\\\ \ f

m

7

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

STRICTURES

No. 90 OF THE

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

BY A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY OFOX3EORD.

PART II.

" I M. N. do willingly and ex ammo subscribe to these three Articles above
mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them." — Canon 36.

Lhotures on Romanism.
Lect. x. p. 287.
Scripture is the foundation of the Creed ;
but belief in Scripture, is not the founda
tion of belief in the Creed.

Art. VIII.
The three Creeds  ought
thoroughly to be received and believed:
for they may be proved by most certain
warrants of Holy Scripture.

OXFORD,
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY J. VINCENT.
1.841.

§. 5. General Councils.
Article XXI. — " General Councils may not be gathered to
gether without the commandment and will of princes. And
when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an
assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit
and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred,
even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things or
dained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength
nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken
out of Holy Scripture."
This Article would seem, at first sight, to settle two points :
(1.) how General Councils must be called ; (2.) the authority
of those Councils when called. The first point* is not disputed
in No. 90, and therefore we will not here" discuss the question.
The second point is that which seems to have caused some
difficulty to the writer of No. 90 ; arid we hope to be able to
shew that the view which he has taken is inconsistent with
the words of the Article and the Anglican doctrine.
There are some evident contradictions in the opening re
marks, which we will only refer to. It is declared, " That,
when met together, though Christians, they will not be all
ruled by the Spirit or Word of God, is plain from our Lord's
parable of the net, and from melancholy experience. That
bodies of men, deficient in this respect, may err, is a self-evident
truth, — wnless, indeed, they be favoured with some divine su
perintendence, which has to be proved, before it can be ad
mitted." Here the writer declares, first, a universal truth, and
that it is plain ; and at once Contradicts himself, by shewing
" It may be as well to refer to Hooker, voL iii. p. 393. b. viii. 5, as some doubts
have been brought forward by Mr. Perceval, even as to the first point.
B

that there may be an exception to his words, or, to speak
more plainly, that his first sentence is only partly true and
partly false. With the conclusion, we can agree that this
exception " has to be proved, before it can be admitted."
First, then, we may observe, that there is no scriptural
evidence to prove this " express supernatural privilege" to be
the quality of any Council; and that our Lord's words in
ch. xviii. 20, of St. Matthew, refer only to requests in prayer.
This will be evident to all who examine the passage. Again,
that this was the view of our Church, is shewn by its applica
tion in the prayer of St. Chrysostom : " Where two or three
are gathered together." But our Saviour saith not, " Where
a Council has Catholicity, there will I cause them to be in
fallible ;" but rather, where only but a few pray, that prayer
shall be answered. So that it is equally applicable to the
congregation which assemble in Christ's name under the
smallest roof, as to the crowded Council of six hundred and
thirty fathers at Chalcedon. So that it is equally applicable
to the Council of Reformers which assembled in England, (who
are so vehemently accused of prevarication,) as to the one
hundred and thirty prelates at Constantinople. We know
not how far the writer intended to prove this " express super
natural privilege," when he allowed himself to say, that the
" divine superintendence had to be proved, before it could be
admitted ;" but surely, after this sentence, he will excuse all
who refuse to admit the exception on such slender appearance
of supernatural privilege. In a word, there is no evidence ad
duced to prove this supernatural privilege; and we, by the
author's own confession, are bound to reject his interpretation.
" What those conditions are which fulfil the notion of a
gathering ' in the name of Christ,' in the case of a particular
Council, it is not necessary here to determine." Now I
assert, tbat if any writer venture to produce some new inter-

pretation of our Articles, and to found some exception to a
general rule on the meaning to be drawn from a passage
of Scripture, or from any other source, that he is bound to
explain the meaning of the words, and not to shelter himself
under an "ambiguous" expression. Thus it was highly ne
cessary to explain how far a Council must " really ,"b or "pro
fessedly," be called " in the name of Christ." It must be evi
dent, that all who claim an exception to a rule, which exception
they do not pretend to find " in the literal and grammatical
sense of the Article," and that all who are prepared to apply
this exception to four or six cases, are bound to shew why
infallibility does attach to these, and not to others. Far more
consistent is the Romanist view, when they settle the dispute
by referring the decision to a confirmatory sentence from the
supreme pontiff.
Having thus cleared away any doubt as to the exception
being founded on express privilege, we follow up the subject,
and shew that such interpretation is plainly inconsistent with
the words of the Article. General Councils include all councils
of the Catholic Church. This we will shew from No. 90 :
" Thus Catholic or (Ecumenical Councils are General Councils,
and something more. Some General Councils are Catholic,
and others are not." In other words, Catholic Councils are
contained under General Councils, and are only the highest
class of Councils. If this be the case, even if the author could
shew that Catholic and General are not synonymous, the words
of the Article must clearly include Caiholic Councils, upon a
principle tolerably self-evident : omne majus continet minus ;
b It has been well asked, whether any Council ever was called, not in the name of
Christ. See the 139th Canon, where even the national synod is spoken of, as "called
in the name of Christ." Were this distinction real, of what utility would it be ? There
would still remain the same doubt as to which Councils are called " in the name of
Christ." It must still be considered whether their decrees were such as to evidence
infallibility. B 2

and therefore if fallibility is predicated of General Councils, it
may be predicated of each and every Council contained under
it, i. e. of every Catholic Council. If, further, the Article
declare that " when they (i. e. General Councils) be gathered
together, they may err," &c. surely it is not possible that any
one General Council should be infallible. For, if the words do
allow it, apply this very principle of interpretation to the first
part of the Article, and let us see how absurd is the applica
tion : " General Councils may not be gathered together," &c.
" The Article does not mean to assert that all General Councils
must be called together by the will of princes, because the
Catholic Councils are excepted." Surely the author of No. 90
would reject this system of interpretation, especially as he
says, "that great bodies of men, of different countries, may
not meet together without the sanction of their rulers," &c,
Did the writer consider this to be used universally of General
Councils? In no other sense can his own commentary be
established, and consequently he stands convicted of self-con
tradiction, if he endeavour to shew an exception in the second
clause, and not in the first : since the words, " when they be
gathered," can only refer to the words General Councils in
the first clause, and therefore are equally extensive. But we
need not the confession of the writer, for all must see, that
the words themselves allow no exception. " When they be
gathered together," &c. must either mean, that all General
Councils may err, or else is a statement which none would
contradict ; not even the Papist, for he does not consider
Councils infallible. But that there may be no doubt on the
subject, the reason given in the Article is perfectly satisfactory:
" forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not
governed with the Spirit and Word of God."
The conclusion of the Article sets the point still further
beyond the reach of doubt, for it rests the authority of

decrees on the proof of Holy Scripture, " unless it may be
declared (nisi ostendi possinf) that they be taken out of Holy
Scripture," and evidently shew that there still remains some
rule to which we must refer the authority of Councils. The
legitimate conclusion, as given above, to be drawn from this
argument, is, that as it may be said of all General Councils
that they are fallible, it may be predicated of each and every
General Council that it was fallible. And consequently the
Article not only does not mention any exception, but does
not even leave room for the belief in it by any consistent
member of the Anglican Church. We repeat that the words
of this Article must of necessity refer to all General Councils,
and therein to all Catholic Councils ; and that this is evident,
both from the admission of No. 90, and from the words of
the Article. There is, however, no need for this admission, as
the distinction seems rather a logical refinement, than a real
difference ; rather an invention of the nineteeth century, than
" quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus traditum est."
There is no Catena Patrum to prove this point, nor has the
author produced more than a single testimony for his opinion.
Let us examine the opinion of Augustin on this point, by
whom the word " plenarium" is generally applied to Councils
of the whole Church. De baptismo contra Donatistas, vi. 1 :
" Satis eluxit pastoribus Ecclesiae Catholicae toto orbe diffusw,
per quos postea plenarii concilii auctoritate originalis con-
suetudo firmata est," &c. Same book, cap. 11 : "Ex uni
versal ecclesiae sententia, plenarii concilii auctoritate roborata
atque firmata." See further, vii. 1. classis ii. epist. vii, and
many other passages. The point, however, is most easily
shewn by extracts from writers who call the first four Coun
cils by the term General ; and as I know no writer who does
not use this term in that meaning, it will be as well to give
no quotations, Jbut only refer to Beveridge, Burnet, Tomline,

Hooker, Jewel, and other divines ; and the extract from the
Homily, quoted Section 11, also will shew it. Therefore,
unless the author is prepared to give some more reasons or
authority for his opinion, it may be well to leave its further
discussion. But it may be said that Catholicc or Oecumenical
are not here intended to mean universal, but have a meaning
rather derived from the opposition of the term to heresy ; and
consequently, that the term means true as opposed to false, or
" real" Councils as opposed to fallible Councils. If so, the
writer is by no means to be congratulated for his use of words,
as he has applied, in a most unusual sense, a word of common
usage. But neither will this sense in any degree avail the
author; for if the word signify real or true, it will equally
contradict the letter of the Article, since it declares that all
General Councils are fallible. But in this use of the word
Catholic, is there not a begging of the question ? For if this
word is to imply the disputed meaning, no fair argument can
be deduced from its use ; and the dispute is not as to whether
Councils have been or are really true and sound in doctrine,
but whether they may err, i. e. are fallible, as our Article
states. It remains then to shew that the Church of England,
as appealed to in her Homilies, does not hold the infallibility
of any Councils. For this purpose we will refer to the quota
tions given in Section II ; and with regard to these, the best
method of understanding them will be to quoter them with the
context, and perhaps the views of our Church may be ex
plained. But that we Inay argue fairly, first let us see what
the Homilies are said by No. 90 to acknowledge : " While
c The Tridentine bishops applied this term (Ecumenical and General to them
selves. One passage wo are induced to quote from Bishop Beveridge, who has been
quoted in a Catena Patrura : — " then it was always thought necessary that an
¦universal, oecumenical, or General Council, viz. a Council gathered from all or most
places in the world." For the meaning of Catholic in the Fathers, see Pearson on
the Article " Holy Catholic Church."

Councils are a thing of earth, their infallibility of course is
not guaranteed ; when they are a thing of heaven, their de
liberations are overruled, and their decrees authoritative. In
such case they are Catholic Councils; and it would seem,
from passages which will be quoted in Section II, that the
Homilies recognise four, or even six, as bearing this cha
racter." In this passage we have the infallibility of Catholic Councils
set forth without an argument in their support, and only a
claim of testimony from those very Homilies of which the
writer has spoken so freely in Section 11. Surely, from these
we ought to look for some important support, many strong
declarations ; nor can we reasonably be satisfied, unless one of
them is headed with " Catholicity of the four first Councils,
or Infallibility of four first Councils," (see No. 90, p. 6S,
1. 14. 16, where a test of agreement with the Homilies is
shewn :) but, alas ! I fear we shall be disappointed again in
No. 90. Only two extracts are given to prove this Catholicity,
this infallibility, to shew the opinion of our Church on such an
important point.

In No. 90.
Those six Councils which
were allowed and received of
all men.

