.^r S « ^\«t L I E) RARY OF THE U N 1 VERS ITY or 1 LLl NOIS Puseyites o» mmj tio Friends of Popery. A LETTER TO SIR T. TRAYTON FULLER ELLIOTT DRAKE, BART., CONTAINING REMARKS ON THE LETTER OF LORD JOHN RUSSELL TO THE BISHOP OF DURHAM, AND THAT OF SIR TRAYTON DRAKE TO THE DEAN OF EXETER, BY JOHN INGLE, B. A., ASSISTANT CURATE OF S. OLAVE, EXETER. EXETER: HENRY J. WALLIS, HIGH STREET ; LONDON : MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET AND NEW BOND STREET. MDCCCL. The following is Sir Trayton Drakes Letter to the Dean of Exeter : Nutwell Court, Oct. 30, 1850. Mt bear Dean, I have this morning received your circular, requesting my attendance at a Meeting, to be held at the Deanery, on Friday next, to consider what measures may best be taken to repel such an aggression on the principles of the Reformation as has recently been made by the Pope, ia establishing an Episcopate in England. I am by no means taken by surprise in this assumption of authority by the Bishop of Rome. The conduct of some portion of the Clergy, and especially in this Diocese, has for some time excited ia my mind serious apprehension that some measure of this kind would issue from the Vatican. The introduction of obsolete forms in the beautiful simplicity of our Church Service has offered violence to the feelings of the people, and given serious offence in many instances. In the parish in which I reside, it has bad the effect of scattering a united congregation into the various adjoining parishes, or to the dissenting chapel, and at this moment a Free Church, of considerable dimensions, is under construction by voluntary contributions. I yield to no man in devoted attachment to the pure doctrines of the Christian Church, as declared at the Reformation, and it has given me much pain to observe the divisions and dissentions which have of late years existed among the Clergy, many of whom have seriously endangered the substance of it, by attaching too much ioiportance to the shadow. I regret I cannot give my attendance to your proposed Meeting ; but should it manifest a feeling of concord and harmony, and divest itself of party spirit, I shall be happy to join in addressing the Throne and the Legislature to resist any inroads on the " supreme authority of the Sovereign of this country in all matters and things, whether spiritual or temporal." I shall feel obliged by your reading this letter to the gentlemen who may be assembled at the Deanery on Friday next. 1 remain, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, T. TRAYTON FULLER ELLIOTT DRAKE. To the Very Reverend the Dean of Exeter. A LETTEE. 43, Holloway Street, Exeter^ Nov. nth, 1850. Sir, Within the last few days, the walls of this city have been extensively placarded with a large broad sheet, containing a letter from your- self to the Dean of Exeter. The windows, also, and counters of many of the shops, have displayed, in a very conspicuous manner, a let- ter from Lord John Russell to the Bishop of Durham. The spirit of these two documents is precisely similar ; the principal difference between them being, that the Premier's letter is more cautiously worded than your own, and only dimly insinuates what you pretty plainly express. Having learnt from the Dean that he has no inten- tion of publishing any answer to your letter, and taking it for granted that the Bishop of Durham will not reply to Lord John Russell, I propose, in what follows, to consider, as briefly as I may, the opinions which you have, both of you, either expressed or implied, as to the causes which led to the Bishop of Rome's late aggression on the rights and privileges of the English Church, and as to the duties of Churchmen at the present crisis. I make no apology for throwing my remarks into the form of a letter to yourself: this I do simply for convenience' sake, and (I need hardly say) from no personal feeling of any kind ; as I have not the honour of your acquaintance, and do not remember ever having even seen you. In dealing with this subject, I shall be compelled, however reluctantly, to use party terms, such as "High Church," and "Low Church." These I employ, simply because there seems no other way of making myself understood ; and not because I approve of any appellations which may array Churchmen against each other. I pray for the time when we may be all of one mind, when party dis- tinctions may cease, and we may all walk in the House of God as friends. May no word escape my pen in these pages, which shall, in any, even the least, degree, retard the coming of that day, or wound the feelings of one brother in our Common Faith ! Before I come to the principal subject of my letter, it may be well to clear the way, by alluding to one or two minor points, which seem to require some notice. I. Speaking of the Clergy, you say, " Many of whom have seriously endangered the substance of it, by attaching too much importance to the shadow." 1 have not been able to discover, with _ UiUC . % ^ certainty, to what the word " ?7 " in this sentence refers ; but I presume the meaning of the sentence may be, that many of the Clergy have exalted forms and ceremonies, to the neglect of vital and spiritual religion. (At all events, this is a very common charge brought against High Churchmen.) Now, may I venture to ask you to produce one single instance, in which any clergyman has said one word in favour of the form or ceremony, per se ? Have not these things always been advocated by High Churchmen, solely as being calculated to arouse feelings of devotion, or as being the organs of expressing those feelings, when already existing in the soul ? In short, have the Clergy, in any one single instance, that you can name and substantiate, regarded outward forms as the end, and not the means to an end ? Have they not invariably looked upon them in the same light as Hooker did ? " The end which is aimed at, in setting down the out- ward form of all religions actions, is the edification of the Church." ' Does