 been put in the place of Christ? The reply to both 
 objections is substantially the same. The blessing of
 
 97 
 
 the Church was set forth to lead to our Lord, not as 
 a substitute for Him ; so the saints are Iionoured as 
 the ladder to Christ. And as a matter of fact, we 
 see that there is greater devotion to our Lord, greater 
 prominence given to His cross and passion, and a 
 fuller apprehension of His great atonement, where 
 this reverence for the saints prevails than in the ab- 
 sence of it. 
 
 It may be also a matter for serious consideration 
 whether the marked forgretfulness of communion with 
 the unseen world, which characterises the English 
 church, may not be traced to a practical neglect of 
 the saints. How little do Anglicans understand what 
 is meant by the communion of saints ? 
 
 Again, disuse of prayers for the dead — a practice 
 for which we have primitive if not a scriptural autho- 
 rity, may, with great probability, be traced to the 
 same cause. 
 
 Of course there can be no objection in principle to 
 our askinof for the intercession of the saints. If we 
 may ask our brethren on earth to pray for us, much 
 more may we ask our brethren in heaven. But then 
 it is often asked, How can we be sure that the saints 
 hear us ; or that they can know what is passing upon 
 earth ? 
 
 Now in answer to this, it may be said, in the first 
 place, that it reduces the difference between the An- 
 glican and the Catholic to very narrow ground; 
 in other words, it is a very trivial objection. Cer- 
 tainly it is impossible to say that they do 7iot hear 
 us. And therefore is it not reasonable that in such 
 a matter we should be guided by the authority of 
 the Church ? If Scripture were wholly silent, this 
 
 H
 
 98 
 
 would seem but reasonable. But it may be further 
 said that Scripture at least favours the positive side 
 of the question. It is certain that the angels know 
 what is passing among men [Luke xv. Matt, xviii. 10, 
 Dan. and Rev. joawm], and why then should not 
 those be equally informed, who are " as the angels of 
 God ? " Surely in this case scriptural probability at 
 least supports the authority of the Church. 
 
 2. Another objection most strongly felt by Angli- 
 cans is to the superstitious use of relics and images, 
 &c. And for myself I must confess how very deeply I 
 have sympathised with tliis objection. But such 
 considerations as these may go far to overcome it. 
 That these are matters of which the very fact of 
 being outside the system render persons in a great 
 measure incompetent to judge. They are matters 
 which address our feelings more than our judgment (I 
 am not here alluding to the charge oi idolatry, which 
 I will afterwards notice, but to mere superstitious re- 
 verence for relics, &c.) and to estimate their due force 
 in this respect, we ought to be within the system. 
 For example, we know that many things in the An- 
 glican system shock the dissenters, and this merely 
 because from their position they are incapable of un- 
 derstanding it. Is it not fair to suppose that there 
 may be in Anglicans the same kind of incompetence 
 to judge the Catholic system? 
 
 But a still weightier consideration is that much 
 which is objected to under this head is really an 
 abuse, condemned by the authoritative voice of the 
 Catholic Church herself. Thus speaks the Council 
 of Trent, *' Into these holy and salutary observances 
 should any abuses creep, of these the Holy Council
 
 . 99 
 
 vehemently desires the utter extinction, so that no 
 images of a false doctrine, and supplying to the unin- 
 structed opportunity of perilous error should be set 
 up ... . All superstition also in invocation of Saints, 
 veneration of relics, and sacred use of images be put 
 away; all filthy lucre be cast out of doors." — Sess. 
 XXV. So that where such abuses exist it is only fair 
 to set them down, not to the system itself, but to the 
 defective administration of the system : just as Angli- 
 cans have been wont, (though now they can no longer 
 do so) to attribute the false doctrine which is so ex- 
 tensively taught in the established church on bap- 
 tism, not to the church itself, but to its defective dis- 
 cipline or administration. 
 
 These superstitions, even where they do exist, are 
 indeed of immeasurably less importance than false 
 teaching on the sacraments. And it may be not un- 
 reasonably suggested that they arise from the intense 
 love which many, it may be, rudely instructed Chris- 
 tians in Catholic countries have to our Lord, to the 
 B. Virgin, and the saints. They feel passmiately 
 about them. It is a feeling which may be illustrated 
 by what we so often see in the devoted worshippers 
 of some great man. They idolize even any relic of 
 him. It may be tl^at some such feeling as this in 
 human nature directed to higher objects, or even the 
 hio^hest, furnishes the best solution of some of those 
 devotions which we read of in Catholic countries, 
 w^hich seem to Anglicans so extravagant and repul- 
 sive. 
 