In Homily, p. 190. ed. Oxford.
When he had so done by the
consent of the learned about
him, the said Constantine, bi
shop of Rome, caused the
images of the ancient fathers
which had been at those six
Councils, which were allowed
and received of all men, to be
painted in the entry of St.
Peter's Church at Rome.
Such is the incidental mention of the six Councils ; and even

these very words admit of two interpretations. (1.) The fact
that they were allowed and received of all men is no proof of
the Anglican doctrine, as it may be merely an historical fact,
and most probably is. (See sect. 11. p. 68. line 19. No. 90, for
the opinion of the author as to their historical accuracy.)
(2.) The very fact that they were allowed, &c. of all men, by
no means proves their Catholicity, i. e. infallibility, according
to No. 90 ; for any council may decree rightly, and so be re
ceived ; but it rather indicates a process of examination as to
the truth of its decisions. This then is the only mention
made of six Councils, and we will leave the conclusion to be
drawn by the reader. The second mention is (38.) " That it
(fasting) was used in the primitive Church, appeareth most
evidently by the Chalcedon Council, one of the four first
General Councils," &c. That our Church should mention
incidentally a matter o£ history, and declare that this was one
of the first four General Councils, cannot be said to give much
proof of its authority, as it is a fact no one can deny. From
these two quotations but few will be credulous enough to
grant that our Church allowed these first four, not to say six
General Councils to be what the author considers Catholic,
i. e. to bear the character of infallibility. Yet the author,
on this testimony, imagines his view to be so satisfactory,
that it is not necessary to determine the conditions of a
Catholic Council. I do not deny that our Church looks back
to the offspring of primitive antiquity with reverence ; but I
do deny that this reverence rests on any thing so much as
the coincidence of their opinions with the only infallible word
of God. The Church of England states in the Sixth Article,
" that whatsoever is not read therein, (i. e. Holy Scripture,)
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man
that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Twentieth

Article has, " so besides the same ought it not to enforce any
thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." The Twenty-
first d refers to Scripture as the strength and support of councils.
The Eighth shews that the Church receives the three Creeds
as in accordance with Scripture, "for they may be proved,"
&c. and does not mention the" infallibility of Councils from
whence we receive the Creeds. How then can we believe
that our Reformers so far received the records of antiquity as
to consider them infallible ? The Church of England has set
her seal upon them as an abstract of God's holy word, and
has been grateful for the Creeds as trophies from the conflict
with God's enemies in the ages that are past, when the
Church had not lost her primitive character, when she had
enemies to assail the fundamentals of truth from without ;

d The view taken of the Twenty-first Article in No. 90 has been supported in a
recent publication, in which a violent effort is made to avoid the force of this Article
as well as others, by shewing the Article to refer only to points necessary to Balva-
tion ; but perhaps I may remind the author of an important fact, that the chief point
of the Article is the fallibility of General Councils, and that the concluding clause of
the Article can by no means destroy the universality of the declaration ; for if a
council may err, how are we to settle in what points it may err ? And let us remind
that author of another matter, that the reason assigned in the Article for their fal
libility is equally applicable in indifferent doctrine as in necessary, and therefore we
may conclude, that the only points in which a council has supreme authority, are
rites and ceremonies. Besides, I have yet to learn that the General Councils were
called during the time for which No. 90 claims infallibility for any other than neces
sary doctrine. We would recommend the author to read Lectures ix. and *. on
Romanism, where he will find indefectibility only claimed with regard to essentials.
This is the only observation of the writer on this Article which needs any answer.
With regard to Church authority, hear Editor's Preface, p. xcvii. to Hooker, ed. 1836.
" Hia principle (i. e. Hooker) is that of the Sixth Article of our Church so admirably
developed by Laud in his conference with Fisher, viz. that in doctrines supernatural
Holy Scripture is paramount and sole ; reason and Church authority coming in as
subsidiary only, to interpret Scripture or infer from it ; but in no such point ever
claiming to dictate positively where Scripture is silent," &c. Where then is Church
authority, except on doctrines mentioned in the Bible ? for there are none others. (See
also Hooker, vol. i. p. 335. ed. Keble, 1836.) See Beveridge, p. 150. vol. ii. on
Articles, ed. Oxford. See Chrysostom, vol. ix. p. 285. Benedictine.

10
which was a blessing in the providence of the Almighty, since
it caused the Church to hand down its teaching an writing
before insidious foes from within by their traditions had cor
rupted its pure and primitive doctrine. Whether our Church
consents to receive four or six, or many more general councils,
cannot in any degree affect the question, as the reason for the
reception of them all was, as we have said, an agreement with
God's word. The previous examination, and not the pro
bability of their truth, although we need not deny a high
probability, is the evidence in their favour, and such is the
implied feeling of our Church : and, with Lord Chancellor
King, we may say, " by which (the Bible) even this Creed
itself, and every explication thereof, must be tried and judged,
and is no farther to be received or believed than as it is con
sonant and agreeable thereunto, which is according to the
Sixth Article of the Church of England." (Preface to History
of Apostles' Creed.) Hear also Bishop Pearson : " I observe
again, that whatsoever is delivered in the Creed, we therefore
believe, because it is contained in the Scriptures, and conse
quently must so believe it as it is contained there," &c. (on
Article V. He descended into Hell.) In Bishop Beveridge we
find statements more directly in regard to General Councils,
when he discusses their fallibility; and to prove it, he says,
" For they may ordain that which the Scripture doth not say
is necessary to salvation ; nay, that which the Scripture saith is
not necessary to salvation ; whereas we have seen, Article VI.
that all things necessary to salvation are contained in the
Scriptures. And therefore what is not contained in the
Scriptures, nor may be proved from them, though all the
councils in the world should ordain it as necessary to salva
tion, their ordaining it as necessary to salvation cannot
make it so." (Articles, vol. ii. p. 150. ed. Oxford.) Hear
also Hooker : " The decrees of the Council of Jerusalem

11
were not, as the Canons of other ecclesiastical assemblies,
human, but very divine ordinances." And again : " The cause
why that Council was of so great authority and credit above
all others, which have been sithence, is expressed in those
words of principal observation, ' Unto the Holy Ghost and to
us it hath seemed good ; ' which form of speech though other
Councils have likewise used, yet neither could they themselves
mean, nor may we so understand them, as if both were in
equal sort assisted with the power of the Holy Ghost, but the
later had the favour of that general assistance and presence
which Christ doth promise unto all his, according to the
quality of their several estates and callings ; the former, that
grace of special, miraculous, rare, and extraordinary illumina
tion," &c  "it had authority greater than were
meet for any other council besides to challenge." (See vol. iii.
p. 403. book viii. 6.e) Chrysostom's opinion on the Council of
Jerusalem will be worth considering in connexion with the
last quotation : " ' For it hath seemed good unto the Holy
Ghost and to us.' Therefore there is nothing human, if to the
Spirit it seem good." And again : " Why saith he, ' it
seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to usf since it should
have sufficed to say, ' Unto the Holy Spirit. ' In the first
place, (he saith,) to the Holy Ghost, that they may not think
it to be of man ; but secondly, to us, that they may be taught
that the apostles receive it, though of the circumcision."
Hear Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who, after recording a number
of dissensions in consequence of the Nicene Council, says,
" It should seem by all this that the definitions of General
Councils were not accounted the last determination of truths ;
or rather, that what propositions General Councils say are
e The reader may easily confirm these authorities by a Catena Patrum, which
embrace all the . centuries since the Reformation. Jewel, Stillingfleet, Usher,
Hall, &c.

12
true, are hot therefore part of the body of faith, though they
be true ; or else, that all these did go against an established
rule of faith and conscience, which if they had done, they
might easily have been oppressed by their adversaries urging
the plain authority of the Council against them." (See the
whole part on this subject, Dissuasive from Popery, part ii.
book i. c. 4.) St. Augustin refers the authority of a Council
to Scripture as the rule of faith : " To him we answer,
According to the authority of the Holy Scripture a Catholic
(Catholicum) Council of the whole world hath decreed, that
the baptism of Christ, which heretics are found to have re
ceived, (in hsereticis inventum,) is not to be rejected. But if
he produce the testimony of Scripture, we should shew,
either that it is not against us, or that it is even for us." (De
Baptismo contra Don. vi. 13.) The last quotation which I
shall give from Augustin shews most clearly his opinion of
the authority of Councils : " Et ipsa concilia quse per singulas
regiones vel provincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctori-
tati, qu*e fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano, sine ullis ambagibus
cedere : ipsaque plenaria scepe priora posterioribus emendari,
cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat et
cognoscitur quod latebat," &c. (De Bapt. cont. Don. ii. 3.)
Chrysostom's advice to an inquiring convert, shews that he
believed the Bible to be alone able to make men wise unto
salvation, and that he by no means was prepared to claim
infallibility. (See Acts of the Apostles, Horn, xxxiii. 4.) Thus
far have we endeavoured to shew that the view set forth in
No. 90 is neither consistent with the words of the Article, nor
with the Anglican doctrine ; and further, that that great and
holy man, Augustin, had by no means an opinion of the in
fallibility of any Councils ; and we will conclude the section
with one observation on the quotation from Gregory Nazianzen,
who is brought forward to shew the consistency of the view.

13
Reasonable objections might be urged, that neither are the
inconsistencies of any individual, however good, to be pro
duced as an explanation of the inconsistency of a Church, nor
his excited declarations to be placed in comparison with
solemn Articles: but the objection which I urge is of far
stronger weight; for the words of Gregory, in the second
quotation, do by no means imply inspiration any further than
as we have quoted from Hooker with regard to all Councils :
but Augustin sets the matter perfectly at rest ; for he speaks
of the Lord revealing himself unto those very Councils which
are subject to correction by a future Council, which certainly
shews that his meaning was by no means to express in
fallibility. (See De Bapt. cont. Don. ii. 4.)

14

§. 6. Purgatory, Pardons, Images, Relics, Invocation of
Saints.
Article XXII. — " The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory,
pardons, worshipping and adoration, as well of images as of
relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing vainly
invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but
rather repugnant to the word of God."
We have now come to the most extraordinary part of this
most extraordinary production. The great object in view
throughout appears to be, to shew that Romanism is now
different from what it was at the time the Articles were
drawn up, and more harmless ; in consequence of which, the
writer would have us infer, that one holding opinions in
accordance with the Council of Trent and modern Romanists
on the subjects mentioned in this Article, may conscientiously
and ex animo subscribe. How far this is correct, it will be
my effort to shew in the succeeding pages. The remarks on
this Article commence as follows.
" Now the first remark that occurs on perusing this Article
is, that the doctrine objected to is ' the Romish doctrine.'
For instance, no one would suppose that the Calvinistic doc
trine concerning purgatory, pardons, and image-worship, is
spoken against."
Now to borrow the author's own words from the next
page : " In this passage the writer does not positively commit
himself ' to the maintaining of the proposition, that the Cal
vinistic doctrine on these points is an erroneous one, and one
condemned by the Article,' but he evidently wishes his reader
to think he believes as much."

