M

erew€

^iKer

^

Vj

n_
1939 115

ON
TRADITION AND EPISCOPACY.

I?55

EAXTEK, PKINTEB, OXFORD.

STRICTURES

ON

THE FOUR SERMONS

ON

TRADITION AND EPISCOPACY,
PREACHED IN THE
TEMPLE CHURCH,
BY THE REV. CHRISTOPHER BENSON,
MASTER.

BY THE

REV. FRANCIS MEREWETHER, M.A.
RECTOR OF COLE ORTON.

AflOSTOAIKON S= ol/xai, xai to Tal; ocygapoig Tragaioiretrt
•KUPafj-sveiV. S. Basilius de Splritu Saneto, xxix. 71.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER ;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1839.

The following pages were originally in
tended to appear as a Review. But further
consideration and the judgment of valued
friends have determined the Author to put
them forward with his name. This method
seemed at once the more respectful to Mr.
Benson himself, and the more satisfactory to
the reader, as affording him, in a humble
way, the opinion and testimony of a witness
altogether independent of that Theological
School, against which Mr. Benson's Sermons
are directed. In these times this latter consi
deration is one of no mean importance. While
however the method of publication has been
changed, it has not been thought well to alter
the form into which the Strictures were ori
ginally cast : and this for more than one
reason. The way in which the thoughts first
naturally rose in the Author's mind will,
doubtless, be the best way wherein to present
them to the reader's mind. But more than
this — the shape and diction of a Review,
beyond all other forms of writing, admit best

the absence of all personal allusion or direct
address ; and this the Author is especially
anxious in the present case to avoid, as well
from his respect to Mr. Benson's ofl&ce and
theological attainments, as from the more
intimate remembrance of personal intercourse
with him both at school and in after life.

FRANCIS MEREWETHER.

Cole Orton Rectory,
December, 1839.

ON
TRADITION AND EPISCOPACY.

The Master of the Temple cannot speak or
write in vain. His words cannot fall to the ground
powerless. Even if his present position, and the
manner in which he sustains its duties, admitted of
it; the Hulsean Lectures of 1820 and 1822, would at
once forbid it. Still less can his pulpit exhortations
fail of attracting considerable interest, when, as in
the case of the Sermons now before us, he can
inform his readers, that these " Discourses are now
published at the request of those Benchers of the
Inner Temple who heard them."
Thoughts of this kind, we doubt not, presented
themselves successively more or less to the learned
Writer himself, as he by turns came to the deter
mination of writing, preaching, and publishing the
Sermons before us. They were not presented
either to his congregation or the public without
many " searchings of heart." He felt assured that
they could not be of negative character or influence.
And when his judgment came by its several pro-

cesses to the respective determinations of writing,
preaching, and printing ; we have no doubt what
ever, that in every stage of his deliberations, he
acted on a persuasion that something like a dispens
ation was committed to him : and that it behoved
him to lift up a warning voice to his learned hearers
against a cast of sentiment, and a collection of
opinions, which was undermining in his judgment
the groundwork of Scriptural Truth, or if not
that, at least of pressing points to an importance,
which Scripture either did not justify, or positively
forbad. Having said thus much for Mr. Benson, let us
now say a few words for ourselves. We lament
unaffectedly, that these Sermons, coming from the
pen of the Master of the Temple, were written,
preached, printed, and published. We lament it
for the sake of the writer ; for the learned body's
sake, to whom they were addressed; and (according
to the best and most reflecting conceptions we can
form) for the truth's sake. The grounds of this
regret it will be the purpose of the present Article
to unfold. What we say will be with unfeigned
respect for the personal as well as official weight
of Mr. Benson. Yet separating for a moment the
preaching from the publication, we question whether
the same feeling quite abides with the readers, that
attended the hearers, of these Sermons. Rather
we should not be very much surprised, if some
diflPerence from their former state of opinion now

exists in the minds of the very persons, to whom it
appears Mr. Benson " returns his thanks for the
kind manner in which the request (of publication)
was made." An illustration of what is here meant
will be brought forward in the sequel.
Of these four Sermons, the second on " the True
Honour of the Clergy," and the fourth, on " the
Apostolical Origin of Episcopacy," will be soon
disposed of. From the former indeed, the upholders
of the opinions which the Sermon is meant to
contravene may take a useful and improving
lesson. Whatever degree of truth or falsehood
may belong to the opinions Mr. Benson is im
pugning ; one evil, not at all affecting their truth,
and not essential, is yet accidental to them. It is
this. The " transcendental" claims to the dig
nities of the Priesthood, as Dr. Chalmers would
call them, are trying to the humility of those who
hold them, in conjunction with the office of the
Ministry. In magnifying the office, it is not
always an easy task to keep down the person.
But this, after all, may be one of the trials to
which a heart-searching God may design to subject
those who " have this treasure in earthen vessels."
At any rate, it leaves the truth of these opinions
where it was. Yet at the same time, as holders of
the Clerical office, we cannot but thank Mr. Benson
for awakening (as we think the Sermon, attentively
read, must awaken) in the Clerical maintainers of
Ministerial dignity, a feeling which can never be

10
too often stirred in every breast, and in none
perhaps on every account more beneficially than
that of the Christian Minister — humility.
But yet, in point of argument, what does this
Sermon amount to ? Mr. Benson's leading com
plaint in this Discourse is of the " vague, myste
rious, undefined" way in which the prerogatives of
the Christian Ministry are stated ; and he urges,
that if such claims are put forth, " the clearest and
plainest information" should be given on such " a
subject." But, whatever the Tract writers may do,
what can be less " vague, mysterious, or undefined,"
(coming, that is, from Infinite wisdom and power,
for else indeed they would be at least unfathomably
" mysterious,") or more " clear and plain," than the
following words in Scripture, from the mouth of our
Divine Redeemer Himself? " Whose soever sins
ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained." We really
think these words are at once an answer to Mr.
Benson's complaint. For they must mean something.
Is any thing short of their literal meaning, the
true one ? Were they addressed solely to the
Apostles ? Was there not like need to those who
should live after the Apostles, " even to the end of
the world," of the like power of conveying inward
consolation, which they were thus commissioned to
impart ? To the answer which we doubt not Mr.
Benson would be ready to give in common with
every reflecting reader, much more every well-

11
informed Minister, it is no objection to rejoin :
Yes: but the Apostles were discerners of spirits.
This has nothing to do with it. Our own Church,
in her most frequently used form of Absolution, says
it has nothing to do with it. What the Christian
confessing his sins either publicly or privately,
generally or minutely, before the Minister, chooses
in this way to impart, is voluntary ; he is before
the Searcher of hearts as well as before his Minister :
while his conscience remains (to himself), is it not
his own ? But if professing to confess and open his
grief, he "keeps back" nothing, and the case
thus opened admits of absolution, then it is plenary,
and the Minister its instrument. It is registered
and recorded on high. And why? Not because
the Minister says so : but because, if it is honest,
full, and unreserved, and, we believe we may add,
in proportion as it is honest, full, and unreserved,
Christ, the Divine Head of the Church, has said so.
The phrase of being " entrusted with the keys of
heaven and hell," is objected to : but if He, who
we know (Matt. xvi. 19. Rev. i. 18.) has them,
sees fit in his wisdom to hand them on to others ;
it is not man's presumption, but God's command,
and man's submission to it, which dutifully and
reverently takes up and maintains this trust.
We said that we should be short on this Dis
course. But there is another expression of the
Tract writers objected to, the consideration of
which, together with what has been already ad-

12
vanced, will involve all that seems to be required
on the argument of the Sermon under notice.
It is that " of making the bread and wine Christ's
Body and Blood." Now, here again, " to the Law
and to the Testimony" must be our appeal. What
says the Divine Saviour of mankind ? " Do this in
remembrance of me." Do what ? Take bread and
wine in your hands, and call it, (rather say it is,)
and by so saying make it, my Body and Blood ".
Was it such before taking it sacramentally into
your hands ? No. What is here then but " making,"
not by man's wisdom and power, but under Divine
appointment, " the bread and wine Christ's Body
and Blood?" We are told by the Oxford Tract
writers, that this is primitive language ; the lan
guage of the Fathers. None the better for that, in
Mr. Benson's opinion. In ours it is. But whether
so or not, those who defend it do it not as a matter
of individual choice and fancy, but as a sentiment
imposed on their consciences by their view of the
words of their Master and Lord. We have not a
word more to say on the subject ".
* Corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo.
Tertullianus adversus Marcionem, p. 458. Lut. Par. 1664.
'¦ Before quitting this Sermon, we are constrained to notice
here the note, (at p. 102 — 5.) on pages 40, 41, 42. We do
lament such language from such a quarter. The paragraph
beginning, " But what.? Are not the Scriptures open to all }"
we believe to be hardly, if at all, reconcileable with the spirit
and intent of our daily form of Absolution. The distinction
drawn as to " the mental, and moral, and religious qualifications

13
We pass now as briefly as we can to the fourth
Sermon, on " the Apostolical Origin of Episcopacy."
The general statement of the Scripture testimony
on this subject is fairly, candidly, and discerningly
made; although we are of opinion, that the preacher
has leant strongly against the probabilities of the
case in supposing that the appointment of Timothy
and Titus, to what we now call Episcopal functions,
was rather temporary, than their command to supply
St. Paul's place at Ephesus, as in the case of
Timothy; and to attend St. Paul at Nicopolis, as
in the case of Titus. We think just the contrary;
we think the probabilities lie directly the other
way. As to what Mr. Benson says in his note, on
2 Timothy iv. 2 — 5. " Preach the word, &c ;" that
of the Minister consulted," we consider to be one of Mr. Benson's
own making, not belonging to his Church. Upon the hypo
thesis, " if the Clergyman be one who is accustomed and com
petent to judge in cases of conscience," we cannot quite sup
press our feelings. What right has Mr. Benson, (we say this
with respect ; in sorrow, rather than in anger,) to suppose
that the great body of the English Clergy are not as " competent
to judge of cases of conscience" as he is ? They may want
his learning, as doubtless a vast proportion do. They may
want his warmth of piety, his delicate touches, to which the
human heart vibrates. But for practical insight into the work
ings of conscience, and for nice judgment in dealing out the
fit measure of spiritual comfort, they are very probably full as
competent as he is. Neither do we envy the temper of the
writer towards his brethren, whilst he refers so pointedly to
the phrase " godly Minister." The Church of England, his
mother, doubts not, till it is disproved, the godliness of any
of her Ministers. She, in the " charity" which she prays for,
" hopeth all things."