 3. But I except entirely from the application of 
 such observations the charge of idolatry. I fully 
 admit that they are far too insignificant to meet that
 
 100 - 
 
 charge. It must be tried upon its grounds. I can 
 only say, for myself, as far as I know the charge is 
 totally false. 
 
 But 1 would urge that this crime is of so fearful 
 and damning a character that if Anglicans believe it 
 true, they convict themselves also as partakers of the 
 sin. For with idolatry no terms may be kept. If the 
 Catholic Church can be convicted of idolatry, the 
 lano-uag'e of even ultra Protestantism is too weak for 
 its condemnation. Idolatry taints every thing that 
 it touches. " Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's 
 Table and the table of devils." Yet the church of 
 England acknowledges the priesthood of Rome and 
 recognises her orders ; and Anglicans, at least, would 
 deal with her as a mother or sister Church. 
 
 Again, I confess, when I reflect upon the great 
 saints which have lived in the Catholic Church, and 
 that even since her existing system has been deve- 
 loped, it seems to me a thing most extravagant to 
 charge her with idolatry. What ! did SS. Bernard, 
 Charles, Francis, Ignatius, and a hundred more, live 
 in an idolatrous system, and never detect or repudiate 
 the idolatry? Surely the very thought is beyond all 
 reason monstrous, and needs but to be mentioned to 
 be rejected. 
 
 It is no answer to this to say, that idolatry, like 
 murder or adultery, may be committed without the 
 formal outward act. Undoubtedly it may. But this 
 is not the kind of sin charged upon Catholics. Co- 
 vetousness is idolatry, and may infect the heart of 
 Catholics as of others, for all in the Church are not 
 perfect. But if the charge of idolatry is anything to 
 the purpose, it means that Catholics are guilty of it,
 
 101 
 
 m a xoay and after a method in which Protestants are 
 not guilty of it, that is, by their worship of images. 
 It is to this charge that the above remarks are ad- 
 dressed. 
 
 4. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has 
 recently been urged as a difficulty in some quarters. 
 But in the first place it may be said that this as yet, 
 at least, is an opinion, not a dogma, of the Church. 
 And next, it can scarcely be regarded as a practical 
 difficulty in the way of the Anglican who probably 
 knows very little upon the subject. I suppose most 
 Ano'licans would ao^ree with Catholics that the Bless- 
 ed Virgin Mary was without actual sin. Indeed to 
 those who have realised the doctrine of the Incarna- 
 tion it seems shockino- to think of our Lord's child- 
 hood being entrusted to her apart from this condition. 
 The precise mode then in which this sinlessness was 
 obtained for the Blessed Virgin is a matter which 
 may well be left for the decision of the Church, if she 
 should see fit to decide it. 
 
 It seems to me surprising that a writer so learned 
 and so accurate as Dr. Mill should regard the doctrine 
 of the Immaculate Conception as an invasion of what 
 he terms " the sole immaculate maternity''' of the 
 Blessed Virgin. The doctrine, as I suppose, has 
 never been conceived of as interfering with that fact '■> 
 nor has any one ever imagined that the Blessed Vir- 
 gin was not begotten, conceived, and born in the ordi- 
 nary way, though it may be with miraculous adjuncts 
 surpassing the cases of Isaac and of John the Baptist. 
 Besides these objections I do not know of any 
 considerable ones felt by Anglicans. The receiving 
 of holy communion in one kind is a mere matter of
 
 102 
 
 discipline, which might at any time be altered. As 
 such it certainly has the sanction of very early prac- 
 tice. Besides give the greatest weight to this diffi- 
 culty, and it surely sinks into nothing, compared with 
 the irreverence which is so frequent in the adminis- 
 tration by the English church. In principle, or eco- 
 nomically considered, the Anglican can feel no ob- 
 jection, as I suppose it is as much his doctrine as it 
 is that of Rome, that an undivided Christ is received 
 under each species.* 
 
 The doctrine of purgatory as defined by the council 
 of Trent can scarcely present an insuperable difficulty, 
 since all that it necessarily means, is that departed 
 souls are purified, or advanced in perfection, in the 
 separate state. Now if we believe that those souls 
 are conscious, and have the knowledge of God, and 
 are delivered from the burden of the flesh, it surely 
 is impossible not to believe that they are in a state of 
 progress or advancement. From this we must dis- 
 tinguish the j^Ve of purgatory, which is an opinion in 
 the Catholic Church, not a dogma of it. 
 