15
I have no desire here to come forward as an advocate of
Calvinism, but of honesty and fair play. And certainly the
insinuation implied in this passage calls for some reply. I
imagine Calvin's Institutes to be the most authorized work to
which reference is to be made for Calvinistic views. The fifth
chapter of his third book is devoted to the question of pardons
and purgatory. On a reference to this it will be found that
he speaks in the strongest terms of disapprobation of the
Romish doctrines : " Purgatory has been erected with a mul
titude of blasphemies, and is daily propped up by new ones."
And he admits, that for a time it might be possible to keep
out of view that it was unsupported by Scripture, but ac
credited only by some revelation invented by the craft of the
Devil, and that the Bible required to be perverted to prove it.
He asserts, that '• purgatory is a pernicious fiction of Satan :
it makes void the cross of Christ ; it intolerably insults the
divine mercy, and weakens and overturns our faith." The
only purgatory he holds is the purification of the soul by the
grace and power of the Holy Spirit in this life. What
opinion he maintains regarding pictures and images, may be
seen in book i. chap. xi. sect. 12 ; where he states, that
" nothing may be painted or engraved except visible objects ;
that when any transaction is represented, the arts serve to
aid the recollection; and when mere corporeal forms, apart
from any action, are exhibited, they furnish nothing but amuse-
~ment." And by the doctrine of pardons or indulgences he
declares the blood of Christ to be basely profaned.
The writer of the Tract, then, is quite correct, when he in
forms us that this Article does not condemn the Calvinistic
doctrine, seeing that it is equally with the Anglican opposed
to the Romish. We can also follow the writer when he as
serts, that " Not every doctrine on these matters is a fond
thing;" inasmuch as the doctrine of the Article itself, of

16
course, is not condemned, nor any other that concurs in the
condemnation of that system of views of the subject commonly
known as " Romish," because admitted into the Creed, and
enforced by the authority of the Church of Rome. "Ac
cordingly," proceeds the writer, " the primitive doctrine is not
condemned in it, unless, indeed, the primitive doctrine be the
Romish, which must not be supposed." Of course we are not
to set down primitive doctrines as one and the same with
Romish doctrines; but surely, because a doctrine is primitive,
if it be unscriptural, its primitiveness is no argument against
its also being Romish. To this point, however, we shall pre
sently return. But to continue the extract : " Now there was
a primitive doctrine on all these points : how far Catholic or
universal is a further question,' but still so widely received
and so respectably supported, that it may well be entertained
as a matter of opinion by a theologian now ; this then, what
ever be its merits, is not condemned by the Article." Now
this is most certainly a conclusion arrived at by a very sum
mary process, a complete petitio principii. It can scarcely
be dignified by the title of reasoning or argument. It is bare
assertion,8 and assertion not altogether warranted by au
thority, as I will endeavour to shew. I shall abstain from
giving any long quotations from Bishop Jewel, but refer to
the defence of his Apology, part ii. c. 16. divisions 1 and 2.
He asserts, that the doctrine is older than the times of the
apostles : and states Origen's opinion in support of it, as also
' Jewel quotes a Romish writer, (Alphonsus de Hseresibus, lib. 8. de Indulgent™,)
who admits that the Eastern, or Greek Church, never believed in purgatory, at once
disproving the universality or catholicity of this doctrine.
- He assumes « primitive doctrine widely and respectably maintained, and that it
is not condemned by the Article ; and from these assumed premises concludes, that it
may be held now as a matter of opinion by a theologian : he certainly does not say of
what Church, but surely any plain minded person would imagine it to refer to any
member of the Church of England.

17
of the necessity of baptism in the next world. He also shews that,
in St. Pauls time, it was a notion in the Church, as there were
some. who were "baptized for the dead."h He then gives a
canon from the Council of Carthage, levelled against a sect
who were wont to give the sacramental bread to deceased
persons. He gives passages from Cyprian, Chrysostom, Au
gustin, Ambrose, and Jerome, strongly opposed to any notion
of a third or purgatorial state for souls after death. I may
perhaps be allowed to insert a few lines from the Apology
on Augustin's opinion. " Augustin, indeed, sometime saith,
there is such a certain place: (in Ps.lxxxv.) sometime he denieth
not, but there may be such a one : sometime he doubteth :
sometime again he utterly denieth there is any at all, and
thinketh that men are therein deceived by a certain natural
good will they bear their friends departed." Chrysostom
mentions an opinion, also " a primitive doctrine," that the
souls of the departed became demons, and tormented the
living : a notion he ably refutes in his Homily on the passage
in St. Matthew, touching the evil spirits who entered into the
herd of swine. Again, at the close of his sixth Homily on
the Philippians, he refers to the passage used by the Romanists
in defence of their purgatory, in 1 Cor. iii. 13, where he op
poses, by his use of the verse, the purgatory of Origen, and
Rome, and any others, however "primitive," who held the
existence of any such sort of place. How far our Church has
left the 'intermediate state of the saints an open question, I
presume may be decided at once, by a reference to our
Prayer-book, a work " acknowledged on all hands to be of
Catholic origin." In the " Order for the Burial of the Dead,"
one of the prayers to be said by the priest begins thus : " Al-
b Some may not like this use of the passage, but there appears no agreement among
the Fathers on the method of interpreting the verse in question ; and perhaps, on the
whole, the weight of authority leans towards the one here given by Jewel.
c

18
mighty God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart
hence in the Lord, and with whom the souls of the faithful, after
they are delivered from tlie burden of the flesh, are in joy and
felicity," &c. The opinion of the Church as delivered in the
Homilies we shall discuss presently.
The worship of images was not commanded till the eighth
century by the second Council of Nice.
On the doctrine of indulgences and pardons, Augustin writes,
" Though we die brethren for brethren, yet no martyr's blood
is ever shed for the remission of sins. Christ has done this for
us; and in doing it, has not only given us an example in
which we should imitate him, but conferred a favour for which
we should thank him."
But we continue.
" This is clear without proof on the face of the matter,
at least as regards pardons. Of course, the Article never
meant to make light of every doctrine about pardons, but
a certain doctrine, the Romish." Of course, it does not
condemn any doctrine of Scripture, as that " there is now no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus," but it does
condemn any doctrine similar to that held and authorized by
Rome, such as that contained in the Bull of Leo X. issued in
A.D. 1518, and in the Canons of Trent.
We now come to something like a proof of the preceding
statements :
" And a verification of such an understanding of the
Article is afforded us in some sentences in the Homily on
Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far as regards relics, a certain
' veneration ' is sanctioned by its tone of speaking of them,
though not of course of the Romish veneration.
" The sentences referred to run as follows : —
" ' In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the ninth book,
and forty-eighth chapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being

19
yet alive, did work miracles : and that after his death, devils,
being expelled at his grave or tomb, did roar.' Thus you see
what authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned)
and that most ancient history give unto the holy and learned
Bishop Epiphanius.'
" Again : —
" St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius
the Emperor, saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on
it. She worshipped the King, and not the wood, surely (for
that is an heathenish error and the vanity of the wicked), but
she worshipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose
Name was written on the title,' and so forth. See both the
godly empress's fact, and St. Ambrose's judgment at once ;
they thought it had been an heathenish error, and vanity of
the wicked, to have worshipped the Cross itself, which was
embrued with our Saviour Christ's own precious blood.' —
Peril of Idolatry, part 2, circ. init,
"In these passages the writer does not positively commit
himself to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the invention
of the cross, but he evidently wishes the hearer to think he
believes in both. This he would not do, if he thought aU
honour paid to relics wrong."
Now if the passages quoted stood just as they now do,
perfectly unconnected, I am at a loss to know how they prove
the point under consideration, or involve the consequence
asserted at the close of the above quotation. However,
I think my readers will see the passages in a very different
light when viewed in their connections, and carried on a little
farther than the writer of the Tract has thought good for his
purpose. The connection of the first extract from the Homily on the
Peril of Idolatry, part 2, is as follows, page 180. "Epipha
nius, bishop of Salauiine in Cyprus, a very holy and learned
c2

20
man, who lived in Theodosius the Emperor's time, about
three hundred and ninety years after our Saviour Christ's
ascension, writeth thus to John, Patriarch of Jerusalem:
' I entered (saith Epiphanius) into a certain church to pray :
I found there a linen cloth hanging in the church door,
painted, and having in it the image of Christ, as it were,
or of some other saint, (for I remember not well whose
image it was ;) therefore when I did see the image of a man
hanging in the church of Christ, contrary to the authority of
the Scriptures, I did tear it ; and gave counsel to the keepers
of the church, that they should wind a poor man that was
dead, in the said cloth, and so bury himi And afterwards
the same Epiphanius, sending another unpainted cloth,
for that painted one which he had torn down, to the said
Patriarch, writeth thus : ' I pray you, will the elders of that
place to receive this cloth, which I have sent by this bearer,
and command them that from henceforth no such painted cloths,
contrary to our religion, be hanged in the church of Christ. For
it becometh your goodness rather to have this care, that you
take away such scrupulosity, which is unfitting for the Church of
Christ, and offensive to the people committed to your charge.' "
The Homily then proceeds to state, that Jerome translated
this Epistle of Epiphanius, and bore high testimony to his
worthiness ; and to shew in how great esteem he was held in
the Church, gives the first extract above quoted from No. 90.
The sentence, however, does not end in the Homily as it is
made to terminate in the Tract, but proceeds thus : — " Bishop
Epiphanius, whose judgment of images in churches and temples,
then beginning by stealth to creep in, is worthy to be noted."
" First, he judged it contrary to Christian religion, and the
authority of the Scriptures, to have any images in Christ's
Church. Secondly, he rejected not only carved, graven, and
molten images, but also painted images out of Christ's Church.

21

Thirdly, that he regarded not whether it were the image of
Christ, or of any other saint ; but being an image, would not
suffer it in the church. Fourthly, that he did not only re
move it out of the church, but with a vehement zeal tore it in
sunder, and exhorted that a corse should be wrapped and buried
in it, judging it meet for nothing but to rot in the earth; following
herein the example of good king Ezechias, who brake the
brazen serpent in pieces, and burned it to ashes, for that
idolatry was committed to it. Last of all, that Epiphanius
thinketh it the duty of vigilant bishops to be careful that no
images be permitted in the church, for that they be occasion
of scruple and offence to the people committed to their charge."
Surely it is a hard matter to determine what that " certain
toleration" is, which is compatible with the wording of the
Article, as illustrated authoritatively by the Homilies.
The second extract goes on thus : — " The cross itself, which
was embrued with our Saviour Christ's own precious blood.
And ive fall down before every cross piece of timber, which is
but an image of that cross." Evidently speaking ironically of
any veneration before an image of the cross. Surely "this
he would not do, if he thought" any "honour paid to relics"
right! The continuation of these two extracts I think is suf
ficient to overturn the statement of the succeeding paragraph.
" If, then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine
concerning veneration of relics is condemned in the Article be
fore us, but a certain toleration of them is compatible with its
wording ; neither is all doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons
images, and saints, condemned by the Article, but only ' the
Romish.' "
In case, however, any doubt should still overshadow the
mind of the reader, a few more extracts shall be added from
the same Homily.
Part i. page 173 : "And, therefore, although it is now

22
commonly said that they be the laymen's books, yet we see
they teach no good lesson, neither of God, nor godliness ; but
all error and wickedness. Therefore God, by his word, as he
forbiddeth any idols or images to be made or set up, so doth he
command such as we find made and set up to be pulled down,
broken, and destroyed."
Again, a few lines lower, on Deut. vii. 5, 6 ; xii. 3 : " Here
note, what the people of God ought to do to images, where they
find them."
At page 176, on 2 Cor. vi. 16: "Which place enforceth,
both that we should not worship images, and that we should not
have images in the temple, for fear and occasion of worshipping
them, though they be of themselves things indifferent : for the
Christian is the holy temple and lively image of God, as the
place well declareth to such as will read and weigh it."
Part ii. page 177 : "It shall, in this second part, be declared,
(as in the beginning of the first part was promised,) that this
truth and doctrine, concerning the forbidding of images, and
worshipping of them, taken out of the Holy Scriptures, as well
of the Old Testament as the New, was believed and taught of
the old holy fathers and most ancient learned doctors, and re
ceived in the old primitive Church,- which was most uncorrupt
and pure."
Page 178: Tertullian "doth most sharply and vehemently
write and inveigh against images or idols : " and upon St.
John's words, the first Epistle and fifth chapter, saith thus :
" St. John," saith he, " deeply considering the matter, saith,
' My little children, keep yourselves from images or idols.'
He saith not now keep yourselves from idolatry, as it were
from the service and worshipping of them, but from the images
or idols themselves ; that is, from the very shape and likeness
of them : for it were an unworthy thing, that the image of
the living God should become the image of a dead idol."