Mr, Bennett, of Knightsbridge, endanger the substance of religion, by giving too much importance to the shadow ? Let us hear him. " Not stopping short in these ceremonial things, (God forbid ! ) but making them the symbols and the signs of order in the mind ; making them the beginning and foun- dation of correctness in moral behaviour, of piety in the heart, of devotion to God, of holiness, of chanty, of faith. * * * * Though these outward things are, • Eccl. Pol., Book iv., sect. 1. after all, but the preliminaries, but the gates and porticoes of the Temple, &c., &c."2 II. You use the phrase " supreme authority of the Sovereign of this country, in all matters and things, whether temporal or spiritual ;" and Lord John Russell twice speaks of the Queen's Supre- macy. One of the passages, in which the word occurs, is a curious one. " Clergymen of our own Church, who have subscribed the XXXIX Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the Queen's Supremacy, have been the most forward in leading their flocks ' step by step to the very verge of the precipice.' " Now as there has been a good deal of mis- representation, both on the part of Romanizers and Latitudinarians, as to what the Queen's Supremacy really is — a Supremacy which Englishmen, I hope, will always acknowledge — it may be well here to set down the Church's own interpretation of it. " We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify ; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself ; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers." ^ The Injunction referred to is as follows : 2 Principles of Book Common Prayer, Sermon vi., sub. fin. 3 Article xxxvii. " For certainly her Majesty neither doth, nor ever will, challenge any other authority than, .... under God, to have the Sovereignty and rule over all manner persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them" * Whether this interpretation comes up to what you meant to convey by the expression *' supreme authority of the Sovereign of this country, in all matters and things, whether temporal or spiritual," I cannot, of course, decide. That it sanctions the decision of matters of faith by the Crown (as in the Gorham case), or the absolute and irresponsible ap- pointment of Bishops (as in the Hampden case), Lord John Russell would find it hard to prove. III. Lord John Russell says : " The honour paid to Saints, the claim of infallibility for the Church, the superstitious use of the sign of the Cross, the muttering of the Liturgy so as to disguise the lan- guage in which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the administration of penance and absolution, — all these things are point- ed out by Clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and are now openly repre- hended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the Clergy of the Diocese." This is a very puzzling passage : the only way of aiTiving at any satisfactory explanation of its meaning seems to be, that the use of these things is * Cardwell's Doc. Ann., New Edition, vol. i., p. 233. recommended by the Clergy, and abuse of them reprehended by the Bishop (and, of course, by the Clergy too). Let us take them in order. (a) " The honour paid to Saints." Ought we not to honour the Saints '? We honour the living, who have performed great and noble deeds : we honour the memory of departed warriors and statesmen, poets and philosophers : why not then of the warriors of the Cross, who have won their Crown — the " great cloud of wit- nesses," who counted not their life dear unto them, for the sake of Christ and His Church ? But does not our own Church pay some sort of "honour " to the Saints ? If not, how comes it to pass that she sets apart twenty-two days in the year for the commemoration of the Saints, appointing special lessons, epistles, and gospels, for those days ; speak- ing of " the holy Apostle Saint Andrew," " the blessed Apostle Saint Paul," praying that we, having " his wonderful conversion in remembrance, may shew forth our thankfulness for the same," &c.? (Observe how practical is the Church's commemo- ration of the Saints, and how the "honour" she pays to them is made to conduce to the glory of her Lord, the King of Saints, and to the edification of His people.) These Saints' Days, be it remarked, are the spe- cial appointment of " the immortal martyrs of the Reformation," men to whom the Low Church party are so fond of appealing, and whom Lord John hopes always to see " held in reverence by the gi'eat mass of the nation," however little he may be dis- posed to honour the Saints. (I say "special ap- pointment," because, when the Reformers swept away a large number of Saints' Days and special prayers, they selected these to be retained.) There is, undoubtedly, an undue honour which may be, and in the Roman Church is, paid to the Saints ; but I am not aware that the High Church Clergy advocate, or ever have advocated, this. ( & ) " The claim of infalHbility for the Church." Perhaps this may be safely left to the passage in S. Matthew's Gospel, wherein our Saviour says, " Upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ^ We may add another from S. Paul, " The Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth." ^ But the Articles teach (and, I suppose, all Churchmen admit) that particular Churches may eiT. (c) " The superstitious use of the sign of the Cross." Lord John cannot mean that all use of this holy sign is superstitious, because it is expressly ordered by the Church, in the Baptismal Service. Let me also remind you, that, at the Hampton Court Con- ference, Dr. Reynolds, the Puritan, admitted that the use of the sign of the Cross had " been ever since the Apostles' time ;" and that " at their going abroad, or entering into the Church, or at theb * S. Matt, xvi., 18. <5 1 Tim. iii., 15. 