14
these directions relate rather to the functions of an
Evangelist, than of a Bishop, it does not at all
follow, nor is it in any degree probable, that
because St. Paul touches on certain branches of the
Episcopal office, (amongst which we believe Mr.
Benson would be amongst the last to deny a
place to that of Preaching,) therefore he meant to
exclude others ; — and the word " watch," in the
5th verse, seems to have a very cogent reference to
the nature of the Episcopal trust. But we will cut
this argument short, by simply, yet respectfully,
asking Mr. Benson one question : Does he really
think that Timothy and Titus were not (to use his
own word) " permanent" Bishops of Ephesus and
Crete respectively ? If he does so think, he thinks
in opposition to all authentic history, (we will not
use the ugly word Tradition,) and against the
judgment of the most diligent and clear-sighted
examiners of Christian antiquity.
The highest praise that can be assigned to Mr.
Benson in his summary of New Testament evidence
on the point of Episcopacy is, that he has not ove7'-
stated it. This is certainly candid. But, on the
other hand, there is a want of warmth of colouring,
which we maintain belongs in truth to the subject
of his pencil ; and a deadness to those " evidences,"
which (however Mr. B. objects to the phrase, we will
venture to adopt it from Mr. Oakeley) " require for
their effect that kind of sympathy and aptness on the
part of the receivers, which would commonly, and

15
not unnaturally, be regarded as an undue prejudice,
and unworthy deference :" but which we will add
for Mr. Oakeley, when weighed in the balance of
sound sense and judgment, is not undue prejudice and
unworthy deference, but right reason and legitimate
respect. In other words, Mr. Benson's statement is
wanting in discernment of what has been happily
called the Apostolic rjOos. But, not attempting to
carry Mr. Benson up to this height, rather de
scending to his level, which he would call that of
truth and soberness ; we affirm that his statement
wants the stamp of cotemporaneous history. And
is not the question of Episcopacy a matter of history 1
Consult Ignatius : consult Irenseus : consult Euse-
bius : with all that they say both on the office and
succession of Bishops ; and then say, whether the
contents and nature of these writings are not such,
as to supply all that can be reasonably held wanting,
if any thing is wanting, to establish the only safe and
sound construction of New Testament evidence on
this subject, viz. in proof of Episcopacy, not only
as the Apostolical, but as the only certain mode
handed down to us of governing Christ's Church ?
Why therefore should Mr. Benson be so shy of
adding primitive history by way of interpretation
(if, and as far as, such be wanted) to Scripture
record ? Should these pages fall under Mr. Benson's
eye, we request his attention to the following illus
tration, not indeed for his own sake, (for to him
surely it is unnecessary,) but for those who have

16
spoken and written less thoughtfully than he has.
Let us suppose a person to have left to Mr. Benson
an estate, (and what is eternal life, but an " inherit
ance" indeed ?) on terms which he has commissioned
a chosen number of persons to explain, and those
persons to be succeeded by other explainers, even
until the estate merged in perpetuity, without
farther obligations, to those who were for ever to
enjoy it. Supposing one or more of this first race
of expounders to divide those so expounding into
three classes, placing at certain intervals of space
one of the three ranks at the head of the other two,
for direction and management ; without distinctly
specifying (for we will suppose this for argument's
sake) whether such direction was to be occasional
or permanent, till the object of the will was merged
as above stated. Suppose farther, that, in point of
fact, this head person over the other two was con
tinued downwards, in the stream of time, so that
the time never was when he wa3 found not to exist
in this character ? Would not Mr. Benson think it
a very ungracious, and as untrue as ungracious,
an act in his great-grandchildren, or three or four
generations after them, to question the authority of
this uppermost individual of the three ranks in
connection with the original bequest ? Might there
not even be reasonable doubt whether the very
validity of the tenure was not shaken ? We need
not wait for Mr. Benson's answer. Neither need we
ask his assent, and perhaps not of his readers, to

17
the farther question ; whether this be not a plain
matter of fact statement of the genuine testimony
in favour of Episcopacy ?
One word as to the last Note but one (p. 107— 9.) in
the volume. It is asked, what becomes of the validity
of lay baptism, if " there is no promise from Christ
that a person not commissioned from the Bishop
should admit souls into the kingdom of Heaven ?"
But the answer is ready, that there is a wide differ
ence between admission on the part of the Church
in cases of necessity, and any actual scriptural
warrant for such admission : neither are we aware
of any " cases" in which our Church has formally
" allowed" the practice. This reasoning too of
Mr. Benson's would be equally against Infant Bap
tism. As to the wish expressed at the close of the
Note, that "it would have been gratifying," that
the Presbyterians of our own island, who have
formally recognized Presbyterian Ordination, should
be viewed in the same light as the Lutherans who
have not ; this might indeed be " gratifying ;" but
the more important, or rather the only, question is,
whether it would be as agreeable to the spirit of
Revealed Truth, and Apostolical Practice ?
Before closing these remarks on the subject of
Episcopacy, it may be worth while to consider one
proof in its favour, derived from another point yet
remaining to be considered — Apostolical Succes
sion. Our Lord having declared that he would be
with the Apostles (and therefore as, together with

18
Mr. Benson, we infer, with their successors in the
Ministry) " even unto the end of the world ;" it is
practically a question of some moment, how far the
Presbyterian mode of transmitting this succession
can be viewed as a safe one ? This has been handled
as follows "=: — " A practical instance of the mischief
of rejecting Episcopacy has lately fallen under the
writer's notice, too home to the point to be omitted.
A Wesleyan Minister, Mr. Thomas Powell, has
lately published in octavo ' An Essay on Apostolical
Succession;' (he should have said Episcopal; for
three-fourths of his book are on Episcopacy, not on
Succession ;) and in virtue of his main position,
that Bishops and Presbyters, such as we now have,
were from the beginning one Order, (a point he has
not proved, nor any thing like it,) he claims for the
Wesleyan Ministers the title of a valid Ministry; as
he has clearly a right to do if, and as far as, Pres
byterian Ordinations are safe and valid ; inasmuch
as John Wesley, the fountain from whence their
Ordinations proceeded, was himself a Presbyter.
But mark the practical consequences. The Wes
leyan Ministers are thus, by one bold assumption,
" Note (p. 20.) to Merewether's " Sermon on Apostolical
Succession, preached at Broadstairs, 1839." Rivingtons. The
Writer has here and elsewhere reluctantly quoted himself: but
he has done so, partly because he can find no other words,
wherein to express the same sentiments ; and partly, because
he thinks it respectful to Mr. Benson, to shew that these
thoughts had presented themselves to his mind, before he was
aware of Mr. Benson's publication.

19
pronounced to be valid, sufficient Ministers, ac
cording to the will of Christ, and the practice of
his Apostles. It is known that the Primitive
Methodists are an off-shoot from the Wesleyans.
There can be little doubt, that some of their
teachers were either ordained by Wesleyan Min
isters, or were themselves such : if so, their power
of Ordination goes down and down and down, till it
reaches assuredly (to adopt the Scripture phrase)
* the lowest of the people.' But take it the other
way, that they were not so ordained. However the
scale of education amongst the Wesleyan Preachers
may be raised, as it doubtless is ; it yet still remains
such, comparatively at least, as to give for the most
part a very insufficient impression of the qualifica
tions in point of learning necessary for a Christian
teacher : and so has a tendency to encourage the
very lowest aspirants, if they have but what is
called piety, to lay claim to this office. The
writer concludes this note with two lines only,
apposite to the subject, from that master of the
human heart, Shakespeare, from whom the highest
oi human sentiments need not disdain to seek illus
tration. ' Take but degree away, untune that string,
And hark ! what discord follows !'
Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida.'"
To these remarks we will only add, that as in
a future stage of our remarks it will be found we
have objected to ihe a priori argument of Mr. Benson
b2