23
Page 179 : Origines, in his book against Celsus, saith, " It
is not only a mad and frantic part to worship images, but also
once to dissemble or wink at it." And Lactantius, in his
book of the Origin of- Error, hath these words, — " God is
above man, and is not placed beneath, but is to be sought in
the highest region. Wherefore there is no doubt, but that
no religion is in that place wheresoever any image is : for if
religion stand in godly things, and there is no godliness but in
heavenly things, then be images without religion."
The acts of this same Lactantius, which here follow in the
Homily, have already been referred to. The Homily, how
ever, proceeds to state, that " our image maintainers now-a-
days" strive in vain to prove that the Epistle was neither
written by Lactantius, nor translated by Jerom. The Homily
thus continues, page 182 : " 'Either if it be,' say they, ' it is of
no great force : for this Epiphanius,' say they, ' was a Jew, and,
being converted to the Christian faith and made a Bishop, re
tained the hatred which Jews have to images still in his mind,
and so did and wrote against them as a Jew, rather than as a
Christian.' Oh Jewish impudency and malice of such devisers !
It would be proved, and not said only, that Epiphanius was a
Jew. Furthermore, concerning the reason they make, I would
admit it gladly. For if Epiphanius's judgment against images
is not to be admitted, for that he was born of a Jew, an
enemy to images, which be God's enemies, converted to
Christ's religion ; then likewise followeth it, that no sentence
in the old Doctors and Fathers; sounding for images, ought to be
of any authority ; for that in the primitive church the most
part of learned writers, as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose,
Austin, and infinite others more, were of Gentiles (which
be favourers and worshippers of images) converted to the
Christian faith, and so let somewhat slip out of their pens,
sounding for images, rather as Gentiles than Christians, as

24 F>
Eusebius in his History Ecclesiastical, and St. Jerome, saith
plainly, 'that images came first from the Gentiles to us
Christians.' "
An historical sketch is next given of the progress of image-
worship. The first step is thus described, page 184 : " It is
asserted, that some of the early converts from idolatry to
Christianity ' did of a certain blind zeal, and as men long
accustomed to images, paint or carve' images of our Saviour
Christ, his mother Mary, and the apostles ; thinking that this
was a point of gratitude and kindness toward those by whom
they had received the true knowledge of God and the doctrine
ofthe Gospel."
Again at page 188 : " But as all things that be amiss have
from a tolerable beginning grown worse and worse, till they
at the last became intolerable, so did this matter of images.
First, men used privately stories painted in tables, cloths, and
walls. Afterwards gross and embossed images, privately in
their own houses. Then afterwards, pictures first, and after
them embossed images, began to creep into churches ; learned
and godly men ever speaking against them. Then, by use it
was openly maintained that they might be in churches ; but
yet forbidden that they should be worshipped."
At page 192, it is affirmed, that for the space of almost seven
hundred years, in the Churches of Asia and Greece there Were
no images publicly : " And there is no doubt but the primi
tive Church, next the apostles' time, was most pure."
At page 193 we read, " And now you may see that come
to pass, which Bishop Serenus feared, and Gregory I. forbade
in vain ; to wit, that images should in no wise be worshipped.
For now not only the simple and unwise — unto whom images,
as the Scriptures teach, be specially a snare — but the Bishops,
and learned men also, fall to idolatry by occasion of images',
yea, and make decrees and laws also for the maintenance of

25
the same. So hard is it, and indeed impossible, any long time
to have images publicly in churches and temples without
idolatry ; as by the space of a little more than one hundred
years betwixt Gregory I. forbidding most straitly the wor
shipping of images, and Gregory III., Paul, and Leo III.,
Bishops of Rome, with this council, commanding and decree
ing that images should be worshipped, most evidently ap-
peareth." After narrating the enormities practised by Irene, at page
194, the Homily launches into a bitter satire, saying, " Here
you may see what a gracious and virtuous lady this Irene
was," &c. " Surely, they could not have found a meeter patron
for the maintenance of such a matter than this Irene," &c.
Part iii. page 208, we read : " That all our images of God,
our Saviour Christ, and his saints, publicly set up in temples
and churches — places peculiarly appointed to the true wor
shipping of God — be not things indifferent, nor tolerable, but
against GW's law and commandment, taking their own inter
pretation and exposition of it.
" First, for that all images, so set up publicly, have been
worshipped of the unlearned and simple sort, shortly after they
have been publicly so set up, and in conclusion, of the wise
and learned also.
" Secondly, for that they are worshipped in sundry places
now in our time also.
" And thirdly, for that it is impossible that images of God,
Christ, or his saints, can be suffered — especially in temples
and churches— any while or space, without worshipping of
them: and that idolatry, which is most abominable before
God, cannot possibly be escaped and avoided, without the abolish
ing and destruction of images and pictures in temples and
churches ; for that idolatry is to images, specially in temples
and churches, an inseparable accident, as they term it ; so that

26
images in churches and idolatry go always both together, and
that therefore the one cannot be avoided, except the other,
specially in all public places, be destroyed. Wherefore, to
make images, and publicly to set them up in temples and
churches, places appointed peculiarly to the service of God, is
to make images to the use of religion ; and not only against
this precept, Thou shalt make no .manner of images, but
against this also, Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor wor
ship them. For they, being set up, have been, be, and ever will
be worshipped. And the full proof of that, which in the be
ginning of the first part of this treatise was touched, is here
to be made and performed ; to wit, that our images and idols
ofthe Gentiles, be all one, as well in the things themselves, as
also in that our images bave been before, be now, and ever
will be worshipped, in like form and manner as the idols of
the Gentiles were worshipped, so long as they be suffered in
churches and temples. Whereupon it followeth, that our
images in churches have been, be, and ever will be, none other
but abominable idols, and be therefore no things indifferent."
With this extract we conclude the testimony of the Ho
milies on the subject of images, and consider that they are
sufficient to prove, that in no degree whatever does the
Article, as explained by the Homilies, tolerate any veneration,
reverence, or respect, shewn either to images or relics, but
absolutely forbids their being set up at all ; and when found
so set up, orders them to be destroyed.
It is next asserted in the Tract, that "by the Romish
doctrine, is not meant the Tridentine doctrine, because this
Article was drawn up before the decree of the Council of
Trent." Now if this sentence mean that our twenty-second
Article was not drawn up against the Tridentine decree or
statement of doctrine, it is historically true : but if it mean
that the doctrine condemned as Romish is different from that

27
sanctioned by the Tridentine Council, it is false. For if any
one will take the trouble to refer to the twenty-fifth Session
of this Council, under " Decretum, de invocatione, veneratione
et reliquiis sanctorum, et sacris imaginibus," he will find that
it is for the most part a mere sanction of the then existing
doctrines ; and, on a comparison with the Homily on the Peril
of Idolatry, he will find a far less degree of reverence is there
condemned than is commanded by the Tridentine decree.
A quotation is given a few lines below, from the " Decretum
de Purgatorio," to prove that our Article approves certain
portions of the Tridentine doctrine, as far as they go. Now
the quotation, if stretched to the utmost, proves no more than
that the doctrine of reserve in communicating religious know
ledge, so much insisted and acted upon by the Tractarians,
receives a sanction from the doctrine of Trent, or Tridentine
statement. The decree teaches " Purgatorium esse, animasque
ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimum vero acceptabili
altaris sacrificio juvari." And if the writer of the Tract had
read on through another sentence, he would have found that
though the " rudis plebs " is to be uninstructed in the matter,
the Bishops are ordered to take care " ut fidelium vivorum suf-
fragia, missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes eleemosynse, ali-
aque pietatis opera, quae a fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus de-
functis fieri consueverunt, secundum ecclesia, instituta, pie et
devote fiant, et qua? pro illis ex testatorum fundatoribus vel
alia ratione debentur, non perfunctorie, sed a sacerdotibus, et
ecclesiae ministris, et aliis, qui hoc prwstare tenentur, diligenter
et accurate persolvantur."
" Again about images," continues the Tract,1 " due honour,"
&c; such, I suppose, as Epiphanius shewed the painted cloth ;
' We must remember, that though these words are not Mr. Newman's, but taken
from the Tridentine Statement, he brings them forward as being approved by the
Article, and the teaching of the Church of England.

28

else, let me ask, what is the due veneration for images autho
ritatively, taught or even permitted by the Anglo-Catholic
Church? I will just finish the second quotation from the
Tridentine Decrees for the writer, and place by their side an
extract from the Homily on the Peril of Idolatry, page 214.

" Sed quoniam honos qui eis
exhibetur, refertur ad proto
type quae illaa representant,
ita ut per imagines, quas oscu-
lamur, et eoram quibus caput
aperimus et procumbimus,
Christum adoremus, et sanctos,
quorum illse similitudinem ge-
runt, veneremur. Id quod
conciliorum, praesertim vero se-
cundse Nicsenee synodi decretis
contra imaginum oppugnatores
est sancitum."

"The Gentiles, saith St. Au
gustine, which seem to be of
the purer religion, say, ' We
worship not the images, but
by the corporeal image we do
behold the signs of the things
which we ought to worship.'
"And Lactantius saith, 'The
Gentiles say, We fear not the
images, but them after whose
likeness the images be made,
and to whose names they be
consecrated.' "

The Tract proceeds, " If, then, the doctrine condemned
in this Article concerning purgatory, pardons, images, relics,
and saints, be not the Primitive doctrine, nor the Catholic
doctrine, nor the Tridentine doctrine [or statement,] but the
Romish, doctrina Romanensium, let us next consider what in
matter of fact it is."
This passage is important, inasmuch as it is a short summary
of the whole subject now before us, and refers alike to every
one of the Romish doctrines named in the Article. They
are the doctrines of the Church, not the errors of certain
individual members of that Church to which the words of the
Article direct our attention. And those doctrines underwent
no change at the Council of Trent. That Council merely
ratified the existing opinions, and the decrees of former

29
Councils on these points. One thing is plain, however, with
respect to the Article and the Tridentine statement ; that they
are perfectly contradictory : and though our Articles were not
drawn up against the Tridentine, the Tridentine was against
our Articles. And in addition to this, when our Articles were
again ratified in 1571, although the Council had issued its
decrees for eight years as an authoritative statement of Romish
doctrine, those in power in our Church saw no need of altering
in any degree our twenty-second. Article ; so that even though
the teaching ofthe Romish Church had been different in 1562
from what it was in 1571, the Church of England considered
the wording of her Article not one wit too strong when ap
plied to Romish doctrines, as even then authoritatively stated
and enforced.
But we now come to particulars.
I. Of Purgatory. The writer states a primitive doctrine
concerning the fire of judgment. Bishop Taylor, in his Dis
suasive from Popery, chap. i. sect. 4. speaks of this same ;
and states, that he considers Origen, in the third century,
was the first who spoke plainly of it; that "Ambrose follows
him in the opinion, (for it was no more.)" He also mentions
other opinions on the subject, differing from the Romish
doctrine, and subversive of it, but certainly gives no sanction
to them. The writer of No. 90 also mentions some other doc
trines which he calls primitive, though " grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture;" and then states, "none of these doc
trines does the Article condemn ; any of them may be held
by the Anglo-Catholic, as a matter of private belief."
Now it certainly must appear to any person who desires
only to get at the open and evident meaning of our Church,
that these doctrines are in spirit, though not perhaps in letter,
condemned by this Article ; or, at all events, by the general
tendency of the Articles taken as a body of theological

30
teaching, interpreted by her authoritative documents and
standard writers ; inasmuch as they deny the existence
of any third place, any atonement but that of Christ, any
purification but that of the Spirit. This we shall presently
shew from the Homilies. We must first notice a paragraph
inserted in the second edition of the Tract.
" For what the doctrine which is reprobated is, we might
refer, in the first place, to the Council of Florence, where a .
decree was passed on the subject, were not that decree almost
as vague as the Tridentine ; viz. that deficiency of penance
is made up by posnce purgatorio, i"1
With regard to this passage, we may observe, the Tridentine
Decree refers to the Council of Florence ; and if the Tridentine
statement is so very "vague," it can be hardly right to assume,
that it is not the same as some primitive doctrine. But I cannot
agree with our author, that this point is left so indefinite.
We know that in the discussion at Trent, concerning the de
cree De Purgatorio, the Archbishop of Lanciano said, that " in
handling the mass, mention was made, that that sacrifice is
offered 'pro defunctis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis ;'k
by which words the doctrine of purgatory was sufficiently de
fined." And in addition to this, the decree already quoted
seems sufficiently clear on the matter. We may further add
two sentences from Dens, vol. vii. 349: "Quid est Purgato-
rium ? Est locus, in quo animse justorum defunctorum obnoxise
pcenis temporalibus satispatiuntur. Quid credere debemus de
Purgatorio? Concil. Trid. Sess. 25, initio decreti de Purgatorio
duo credenda definivk, scilicet Purgatorium esse, animasque
ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimum vero acceptabili
altaris sacrificio juvari. Hanc fidem etiam professi Greed in
Concilio Flor. Circa reliquas de purgatorio quasstiones nihil
definitum." Here, then, are two points plainly, precisely, and
* Sessio 22. De Sacr. Missae, c. 2.