 Again, whatever difficulty Anglicans may feel in 
 acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope, it is a 
 
 * It has been observed that the receiving only in one kind is a 
 much larger omission than to omit the ministration of " unction." 
 But the cases are diflPerent. The Catholic Church, " principally 
 influenced" by the desire " to crush the heresy which denied that 
 Christ whole and entire is contained under either species" [See 
 Catechism of the Council of Trent J enjoined this rule, professedly 
 exercising its power to order in a matter of discipline. The English 
 Church professing to be guided by scripture and antiquity condemns 
 *' extreme unction," while it abstains from enjoining any other kind 
 of unction, though the practice can plead both scripture and anti- 
 quity in its support. 
 
 I
 
 103 
 
 difficulty which can scarcely be considered so great ' 
 as that of denying to him even a primacy, which 
 certainly is denied to him in the English church. 
 To say the least, the primacy of the chair of St. Peter 
 is probably of divine right. Therefore even though it 
 were proved to be exaggerated into the present supre- 
 macy, would it not be safer to submit to it, than to 
 reject any thing which is of God ? But can we say 
 that the supremacy is an unreasonable or improbable 
 developement from the primacy ? And assuming it 
 to be lawful must we not admit that it has been most 
 beneficial, as having been the support of sound doctrine 
 in times of peril, and the ostensible means of preserv- 
 ing unity in Christian fellowship over all the world? 
 
 Again, it may be asked, if the Anglican feels 
 a difficulty in acknowledging the Supremacy of the 
 Pope, must he not feel a much greater difficulty in 
 admitting the supremacy of the Crown ? The former 
 professes to rest upon Scripture, and at least admits 
 of scriptural argument ; but what can be said for the 
 latter ? It was first asserted in its present sense by 
 a wicked man with the view of gratifying his own 
 lusts. 
 
 Finally, if the appeal is to be to private judgment, 
 as has been shewn to be the case in the church of 
 England, I must confess for my own part, that the 
 Catholic system commends itself to me as divine, im- 
 measurably more than its antagonist. It seems to me 
 far more forcible, coherent, and real ; far more to have 
 upon it the impress of what is divine-, far more fitted 
 to the great object of the Church, to win souls and to 
 train them for heaven. It sustains in far higher per- 
 fection the character of a witness for God in the
 
 104 
 
 world. Its works are ostensible. Its light shines 
 before men. It may be read and known of all men. 
 Contrast with this the secrecy, to say the least, of some 
 great features of the church in the Anglican system. 
 Is there in the church of England any decided witness 
 to the world, of the real presence, of the eucharistic 
 sacrifice, of the priestly office, of the need of con- 
 fession and penance, of the power of the keys, of 
 the ascetic and conventual life, and of the counsels 
 of perfection ? Possibly these things are more or less 
 in the church of England — taught and practised by 
 some of her members. But is there, or has there 
 been for three hundred years, any real practical wit- 
 ness for them to the world at large in the actual 
 workinof of the English Church ? 
 
 Again, who that is at all competent to judge can 
 say that the church of England can be compared to 
 the Catholic Church in its practical method of dealing 
 with souls under the disease of sin — of leading them 
 to compunction and administering the healing balm 
 of the gospel? Individuals may exist in the English 
 church, who are endowed with skill for these great 
 ends. But in the Catholic Church it is part of 
 the system. It exists every where. Again, can we 
 say that the saintly life has been developed in the 
 one in any due measure, or proportion, with the 
 other ? And, which is much to the point, wherever 
 that saintly life has been most prominently developed 
 in the English church, it has been in such men as 
 Andrewes and Ken and Wilson — men who in their 
 life and writings have most symbolised with Rome, 
 even while they said harsh things against her. 
 