20
on Ministerial Succession; so we think that, assum
ing this succession which will be proved presently,
the following a posteriori argument grows out of it
in favour of Episcopacy : viz. that the transmission
of succession through Presbyterian channels renders
it a very unsafe mode of communicating any thing
so partaking of spiritual dignity, as the Christian
Ministry. The accession of Establishment to such
transmission we throw out of the argument as ad
ventitious. And taking Presbyterian Ordinations
without this addition, of which, perhaps, the Wes
leyan designations are the fairest specimens ; we
believe the very existence and proof of such a
regular transmission to be rendered in the highest
degree doubtful and precarious. Where Presby-
terianism, indeed, is legally established, this may
give it a dignity that may secure it from hazards
of this sort. But is it not manifest, that if the most
is now made of the pretended (not real) obscurity
belonging to Episcopal Succession, this doubt would
be infinitely increased, where from a lower and
larger source 6f succession, the powers of conveying
it would be so much more widely spread ? So much
for the fourth Sermon. On the incompatibility of
Presbyterian Ordination with our 23d Article, see
some admirable remarks in Keble on Tradition,
third edition, p. 97, 8.
We now invite attention to the two Sermons best
calculated to probe the question between Mr. Ben
son and those whose views he opposes ; viz. the

21
first and third of this collection; beginning with
the first on "the Scriptures and the Fathers." The
very title indicates something like a sifting of the
question. On the first thirteen pages we have
nothing to remark, excepting that we cannot agree
to the " certainty" maintained by Mr. Benson,
" that the Ministers of the Gospel are allowed the
privilege of forming their own opinion upon what
their Church requires them to teach as a portion
of God's word, and are solemnly bound to act upon
the opinion they have deliberately formed ;" unless
it be accompanied with the admission, that if their
opinion differs in essentials from that required by their
Church, they must quit both Ministry and Member
ship in it : — nor can we allow " their persuasion (in
that case) to be the rule of their conduct as reli
gious instructors" in that Communion, because they
must on that assumption cease to be instructors in
iti But at the top of page 14, the following para
graph appears, which we consider (it is not too
strong a phrase) poisons the whole discourse, and
as such, if we are not mistaken, calls for our atten
tion, and that of our readers. — " It may be ob
served then, in the first place, that all the discourage
ments and difficulties which beset the Christian in
forming his judgment upon the meaning of God's
revelation, apply with equal strength to any attempt
to draw out the testimony of Catholic tradition
as conveyed to us in the writings of the Fathers of
the Church." — Now we can sincerely say, it is

22
with pain we utter a word of difference with such a
man as Mr. Benson : but our views of truth compel
us to state, that the precise contradictory of the
affirmation here made expresses our belief. We
believe that the meaning of God's revelation is
sometimes held doubtful, because many various
interpretations are given of it : but that Catholic
testimony is clear and unequivocal, and nothing
short of matter of fact, notwithstanding Mr. Ben
son's assertion to the contrary. In order at once to
substantiate our assertion, and make our meaning
clear, we have prepared the following Table,
enumerating passages from Fathers down to the
fourth century, on four leading tenets of Catholic
Christianity : which either in most cases singly,
or in all cases (as regards each writer) collectively,
are as clear to any common understanding, or ordi
nary judgment, as any fact can be : to use Mr.
Benson's phrase, (p. 110.) " as if it had been written
with a sun-beam." We subjoin to the Table the
editions from which the references are collected,
and in a few prominent instances give the writer's
very words, and then leave our readers to judge,
after consulting the places, of. the truth or falsehood
of our assertion.

23

Tun-fold Nature
of C/irist,

lONATIUS, ed.
Amst. 1646. p. ] ,
2,4,12»,21l«,27,28<:, 29, 34, 50,
51, 57, 60, 61.
at fi/Mct c^arif, tov
a9ot0n, TO* J/ fi/jtoie
ireiSyiro*. Pol. 3.
KywriTOS, iv 9'cegxf
7. ** ©My avS^iwri-
V6IS ^avt^ovfiivotf
Eph. 19.

Justin Mar
tyr, Apologia
prima ed. Oxon.
1700, p. 24, 44'>,
66, 121, 123*,
Apologia 2d. ed.
Oxon. 1703. p. 34,
35. t* Hint ir«^ Tttv
KOtvht yivlfftv ylyl-
fnff^at aorhv ix. &to5
Xiyofisv y.iyav @iov.
Apol. i. 22.
^ ts xeti Xeyet
r^atraroicos ovv tou
X'T. Apol. i. 63.

Irenaeus, ed. Lut,
Par. 1639. p. 214,
251, 284f, 2878,
290 h, 295, 461'.
' u fch evnivuSri
evx av ii&vvviiln fit-
vaff^uv T^s ot<pda^-
a'ms. Hser. iii. 18.
§•7- B Ipse proprie
praeter omnes, qui
fuerunt tunc ho
mines, Deus, et
Dominus, et Rex
setemus, et Uni-
genitus,etVerbum Incarnatum prae-

St. Jolm ill. 3—5.

Editions as before.

Justin Mar
tyr, Apologia
prima, p. 116".
" 'AyonTai 'iv$a
uZaiQ Iffvi. xa.) r^a-
Tov avKyivv^trsais ¦
Sv xiei fifioets auToi
untyivvvtffnfjctv, attt-
ywmrcu. Apol. i.
61.

Ibbn^us, p.
106 b, 191 c^ 286 ¦!.
TOf Ttis tU 0E^ytzy«
ytvvftrius- Hser. i.
21. §. 1.
^ Omnes, qui
per eum renas-
cuntur (i. e. bap-
tizantur. vide in
fra) in Deum.
Har. ii. 22. §. 4.
<! Potestatem
rcge^ierationis in
Deum dans dis-
cipulis, dicebat
eis ; Euntes, do-
cete omnes gentes

jipplication of St.
Jo/m vi. 53—66. to
ttie Lord's Supper.

Episcopact).

lONATlus, pas
sim, but especially
p. 6, 7, 10, 17,
19, .31, 32, 33, 37,
38,39, 40, 41,43a,
45, 47, 48", 50,
53. ^ T^ itmrxv'ra
T^otn^ers xa) .ru
'!r^iff^VTi^ioji xeu S/a -
Kovats. Vhil. 7.
'* Tobs^taxavovs —
fl-ov i^iffxavav — ^ rovs
Ss venter {ivTS^ous —
«. ./ X. X^V^ roV'
Tttiv ixxXtiffta oil xrc
^iTrxt Trail. 3.

lREN/EU8,p.232,
233, 381.

24

Two-fold Natare
of Christ.
dicatur. Heer. iii.
19- §• 2. ^
b 0 ©BOS ovu ccy-
P^aivof iyivlTO
Haer. iii. 21. §. 1.
* Quomodo homo ,
et quomodo Deus.
Theophilus Antiochen.
(at the end of Jus
tin Martyr.) Co-
loni£e,1686.p.l00. Tatianus, ed.
Oxon. 1700.p.22,
54 k, 77.
'' lav vrtvovSores
0Bfly.*Contr.GrEec.33 fin.

ClemensAlex-ANDRINUfi, ed.
Basil. 15G6. p.7^,
34'", 42, 47, 55,
57, 60", 298,301,
339. ^ I'Ztipa.vtj av^^eu
'ffoii avros cvreg o
Aoyos 0 fiovo; afA<pa/
&£os Ts KXi avSpa-
vros- Protrept.p.7.
Potter. Oxon.
1715.&£&)' •iriffTBtitrov etv
Ppa'S'l. TCfl 'JtCC^OVTI
xa) 'n ^orKVvou(/.iva)
0£ai Z,uvrt' TTlirTiv-
cari ol devXot too
VlX^Cf- 'ffU.VTlS XV-
^^aitrot •JTierTZva'ari
fjLova) T6)v 'Travie^v
avd^uxmy ©i^ Pro-
trept. X. §. 107.
p. 84. Potter.
" TOV 0SOV TOV
Koycv TOV 5/ hfd,as
civS^uotov yivofitsvov.
Psedag. i. 5. fin.
p. 112. Potter.

St. John iii. 3—5.

haptizantes,, SfC.
Hser. iii. 17- §. 1.
(vide supra.)

Theophilus Antiochen. p. 95.

ClemensAlex-
ANDRINUS. p.
216% 217^ 250.
^ avathv oZv o vd
fio? T«v uvtzyivwiffiv
V\fjLCt)V ^^0<p7}T£UtUV ,
ois^ ffa^KtxTH ysvs-
ffims . Itt) Tti yivvt}-
Tt»^ TOU ff-TTi^ftaTOS
wgoff-sips^e TO (id-r-
Titr^a. Strom, iii.
p. 549. Potter.
* XOti fiOl toKBl
auTOs ouTo; 'ffXa.tra.t
fAiv TOV civS^&i'^ev Ix
X^os' avayivvT^ffcti
di voctTt' ttv^ritrcct Se
•jrvivfictUTi 0 'ffa!h(t-
ycoytierai oi p^f^ecTt.
P^edag. i. 12. p.
15G. Potter.

Ajyplicatimi of St.
John vi. 53 — 66. to
tfie Lord's Slipper.

Episcopacy.

ClemensAlex-
ANDRINUS, p.
126^221, 309d.
xa/j ^^iir^tfTtpois ,
a/ 5s WicrxoTTOls ««-
xovots .xXXai^^^tkigt
Peed. iii. 12. 309.
Potter. *1 eet IvTxv^u Kcc-
TO. T7]v ixxXntrtav
^^oxoirot), Itrta-xo-
ffaiV, fT^ElTjSl'Tt^A'y,
5iixx«y&f> fjt.i[it,4ifj!.a,rai,
eifAOt ayyiXix7}s oi-
^7)s. Strom, vi.