10 prayers and benedictions," the primitive Christians used it. But there may be, no doubt, a supersti- tious use of this, as of everything else ; and any Clergy who "recommend" such an use, clearly deserve to be ''reprehended." (d) "The muttering of the Liturgy, (? the Prayers), so as to disguise the language in which it is written." If any of the Clergy have done this, (which I am very unwilling to believe) , any one member of the congregation, by so simple a process as that of writing a letter to the Bishop, might have put an end to the evil at once. (e) "The recommendation of auricular con- fession, and the administration of penance and absolution," Lord John says, " are pointed out by clergymen as worthy of adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London." I have not read the Bishop's Charge, nor have I the means of now referring to it ; but I cannot help thinking that Lord John Russell must have made some strange mistake here. At all events, the following extracts from the Prayer Book, which is the law of the Church, and, as yet, (thank God !) the law of the land, will shew whether the recom- menders, or Lord John Russell, the " reprehender," be most in accordance with the Church of England ; and will clearly prove that "the propounders and framers of these innovations" are only doing that which it is their duty to do ; and therefore are not very likely to "desist from this course." 11 "K there be any of you, who by this means cannot 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, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.""^ "Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special Confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Con- fession, the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort. " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." * It is well known that the Church of England "recommends" confession and absolution to those who desire it : whereas the Church of Rome, contrary to the practice of purer ages, makes it compulsoiy. I cannot but consider it highly unbecoming and objectionable on the part of Lord John Russell to group together a number of charges of this kind, couched in language of the most vague and inde- finite character; charges calculated to rouse pre- judice and excite suspicion, to call forth ill feeling, ' Exhortation in Communion Office. * Kubrick, &c., in Visitation of the Sick. 12 and to do mischief in a variety of ways. We have had enough of empty platitudes and generalities, such as " mummeries of superstition " (Lord John Russell) "obsolete forms" (Sir T. Drake), &c. Let us have particulars : a specific statement of the points wherein these "unworthy sons of the Church of England "^ have violated her laws, or impugned her doctrines. For instance^ tell us what are the " obsolete forms," the introduction of which have scattered the united congregation of Woodbury ? These forms are either ordered by the Church, or they are not : if they are, then those who object to them prove themselves, i^so facto, to be " un- worthy" and inconsistent members of their Church : — if not, the remedy against your Clergyman is most plain and easy : — the Act of Uniformity very stringent : — the Lord Bishop of this Diocese very ready to suppress the introduction of anything which he deems unauthorized, as the cases of Mr. Blunt at Helston, Mr. Smith at Torquay, and Mr. Cocks at Sheviocke, have abundantly proved. In either case, the fault is with the people of Wood- bury, and them alone : — their schism is wholly inexcusable : — and, as a Churchman, reasoning on Church principles, you must know that it is. But why did you introduce this case into your letter to the Dean at all ? There was no reason 9 Which is the more " unworthy," and disobedient, son of the Church, he who takes his Prayer Book, and acts up to every word of it, or he who sometimes goes to Church and sometimes to Dr. Cumming's Meeting House ? 13 for supposing that the excellent Incumbent of your parish would be at the Deanery to defend himself; why, then, seek to excite a prejudice against him in his absence ? The object of that meeting was to deliberate on the best means of resisting the arrogant and schism atical attempt of the Bishop of Rome ; and any introduction of the disputes, which unhappily distract our own Church, was travelling wholly out of the record. Was it a wise course ? Ai'C Churchmen so strong that, when the enemy is at the gate, Ro- manism on the one hand, and infidelity on the other ; when the encroachments and tyranny of the civil powers of this world are perilling our very existence ; when the mass of our people are sunk in a state of almost hopeless indifference ; are Churchmen so strong, I ask, that, encompassed by all these dangers though they be, they can afford to turn their arms against each other, and to re- kindle the flame of party animosities, instead of uniting against the common foe ? I trow not. IV. But I must now approach the real point at issue. You appear to intimate that the Pope's late affsi'ession is attributable to "the introduction of obsolete forms on the beautiful simplicity of our Church Service." As it is obvious that this cause is of itself wholly inadequate for such a result, the passage has, I suppose, a deeper meaning than the words them- selves convey. Perhaps the phrase "introduction 14 of obsolete forms" is a technical formula, to express in a compendious manner High Church principles. If this be the case, then the question will be, " Is the late Papal aggression the result of the spread of those principles, and ought it to be met by the discouragement of them ?" To both these questions, I unhesitatingly answer, No. It is highly probable, indeed, that, in consequence of the ranks of the Romish schism having been swelled by the secession of many, who were once earnest, zealous, and de- voted, members — not a few, alas, ministers — of our Church, there may have arisen a desire on the part of Rome to increase the dignity of her ecclesiastical establishment in England ; a desire quickened, pro- bably, by the hope of thereby attracting not a few waverers, who might be dazzled by the