 In a word, to compare the two systems, the promi-
 
 105 
 
 nent features in the church of England, seem to mark 
 it as formed for this present world : decent, respect- 
 able, corrective of abuses which offend society, with 
 enough of devotion to relieve the conscience ; but 
 withal cold, unenthusiastic, and dreading fanaticism, 
 far more than worldly mediocrity ; it sustains its 
 self-appropriated title of the via media. The Catholic 
 relioion on the other hand seems to be formed for 
 heaven : braving the enmity of the world ; bearing 
 her unceasing witness to things supernatural ; more 
 intent on training souls for heaven than on minister- 
 ing to their comfort on earth : bringing us evermore 
 into union with our divine Lord by her daily sacri- 
 fice, giving us thereby an entrance into heaven ; by 
 the prominence of her sacramental system surround- 
 ing us with invisible realities ; and while tenderly 
 nourishing the weakest of her children, encouraging, 
 in those who aim to reach it, the saintly life, the 
 highest, the holiest, the most enthusiastic and un- 
 earthly devotion. 
 
 The above observations then seem strongly to point 
 one way to the duty of submitting to the Church of 
 Rome : nay, that it is not safe to be out of her com- 
 munion. For there is but one Church — one ark of 
 salvation. Against such a conclusion however, may 
 fairly be urged the fearful act of taking an irrevocable 
 step. It may be said, that we ought to wait awhile, 
 for stronger conviction, or plainer signs of direction, 
 and that we may safely thus wait, if we do so in 
 voto — conscious 6f a firm resolution to do the will 
 of God at all hazards. 
 
 But then on the other hand oug-ht not each one to 
 ask himself, Am I sure that no unworthy motives
 
 106 
 
 mix themselves up in my reasons for not acting as 
 these convictions seem to suggest ? Am I sure that 
 at a future time I shall have the moral strength 
 to act upon my convictions? or again, Am I sure 
 that I shall keep my convictions, if well grounded ? 
 We all know how dangerous a thing it is to tamper 
 with conscience. I may think myself faithful and 
 honest, and to have a firm determination to do the 
 will of God at any sacrifice; but is it safe thus to 
 rest upon my own conviction of my honesty and 
 faithfulness ? Ought I not rather to distrust myself, 
 and fear lest I should be resisting the grace of God? 
 If I have all the elements of forming a right judg- 
 ment before me ; ought I not at once to form it, and 
 to act upon it ? 
 
 Add to all this that " time is short." Time and 
 opportunity are in God's hand, not in ours ; as Scrip- 
 ture says, " Ye know not what shall be on the 
 
 MORROW."
 
 107 
 
 Note A at p. 61. 
 
 Having mentioned Mr. Gladstone's Pamphlet, I would 
 here notice another statement of his, which seems tome to 
 err on similar ground. After stating the ** great conces- 
 sions" made by the Church of England at the time of the 
 Reformation, he says, p. 38, " The real question I appre- 
 hend is this ; when the Church assented to those great con- 
 cessions .... had she adequate securities that the powers 
 so conveyed would be exercised, upon the whole, with a 
 due regard to the integrity of her faith, and of her office 
 which was, and has ever been, a part of that faith ? . . . . 
 I ask the one vital question, whether whatever they [the 
 securities] were in form, they were in substance sufficient." 
 And as it seems to me, the whole point and strength of his 
 argument is made to rest upon the answer given to this 
 question. 
 
 But I must submit, that there is another more important 
 and more vital question which suggests itself. Were these 
 great concessions laioful, whatever might be the securities 
 under which they were made? Does the law of Christ 
 allow, that the Church should transfer to another, that 
 function and office which Her Great Head has committed 
 to her ? Until that question be decided, it is in vain to speak 
 of securities; and I cannot but think that if Mr. Gladstone 
 had grappled with it, he would have discovered that the 
 ground upon which he rests the very able argument of his 
 pamphlet is cut from under him. 
 
 Again, Mr. Gladstone lays great stress upon the circum- 
 stance, that Queen Elizabeth professed to claim no more 
 for the civil power than " the restoration of the ancient 
 rights of the Crown." But in the first place, she claimed 
 all that had been claimed by her father and brother ; and 
 this by Mr. Gladstone's own showing, pp. 15, 16, was an 
 amount of jurisdiction fatal to the rights and independence 
 of the Church ; and indeed of this there can be no doubt.
 