25

Two-fold Nature
of Christ.
Tebiui-lianus,
ed. Lut.Par.1664.
p. 19, 20O, 140,
208, 221, 224,
295, 304, 357 P,
364, 389, 396,
424, 4251, 467.
" Deus est, et
DeiFilius,etunusambo. . . . nascitur
homo Deo mistus.
Apol. 21.
P Homo, etsi
Deus. de Res.
Cam. 51.
1 Deus homo
natus erat. Adv.
Marc. iv. 13.

Obigenes, ed.
Basil. 1571. vol. i.
p. 32, 56, 61, 75,
135, 244"=, 263,
292, 301 y, 342,
491,523,528,545,557,561,566,573,604, 626, 665,
670 », 697, 768,
768. ^» De Deitate
quidem ejus dicit,
Orietur steUa, de
humana vero na
tura, Et exurget
homo. In Num.
Horn, xviii. 4.
y Christum non
purura hominem
dicimus, sedDeum
et hominem con-
iitemur. In Jes.
A av. Horn. 7. fin.
* Aliud est in
Christo Deitatis
ejus natura, et
aliud humana. De
Princ. i. 2. init.
Vol. ii. p. 11,
32, 33,34,46,50,

St. John iii. 3—5.

TEIlTUI.t.IANUfl,
p. 224, 228, 229,
294, 295.

COMMODIANUS,
ed. (with Minu-
cius Felix.) Can
tab. 1712. p. 239.
ORIGENESjVol.i.
p. 186, 195, 257,
288,292,317,523,620, 638, 639,642.
Vol. ii. p. 59,
77,85,121,223-,
235,301,387,470, 481, 634, 543.
S Et quia per
baptismi sacra-
mentum nativita-
tis sordes depo-
nuntur, propterea
baptizanturetpar- vuli. Nisi enim
quis renatus, &c.
In Luc. Horn. 14.
p. 948.

Applicalio^i of St.
John vi. 53 — 56. to
tlie Lord's Svpj)er.

Teiiiullianus,
p. 131 ».
" Ego sum, in-
quit, panis vitse.
Et paulo supra.
Panis est sermo
Dei vivi, qui de-
scendit de ceeIo.
Turn quod et cor-
pu.s ejus in pane
censetur. Hoc est
corpus meum. De
Oral. 6.

Episcopacy.

Tebtullianus,
p. 217, 230, 415.

Obigenes, vol. i.
p. 184 = , 331, 466,
512, 531, 564,
603, 645.
" Ecce qualis
episcopus,aut qua
ils presbyter, vel
qualis diaconus.
In Num. Horn.
2. §. 1.
Vol. ii.- p. 27,
118 f, 119, 125
228,236,471,596. ' Et qui tales
diaeoni fieri vo-
lunt, consequentur
vlsibiles primas
oathedras eorum
qui dicuntur pres-
byteri prairipere
ambiunt. (^uidam
autem nee istis
contenti plurima
machinantur, ut
episcopi voeentur
ab hominihus. J/i
Matt. Tract. 23.
§. 12. p. 838.

26

Tim-fold Nature
of Christ.

66, 67, 77, 102,
114, 132 a, 150,
161, 166, 173,
180 h, 181, 229,
236,239,254,255,285, 301, 308=,
313,368,573,677. • Deificavit
quam susceperat
humanam natu-
ram. Tract, in
Matt. 27. §. 83.
•> Ut non arbi-
treris sicut quse-
dam haereses, ho
minem eum (Chri
stum) fuisse, sed
Deum veram hu
man! corporis su-
scepisse naturam.
Tract, in Matt.
35, §. 90.
^ 0 d\ tTQoffaya'
yar rovTOf riv
ctfAvov It) r«v Svviav,
o it Te^ av6^a>Ttf BV
©(«. In Joann.
Tom. vi. 35.
Cypbianus, ed.
Par.l632.p.l84',290. ' Nee Christi
fieri potuit tem-
plum, qui negat
Deum Christum.
Ep.73. adJvbaian.

EUSEBIUS Pam-
PHiLus Prsepara-
tio Evangelica, ed.
Par. 1628. p.2, 69,
95, 96, 236, 263,
632, 540, 549,
649 t.

St. Jofm iii. 3 — 5.

Af^licatioii of St.
Jo/m vi.53— 66. fo
the Lord's Supper.

Cypbianus, p.6,
118,180,184,187,
19411, 202', 203,
212,233,266,268,283,284,298,325,379. h Si autem in
lavacro, id est in
baptismo, est re-
generatio, quomo
do &c. Ep. 74. ed.
Pompeium. ' Secunda enim
nativitas, quEe est
in baptismo, Filios
Dei generat. ibid.
et jKzssim.
EUSEBIUS Pam-
PHiLusDem.Ev.
p. 65, 71,102,189,
323, 429.
Cont. Marc. p.
2, 9, 65, 173.

Cypbianus,
268, 379, 464.

Episcopacy.

p. Cypbianus, p.
19,55', 82, 171,
(succession) 172,
202, (ditto) 403,
(ditto). ^ Per temporum
et su- cessionum
vicesEpiscoporumordinatioetEccle-
siae ratio decurrit,
ut Ecclesia super
Episcopos consti-
tuatur. Ep. 27.

EusEBius, De-
monstratio Evan
gelica, p. 124.
Contra Marcel-
lum, p. 19, 26.

27

Two-fold Nature
of Christ.

DemonstratioE-
vangelica, ed. Par.
1628.p.l0,21,38, 81,86,88,95,102, 108,109,114,115, 124,130,135,134,137,139,141,1-46, 147,149,154,155,161,168,169,253,
257,258,278,279, 308,309,341,347, 352,379,388,416,421,427,433,436, 441,442,446,447,
451,459,461,462", 463, 500, 601.
Contra Hiero-
clem, ed. with
Dem. Et. as be
fore, p. 512.
Contra Mar-
cellum Ed. with
Dem. Ev. p. 4, 5,
7, 25, 27, 28, 33,
55,61,64,66,67,
69, 74, 75, 84, 85,
86, 87, 96, 98,
100,109,111,127,137, 148, 149.
Ecclesiastica
Historia, ed. Mo-
guntiee, 1672. p.5,
6, 10,14,35,105,
106,173,196,231,
375,424,503,577,581,591,597,620,
636,639,640,649, 650, 654, 664.
^ n»? fji.tv ya^
a^.n^ii; avS^anros
ivpxTo, !5*n oi ©ifly
Xdyos f]v n\ti6ris.
Prj p. Evang.xiii.
3 fin. " Tffi fjuv Kara
Ttlv fiiorriTa avrov,
TOL 3s xciTa Twv evav
i^u-rriin* i'jeifat7roLt
Dem. Evang. x.
procem.

St. John iii. 3 — 5.

Eccl. Hist. p.
264, 379, 695.

Application of St.
John vi. 53— 56. to
the Lord's Supper.

Episcopacy.

Ecclesiastica
Historia, p. 73,
86—91 s, 106—8,
116—128,141—4,146,15311,169,170,174, 186—191,
197, 202 — 212,
223, 224, 229—
234,241,242,244,247—262,261—3,269,277,278, 282
— 289,291 (succes-
sion)298,301,391,392, 466, 4!; 6,487.
i Where more
pages than one
are referred to
together, succes
sions of Bishops
are the subject
referred to.
'i TovTov\ "SafTti^et
'Evttrxotirov rtis 'Pw-
foatcifv ixKXtiirias]
ouoiKOoTo; a ve <ruv
'ATOffToXav 'EAeu-
^t^oi iiayi^STOn.
Hist. v. prooem.

28

Two^fold Nature
of Christ.

Athanasius,
ed. Colonic, 1686.
Vol. i. pa^ssim :
but especially p.
45, 63, 68, 69 d,
70,86e, 100, 101,
117,118,1 7l<',264,
3G7, 490 S, 497,
547 h, 625 J, 922 k.
'avff^uveov ftevtv, ^X-
Xk xa) ©Ml-. De
Incarn. V. D. ]6.
<rta/e T9U ©goy \o-
yov- ^ ^t7T% — 'hoKif/.tt,-
^u» xa) oiaKpivitv,
ir«Ti ^111 (Tf^i Tflf
ttoTfiTee TOU koyev
Xtyii. vroTt Se vrtp)
TUf av^pai^iya/v ah-
•rou. Ad Serap. ii.

St. John iii. 3—5.

yiyonv av&^aivos.
rri'ravTai tou tTvai
©f0f. ovSs iTtihh
&tos i&t). <pivyu TO
uvff^eo-jrivov .
^' OAavficvr^y av
S^uTov Tt xa) Qthv
•ficou. In Arian.
iv. 35.
' Kal ©I0f xa)
avff^ejiros iirT)v o
X^iffTog. Contr.
Apollin. i. 10, 11,
&c. ^ rtVVf)TOV aUTOV'
kiyuvha T«v trei^xa
i ya^ X^iVToe raQ^
lytvtTo- ayivvfiTov
Ol OTI fX,fl TUV TOIV
ftaruv xat yivvviTuv
iffT)v aXA* TVos %x
XiaTpos, De Synod.
A7.

vrfWfita TO
ayiov TO h^ofitvof
roif ^ttTTiuovri 5e
xyeiytwaifAtvots S/a
KovT^oZ vaXjyytv-
y%<nas. "^ "Sl^a yk^ av
Toiis vofii^tiv fivjTiv
uvai flfiSi T«V TOU
XouTpou ^*£/v, t^v
TiVEj TOVTOV xara
<P^0Vik/ffl " "O Si liav-Ti^e-
fAlvos TOV fAiv TaXai-
»v avrsxotovtrxiTai ¦
avaxaivi^tTat ^i us
avtu6iv yivvtjfftis Ttj
TOU wtuf^aTos ^a-
^ITI. avuhv l^ uhccros
xa) wiufX.ct.TOS ava-
ytVVfi6iVT%Si EV T^
XpiffTO^ TaVTlS ^u-
o^atovfAtSa. Contr.
Arian. iii. 33.