high sound- ing pretensions thus put forth. But is this any valid ground for attributing the mischief to the in- fluence of High Church principles ? Does it justify your standing aloof from those who hold those principles, and taking advantage of the present excitement of the public mind, for the purpose of endeavouring to rouse against them public odium and suspicion ? I think not ; and this for several reasons, of which I will set down two. (1). The late secessions are not justly attribu- table to the influence of High Church views. Most of those unhappy men, who have renounced the Church of their Baptism, are men, who, originally, were of the low Protestant School. (This Mr. D. 15 Wilson seems to admit in his recent pamphlet). They were brought up without any definite, dog- matic, teaching ; with little beyond that vague and unstable — Faith, shall I call it ? which allows every man to put his own interpretation on the Bible, and then call that the Bible. They were not, when young, grounded in the pure, primitive, principles of the Catholic Faith, which might have been, by God's mercy, their sheet-anchor in the storm of temptation and doubt, preserving them from the rocks of Popery on the one hand, and the quick- sands of ultra-Protestantism on the other. They were not taught to distinguish between that Tradi- tion, which, on its own sole authority, pronounces doctrines not contained in the Bible, to be Articles of Faith ; and that, which merely draws forth from the Bible its true meaning; — between that Tradition, which bears witness to the old doctrines, always held and taught ; and that, which, by a process of development unknown to the Early Church, pro- pounds new ones. And yet, without drawing this distinction, it is impossible to make head against Romanism. They were never taught that there is such a thing as certain, absolute, dogmatic, truth; that men have a guide assigned by God, to lead them into that truth, and are not, by His appoint- ment, left to wander about into eveiy possible form of error ; that, according to the teaching of the Church of England, there is a Catholic Faith, which " except every one do keep whole and undefiled, 16 without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." ' But, in open contradiction of this creed, they luere told that it was Popish and superstitious, and I know not what besides, to bow, in religious matters, to any external authority whatsoever : they were taught to believe, and to hold, as a most sacred part of their belief, never to be parted with, as "the inalienable right of every reasonable being," &c., &c., &c., that every man is at liberty — nay, that it is his bounden duty — to read the Bible for himself, not only for edification, and comfort, and growth in grace (as all, most assuredly, ought, daily, carefully, and prayerfully, to read it), but for the purpose of thence deducing for himself his religious creed. When they saw what the results of this most mis- chievous of all systems must inevitably be : when they found Baptists, Wesleyans, Quakers, Shakers, Jumpers, Brownists, Supralapsarians, yes, and to their horror, Socinians, and other unbelievers of a still deeper dye, ^ all treading the same path which • Bearing upon this point is a Canon passed in the year 1571, by the very Convocation wrhich drew up the XXXIX Articles : a Canon which it may be well here to quote, as it serves to shew what the views of the Reformers really were : — " Above all, shall preachers take heed never in their sermons to teach anything which they shall require to be religiously (religiose, as a matter of faith,) held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected out of that same doctrine" 2 I have now lying before me the following works : — " An Estimate of the Character of Prayer, wherein it is shown that that ceremony is both unreasonable and useless." Price 2d. " The Lake of Fire — Hell, not a Place of Punishment, but of Endless Felicity ; proved by Scripture." Price 2d. ; &c., &c. 17 they had been taught to tread ; all professing to find then* rehgion clearly set forth in the Bible ; some of them quite astonished^ that any one could read the Bible without finding in it their peculiar views ; when they saw this, what wonder that the conviction forced itself iiTesistibly on their minds, that the system in which they had been trained was, and must be, radically wrong ; that the path, which thus led men into error, could never be the path appointed by God to lead men into truth. Then they felt the need of a guide, and cast about to find one. They had been taught from their earliest years — falsely taught — that the Church of England offered them no guidance, no authoritative, dog- matic, teaching ; and so they looked for that teach- ing elsewhere. They saw all kinds of error tolerated within the Church of England (for, faithful to then* early teaching, they took upon themselves to can- vass the claims and failings of their Church, and that in no very dutifal spirit) ; they saw every one having a psalm, an interpretation, a doctrine ; it cannot, then, be matter of great surprise — however just ground it may be for condemnation — that they turned elsewhere to find the Church of the living God, the pillar and gi'ound of the Truth. The Church's teaching came upon them too late: like S. Paul's preaching to some of the Corin- thians it became, through past neglect and sin, a "sa- 3 Socinians, well acquainted with the Bible, have more than once said to me, that they could not comprehend how any candid and reasonable man, taking the New Testament for his guide, could, by any possibility, believe in the doctrine of a Trinity ! ! 