31
authoritatively stated and taught : that there is a purgatory
for the souls of the just, and that they are aided by the prayers
of the saints upon earth. Let us now hear the Church in her
Homilies. We will refer our readers to the passage quoted
in the Tract, only beginning about half a page further back.
It is the Homily concerning Prayer, page 306 : " Now to en
treat of that question, whether we ought to pray for them that
are departed out of this world, or no. Wherein, if we will
cleave only unto the word of God, then must we needs grant,
that we have no commandment so to do. For the Scripture
doth acknowledge but two places after this life ; the one proper
to the elect and blessed of God, the other to the reprobate and
damned souls; as may be well gathered by the parable of
Lazarus and the rich man, (Luke xvi. 22, 23,) which place
St. Augustin expounding, saith in this wise ; That which
Abraham speaketh unto the rich man in Luke's Gospel —
namely, that the just cannot go into those places where the wicked
are tormented — what other thing doth it signify, but only
this : that the just, by reason of God's judgment, which may
not be revoked, can shew no deed of mercy in helping them,
which, after this life, are cast into prison, until they pay the
uttermost farthing ? These words, as they confound the opinion
of helping the dead by prayer, so they do clean confute and
take away the vain error of Purgatory, which is grounded upon
this saying ofthe Gospel, (Matt. v. 26,) ' Thou shalt not depart
thence, until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.' "
Then follows the part quoted at page 25 of No. 90 : " Now
doth St. Augustin," &c. I cannot refrain from giving the
passage following the quotation, as it seems to bear so much
upon the present subject : " Let these and such other places
be sufficient to take away the gross error of Purgatory out of
our heads : neither let us dream any more, that the souls of
the dead are any thing at all holpen by our prayers : but, as
the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of man passing

32
out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven, or else to
hell; whereof the one needeth no prayer, and the other is without
redemption. " The only purgatory, wherein we must trust to be saved, is
the death and blood of Christ ; which if we apprehend with
a true and stedfast faith, it purgeth and cleanseth us from all
our sins, even as well as if he were now hanging upon the
cross. ' The blood of Christ,' saith St. John, (1 John i. 7,)
' hath cleansed us from all sin.' ' The blood of Christ,' saith
St. Paul, (Heb. ix. 14,) ' hath purged our consciences from
dead works to serve the living God.' Also in another place he
saith, (Heb. x. 10,) ' We be sanctified and made holy by the
offering up of the body of Jesus Christ done once for all.'
Yea, he addeth more, saying, (ver. 14,) 'With the one obla
tion of his blessed body and precious blood, he hath made
perfect for ever and ever all them that are sanctified.' This,
then, is that purgatory, wherein all Christian men must put their
whole trust and confidence ; nothing doubting, but if they truly
repent them of their sins, and die in perfect faith, that then they
shall forthwith pass from death to life. If this kind of purgation
will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by other
men's prayers, though they should continue therein unto the
world's end. He that cannot be saved by faith in Christ's blood,
how shall he look to be delivered by man's intercessions ? "
And now let any one say if this Homily can at all be looked
upon as consenting to the Tridentine Purgatory. The soul
goes straightway to heaven or hell ; the one needing no
prayer, the other without redemption. And no room is left for
any place where " believers, who have already been pardoned
in this life, may be cleansed and purified for beholding the face
of God." We may therefore conclude, that the Homily does
speak of the same purgatory as the Council of Trent ; and
that this same is therefore, on Mr. Newman's own ground, con
demned by the Article.

33
The next paragraph needs only a single word to refute it ;
namely, that the prayers spoken of for the dead are those
offered for the departed souls in purgatory, in opposition to
hell; and the words of the Homily can in no way be so
turned as to be made to speak of prayers " offered to rescue
the lost from eternal fire."
We then, in the second edition, have an extract from
Hooker, which does not seem to prove much ; it only states
of one view of the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, that the
punishments differed little, if any, from those of the damned,
except in their duration. Mr. Newman next gives an extract
from Taylor of some superstitions relative to the intermediate
state, which Taylor does not think the wise men of Rome be
lieved. Yet if the extract had been continued, it would have
been seen that Taylor was not quite so well satisfied with
these wise men as appears from the passage as it now stands ;
for he immediately adds, " But even the better sort of them
do believe them ; or else they do worse, for they cite and urge
the Dialogues of St. Gregory, the Oration of St. John Damascen
' De Defunctis,' the Sermons of St. Austin upon the Feast of
the Commemoration of All- Souls, (which nevertheless was in
stituted after St. Austin's death,) and divers other citations,
which the Greeks, in their Apology, call ' the holds and the
castles, the corruptions and insinuations of heretical per
sons.'" Next comes an extract from "Purgatory proved by Mi
racles," which certainly does not seem to have much to do
with the subject ; and contains rather the errors of individuals,
than the teaching of the Church. Our Article doubtless con
demns these, but not these alone.
In the second edition is inserted a passage to all appearance
perfectly contradictory to the passage at page 26 : we will
place them side by side.

34

First edition, p. 26.
" Now it is plain, from this
passage, that the Purgatory
contemplated by the Homily,
was one for which no one will
for an instant pretend to ad
duce even those Fathers who
most favour Rome, viz. one in
which our state would be
changed, in which "God's sen
tence could be reversed. ' The
sentence of God,' says the
writer, 'is unchangeable, and
cannot be revoked again ;
there is no place for repent
ance.' On the other hand, the
Cowncilof Trent, and Augustine
and Cyprian, so far as they
express or imply any opinion
approximating to that of the
Council, held Purgatory to be
a place for believers, not unbe
lievers ; not where men who
have lived and died in God's
wrath, may gain pardon, but
where those who have already
been pardoned in this life, may
be cleansed and purified for be
holding the face of God. The
Homily, then, and therefore
the Article, does not speak of
the Tridentine purgatory."
In the one it is stated, that

Second edition, p. 28.
" Let it be considered, then,
whether on the whole the
' Romish doctrine of Purga
tory,' which the Article con
demns, and which was gene
rally believed in the Roman
Church three centuries since,
as well as now, viewed in its
essence, be not the doctrine,
that the punishment of unright
eous Christians is temporary,
not eternal, and that the puri
fication of the righteous is a
portion of the same punishment,
together with the superstitions,
and impostures for the sake of
gain, consequent thereupon."

the state contemplated by the

35
Homily is one in which " our state would be changed ;" while
the Tridentine statement, not condemned by the Homily or
the Article, is asserted to be the same as the fresh paragraph
in the second edition urges upon our notice as the Romish
doctrine condemned by the Article.
We now come to standard authorities in the Church of
England on Purgatory ; and, first, we will take Taylor, in his
Dissuasive from Popery, ch. i. sect. 4. He thus sets forth
one of the false doctrines upon which it stands. " That the
death of Christ, his merits and satisfaction, do not procure for
us a full remission before we die ; nor, as it may happen, of a
long time after. All which being propositions new and uncer
tain, invented by the school divines, and brought, 'ex post
facto,' to dress this opinion, and make it to seem reasonable ;
and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins
by grace, of the righteousness of faith, and the infinite value
of Christ's death, must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty
upon the doctrine itself, which, but by these, cannot be sup
ported. But to put it past suspicion and conjectures, Rof-
fensis and Polydore Virgil affirm, that whoso searcheth the
writings of the Greek Fathers, shall find that none, or very
rarely any one of them, ever makes mention of Purgatory;
aud that the Latin Fathers did not at all believe it, but by
degrees came to entertain opinions of it : but for the Catholic
Church, it was but lately known to her."
Bishop Hall, in his " No Peace with Rome," devotes a
chapter to the subject of Purgatory, from which we give one
short extract. " As Hierom said of the heretics of his time,
they frame some unfitting testimonies to their own sense, as
if it were a worthy and not rather an abominable kind of
teaching, to deprave sentences, and to drag the Scriptures
perforce to their own bent. Neither are the ancient Fathers
better used in their citations; of which Origen, Ambrose,
d2

36
Hilary, Lactantius, Nyssen, Hierome, gave intimation of quite
another purgatory from the Romish. Augustine speaks of it,
at peradventure, waveringly, uncertainly. The rest never
dreamed of any at all. But yet I mistake it ; now I remember
S. Plato is cited by Austin, and Eusebius, for the patron of
this opinion ; and who knows not that S. Homer and S. Virgil
are flat for it ? yet this fire never began to burn out, but in
Gregory's time ; and since that, the authority of the Alcoran
hath not a little mended it : this it is that their Rochester
ingenuously confessed of old, that this purgatory-flame came
but lately to the knowledge of the Church : but for us, that of
St. Paul shall never be wrung from our hands, " if or when
this earthly house be dissolved, we have a building not made
with hands, eternal in the heavens," &c.
2. Pardons or Indulgences.
We will here place side by side the concluding paragraphs
in the first and second editions.
First edition.

" The Pardons then spoken
of in the Article, are large and
reckless indulgences from the
penalties of sin obtained on
money payments."

" The doctrine then of Par
dons, spoken of in the Article,
is the doctrine maintained
and acted on in the Roman
Church, that remission of the
penalties of sin in the next life
may be obtained by the power
of the Pope, with such abuses
as money payments consequent
thereupon."
Now though Mr. Newman has certainly here withdrawn
nothing, yet his insertion has entirely altered the force of the
passage, and the main stress of the sentence is thrown upon

Second edition.