Application of St.
John v. 63 — 5Q. in
tfie Lord's Szijyjer.

Episcopwyg.

Athanasius, p. Athanasius, b.
147 fc, 1761, 179, See Waterland on
486, 658, 955 in, the Eucharist,
968 2d enumera- Camb. 1737. p.
tion, 974". I76,and Johnson's
^ Zojo'Toiov xa) Unbloody Sacri-
^yiaiTTixov Xovr^ov, fice,London,l7l4.
*u ^a^)f oiftus a^-t' Appendix, p. 17.
Tat Trtv fiaffiXiiav See also for quo-
ruv oh^avuv. tation from Cyril,
' Tfl wiufita TO Johnson, p. 18.
^ Tflv tTiovincv
a^TOV TOVTlffTi TOt
fitXkovTa, oi/aTap-
XVr i'j^o^EV iv r^ vtiv
^un Tns ffa^xhs tqv
Ku^itu fjLiTaXufif^a-
vovTif, xa^ajs avToe
v \ t 1/ »\
i/a'£ xai 0 apTOS ol
ov lyu oaiaea « ffapi^
fjtov \(Tr)v iiTip TOU
xoa-fjLOU ^aifjf. De
Incarn. et Contr.
Arian. 16.
Cyrillus Hiero-
solymitanns. *Eav fiii ipdytiTS
Ttiv ffd^xa X. T \.
\ T« xaivih Sia-
^«K») a^Toy ovpdviQs,
xat TQTYl^lO* ffeuTf]-
^tou ^^w;^nv xa) ffaj-
fi.a ayid^ovTa attr-
Ti^ » a^ros ffQif/.d,Ti
xaTaXktiXoe . »VTa>
xai 0 Xoyos Tij ^pv^ii
a^fiodios' fi.h frpoff~
^X^ ^' ^'XoTs 6VV TU
a^T^, xat Toi etvoi)
ffoffAa ya^ xa) aifica
X^io-reu xaTo. tmv
AiirToT/xhv Tuyx/X'-
vu avd<paffiv. Mys-
tag. iv. 4.
The Extracts here are not numerous,
because learned writers, and amongst them Mr. Johnson in
his learned Work on the Unbloody Sacrifice, carry the view
, of the passage here referred to higher than is here stated,
viz. to the Lord's Supper being the primary and actual subject of these verses.
The passages noted, however, seem to bear out the Title of the column, and
the lowest view of the Catholic doctrine seems to be, that many have at least
come up to this application, and none have denied it. The Church of England
in her Catechism seems a^ /eoAKogosofar. — If the third column appears unsatis
factory to the reader, he is at liberty to dismiss it; only that the topic being
an important one, it did not seem fit to omit it altogether.
N.B. The references appended to the passages quoted, are made to the
Oxford editions of Ignatius and Clement, Kigaltius's TertuUian, Valesius's
Eusebius, and the Benedictine editions of the rest.

Athanasius, p.
290, 744*, 765 If,
782,790,8.i6,832,
868 i, 955 1st. enu
meration "».
* M« ix T#U {ii-
yi^evf TUV vdXttav,
vs y^d<ptTi, x^iHrt
Tov; ivivxivevs .
^ *AXKa xa) tig
fittt^dva fiafifiov vr^o-
t]yayov, itaxovov;
flSV Sif WfSffjSl/TIJMF,
a-V» ol vptff^UTipiov,
Iii 'EfTitf-xaVow;.
' *i' Tia-xe-rov *A-
SavdiTtov. ov i^ d^-
X^i 0 ©105 TifitTv
eiSuxt xaTa ^laio-
X^i* TUV ^aTi^uv
YifiUV "* Otiii vofit^us
TO T^f * F.^lffKO^nS
XtiTou^ytjfia ptffHv
ix^'v d\Xa xctTa-
(Pqoviiv tou TauTtc
oiaTa^apivou luTt}-
^os vriTofnxas aau-
Tov. Ad Dracont.
3.

29
In the same page (14) which has called forth the
foregoing lengthened illustration and proof, we are
glad to find the Master of the Temple making
a most important, though not less true, admission,
that*" the existence of texts (of Scripture) is the
first thing we assert ; but the interpretation of the
texts is that on which we mainly depend." Nothing,
we conceive, can well be at once more true or more
important than this position : and to the rigid
assertors of " the Bible, and the Bible only,"
(amongst whom, as will be seen presently, we fear
we must rank Mr. Benson,) it suggests the necessity
of maintaining, that if we are to admit this maxim
in any just sense, it must be in the qualifying form
of " the Bible, and the true sense of the Bible."
Here is the whole gist of the matter : here it is,
that " the Scriptures and the Fathers" are brought
before us in their natural relation and affinity to
each other. Yet what says Mr. Benson to the last
of the two authorities thus conjoined ? Why, that
" the works of the Fathers can be known to the
generality of Christians only through the medium
of translations, which are infinitely more imperfect
than those of the Bible ;" that " in a great multitude
of instances no translations of any kind have been
made ;" and, " lastly, (that as) heretics by pervert
ing the just meaning of Scripture, or by insidious
misapplications of its texts, have contrived to give
a seeming support to their heresies ; (so) the very
same fate has also attended the study of the Fathers,

30
and some of the worst corruptions of the Gospel have
been defended by their followers, as being grounded
on the general opinions of the Primitive Church."
And so, because, as in the last-cited case, Romanists
have asserted what is not true, that the Fathers
countenance the modern additions to the faith of the
Church of Rome ; because, in many instances, either
no, or, if any, false translations of the Fathers are
extant ; therefore the learned guides of the people's
faith, the Clergy, are not to convey the scriptural
sense of sacred things through these media to their
people, but leave them without any help, beyond
that of their own private judgment, aided by the
weekly or other public or private instruction of their
Clergy, under the sole light of Modern Divinity!
These are the results to which Mr. Benson's reason
ing, fairly drawn out, seems directly or indirectly
to lead. It is zeal for private judgment that seems
to have carried Mr. Benson thus far, and blinded
his eyes to the fallacy of conclusions, which to his
undisturbed judgment must have appeared obvious.
Mr. B. says in one place, (p. 16,) that " a single
clear and definite passage of the sacred text affords
sufficient authority for the belief of any doctrine."
But when he reads in the first verse of the first
chapter of St. John, that " in the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God :" does he mean to say that here is
complete, or any thing short of delusive, doctrine,
unless part of the fourteenth verse, " and the

31
Word was made flesh," is added ? so that in this, as
in countless other instances, juxta-position of texts,
under judicious management, (and there is not
better light for it than that of the Primitive
Church,) is not needful " authority for the belief of
any doctrine ?" Mr. Benson says elsewhere, (p. 21,)
that " the dangers are at least equal, and the diffi
culties far greater, in determining upon those
opinions which are established by the general con
sent of Catholic Tradition, than in gathering the
fundamental Articles of our Creed, from the em
phatic and infallible declarations of Holy Writ."
Does Mr. Benson really mean to imply here, (or if
not, what does he mean ?) that the Church of
Christ could do without Creeds 1 Surely, the fol
lowing sentiment of a not less thoughtful mind
makes nearer approaches to the verities of Christian
Truth. " We, that is, all of the Anglican Church
who have had any regular training in theology, are
so early taught to trace the Creed in the Scriptures,
and to refer at once certain portions of both Testa
ments to certain high mysteries of the Catholic
faith, that it commonly appears to ourselves as
though we had learned those mysteries directly
from the Scriptures." Keble on Tradition, third
edition, p. 34.
In truth, is there any one of us that can tell, can
Mr. Benson, a Christian of no ordinary spiritual
discernment, himself tell, how much he owes to his
Creeds, (we say, his Creeds : for, thank God ! they

32
are the property of us all,) how much he owes
to his Creeds, and what he would have been in his
spiritual frame, if he had been brought into the
world without them ? We cannot but think Mr.
Benson has never examined himself closely on this
point, or his consequent obligation to the Creeds,
so deeply as he might have done, or he would not
have written as he has here. And we should
have been better satisfied, if at p. 23. he had added
to " a teachable spirit, with prayers for the assist
ance of the Divine grace, and with such a patiefit,
serious, and regular perusal of the Scriptures, &c."
" the use of Creeds," amongst the means for
" arriving at such a degree of intelligence with
regard to the nature of Gospel truth, as would be
sufficient for all spiritual purposes."
There is another branch of this subject, upon
which Mr. Benson seems to have formed inaccurate
notions, and to reason vaguely and confusedly: viz.
the relative position of our own Church in England
to the Church Universal. At p. 20, he argues thus :
" Suppose, if you will, that the Universal Church
is the representative of her divine Lord, and, like.
him, unerring in her declarations of saving truth :
still it is too much to acknowledge the Universal
Church to be so completely represented by our
own, that when she has once pronounced what she
conceives to have been the faith of Catholic
Antiquity, we are no longer permitted to be the
arbiters whether she judges rightly or no." We