18 vour of death unto death." ^ The influence of their early training had too deeply eaten into their moral hahit to be eradicated. They had been taught to despise the Church's authority, and to think for themselves ; and their last step was the consistent and necessary fruit of such training. They did refuse to listen to the authoritative voice of the Church of England ; once more they exercised their Protestant right of private judgment, and, leaving the Fold in which God had placed them, they cut themselves off from the Church of their Baptism. It has been frequently stated in public, with what degree of truth I know not, that not one of these erring brethren was from early training a High Churchman. It has been said that amongst all those who have seceded there is not to be found a single individual, who had been brought up from early youth in High Church principles. Men who were so taught and trained are with us still. Whe- ther, or not, this statement be true, I have no means of knowing : at all events, the mere fact of its having been fi^quently put forth, and never, so far as I know, contradicted, gives it a high de- gree of probability. One thing is certain : very many who were once altogether ultra-Protestant in their views ; not a few of them. Dissenters ; and some, Socinians ; have become members of the Church of Rome. Is it fair, is it true, to attribute this change solely to the influence of High Church principles, by which they were at one time sur- rounded ? Is no share of the blame due to the * 2 Cor. ii. 6. 19 miserable insufficiency of their early training — to that system which left them exposed to the unstable and ever varying fantasies of individual judgment ; which taught them to scorn and set aside all Creeds, and Churches, and Canons, and Fathers; and robbed them of those unchanging principles of eternal truth, the early inculcation of which alone, under God, could have proved their safety in the hour of need ?^ (2) And thus I am brought to the other point w^hich I desire to mention : viz. that the only safeguard against Popery is to be found in the spread and maintenance of High Church principles. Ultra-Protestantism can never be depended upon, even for preser\dng individuals from falling victims to the Church of Rome ; for it fails to supply the cravings of the immortal soul, and the needs which the Creator has implied in our nature : — still less can it hope to convert Romanists from the error of their ways. High Church principles — the Catholic Faith — can do both. What conceivable ground can an ultra-Protes- tant, of any kind, have for saying to a Papist, 5 A fact has just come to my knowledge, strongly confirming my argument. The town of Birmingham was for many years — and, I think, still is — in the hands of the Low Church party. They had everything their own way. The only High Church Clergy- man, who had cure of souls there, was opposed in every possible way, regarded as a black sheep, and finally, I believe, put down. Mark the consequence. That town is now one of the greatest strongholds of Romanism in England. Besides the so-called Cathe- dral, there are, I am imformed, no less than ten Eoman Catholic Meeting Houses in Birmingham. The number of perverts has been very great, and is still increasing. Surely this fact speaks with a loud voice of warning to us all. 20 "Your views are wrong, and mine right?" I can imagine none whatever. If he maintains the right of private judgment (to its full extent, for we all, of course, hold it in a certain sense), what right has he to assume that his own judgment is better than his neighbour's ? Clearly none. The moment he does so, the right of private judgment is at an end. Pro- testants, when this argument is pressed upon them, endeavour by every means in their power to extricate themselves from the dilemma, but without avail. And, if they are candid, they are obliged to make some very startling admissions. For instance, after a controversy of some length, a dissenting minister, an honest and candid man, once admitted to me, that he had no just ground whatsoever for asserting that a Socinian was wrong in his views, if he con- scientiously believed them to be sanctioned by the Word of God ; or for supposing that any one, even the Socinian, interpretation of the Bible was not quite as likely to be true as any other. Far different is the position of the High Churchman. He is able to give *' an answer to every man that asketh " him " a reason of the hope that is in"® him. He can take the rule, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ah omnibus, and show that, according to this rule, the Romanist is in grievous error. In arguing, for example, on the subject of the Pope's Supremacy, it is of no sort of use to tell your opponent that such a doctrine is contrary to the Bible. You will never convince him by that course. He will, not unnaturally, think that his Church's 6 1 Pet. iii., 15. 21 interpretation of the Bible in this matter is better than yours. But what ground will the High Church- man take ? He will throw himself, with perfect confidence, on the teaching of the Universal Church. He will remind his opponent, not only that the Universal Supremacy of any Bishop was never recog- nized in the first five or six centuries of the Christian era, but was actually condemned — and that in the strongest language — by more than one GEcumenical Council : — this is an argument which can only be evaded, never refuted.^ In a word, Transubstantiation, Romish teaching on the doctrine of Tradition, the denial of the Cup to the Laity, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Indul- gences, and all the other gross and grievous corrup- tions of Popery, can only be satisfactorily and effectually controverted by the High Churchman. He at once appeals to Tradition, to the voice of the Church, as declaring that interpretation of God's Word, which had been always held and maintained on these points ; he shows that these things, one and all, are innovations ; that they were never heard of in the early ages of the faith : that the Primitive Church did not hold them : and therefore 7 I need not tell you how alien from the Low Churchman's mode of argument is reference to Canons and Councils. But I may perhaps mention a curious instance of this, which occurred today. At a numerous meeting of the Clergy of this Archdea- conry, the learned Chancellor Harington proposed an admirable address, completely and unanswerably refuting the Papal claims which have been recently put forth. One of the Low Church party — the principal person, perhaps, of that party in this neigh- bourhood — said, in my hearing, " I wish there had been rather less about the Canons and Councils in that address." 