37
quite another part. In the one, the doctrine stated to be con
demned is the dispensing indulgences for money, (which the
Council of Trent does ;) in the other, the dispensing them at
all. The one is directed against the abuse of pardons, the other
against the use. There is indeed an Article directed expressly
against the very root of indulgences, or works of supereroga
tion : where our church denies the existence of those "heavenly
treasures" which Rome pretends to expend in granting par
dons and indulgences to her deluded votaries. Scripture is
plain against the dogma. When we have done all, we are bid
to say that we are but unprofitable servants ; and were the
saints able to work out an obedience acceptable to God, and
sufficient not only for themselves, but also to spare for others,
some Being less than God had sufficed to redeem the world
from the ruin of the fall. The Saviour in heaven shall see of
the travail of his soul and be satisfied. Of those whom God
has given him he will lose nothing ; and the saints in heaven
have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of
the Lamb, not of the martyrs, and their crowns will be cast
before the throne of God, while no hymn of thankfulness to
the saints is any where mentioned as polluting the atmosphere
of God's presence in his church triumphant in heaven. In a
word, neither in our Church formularies nor our Bibles do we
find any mention, even the slightest, of works of supereroga
tion, wrought either by the Saviour or his saints.
3. Veneration of Relics.
This question we have already discussed, and there seems
nothing fresh here brought forward to require any further
notice. We repeat, that the Homily not only permits no
veneration, but does not even tolerate images or relics, so that
where they are met with in accordance with primitive usage,
they are to be destroyed— only by persons in authority in the

38
Church. And we may further observe, that the passage from
the Council of Trent, quoted in page 36, simply goes on to
forbid any new relics to be admitted, or images of new saints
to be set up, without the sanction of the Bishop. And cer
tainly, though that which Rome calls superstition, we do also;
we do yet more, what our Church calls superstition, Rome
denominates due honour and veneration.
4. Invocation of Saints.
In this part of No. 90, " 0 heaven ! 0 earth ! 0 sea ! " is
quoted from one of the Homilies as an instance of the invoca
tion of saints ! The " Benedicite" is also brought forward as
another example of our Church leading the way in this matter.
Yet, surely, the very words " in their literal and grammatical
sense" suggest no such idea as that of invocation ; and without
any explanation, or any aid from Catholic tradition, I cannot
suppose any child would consider this hymn as a sanction of
that practice, which is so common in the Roman Church, of
addressing the saints in prayer ; either that they will plead
for us with Christ or the Father, or pour down immediate
blessings upon us. But let the benedicite suffice for a proof
of Mr. Newman's position ; grant it for a moment, and even
then our Church does not set a very high value upon the
saints, if we may judge by the company in which she places
them : frosts and dews, green things and wells, whales and
fowls, beasts and cattle.
We insert from the Roman Breviary two or three instances
of the invocation of saints, which really appears to be the only
mention of saints which can fairly be said to be invocative,
and to which our scriptural Church affords no single parallel.
I. The Confession. — " Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatse
Marife semper virgini, beato Michseli Archangelo, beato Joanni
Baptistse, Sanctis ApostoHs Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis et

39
nobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere :
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor
beatam Mariam semper virginem, beatum Micaelem Arch-
angelum, beatum Joannem Baptistum, sanctos Apostolos
Petrum et Paulum, omnes sanctos, et nos, fratres, orare pro
me ad Dominum Deum nostrum."
II. In the service for the Virgin Mary. — " Protege, Domine,
populum tuum, et Apostolorum tuorum Petri et Pauli, et
aliorum Apostolorum patrocinis confidentem, perpetua defen-
sione conserva."
III. From the same. — " Sub tuum prsesidium confugimus,
sancta Dei genitrix : nostras deprecationes ne despicias in
necessitatibus, sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo
gloriosa et benedicta."
IV. From the same. — " Beatae et gloriosse semper virginis
Maria?, quaesimus, Domini, intercessio gloriosa nos protegat, et
ad vitam perducat aeternam. Per Dominum."
We know of but one Mediator between God and man, even
the man Christ Jesus : and though we may believe that God
does use the ministry of angels to guide and guard his people,
that affords no argument why we should " send up our
thoughts and desires to them ;" though if we believe in their
agency, we may, with Bishop Andrews,1 pray to God to grant
" that the angel of peace may go before us, ever suggesting
what is salutary."
1 Mr. Newman, in his Letter to Dr. Jelf, states that Bishop Andrews's name is an
inaccuracy for Bishop Kenn. But the passage certainly does occur in Bishop Andrews's
Morning Prayer. In the second edition, this passage and the verse from Revelation is
removed. As one writer in this controvery has noticed the word angel being sub
stituted for spirit, we may observe, that although this interpretation is respectably
supported, the majority of commentators oppose it.

40

§. 7. The Sacraments.

Council of Trent, Session VII.
A.D. 1547.
Canon I. — " Si quis dixerit,
sacramenta nova? legis non fu-
isse omnia a Jesu Christo Do
mino nostro instituta; aut esse
plura vel pauciora quam sep-
tem, videlicet: baptismum, con-
firmationem, eucharistiam, pce-
nitentiam, extremam unctio-
nem, ordinem et matrimonium
aut etiam aliquod horum sep-
tem non esse vere et proprie
sacramentum : anathema sit."

Article XXV.
" Those five commonly call
ed Sacraments, that is to say,
Confirmation, Penance, Or
ders, Matrimony, and Ex
treme Unction, are not to be
counted for Sacraments of the
Gospel, being such as have
grown, partly of the corrupt
following of the Apostles,
partly from states of life al
lowed in the Scriptures; but
yet have not like nature of
sacraments with Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, for that
they have not any visible sign
or ceremony ordained of God."

This Article, then, does condemn the "Tridentine State
ment," or " Romish doctrine," or the doctrine held in the
Romish Church ; and it is remarkable to find that the Church
of Rome is so perfectly in opposition to that of England. On
this point, at least, the " stragglers" must decide which Church
they will follow, for there is a plain and direct contradiction.
The Church of Rome declares, that all are accursed who con
sider them not to have been instituted by Christ, or not to be
seven in number. The Church of England denies of all but
two, that they were instituted by Christ, and declares the
other five to have arisen from corrupt following ofthe Apostles;

4J
and she declares that the five are not sacraments of the Gospel.
But perhaps this Article appeared to the writer to require
some explanation, some illustration from the Homilies:
yet all must see that it is not, by any means, to be re
conciled with Romish doctrine, since that Church rests them
all on the same institution. The writer of No. 90 does
not, indeed, advance so far as the Council of Trent, but
seems to prefer the opinion, that they are Sacraments of the
Church. For after shewing that the Article admits a distinc
tion in the meaning of the word Sacrament, he says, " They"
(i. e. the five) " are not sacraments in any sense, unless the
Church has the power of dispensing grace through rites of
its own appointing, or is endued with the gift of blessing and
hallowing the ' rites and ceremonies,' which, according to the
Twentieth Article, it ' hath power to decree.' But we may
well believe that the Church has this gift." (1.) I would
shew that the five are not Sacraments of the Church in any
such sense. (2.) That the view set forth in the Articles,
Catechism, and Homilies, is consistently one. (3.) The re
marks with regard to the Church of England shall be briefly
noticed. In the passage quoted above, the writer means to assert,
that unless the rite is hallowed, unless it is blessed, it cannot
be a sacrament in any sense ; and consequently, that the
Church must hallow its rites before they become sacraments.
I certainly am not ready to believe that the Church has this
power ; and till this is shewn, the writer's theory remains un
proved and unsupported. Hear Jeremy Taylor as to Romish
error : " and he that invents instrumental supports of his own
head, and puts a subordinate ministerial confidence in them,
usurps the rights of God, and does not pursue the interests of
true religion. Now how greatly the Church of Rome pre
varicates in this great soul of religion, appears by too evident

42
and notorious demonstration ; for she hath invented sacra-
mentals of her own, without a divine warrant," &c. (Dis
suasive from Popery, c. ix. §. 10.) Surely the Church has
no such power, nor do our Articles give any ground for this
claim. But if we grant that it has such grace to administer,
even upon this ground the term is very extensive, and will
not admit its exclusive application to the two Sacraments of
the Gospel and the five rites. Hear the Homily : " But in a
general acception, the name of a sacrament may be attributed
to any thing, whereby an holy thing is signified. . In which un
derstanding of the word, the ancient writers have given this
name, not only to the other five, commonly of late years taken
and used for supplying the number of the seven sacraments ;
but also to divers and sundry other ceremonies, as to oil, washing
of feet, and such like ; not meaning thereby to repute them
as (Sacraments, in the same signification that the two forenamed
sacraments are." — (Quoted in No. 90. p. 45.). So that the
writer has proved too much for his object; and instead of
exalting the five rites to but one degree lower than the Sacra
ments properly so called, he has reduced them, as far as the
term goes, to the level of any riles. He has taken for granted,
that a Sacrament must have an inward grace ; and yet we
find its general acception is for any thing holy, as opposed to
its particular meaning, a Sacrament of the Gospel.
But (2) with regard to the views of our Church, I see no
inconsistency, nor do. the quotations from the Homily in any
degree appear of such a character. There is manifestly a
distinction made between the general and particular applica
tion : between its proper and common meaning. It speaks of
the " exact signification as being a visible sign commanded in
the New Testament, with the promise of forgiveness of sins,"
and that this is only applicable to the Two. St. Augustine
is quoted, who .speaks of the light burden of Christ, and only

43
two Sacraments. The Catechism of Edward VI. (which
Archbishop Wake considered to be the model of our present
Catechism,) shews the particular usage, as well as the Catechism
and Article. "Master. Tell me what thou callest Sacra
ments .*—8choler. They are certayne customeable reuerent
doings and ceremonyes ordeyned by Christ," &c. (Enchir.
Theolog. vol. i. p. 29.) It then applies this word to the two
Sacraments. Nowell's Catechism gives a similar testimony :
"Die igitur mihi quid est sacramentum? — A. Est externa
Divinae erga nos per Christum benevolentiss beneficentiaeque
testificatio, signo aspectabili arccmam, spiritualemque gratiam
repraasentans, qua Dei promissiones de remissione peccatorum,
etc. quasi consignantur," etc. " M. Sacramentum, quod par-
tibus constat? — A. Duabus; externo elemento seu signo
aspectabili et invisibili gratia." (Enchir. Theol. vol. i. p. 311,
312.) This is applied to the two Sacraments only. Hear
Bishop Jewel : " We acknowledge that there are two Sa
craments properly so called — Baptism and the Lord's Supper,"
&c. (Apology, c. ii. §. 11.) Hear Archbishop Usher: "Who
is the author of a Sacrament ? God alone : because he only can
bestow those graces which are sealed in a Sacrament." (Chris
tian Religion, p. 405.) Bishop Hall's brief Catechism also :
" How many Sacraments are there ? Two : Baptism and the
Lord's Supper." Bishop Beveridge : " Now our Church, not
much fearing their curse, (i. e. of Trent,) hath here declared,
that only two of them, to wit, Baptism and the Eucharist, are
properly Sacraments of the New Testament, and that the
other five are not to be accounted so : not but that as the word
Sacrament was anciently used for any sacred sign or ceremony,
it may in some sense be applied to these also, hut, as it is here
expressed, these five have not the like nature of Sacraments
with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They may call them
Sacraments, if they please, but they are not such Sacraments

44
as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are, and therefore not Sa
craments properly so called." (vol. ii. p. 203, 4.) This last quo
tation is quite sufficient to shew the proper application of the
term, and the perfect consistency of all the quotations given,
and therefore I will give but one more from Bishop Kenn, to
shew how he understood the words of our Catechism. " How
many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church? A.
Two only as generally necessary to salvation," &c. In his
commentary on this, he says, " Glory be to thee, 0 Lord, who
having ordained two Sacraments only, and made them gene
rally necessary to salvation, art yet pleased," &c. Thus
allowing no room for the objection, that from these words
we are to believe more sacraments to exist, and the only
distinction to be that these are essential. After these quo
tations, are we prepared to join the writer of No. 90 in saying,
that " we do not strictly determine the number ?" Is there any
the smallest doubt as to the doctrine of the Anglican Church
on this point ? Surely there cannot be ; and we must rest the
distinction of real and proper Sacraments from signs and
ceremonies on the grand fact, that the Lord of Light and Life
has blessed his Church by the institution of two, and made
them generally necessary to salvation.
On this section, it only remains to refer to the declaration
of the writer as to the " characteristic of our formularies in
various places, not to deny the truth or obligation of certain
doctrines or -ordinances, but simply to deny (what no Roman
opponent now can successfully maintain) that Christ, for cer
tain, directly ordained them." First, as to those important
words in the parenthesis, I would ask, at what time a Romanist
could successfully have maintained this doctrine, since the
writer says that no Romanist now can ? The Council of Trent
has obliged all Romanists to insist on the Institution by Christ ;
and as our Articles were after this decree, we may presume