33
doubt exceedingly whether there are many reflect
ing Members or Ministers of the Church in Eng
land that would go thus far : and even in the few
words quoted by Mr. Benson in the notes in italics
at the top of page 100, which are the strongest of
those produced. Dr. Pusey does not teach it. To
the extent claimed by Mr. Benson above, we assert
the right of private judgment, and think it to that
extent maintainable on Scripture grounds. The other
extracts quoted in the same note we consider strictly
defensible. And when we find Mr. Benson admitting
by implication, in page 20, the justice of embracing
what in our private judgment is " deducible from
Scripture confirmed by the authority of Catholic
tradition ;" it seems to us that by this admission
he is running counter (as respects the Fathers)
to the whole current of reasoning of his first dis
course. And even, with regard to what Catholic testi
mony does assert ; whilst we maintain the right of
private judgment in those who duly exercise it, how
few are there on the other hand who have the time,
power, or inclination to make the " examination"
required : and where they have not, surely it is not
too much to ask of the unenquiring disciple ; to take
the fundamentals of Christian truth on trust from
the Church ; considering what the Divine Head of
the Church seems to have taught on this very point.
His beloved disciple, St. John, records His gracious
promise, that the Spirit should " guide (the Apostles)

34
into all truth ;" should " teach them all things :"
and " be with them for ever ;" the latter expression
(according to the reasoning that will be pursued
presently) clearly and necessarily implying succes
sion, and consequently applying itself to the teach
ing part of the visible Church. Mr. Benson seeks
to fasten an inconsistency on one writer, Mr.
Newman, in his note (p. 97.) on page 10: but
he overlooks the very important expression in the
first of the two passages quoted, of " when fairly put
before it:" the precise office which the Church un
dertakes, and is commissioned by its Divine Lord
to undertake. Therefore it is vain to affirm, that
there is a clearness in the declarations of Scripture
upon the fundamental duties and doctrines of our
religion ; because as to the latter, it is through the
Creeds speaking the voice of the Church, and (if
the expression will be allowed) of Tradition, that
this clearness is educed and evoked.
Returning therefore to the title of this first
discourse of Mr. Benson's, " the Scriptures and
the Fathers ;" if we are called upon to state our
opinion of the mutual relation of these to each
other, and of their joint relation to Revealed
Truth ; we give it unhesitatingly as follows. Ac
cording to the scheme of Divine Providence re
vealed in the Christian system, they both reflect
on each other : and neither can effect a 4iomplete
development of Divine Truth without the other.
For this plain reason. God prepared New Testa-

35
ment preachers, before he gave New Testament
writings. It is only taking half of God's plan, if
•we use the Scriptures without the aid of the
ministry : and that ministry a successive one : not,
as Mr. Benson states it at p. 19, " by the general
voice of the most eminent of the early Fathers;"
but by the general voice of the Catholic Church
embodied in all ages, places, and persons ; speak
ing unanimously, as she does on many points.
Here is the point of contact, that combines the
questioned with the real sense of Scripture : so
as to merge the former in the latter. Here is the
only safe ground of appeal. For, as Mr. Newman
powerfully and irrefragably reasons in words
quoted by Mr. Benson, (notes, p. 99.) and with
which, as being the best answer that can be given
to his maxim at p. 14, which has detained us so
long, we will conclude our remarks on this branch
of our subject : — " A private Christian may put
what meaning he pleases on many parts of Scrip
ture, and no one can hinder him. If interfered with,
he can promptly answer, that it is his opinion, and
may appeal to his right of private judgment. But
he cannot so deal with antiquity "." — This brings us
" The mention of Dr. Priestley by Mr. Benson in his notes
(p. 98.) appears to us singularly unfortunate. If we remember
right. Dr. Priestley's argument here was triumphantly refuted
by Bishop Horsley, through shewing that Priestley was not
qualified to write on the subject he took up of the " History of
Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ ;" inasmuch as he con
victed him of not knowing what those opinions were. O'what
C 2

36
to Mr. Benson's third discourse on " Christ's Pre
sence with his Ministers."
In examining this Sermon, one great error
strikes us as pervading the whole of it, which
seems to deprive the concluding promise of the
text, " Lo ! I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world" of every thing like definiteness
and certainty, by annexing to its fulfilment such
conditions as the following. " If they either
neglected or violated the directions they had
received, they had no reason to look for the ful
filment of the promise." (p. 55.) " Whenever
there is a compliance with the conditions upon
which it was originally made to depend, the pro
mised aid will be given." (p. 61.) " But, however
duly called or duly appointed the Ministers of
Christ may be, there is still another condition
upon which his continual presence with them
depends, and that is the faithful discharge of the
duties of the office in which they are placed."
(p. 64.) Now we discover no such connection be
tween prerogative of office, and the mode of dis
charging its duties, as this mode of reasoning implies;
and it is manifest this supposition introduces at once
value then is Dr. Priestley's testimony to the argument, when
it is shewn that he qvioted the primitive Church only so as to
manifest in the result that it was the proclaimer of Catholic
verity ? Of what value, we repeat, is Dr. Priestley's testimony
here ? Why, to shew that Catholic testimony establishes the
real sense of Scripture : the very position which Mr. Benson's
discourse aims and tends to overturn.

37
the utmost perplexity into the subject. Nothing in
deed can be more truly painful than the inconsistency
either in holiness of life, or purity of doctrine, between
a Minister's calling, and the manner in which he
discharges it ; and woe will be unto the shepherd
thus handling the word of God deceitfully. But
still, as our 26th Article affirms that " the un-
worthiness of the Minister hinders not the effect
of the Sacrament ;" so with respect to the ministra
tion of the Divine Word, if there is any sort of
virtue in outward visible appointment, such as
our Divine Lord uniformly observed, and never
dispensed with ; the whole of this is entirely done
away with, and thrown into inextricable uncer
tainty, by such accompaniments as Mr. Benson
would attach to it. This deficiency should be, and
is supposed to be, supplied by effective outward
discipline ; and can be in no other sure, safe way.
The spirit of Mr. Benson's text, (" Go and teach all
nations, Sfc") seems to be that of supposing the
command to be obeyed, and thus making the
promise universal to all those whom both command
and promise are addressed to. Were the former part
of the text considered as a condition to the latter,
nothing but doubt, and what is if possible worse,
uncharitableness, could ensue. We will briefly
illustrate our position thus. Where Mr. Benson
succeeds in impressing a reader with the necessity
of the opening condition to the promise ; his mind
must be led into such animadversions as the fol-

38
lowing. In Parish A the authorized Minister does
fulfil the conditions imposed on him, therefore he
receives the promise. In Parish B the Minister
does not, therefore receives not. Surely this ap
proaches as nearly as it well can do to the Popish
doctrine, of the Minister's intention being essential
to the virtue of the Sacrament. Once quit the
visible test of outward designation, and what test
can human short-sightedness have to rest upon ?
Enforce discipline, as you may, and ought : and
the want of it is complained of by our Church, in
all its departments, without being rectified. But
make the consistency of each individual Minister's
life and doctrine, the test of " Christ's Presence"
with him under the promise of the text ; and there
is not a single parishioner's mind into which, under
the exercise of private judgment well or ill applied
as may happen, doubt and perplexity may not be
introduced, from which Christ assuredly would
" make him free."
It was necessary to enter somewhat largely into
this supposed condition of Mr. Benson's, because
if he remains in undisturbed possession of it, it is
idle to examine into any thing like definiteness
belonging to a succession of Ministers. From
what he has said both in this discourse, and that
on Episcopacy, especially in the latter, as inter
pretative of the former, there can be no doubt,
that with an exception, having no authority, as we
conceive, and which will require to be distinctly

39
adverted to, he believes the Episcopal mode of
transmitting Ministerial succession to be the best,
safest, and clearest. But upon the succession itself
he seems to have introduced far more of hypothetical
reasoning than was either necessary, or in fit pro
portion to the positive nature of the concluding
promise of the text.
Thus, at p. 56 — 58, he builds his argument on
" the perpetuity of the Christian Ministry upon
earth," on its unavoidable connection with " the
prophecies which relate to the progress and pre
valence of Christianity ;" upon there being no other
name but that of Christ, no other law but that of
the Gospel, whereby men can be saved or judged ;
and also on the enduring, never-ending nature of
the Gospel itself, as long as this world lasts.
These are all highly important topics, as a priori
arguments ; if the question could safely or wisely
be left to them : but where Scripture affords so
much better and stronger evidences of fact, it is
unwise and unjust to the subject to lay too much
stress on abstract reasonings, as we think has been
done in the present case. The same may be said
of the historical proofs adduced in pages 58, 59.
These are still more cogent than the abstract argu
ments just alluded to : but yet are not so cogent, or
rather, we ought to say, irrefragable, as the ground
finally brought forward by Mr. Benson, viz. the
concluding words of his text : where, to use Mr.
Benson's own words, Christ " promises to be with