22 he rejects them. Now the ultra-Protestant deprives himself of the use of this unanswerable argument ; he casts aside the armour that would render him invulnerable ; he rejects the authority of the Early- Church, because he knows that it is against him, as well as against the Romanist ; and all that he can possibly urge in opposition to the corruptions which I have just spoken of (or any other) is, that, in his opinion, they are contrary to the Word of God ; or, in other words, to his interpretation of it.® To sum up wliat has been said: (1). The late Papal aggression is not justly attributable to the influence of High Church principles, because the secessions which have swelled the ranks of Roman- ism, and which may, possibly, in some degree, have prompted that aggression, are not the fruits of those principles, but of Low Church, or ultra-Protestant, 8 Let it not be said that my argument is opposed to the great principle, that " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation." (Article vi.) Perhaps there is no doctrine which is more strongly maintained by High Churchmen, than this most vital and fundamental truth. (Indeed, our very quarrel with the Church of Rome is that, on her own authority alone, she imposes new Articles of Faith, which she does not even pretend are to be found in the Word of God.) But, when people take their stand upon the Bible, they must, of course, mean the doctrines contained in the Bible : for the mere letter cannot be supposed to possess any virtue of itself: — that would be nothing better than a kind of opus operatum. High Churchmen think that the Bible contains certain Jixed, definite, doctrines, which they hold accordingly, and hold because they were always held: ultra-Protestants, if they are consistent, allow any, and every, person whatsoever, to exercise bis reason and ingenuity upon it (provided this be done in a right spirit), and, consequently, to draw from it whatever doctrine pleases him best. This, truly, is a strange way of showing reverence to God's "Word. 23 views : (2) . High Church principles are, under God, the only effectual safeguard against the manifold errors and corruptions of Popery. V. To what then, it may be asked, is this late insult to our Church to be attributed ? I answer, without hesitation, to the legislation of the last twenty years, the whole tendency of which has been to break down the barriers against Rome ; and, especially, to that system of favour and encourage- ment which has been, of late years, pursued with regard to Romish Bishops and the Roman Church, in Ireland and the Colonies, Looking calmly at the course which our Legislation has taken during the period I have named, my only wonder is, that the attack we complain of, has been delayed so long. When the Pope saw that the intruding prelates in Ireland were received by Lord Clarendon as peers ; that their processions through the streets, with the ensigns of their worship, their Pontifical robes, mitres, and crosses, were permitted by the Govern- ment ; when he learnt that an English Secretary of State, had dared to give to Popish Bishops in the Colonies, rank, equal to that enjoyed by the Prelates of the Reformed Catholic Church in those lands ; nay, in some cases, precedence before them ; when he perceived that Romanists were raised to the Council Chamber of our Gracious Sovereign ; to high places of trust and power ; one of whom, a nominee of the present Government, actually omitted from the new coinage which he issued, the Queen's title, "By God's grace. Defender of the Faith;" when he saw all this, and much more, 24 which time will not allow me now to catalogue, how could he fail to think, that, in sending a dozen of his Titulars into England, and dividing this portion of the realm, like Ireland, into Papal Dioceses, he was taking a measure which would be most grateful to the Government, most consonant with their wishes, and one which would be thankfully received by them, as a consistent carrying out of their own long cherished policy ? How Lord John Russell could have persuaded himself that he had any just ground for being " indignant " at this measure passes my poor com- prehension. Indeed, I cannot help fancying that, when the words were penned, there was floating across his Lordship's mind, a kind of dim appre- hension that he would be accused of having paved the way for this aggression ; and, if the thought did sug- gest itself, surely it could not have been unac- companied by a vague consciousness that the charge would not be altogether without foundation. But the feeling that we have done wrong, and are likely to be pretty strongly reminded of it, is not a very pleasant one : far more agreeable is it to cast aside, if we can, all such thoughts, and to persuade our- selves that others, and not we, are really in fault after all. I am disposed to think that Lord John's charges against the High Church party — for, whilst ostensibly attacking only men of ultra views, his letter has the effect of casting an imputation upon all — are the result of some such process as this. And, such being my opinion, I shall not recriminate, and call his Lordship's an "insidious course," nor 25 even an adroit stratagem. But, be it which it may, the people of England, I trust, will see through it, and will not suffer even a Prime Minister, either purposely or unintentionally, to throw dust into their eyes, and to make his own escape, under cover of the temporary obscuration of their vision. How great soever be their admiration of the commanding talents of the man ; whatever