 108 
 
 But, if I may be forgiven for saying so, is not the very 
 foundation of this allegation very weak and insufficient ? 
 It is no new thing for sovereigns to rest their claims to 
 unusual and dangerous power upon grounds most advan- 
 tageous to themselves, independent of all other considera- 
 tions. Of course it suited the purpose of the sovereigns 
 of the Reformation, to found their claims of spiritual juris- 
 diction upon ancient precedents, and undefined preroga- 
 tive, rather than on statute law. But this does not prove 
 that they intended to limit their claims by what their prede- 
 cessors had really enjoyed. That question must be decided 
 hy the facts of the case. If it can be shown, as it has been 
 abundantly shown as a matter of fact, that the sovereigns 
 in this country have possessed and exercised a jurisdiction 
 in the church unknown to their predecessors, and that the 
 church has acquiesced in this, it really seems trifling to 
 say, the jurisdiction is not greater, because they claimed 
 no greater. If the King in council were to claim the right 
 of levying taxes, without consent of parliament, and were 
 to proceed to act upon this claim by virtue of a standing- 
 army, it would be little comfort that he should issue a pro- 
 clamation declaring that he claimed to exercise no other 
 prerogative or right than had been enjoyed by his prede- 
 cessors from the time of the conquest. 
 
 The bishop of Exeter, a short time ago, put forth some 
 ** Considerations,"* designed to satisfy his clergy that they 
 may lawfully subscribe the Articles on the Supremacy. I 
 would offer a few observations on his Lordship's argu- 
 ments. First, he says, 
 
 1 . That these Articles were simply intended to exclude all 
 "ybrc?^;^ jurisdiction,"" to state who is the supreme gover- 
 nor, rather than to define what is the nature of the power 
 recognised in that supreme governor." Be it so : still I do 
 not see how this helps the matter. A certain spiritual 
 supremacy was vested in the Pope, before the Reforma- 
 
 * See " Guardian" Newspaper, Sept. 25, 1830.
 
 109 
 
 tion: these Articles were intended to exclude him from it; 
 this is admitted by all parties. But the real question is, 
 To whom was this supremacy transferred ? The bishop 
 says, in a later part of his " Considerations," to the Church ; 
 but he adduces no argument for this conclusion from the 
 Articles iu question. The first article of the thirty-sixth 
 Canon says explicitly enough, not only that the Pope is 
 excluded from that supremacy, but that the King is in- 
 vested with it. " The King's Majesty, under God, is the 
 only Supreme Governor .... in all spiritual or ecclesias- 
 tical tilings." These words exclude the Church as much 
 as the Pope. 
 
 2. The bishop argues that supremacy over the church 
 doctrine is repudiated on the part of the temporal Sove- 
 reign, by the words of the thirty-seventh Article, which 
 says, " When we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the 
 chief government .... we give not to our princes the 
 ministering either of God's zeord or of the sacraments." 
 Upon which the bishop says, " Now the effect of denying 
 to the Crown the ?7iinistering of Gods word, is manifestly 
 to exclude the right and power validly to pronounce what 
 is the force and meaning of God's word in any particular 
 which may be involved in any cause ecclesiastical." The 
 bishop adduces no reason for giving this very unusual in- 
 terpretation to the words, " the ministering of God's word." 
 I can only say, therefore, that to me they manifestly ap- 
 pear to have a very different meaning ; that is, that they 
 exclude the temporal sovereign from the ministering of 
 God's word, in the very same sense in which they exclude 
 her from ministering the sacraments ; that is, not from su- 
 preme jurisdiction in spiritual things, but from the act of 
 serving in them, or dispensing them ; in a word — bearing 
 in mind the distinction above noticed — from all that be- 
 longs to holy orders. 
 
 This view of the matter is confirmed, and indeed made 
 certain by the following passage from Queen Elizabeth's 
 Injunctions.
 
 110 
 
 " And further her Majesty forbiddeth all manner her 
 subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and mali- 
 cious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour 
 to notify to her loving subjects how by words of the said 
 oath it may be collected that the kings or queens of this 
 realm, possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority 
 and power of ministry of divine service- in the Church 
 wherein her said subjects be much abused, &c. &c." 
 • What can be more plain, than that the prerogative re- 
 pudiated was that which belongs to orders, the right of 
 ministering in the congregation : and that all else, that is, 
 the whole prerogative o{ spiritual jurisdiction was claimed 
 by the Crown ? 
 