40
the Apostles, as his ministers, unto the end of the
world." This is the gravamen of the argument, or
rather this is the essence of the fact : the fact of
our Lord's indefeasible assertion of Ministerial
succession, even to the end of time. It may per
haps appear, this matter has been handled with
more success in the following words : which may
seem to give more point to the Scripture evidence,
above all to this conclusive passage : in fact, con
fining the view to this passage, with the single
exception of one more text, 2 Timothy ii. 2. —
With this single exception, the following is all
adduced in testimony of " Ministerial Succession"
in a Sermon bearing this title, and of which it forms
the essential point. — " Lo! I am with you, alway,
even unto the end of the world. These are Christ's
words, the Redeemer of mankind. To whom did
he speak them ? To his surviving, remaining eleven
Apostles. With what meaning did he speak them?
Was it intended to convey that he would be with
them in their mansion in heaven, allotted to them
amongst many, as their abiding city ? Surely these
assurances would have formed no part of Gospel re
velation, as what mankind neither needed, nor were
benefitted by being told : much less would they in
this sense be worthy of their place, as boundaries to
the oral instruction of their and our Master and Lord.
Neither does the language itself allow of this mean
ing : because in this sense of the phrase, Christ will
be with his Apostles not merely unto the end of

41
this created world, but long, long beyond it. Could
it be meant, that they were to live for ever on
earth, and Christ for ever be there with them?
The fact of no one Apostle surviving his Lord
upon earth eighty years, forbids this interpretation.
One only jneaning therefore remains that I can
devise, and this, I believe, the true one. Lo! I am
with you, my Apostles, and your successors in the
Ministry, even unto the end of the world: to
the end of the Christian dispensation, when God
shall be all in all. A meaning this, strikingly
confirmed by another part of inspired Scripture,
viz. the second Epistle, &c." Merewether's Sermon,
p. 7, 8.
Another matter in this discourse we have great
pain in finding Mr. Benson writing, preaching, and
publishing, as he does, is the following hypothesis
contained in p. 62, which if it arises in any one's
mind so well affected to the Church of Christ
established in these realms as Mr. Benson, would
we think in such times as ours be much better
kept back than expressed : but which, in fact, we
think has not only no express Scripture warrant
for it, but militates against what we believe to have
been the leading points of the Christian economy
in the construction and designation of the Christian
Ministry. The supposition is thus expressed.
" When an established Church neglects, or is
incompetent to the full discharge of, its duties, in
enlightening and sanctifying the whole nation whose

42
religious welfare is entrusted to its care, there we
may justly suppose that the Lord of the vineyard
will rather grant success to those who came un
called to the work which his regular servants are
unwilling or unable to perform, than allow his
people to fall into immorality and profaneness for
want of necessary cultivation." Discourses, p. 62.
Now we have many objections, first to this hypo
thesis itself, but next still more to its open avowal
from such a preacher and writer as Mr. Benson.
In the first place, in what sort of relation does it
stand to the inspired expostulation of St. Paul ?
" How shall they preach, except they be sent ?"
Romans x. 15. Mr. Benson will answer with his
reasoning already adverted to, (p. 16, 17.) in his
fourth Discourse, at p. 90 — 93, and 95, and notes,
p. 107 — 111. But we think this reasoning far too
inconclusive an answer to the question just bor
rowed from the inspired pen of St. Paul, to admit
of the tenure, still less of the promulgation, of
so questionable and hazardous an hypothesis as the
one here referred, to. Mr. Benson does indeed
attempt to support it by words from the lips of
our Divine Saviour, viz. Luke ix. 40. and also
others from the inspired pen of his chosen Apostle,
St. Paul, Philippians i. 15. But Christ's " not
forbidding one from doing miracles in his name,
though he neither followed in his train, nor had
been sent forth by him as a preacher ;" and " St.
Paul's rejoicing that Christ was preached, though

43
it was done by some of the brethren rather of strife
or envy than of good-will";" does not, we think,
amount to a justification of an un-sent preacher
" taking the honour" of the priesthood on himself;
or to any thing like probable proof that " the Lord
of the vineyard will grant success to those who
come uncalled to the work which his regular ser
vants are unwilling or unable to perform;" much
less to sanction for any authorized Minister's giving
any sort of warrant to such a practice. Who the
sent are, we are quite content to leave as another
point : but Mr. Benson's argument we think is no
answer to St. Paul's question.
There is another phrase in the extract from Mr.
Benson that has just been quoted, which demands
our particular attention. He says, " when an
established Church neglects." Now, as it is much
more than probable that nine readers of this pas
sage out of ten, instead of treating it as a mere
abstract position, (the form assuredly it assumes,)
will apply it to the circumstances of our own
country and people ; so will they as readily look
round for what circumstances in our own country
connect themselves with this observation, and will,
we doubt not, readily find " neglect" as well as
'.' incompetency" somewhere ; for " neglect" there
assuredly has been. Incompetency necessarily in
volves no blame, neglect does. But where, upon
* If we remember right, this last text was urged by the ad
vocates of the Bible Soci€ty.

44
enquiry, will it be found that neglect amongst us
has prevailed on this matter? Assuredly in the
State. We will not too positively say that the
Church has had no share in the neglect : possibly
it has : although if it has, it has partaken most of
the nature of culpable remissness, if not cowardice,
in presenting its wants before a not very forward,
or rather actually reluctant. State. At any rate,
whatever degree of blame may belong justly in this
respect to the Church ; if we remember right, the
first movement in supplying the want of churches
(obviously the most leading point to which these
remarks must apply) came from the Church in the
person of the Rev. Richard Yates : who addressed
a letter to the late Lord Liverpool, calling his
attention to it ; and soon after that, his Lordship,
then Prime Minister, brought the subject before
Parliament. The consequence has been, that two
Grants for Building Churches, one of a million, the
other of half a million, have been made from the
State, that is, from Parliament. And yet how
inadequately these two Grants have met the need ;
especially if the sound and statesman-like compu
tation of the Earl of Liverpool be admitted, of
supplying church room for one third (as we remem
ber) of the numerical population ; any one who
moves about and has eyes to see, must be able to
determine for himself''. The State therefore, since
" Mr. Benson, in his note at p. 105, asks how it is that
amongst the causes assigned in the Tracts for the Times for

45
the wants of the Church have been brought before
it, and made known to it, has been| the neglecting,
the sole neglecting, party. In vain, as yet, to use
the Poet's expression, has the prayer of thousands.
Mounted to reach the State's parental ear :
so much so, that while a scanty pittance of a
million and a half has been all that could be ob
tained from the bounty of Parliament during thirty
years towards the relief of a crying, general,
national want ; the Church has through a volun
tary Society, consisting of its own best affected
Members, raised and expended not less than
^262,616 : made up, it is true, of collections at
churches and chapels under the sanction of the
Crown, and that under the authority of an Act of
Parliament ; but yet looking in vain for what a
National Church (as long as it continues such)
might fairly look for, for such a purpose ; some
thing like adequate national relief from a na
tional fund. It is curious too to observe, how this
" neglect" referred to by Mr. Benson moves in a
circle, by first giving cause (a justification, Mr.
B. conceives) for the exertions of bodies out of
the lamentable increase of sectarianism, " the inadequacy of
the Established Church to supply room, with its present limited
means, should never have been alluded to as the reason for the
growth of dissent :" but surely Mr. B. overlooks in the mean
time how much his reasoning„here alluded to is calculated at
once to foster dissent, and so to create fresh di£Sculties in
building churches.

46
the Church ; and then these bodies rolling together
to such a size as to justify, and even call for, in the
minds of some, the continuance of this neglect.
Provided the theory of a National, Established Church
is more than justifiable on, is actually suggested
by. Christian principles : as has been shewn most
irrefragably by one Christian writer of our own
day, Mr. Gladstone, not to speak of others that
preceded him ; the only way of cutting the knot
of this magic circle, is to return to St. Paul's
question, " How shall they preach, except they be
sent ?" And until this question be scripturally ,
candidly, fairly, and (let us add) historically, an
swered ; it is not by not only creating, but increas
ing the (supposed) necessity for " preachers the
most irregular, and teachers not lawfully ordained,"
that the will of God is to be obeyed ; still less by
those of influence through their talents, station,
and piety, palliating or defending the breach of
Apostolical rule, so as to perpetuate, by vindi
cating, the alleged necessity for departure from it.
We have treated this important sentence in Mr.
Benson's third Sermon somewhat at large, and be
ing unwilling to break the chain of two considerable
phrases in it, quitted one of them, to which we must
now briefly return. We must therefore request
our readers to look back to pages 40 — 42 of this
publication, briefly review the remarks there, and
then notice Mr. Benson going on at the opening of
the paragraph, next to that which has so long de-

47
tained us, in the following words : " We have now
seen that our Lord's words do not take away all
prospect of success from those, who under circum
stances of great spiritual destitution in the Church,
undertake, without any regular and external call,
the office of a teacher of Christ's flock, but only
where no such necessity exists." " We have seen."
This was the passage in the present volume which
we noticed at the opening of these Strictures, when
we said, that " we should not be very much sur
prised to hear some difference of opinion now ex
pressed by the very persons, to whom it appears
Mr. Benson returns his thanks for the kind manner
in which the request (of publication) was made."
With the greatest deference and submission to
those persons, we respectfully ask them to review the
remarks here submitted to them in pages 40 — 42,
and then ask themselves whether the superstruc
ture on which Mr. Benson raises his ocular demon
stration, is quite firm enough in its foundation to
warrant this expression ? It is true, he quotes or
refers to two passages of Scripture that seem to
him to bear out his remark. But is this good,
legal, evidence ¦=? Such of the learned body he
"= What is meant here ? are our Saviour's not forbidding one
doing miracles in his name; and St. Paul's rejoicing that
Christ was preached rather of strife or envy, than of good
will, tangible, ocular, proofs of the Lord of the vineyard
granting success to those who come uncalled to the (ministe
rial; work?