opinion they may form of the sagacity of the statesman : — I do not believe that they will consider either his theological attainments to be so profound, or his Churchman- ship so consistent, as to entitle him to pronounce ex cathedra on matters of the faith and ceremonial of their Church ; nor will they, T hope and pray, imitate him in accusing, or suspecting, as favourers of Popery, men who are, in truth, its only formida- ble foes ; and who, if I know them aright, are pre- pared to DIE, rather than embrace its errors, or yield to its Supremacy. VI. If, as I have said, the Bishop of Rome has been encouraged to commit his late act of schism, by the legislative enactments of the last twenty years ; and if, as I have also said, and will main- tain, the High Church party are the determined opponents of Romanism; we may naturally expect that the members of that party have been, during that period, straining every nerve to prevent the passing of these laws. Nor will that expectation be disappointed. For the sake of narrowing the limits of this enquiry, let us look for a moment at the votes of our own Diocesan, in the House of Lords. We shall find that he has been the unflinch- 26 ing and undaunted opponent of every, even the slightest, and most *' insidious," approach of Romanism. Sometimes single-handed, sometimes supported by a few, sometimes by many, he has ever stood in the breach against this dangerous foe ; and, in not a few instances, has been the very first to draw attention to dangers from this quarter, which had not been discovered, or even suspected, by other less keen-sighted, or less zealous, oppo- nents of Popery. (And he has done so, be it remembered, at a time when the general feeling amongst politicians was strongly in favour of con- cessions to Romanism) . For steadily pursuing this" course, he has been termed " factious," " in- tolerant," and "bigoted;" he has been accused of constantly introducing polemical matters into the House of Lords ; and that, by members of our pre- sent government, by colleagues of the very man, who now comes forward and tells the world, that he, forsooth, is "indignant" at the Roman Pre- late's late proceeding. And, I beHeve, I am right in stating, that, if the receiving and executing the late Bull be an offence against our present laws, it is so by virtue of a clause introduced into the Reli- gious Opinions Relief Bill, by the present Bishop of Exeter, and carried by him, in opposition to the efforts of Lord John Russell's government, backed by the influence of the Duke of Wellington. Nor is this all. Who was it that in 1831, 1833, 1837, and 1838, again and again, session after ses- sion, year after year, opposed the Irish Education Scheme, on the ground that its tendency was to 27 advance Popery in that unhappy land ? The Bishop of Exeter. Who was it, that on the 16th July, 1834, drew the attention of the House of Lords, to the danger- ous tendencies of Dens' Theology; and on the 11th August, 1835, offered a determined opposition to the Marriage Act for Ireland, because he saw that it would have the " effect of strengthening the power of the Roman Catholic Priesthood to make prose- lytes ; and that its necessary consequence would be to recognize, not merely the individual who per- formed the ceremony, but the Roman Catholic Marriage Law," with all its abuses, which he detailed ? Again, the Bishop of Exeter. Who was it, that, in 1838, originated a motion in the House of Lords, on the subject of the eleva- tion of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Malta, to a seat in the Supreme Council of that island ? Who was it that, in the same year, was accused by the Romanist Lord Shrewsbury, of " stirring up bitter animosities against Romanism," and of representing facts in such a light that, " unfortunately, they always tell against us ; all place Roman Catholics in the most odious light"? The Bishop of Exeter. Who was it that, in the same year, vigorously opposed the Confiscation of the lands reserved for the Clergy in Canada, and the application of them in aid of Romanism ? Who was it that, on the 30th April, 1 839, when a noble Lord (a member, if my memory does not fail me, of her Majesty's present "indignant" Government) spoke of Popery as being the established religion of Malta, emphati- 28 cally protested against the use of such language, and expressed his earnest hope that that corrupt Church would never obtain ascendancy, or establish- ment, in any part of her Majesty's dominions ? The Bishop of Exeter. Who was it that, on the 4th June, 1840, and again, on the 4th March, 1841, opposed the Incor- poration, by her Majesty's Government, of the College of St. Sulpice, founded in Canada, for the purpose of instructing youth in the pernicious tenets of Popery ? ^ Who was it that, on the 18th February, 1842, complained of the undue favour and privileges granted to Roman Catholic Chaplains of Poor Law Unions in Ireland; and on the 8th July, 1844, drew attention to a clause in the Charitable Bequests Act, which, in effect, gave the Pope judicial authority in the Realm, by allowing him to decide on the lega- lity, &c., of wills ? Once more, the Bishop of Exeter. Who was it that, on the 3rd June, 1845, vigorously opposed the grant to the Popish College of Maynooth; and, on the 17th February, 1848, moved that the Bill for establishing diplomatic relations with Rome be read that day six months, and rebuked the Minister (one of Lord John's present colleagues, by the way) who had ventured, in a Bill laid before a British Parliament, to style the Bishop of Rome " Sovereign Pontiff " '? Who characterized the Bill as " a measure fraught with 9 It was on this occasion, if I mistake not, that the Bishop most strongly protested against the Title of "Bishop of Quebec," as applied by a member of the Government to the Roman Catholic intruding Prelate. 