 The words quoted by the bishop yrom another Article, 
 the Twentieth, which has no reference to the Royal Su- 
 premacy, may seem more favourable to his view of the 
 subject. The words are " The Church hath authority in 
 controversies of faith." But these words which have been 
 already commented upon, so very vague and indefinite, 
 found in another place, and having no reference to the 
 Supremacy, can weigh little against the explicit language 
 of the other Articles. For it is obvious to ask. What au- 
 thority has the Church? Is it supreme or subordinate? 
 And again, what is meant by " the Church ?" The Church 
 Cathohc, or the church of England ? If the former, then 
 the words do not bear on the question. If the latter, then 
 it is obvious to ask, does it mean Divine authority ? Then 
 it must be infallible. But this the Church of England 
 does not admit, even in the case of General Councils. I 
 would here ask again, how can a Church have authority 
 in matters of faith without being infallible ? authority im- 
 plies the correlative of duty. But how can it be a person's 
 duty to believe what may be untrue ? 
 
 But I must venture to say with all respect, that it is very 
 strange to hear this language from the bishop of Exeter. 
 His Lordship's remarks seem to admit that if the article 
 of the Thirty-sixth Canon, and the thirty-seventh Article
 
 Ill 
 
 of Religion, admitted " the right and power of the Crown 
 validly to pronounce the force and meaning of God's word, 
 in any particular ivhich may he invoiced in any cause Ec- 
 clesiastical, then subscription would be unlawful. And 
 yet this very right has been admitted by the bishop himself 
 in the fullest and most practical way, by pleading without 
 protest, before the Queen in Council, in reference to the 
 Church's doctrine on a Holy Sacrament. And, still more, 
 by doing all that his office of bishop required of him, to 
 carry its sentence into effect, and to recognize its validity. 
 His Lordship cannot mean to distinguish between the 
 doctrine of God's word, and the doctrine of the Church, for 
 this would be to assume that the one may be different from 
 the other. But then I do not see how to escape the con- 
 clusion, that he has sanctioned by his own proceedings, 
 what in these " Considerations" he has pronounced to be 
 inadmissible. 
 
 Note B. 
 
 I have recently seen a pamphlet entitled " An Appeal to 
 Rome." A few years ago it would have been thought im- 
 possible that such a production could proceed from the pen 
 of a clergyman of the established church. It maintains 
 that the questions now so deeply agitating that church 
 ought to be referred to the decision of the Pope, and the 
 writer, an Enghsh clergyman, who does not seem to stand 
 alone in his opinions, avows his readiness to submit to the 
 decision of His Hohness. In the mean while he declines 
 leaving the English church, on the ground that the Pope 
 has never authoritatively condemned adherence to it. 
 
 In reference to this last point, attention is called to the 
 following passages in the Bull of Pius V. against Queen 
 Elizabeth. 
 
 " Usu namque verae religionis, quam ab ilHus desertore 
 Henrico VIII. olim eversam, clarae memoriae Maria, regina 
 legitima hujus sedis praesidio reparaverat, potenti manu
 
 112 
 
 inhibito, secutisque et amplexis hgereticorum erroribus, re- 
 gium consilium ex Anglica nobilitate confectum diremit, 
 illudque obscuris hominibus haereticis complevit, catholicae 
 fidei cultores oppressit, improbos concionatores atque im- 
 pietatum administros reposuit ; missae sacrlficium, pieces, 
 jejuriia,. ciborum delectum, caelibatum, ritusque catholicos 
 abolevit; libros, manifestam hasresim continentes, toto 
 regno proponi, impia mysteria et instituta ad Calvini prae- 
 scriptum a se suscepta, et observata, etiam a subditis'ser- 
 
 vari mandavit ; lUius itaque auctoritate sufFulti, 
 
 qui nos in hoc supremo justitiae throno, licet tanto operi 
 impares, voluit coUocare, de apostolicae potestatis plenitu- 
 dine declaramus praedictam Elizabetham haereticam et hae- 
 reticorum fautricem, eique adhaerentes in praedictis anathe- 
 ma-tis sententiam incurrisse, esseque a Christi corporis 
 unitate praecisos," &c. 
 
 TIIE END. 
 
 mU 
 
 C. WHITTINGHAM, CHISWICK.