45
that, if our doctrine be true, they never could have maintained
it successfully. But as space only allows us to refute the
testimonies adduced, let us examine them. The first is from
the Nineteenth Article ; and it does seem strange that the
author of No. 90 should quote, as a proof " that the question
entertained is what is the least that God requires of us," an
Article which defines a visible or the visible Church : for of
necessity the Article must shew, what is required of a church
to prove its truth, its claim to the character. Surely, it would
be absurd to define a church, as it should be, in the highest
degree of perfection ; for, alas ! we may well fear that no
church would reach such requirements. Still more absurd
would it have been to attach a description (as the writer calls
it, Section 4.) of the most extraordinary magnificence to a
Church, to which all must then attain, and so very few could.
The second quotation is an affirmative declaration of our Articles
as to the baptism of young children, and is, we presume,
brought forward with a view of shewing that our Church simply
denies. The third is, " ' The sacrament of the Lord's Supper
was not by Christ's ordinance reserved? &c. — Art. xxviii.
Who will maintain the paradox, that what the apostles ' set
in order when they came' had been already done by Christ ?"
Now, I ask, what is the meaning of this sentence, unless it
implies, that the apostles might have ordered this reservation,
this worship, &c. to he paid when they set things in order?
The Romanists would rejoice at such an argument for their
idolatry. (In the Latin Articles, the negative immediately pre
cedes the verb non servabatur.) The next is, " Both parts of
the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's ordinance and commandment
ought to be administered to all Christian men alike." —
Art. xxx. The object of this last quotation is very difficult
to discover, unless it is as one of innumerable proofs, that our
Church entwines herself in the Bible and God's ordinance for

46
support, with regard to all her doctrines and observances:
that she practically follows her Sixth Article. That, however,
such a spirit should be a " characteristic" of our Church, can
be no wonder to any but those who follow their own fantasy,
rather than the Church's guidance. The next and last quota
tion,™ is one of the many instances which render it necessary
to refer to the whole Article. As in No. 90, " Bishops,
priests, and deacons, are not commanded by God's law, either
to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage."
This is given by No. 90; and we conclude the Article from
this place : " therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other
Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall
judge the same to serve better to godliness." Here we find
the Article not merely deny that God had prohibited the
Clergy to marry, but declaring that they might act at their
own discretion. Thus much for these many quotations, no
one of which proves the point, and several are in opposition
to it : but we may learn the close alliance of the Church of
England with a principle of care, a principle of watchfulness
against traditions.
m The second edition of the Tract contains a declaration, that the writer does not
claim permission to act at pleasure, when God's will is not declared.

47

§. 9. Transubstantiation.

Tridentine Council, Session
XIII. A.D. 1551.
C. iv. De Transsubstantiatione.
"  idque nunc denuo
sancta hsec synodus declarat,
per consecrationem panis et
vini conversionem fieri totius
substantias panis in substantiam
corporis Christi Domini nostri
et totius substantia, vini in sub
stantiam sanguinis ejus. Quas
tonversio convenienter et pro-
prie a sancta Catholica Eccle
sia transsubstantiatio est ap-
pellata."

Article XXVIII.
" Transubstantiation (or the
change of the substance of bread
and wine) in the Supper of the
Lord, cannot be proved by Holy
Writ ; but is repugnant to the
plain words of Scripture. The
body of Christ is given, taken,
and eaten in the Supper only
after an heavenly and spiritual
manner. And the mean where
by the body of Christ is re
ceived and eaten in the Supper
is Faith."

The author of No. 90 says (p. 51) of our Article, that it
does not deny " every kind of change, but opposes itself to a
certain plain and unambiguous statement, not of this or of that
Coumcil, but one generally received or taught both in the
schools and in the multitude," &c. It would appear by a
comparison of the Councils of Trent and of England, that the
one is condemned by the other, and that the doctrine con
demned is the Tridentine or Romish. There needs no refine
ment upon the words of our Article, but only to illustrate
them by history, and no reasonable doubt can remain on the
subject. The original Articles of Edward VI. had a clause
which was actually signed in Elizabeth's reign by the Clergy,
but which, according to Burnet, was withdrawn, as too philo-'
sophical a reason against transubstantiation, and for politic

48
reasons; and the present " paragraph, ' The body of Christ,' &c.
was put in its stead, and was received and published by the
next convocation ; which, upon the matter, was a full ex
planation of Christ's presence in this sacrament, that ' he is
present in a heavenly and spiritual manner, and that faith is
the mean by which he is received.' This seemed to be more
theological; and it does, indeed, amount to the same thing."
Burnett further remarks, " Yet we are certain that the clergy
at the time did not at all doubt of the truth of it." These,
then, are fair grounds for assuming that we must interpret the
present Article by the paragraph which we now quote. " For
asmuch as the truth of man's nature requireth that the body
of one and the selfsame man cannot be at one time in divers
places, but must needs be in one certain place ; therefore the
body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and
divers places: and because, as Holy Scripture doth teach,
Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall continue
until the end of the world ; a faithful man ought not either to
believe, or openly confess, the real and bodily presence, as they
term it, of Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper." Such are the words of this paragraph, which
means in a philosophical argument, the same as our present
Article means in a theological argument. I am aware that
in this discussion, as in all theological controversies, an acute
opponent will reap the highest advantage from a successful
use of doubtful terms, such as sacrament, sacrifice, "substance,
nature, change," and the like ; and therefore we should rather
observe the tenor of a declaration, than twist words to serve
purposes. But in this discussion, above all others, there would
seem to be the greatest difficulty, which has arisen from the
introduction of philosophy, and the most subtle refinements ;
yet I imagine that by hearing our Church, we may reach a
satisfactory conclusion. None, then, are prepared to claim

49
our Church as allowing the doctrine of Transubstantiation ; yet
says the Tractarian, (p. 51,) that our Church does not deny
every kind of change. Reasonably may we demand, what
change it is which our Church does not deny? We will ex
amine the doctrine of the Church, and first refer to the Article,
which denies (1) any change of the bread and wine ; and as
these are the only visible signs, what else can be changed .
There is nothing else ; and surely, then, our Church, by such
a denial, leaves no room for refinements. The elements re
main, and afford nourishment for our bodies, as the Catechism
of the Prayer-book declares : " The strengthening and refresh
ing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our bodies
are by the bread and wine" So also the Catechism of Ed
ward VI: "And even as by bread and wine our natural
bodies are sustained and nourished ; so by the body, that is,
the flesh and blood of Christ, the soul is fed through faith, and
quickened to the heavenly and godly life." Again : " These
things come to pass by a certain secret mean and lively working
of the Spirit, when we believe that Christ hath once for all
given up his body and blood for us," &c. Again : " Master.
All this thou dost well understand. For me thinketh -thy
meaning is, that faith is the mouth of the soul, whereby we
receive this very heavenly meat, full both of salvation and
immortality, dealt among us by the mean of the Holy Ghost."
The warning of the minister in the Communion-service : " For
that he hath given his Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ,.not only
to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance
in that holy Sacrament." Again : " Then we spiritually eat
the flesh of Christ and drink his blood ; then we dwell in Christ
and Christ in us ; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us."
Surely these expressions, though they express a real mystical
union, do not prove any change in our bodies, but rather the
exaltation of our souls. In a word, the whole service breathes

50
that awful Solemnity, which reminds us that Christ's blood
was shed for us upon the cross, and teaches us to be thankful :
it teaches us also to raise our minds to heaven, where Christ
is, with "his flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the
perfection of man's nature," (Article iv.) it exhorts us " to feed
on him in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving." The Homily
on the Sacrament also plainly sets forth, that the invisible
thing is the spiritual benefits reaped by our minds, our hearts,
our souls. Hear, further, Nowell's Catechism : " M. Bene-
ficiorum ergo, quaa commemorasti, non imago tantum sed et
ipsa Veritas in Coena exhibetur? — A. Quid ni? Quum enim
Christus ipsa sit Veritas, non dubium est, quin quod verbis
testatur et signis repraesentat, id revera etiam praestet, et nobis
exhibeat ; quodque sibi fidentes tarn certo faciat corporis atque
sanguinis sui participes, quam certo se panem atque vinum ore
et ventriculo recepisse sciunt. M. Quum nos in terris versemur,
Christi vero corpus in coelo sit, quomodo fieri potest, quod dicis.
— A. Mentes atque animos humo excitare, et in ccelum, ubi
Christus est, per fidem erigere debemus." The further ex
planation follows. Hear also Bertram. XLIX. " From all
that we have heretofore said, it hath been proved that the body
and blood of Christ, which in the Church are received by the
mouths of the faithful, are figures, in respect of their visible
nature. But in respect of their invisible substance, that is,
the power ofthe word of God, they are truly the body and blood
of Christ. Wherefore, as far as they are visible creatures, they
feed the body ; but in virtue of a more powerful substance,
they both feed and sanctify the souls of the faithful." LV.II.
The sacramental character of Christ's body is declared and
proved from Ambrose. In the following chapter, he shews
that it is spiritual food, a spiritual body; e. g. " For the body
of God is a spiritual body ; the body of Christ is the body of
a divine spirit ; for Christ is a spirit," &c. Again : " Whilst

51
that body which is called the mystery of God is not corporeal,
but spiritual," &c. LXIV. "Whence in the following words,
'because Christ is a spirit,' as we read, 'Christ the Lord is the
Spirit before our face,' he openly sheweth in what respect it
is held to be the body of Christ ; namely, as the Spirit of Christ
is therein, that is, the power of the divine Word, which doth
not feed only, but also purge the soul." This use of the terms
body and blood may be best understood from LXXXVII :
"Wherefore that which the Church celebrateth is both the
body and blood of Christ ; but yet as a pledge, as an image.
The truth we shall then possess, when pledge and image shall
be no more, but the thing itself in verity shall appear." In
chapter XCVII, he claims to have shewn from the Scrip
ture and the Fathers, "that the bread, which is called the
body of Christ, and the cup, which is called the blood of Christ,
is a figure, because it is a mystery f &c. In chapter- C, he
mentions, that the bread and cup are placed on the altar, " in
figure, or in memory of the Lord's death ;" and reminds his
hearers that such temporal memorials will not be wanted,
when we contemplate the Truth itself, and our Saviour. In
the next chapter he speaks of the faithful receiving : " It is
spiritual meat and spiritual drink, spiritually doth it feed the
soul," &c. Hear also Bishop Jewel : " When we speak of
the mystery of Christ, and of eating his body, we must shut
up and abandon all our bodily senses  So likewise
can we not, and therefore may we not, say we taste him or
eat him with our bodily mouth. In this work we must open
all the inner and spiritual senses of our soul, so shall we not
only see his body, but hear him, and feel him, and taste him,
and eat him. This is the mouth and feeling of faith," &c. (On
the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. See also the Apology.)
Hear also Ridley, Bishop and Martyr : "Seeing that all learned
in England, (so far as I know,) both new and old, grant there
e 2