29 danger, scandal, and alarai of every kind"; and, speaking of a Papal Nuntio being sent to England, asked (with reference, I suppose, to the dress worn by Cardinals), " Are we to see Rome again raise her scarlet head at St. James's"? The Bishop of Exeter. When the Religious Opinions Relief Bill was introduced into the House of Lords (a Bill one of the objects of which was to repeal some of the laws against Popery), who moved that questions should be proposed to the twelve Judges of the realm, as to whether, or net, it was an offence to bring in, or execute. Bulls, instruments, or writings, from the See of Rome ? Who spoke of that Bill in the following terms ? "A more dangerous and a more unconstitutional policy has never been proposed, . I have no hesitation in saying that I do not believe it possible to devise any law, that shall make the introduction of Bulls, generally, free from penal consequences, without an effect injurious to the safety and welfare of the community." Who said to the Minister that brought in this Bill, and by his influence urged it on, " You will be respon- sible to the present generation, to posterity, and to a higher tribunal than that of man, if the con- sequences prove to be of that disastrous nature, which, from my heart, I believe they will be " ? Again, the Bishop of Exeter. And who supported all these measures? The very man who now tells us how " indignant " he is at beholding their fruit ; and who presumes to call a large body of the Clergy — for, of course, he means 30 the High Church party generally — " unworthy sons of the Church." Comment from me upon these facts were super- fluous : I will only add on this subject one remark. The Bishop of Exeter is spoken evil against by ultra-Protestants and latitudinarians from John o' Groat's to Land's End, as being the leader of the '* insidious " High Churchmen, and a favourer of Popery : — Lord John Russell I should consider an average specimen of a " good sound Protestant:" consider their acts: "look on this picture and on that," and then say which of the two is the Pope's best friend ? Vn. And now, Sir, I am sanguine enough' to hope, that I may have succeeded in convincing you that the Bishop of Rome's late aggression on the rights of the Church of England, is not attributable to the spread of High Church principles ; that, on the contrary, those principles are entirely opposed TO Popery ; and that, therefore, the holders of them are not to be held up to public scorn and odium, but are entitled to the co-operation and support of all well-wishers of our Church. It is indeed to be hoped, that the blow, which the Great Head of the Church has been pleased to suffer a foreign Prelate to aim against us, may have the effect of uniting us more and more together, and of teaching us forget- fulness of party animosities. But whether this be so, or not ; whether you will work with us, or revile us, we shall pursue the even tenour of our way, undaunted and unchanged ; as we have borne up against greater dangers than these — against the 31 State, a far more dangerous foe than the Pope — so shall we still strive for the truth, and earnestly contend for the Faith. But in this contest, we shall employ no unhallowed weapons ; we shall pander to no unholy passions. High Churchmen, I hope and beheve, will not injure the cause of the Reformation — which is that of^ Catholic Truth — by making crude and hasty statements, which cannot be substantiated ; or by joining in noisy clamour and violent language, which can only serve to dis- gust those who wish to act with temperance, sober- ness, and Christian charity. The Clergy will continue calmly and plainly to teach their people the real ground of complaint against Rome ; they will temperately, but firmly, prove that she has cor- rupted the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and, on her own authority, introduced false and dangerous novelties, both of doctrine and practice. And faith- ful Churchmen, whether of the Clergy or Laity, will not, I hope, be weak enough to join with Dissenters, in an empty " No-Poperj'^ " ciy ; or to make com- mon cause against Rome with those, who, in all respects, are the violent opponents of Catholic Truth, and the Catholic Church in this land. On the contrary, they will remember that she, " w^ho has done them this dishonour," is a Branch of Christ's One Holy Church, though a most corrupt one ; and, therefore, on Church grounds, and those exclu- sively, they will deal with her. They will appeal — not to their own private notions of Bible truth — but to that interpretation of the pure Word of God, which was handed down by the Saints and Martyrs 32 of the olden time, whose sound went out into all lands ; the interpretation which the Holy Church, East and West, received when they were yet one ; and which, therefore, we know to be the eternal truth of God. They will appeal to the voice of that Universal Church, speaking in her CEcumenical Assemblies ; and, guided by that interpretation, and cheered and supported by that voice, they will be enabled to make good their own Church's cause against the enemy who has now assailed her ; and they will have grace and strength, we humbly trust, to hand down unto their children's children the pure Faith, which they have themselves received. And, if they are still spoken evil of and reviled, as they have been, and are falsely accused as fa- vourers of Popery, God grant that they may bear this Cross (sharp though it be) with perfect submis- sion to His will, giving way to no fretfulness or murmuring, but in patience possessing their souls. Nor will they fail earnestly to pray that God's mercy may be shewed unto the Church of Rome also ; that she may put away all her corruptions, and return to the purity of truth from which she has so widely strayed ; so that we may once more be WHAT, TILL SHE IS REFORMED, WE NEVER CAN BE — one Fold under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ, her Head and ours. I have the honour to be, Sir, with much respect. Your obedient, humble Servant, JOHN INGLE. POLLARD, Printer, Exeter.] ^^rk-^^ ■.v?r%