48
addressed, as are accustomed to examine and apply
evidences as advocates, might perhaps feel war
ranted, and be accustomed in that character to
reason, as their spiritual " Master" has done.
But we question, whether any one of them who
does, or may hereafter, sit on the Judicial Bench,
would be very forward to say ex foro to themselves,
or their hearers, " we see" a point drawn out, on
such evidence, or argument, as is here adduced.
On the main point of " Ministerial Succession,"
we find Mr. Benson essentially agreeing with the
views we have been accustomed to take, and believe
to be those based on Scripture. To quote a few
instances, we find him using the following words : —
" The Apostles perceived, and acted upon the
conviction, that when he bid them go and make
disciples out of all nations, he spoke to them not
only in their personal, but also in their official
capacity : not only as individual Ministers, but
also as the representatives of all future Ministers."
(p. 59.) " We feel confident that there is no period
or point of the Redeemer's Universal Church, in
which those stewards of the Gospel mysteries, and
those teachers of the Gospel truth, who have been
appointed the Lord's Ministers in conformity with
the Lord's will, may not look with the full assur
ance of hope to his continued presence with them
in the discharge of the duties they are called to
perform." And we are particularly gratified to
find him acknowledging, (what we think if he had

49
weighed sufficiently, he would not even for his
hearer's " consolation" (p. 72.) have frittered away
the real force of the concluding words of his text
as he has done,) a sentiment in which he seems in
close sympathy with the writer of the Sermon
already quoted : the former declaring to his hear
ers, that " the comfort and conviction such an
unequivocal assurance conveys to all the author
ized ministers of Jesus, is quite as necessary for
you as it is for us :" (p. 69.) and that " the com
mission and the promise is to be reckoned one of
the most useful and consolatory of those spiritual
promises with which the Scriptures abound :" — the
latter expostulating with his, that " if the value
of pulpit instruction, and the virtue of adminis
tration of the Sacraments, depends not a little on
the commissioned authority of those so instructing
and so ministering ; then, I trust, my hearers will
pardon the selection of the subject here treated,
and not consider its choice to invalidate, but rather
to be built upon, the foundations of the vital, essen
tial, saving truths of Christianity." (p. 16, 17.)
Concluding our remarks on the four " Dis
courses" vdth these quotations, we thus part with
the Master of the Temple, as we hope and trust,
on good terms. One word, however, remains to be
said, on " the Scriptures and the Fathers," which
would perhaps have belonged more appropriately
to what has been said on the first Discourse ; but,
on the other hand, will not form an improper
D .

50
summing up of the whole. It is this. In estimating
the comparative value of both these helps to, rather
sources of. Divine Truth, (for such we believe them
to be : and as such, not " pari," but prim^ atque
secunda " veneratione teneri,") we must never forget
the relation in which the Divine, Incarnate Word
Himself places them : because here we cannot be
mistaken. We have already adverted to the mode
authorized by God through His own. Word, of
handing down the truths of His Revealed Religion
through a duly appointed succession of Teachers.
Whatever may be the respective value of the
several stages of this Succession ; it is hard to
suppose that very considerable respect is not due
to the earliest of them : and " the nearer the
source, the purer the stream," seems a maxim of
sound reason not easily disturbed. On the other
hand, in the present tone and habits of our modern
theology, early religious opinions seem despised ;
by those too for the most part (let us add) who
have never searched them ; and those of the three
last centuries at the farthest, almost the only ones
that command any thing approaching to general
respect. Now even this cast of opinion we think
no matter of congratulation. But the disease, if
it be such, goes still farther. Not only are ancient
writers in theology and their opinions resisted ;
but even amongst those comparatively modern, —
such as Barrow, Taylor, Hammond, Sanderson,
Jackson, and others, are too commonly cast off for

51
Baxter, Howe, Flavel, Doddridge, Watts, and
the like. Now without saying any thing dis
paraging of either of these sets of authors, or the
individuals composing them, and without laying
more stress than will generally be allowed amongst
the Clergy on researches of a critical, historical,
polemical, or didactic nature of the first of the two
classes of writers here alluded to ; we do think, that
the last-mentioned is most deficient in Catholicity :
and that to draw a portrait of Catholic Divinity from
the writings of these Divines exclusively, would be
to present a model of Theology, which the writers
nearest the times of Christ and his Apostles would
find it difficult to follow and understand, or know
as an exact delineation of the whole of Christ's
Religion. The writer of these pages now wishes to say a
few words for himself. To some it will appear,
that the foregoing remarks are neither more nor
less than a defence of the Oxford Tracts. They
are, he must be permitted to say, no such thing.
The state of the case is this. Mr. Benson has
preached and printed Four Discourses on subjects,
which have been discussed and handled before by
those Mr. Benson calls " tractarians" at Oxford.
These therefore are manifestly opposed to the
Oxford Tracts. But in writing and preaching
thus, he has been led by the line of his argument
to advance statements and positions, which appear
to the writer of these pages not consistent with

52
some of the broad outlines of Catholic Christianity.
These, therefore, it has been the endeavour of the
foregoing remarks to refute. Yet in doing this,
it has only been where Mr. Benson has led the way,
that any mention has been made of the Oxford
Tracts. In fact, of those Tracts the writer believes
he has not read ten. To speak fairly, he has had
his reasons for this. And because he has not read,
he has not condemned them : a forbearance which
has perhaps not been quite so generally practised
as might be wished. Of those he has read, how
ever, he must say, that, with one single exception,
he feels called upon, as far as his testimony goes,
to bear witness to the spiritual discernment.
Catholic tone, depth of thought, and enlarged
comprehension of the Tracts, and their writers ;
and in the single exception just made, he is much
more disposed to impute it to his own imperfect
knowledge of the subject, and the just distinctions
it admits of in an accurate mind, which have proba
bly escaped his, than to any actual error that could
by fair argument be proved to exist. Be this as it
may, however, although the " tractarians" (to use
Mr. Benson's phrase) seem to have given birth to
the compositions and publication before us; it is not
because the Oxford Tracts are opposed, but because
Catholic Verity seems infringed, that the foregoing
pages have been written.
We are thus brought to our moral, one most
painful to us to record, one that we might well

53
write with tears i on behalf of sound reasoning,
and clear, discerning faith. It is this. Beware of
the maxim, " The Bible, and the Bible only, the
Religion of Protestants." Well might an acute, en
lightened, and profound philosopher, Mr. Coleridge,
who has just dep.arted from earth to swell the bulk
of England's posthumous fame, say of the pro-
pounder of this maxim in his " Table Talk,"
" Had I been a Papist, I should not have wished for
a more vanquishable opponent in controversy."
For ourselves, we really do not know a more
vivid instance of the evils attendant on the broad
assertion of that principle, than the publication
now before us. Here as in a glass we behold the
spectacle of extensive knowledge, high spiritual
discernment, depth of thought, elaborate industry,
and earnest vital piety, all laid prostrate before
this idol. It should really seem, as if in bowing
down to this image, Mr. Benson actually deter
mined, in deference to it, to unlearn every thing
that he had known before. For it must strike the
most superficial observer, how very little learning
is to be met with in these Discourses : not, we are
assured, because Mr. Benson has it not, but because,
in consistency with his argument, he refuses to use
it. To this remark it may be replied, and the
writer has heard it so replied : there was no
need of learning; its very want of learning, its
simplicity, is the highest recommendation. This
may be very true of it, as a publication : but as

54
a series of discourses, addressed to a learned body,
it is any thing rather than a vindication. In
truth, we lament sincerely that Mr. Benson had
not entered on and handled this subject in a
learned way : it would have been worthy of him
self, worthy of his station, worthy of his subject,
worthy of his hearers. He might indeed have
come out of his subject with very different results ;
but, whether so or not, at any rate his composition
would have been more worthy of attention and
reflection, than we grieve to say we think it now is.
But no. " The Bible, and the Bible only," is his
maxim. By this he is content to stand or fall.
The consequence has been, that in the conduct of
his argument, he has resorted to positions, and
arrived at conclusions, which we firmly believe will
appear in the sight of nineteen out of twenty
discerning, reflecting persons, bringing to the
subject a fair share of diligence, insight, and
attention, unworthy of himself, unworthy of his
piety, his learning, his talents, his station, and
his knowledge of mankind.
Having (as at the beginning) spoken thus of
Mr. Benson, we will now (as at the beginning
also) again say a word of ourselves : and it shall
be very short. Our maxim is, the Bible, as
interpreted by the Catholic (and of the Catholic,
if any preference is to be given, especially by the
Primitive) Church. This is our chart, our guide,
our polar star. This we expect, this we wish.

55
never to quit or lose sight of. No : not even though
it land us on the rock, (our readers will forgive the
equivoque, out of respect for Catholic consent and
comprehension,) not even though it land us on the
rock of partial or general adhesion to the sentiments
of the Oxford Tracts.

THE END.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OxrORD.

^

ff?©*-'

.\^