52
to be but one substance." (From this we may infer, that they
had no doubt as to the meaning of the word substance ; and,
consequently, the writer of No. 90 need not feel surprised, that
no definition is given of it in the Twenty-eighth Article.) "Now,
then, you will say, what kind of presence do they (Ridley de
clares this solemnly, as his own opinion, two pages after) grant,
and what do they deny ? Briefly, they deny the presence of
Christ's body in the natural substance of his human and assumpt
nature, and grant the presence of the same by grace. That is,
they affirm and say, that the substance of the natural body and
blood of Christ is only remaining in heaven, and so shall be
until the latter day, when he shall come again  And the
same natural substance of the very body and blood of Christ,
because it is united to the divine nature in Christ, the second
person of the Trinity, therefore it hath not only life in itself, but
it is also able and doth give life unto so many as be, or shall be,
partakers thereof; that is, to all that do believe on his name ....
though the selfsame substance abide still in heaven, and they,
for the time of their pilgrimage, dwell here upon the earth, by
grace, I say ; that is, by the life mentioned in John, and the
properties of the same, meet for our pilgrimage here on earth,
the same body of Christ is here present with us : even as, for
example, we say, the sun, which in substance never removeth
his place out of the heavens, is yet present here by his beams,
light, and natural influence, where it shineth upon the earth.
For God's word and his sacraments be, as it were, the beams of
Christ, which is Sol justitioe, the Sun of Righteousness." He
further shews, how our Lord's words are to be understood in
a sacramental sense; or, as Origen explains it, a symbolical
sense. It would be impossible to give in the limits of a
pamphlet any large number of quotations ; but these are quite
sufficient to shew, that the doctrine of our Church is not that
of a real bodily presence, but that Christ is spiritually present

53
to all who receive symbols with faith. We will therefore
only quote from one or two later writers. " And, therefore,
it is not to be understood literally,, as indeed he himself gives
notice, ' the flesh profiteth nothing : the words which I speak
unto you, they are the spirit, and they are life ;' it is not the
gross and literal, but the figurative and spiritual eating and
drinking ; the partaking by a lively faith of an union with me,
and being inwardly nourished by the fruits of my offering up
my flesh and blood for you, that alone can be of benefit to
the soul." He proceeds in his commentary on the text, and
compares it with the Catechism, " that the body and blood of
Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faith
ful ;" and says, that though all partake of the outward signs,
" in a much more important sense, the faithful only . . . eats his
flesh, and drinks his blood, shares in the life and strength
derived to men from his incarnation and death, and through
faith in him becomes by a vital union one with Him ; a
member, as St. Paul expresses it, of his flesh and his bones: cer
tainly not in a literal sense, which yet the Romanists might as
well assert, as that we eat his flesh in a literal sense ; but in a
figurative and spiritual one. In appearance, the sacraments of
Christ's death is given to all alike, but ' verily and indeed,'' in
its beneficial effects, to none besides the faithful. Even to the
unworthy communicant He is present, as He is" wherever we
meet together in his name : but in a better and most gracious
sense to the worthy soul ; becoming, by the inward virtue of
his Spirit, its food and sustenance. This real presence of
Christ in the Sacrament, his Church hath always believed,"
&c. — (Lecture on Catechism, xxxvi. Archbishop Seeker.)
" It being so clear a truth, that the bread and wine are not
turned into the very body and blood of Christ in the holy
Sacrament, we need not heap up many arguments to prove,
that it is only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner,

54
that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in
the Sacrament. For if the bread be not really changed into
the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is not really there
present ; and if it be not really there present, it is impossible
it should be really eaten and received into our bodies as bread
is. So that the truth there demonstrated, and the truth here
delivered, have so much affinity to one another, that they can
not so well be called two, as one and the same truth." —
(Beveridge, vol. ii. p. 264.) Such are the views held by the
divines of our Church with regard to the presence of Christ
in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; and, surely, these
opinions by no means leave room for such subtle refinements
as are brought forward in No. 90. It seemed best first to
state the views of our Church, that the reader may see how
(1) unnecessary are the Tractarian's philosophical deductions,
and how (2) contradictory to our Church. And now a word
or two in reference to the arguments of the writer on the
words of our formularies, against which we will adduce some
direct testimony of the Church. The concluding sentence of
the explanation of kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper, seems to have afforded some considerable difficulty :
" and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are
in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's
natural body to be at one time in more places than one."
The Tractarian confesses, that he has no difficulty in granting
all but the words " and not here :" — " But ' to heaven' is
.added, ' and not herei Now, though it be allowed that there
is no ' corporal presence' [i. e. in locality] of ' Christ's natural
flesh and blood' here, it is a further point to allow that
' Christ's natural body and blood' are ' not herei And the
question is, how can there be any presence at all of His body
and blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here ? How can
there be any presence, yet not local?"

55
'Now as to a corporal presence, I imagine that none can
believe that our Church allows it in any way, since all her
formularies, and the quotations above given, shew that we only
hold the very (or real) spiritual presence. And if our Church
denies a corporal presence, who is able to assert, that she
only denies a beal presence? The question is, whether
Christ's natural body can have a presence which is not a
local presence ? nor do I grant to the Tractarian, that " the
question is, how can there be any presence at all of his body
and blood, yet a presence such, as not to be here ? " Surely
the words " and not here " are only to be referred to that
presence of which they are used by our Church, i. e. " the
presence of the natural body." Which, as occupying space
as a fleshly substance, can only be local. The Church does
hold the spiritual presence, nor does she say of the spiritual
presence that it " is not here." So that the whole confusion
in which the Tractarian wishes to involve us, is annihilated
by a due consideration of what is meant by the presence of
Christ. In a word, the Church denies of Christ's literal body
that it is here, but declares it to be in heaven ; and argues,
from its very nature, that it cannot occupy two places. Such
being the case, let not the writer of No. 90 take a view of our
Church which needs a philosophical subtilty to clear it from
contradiction ; but let him be prepared to take the literal
meaning, and the only meaning which can really be drawn
from the words and argument of the sentence, as well as from
the doctrine professed by her divines. If the writer can shew
that our Church allows a presence of " the natural body and
blood of our Saviour," and then denies of that same natural
body, that it is any where else but in heaven, the question
then might be, " How can there be a presence, yet not a
local one ?" But the writer has not done this. He has only
confounded the word " presence " with the presence of that

56
which requires locality, a visible substance, and drawn an
erroneous inference from his own confusion. To confirm his
error, he asserts "that there is a presence, is asserted in the
Homilies as quoted above." Perhaps we shall see best
whether the Homily asserts the same presence as the Prayer-
book denies, (for to this the Tract will reduce it,) by com
paring the passages.

Prayer-book, quoted p. 51, 2.
" The natural body and blood
of our Saviour Christ are in
heaven, and not here, it
against," &c.

Homily, quoted No. 90, p. 47.
" It is well known that the
meat we seek in this supper
is spiritual food, the nourish
ment of the soul, a heavenly
refection, and not earthly ; an
invisible meat, and not a bo
dily ; a ghostly substance, and
not carnal"
Unless the whole passage from the Prayer-book is against
the corporal presence, what can be its meaning? It de
clares that no adoration is intended, and assigns as a reason
that the elements are unchanged, and- that Christ's natural
body remains in heaven. Thus the only question for con
sideration, according to the Tractarian, is shewn to be no
subject for discussion. We have shewn that it is possible that
the word presence should be applied to different subjects, and
that there is no philosophical deduction necessary ; but that
there may be no confusion, or supposition that this is individual
theory rather than authority, hear Edward VI. Catechism,
which may at the least be received as evidence of the
meaning of the Reformers. " But although he be gone up
into heaven ; nevertheless, by his nature of Godhead and by
his Spirit, he shall always be present in his Church, even to
the end of the world. Yet this proveth not that he is pre-

57
sent among us in his body. For his Godhead hath one pro
perty, his manhead another. His manhead was create ; his
Godhead uncreate. His manhead is in some one place in hea
ven," &c. The presence of Christ is compared to the light of
the sun, which is seen by the eye of the Body, as the Saviour by
the eye of faith. And again : " So Christ's body . ... is a
great way absent from our mouth, even then when we receive
with our mouth the holy sacrament of his body and blood.
Yet is our faith in heaven, and beholdeth that Sun of Righte
ousness," &c. — It concludes with these words : " We must
therefore so say, that Christ's body is in some one place
of heaven and his Godhead every where: that we neither of
his Godhead make a body : nor of his body a God." Surely
there cannot be a more remarkable coincidence of sentiment
than between this extract and the Prayer-book. This ex
tract shews that we must not give the body of Christ a
presence but in heaven, lest we deify his flesh r and the other
declares that no adoration is given to something on earth
because Christ's body is in heaven and not here. Hear also
Fathers, quoted by Jewel, (On the Sacraments, ed. 1840, Oxon.
p. 173.) " Vigilius, a godly Bishop and Martyr, saith, ' The
flesh of Christ when it was on earth, was not in heaven ; and
now because it is in heaven, doubtless it is not on earth.' "
St. Augustine saith, " Until the world be ended, the Lord
is above, yet notwithstanding even here is the truth of the
Lord." Hear Archbishop Seeker's opinion of the meaning of
the words in the Prayer-book. He says, we kneel " not to
acknowledge any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh
and blood ; as our Church, to prevent all possibility of mis
construction, expressly declares; adding, that 'his body is in
heaven, and not here? but to worship him who is every where
present, the Invisible God."
We will not discuss the propriety of the writer's introducing

58
philosophical deduction, (if he holds a view of the corporal
presence,) or of the introduction of the many refinements in
the discussion, since they are perfectly irrelevant to the ques
tion, as the Church of England holds " only a spiritual pre
sence" really and truly. But it may be satisfactory to re
mind the writer, of Burnet's remarks on the word real, which
the writer uses as though it had only one meaning ; yet if such
be the case, it would not appear, from quotations above, to
be the one which the writer has affixed. We say there is a
real presence, and by it we mean a true and not a fictitious
presence, or merely a figurative presence. (See Morton, who
makes Calvin's sentiments his own, p. 309. ed. 1653. A. D.)
But the writer of No. 90, to be consistent with his own argu
ments, must mean by it, a bodily presence, or a presence of
his natural body. " For this matter, how plain soever in it
self, hath been made very dark by the ways in which some
have pretended to open it; — by which we assert a real presence
of the body and blood of Christ, but not of his body as it is
now glorified in heaven, but of his body as it was broken on
the cross, when his blood was shed and separated from it; that
is, his death, with ihe merits and effect of it, are, in a visible and
federal act, offered in this sacrament to all worthy believers.
By real we understand true, in opposition both to fiction and
imagination, and to those shadows that were in the Mosaical
dispensation, in which the manna, rock, &c. — were the types and
shadows of the Messias that was to come : with whom came
grace and truth; that is, a most wonderful manifestation of the
mercy or grace of God, and a verifying of the promises made
under the law : in this sense we acknowledge a real presence
of Christ in the sacrament : though we are convinced that
our first Reformers judged right concerning the use of the
phrase real presence, that it were better to be let fall than to
be continued, since the use of it and that idea, which does

59
naturally arise from the common acceptation of it, may stick
deeper and feed superstition more than all those larger ex
planations that are given to it can be able to cure." He
further calls it a snare to some. It seems, then, to be one of
those words from which can be drawn no accurate argument,
and ought only to be used (if at all) as an adjunct of some
more precise term.
The author felt it necessary, in conclusion, to observe, " that
he is not proving or determining any thing ;" that he is re
conciling seeming contradictions. He proves no theory of
the Church, but rests content with only one passage from the
Homilies; perhaps forgetting his main drift, i. e. the illustrating
the Articles by the Homilies. The theory is already the
writer's own, and that of some stragglers, and therefore it
must be shewn, to say the least, not to be irreconcileable with
our formularies. The writer gives some reasons for these
refinements, then explanations of difficulties, and then kindly
exhorts such persons who make a defence necessary, with the
following words : " Let them but believe and act on the truth
that the consecrated bread is Chrisfs body, as He says, and
no officious comment on His words will be attempted by any
well-judging mind. But when they say 'this cannot be
literally true, because it is impossible ;' then they force those
who think it is literally true, to explain how, according to
their notions, it is not impossible. And those who ask hard
questions must put up with hard answers."
Now I know not where the -author will find support for
such expressions as these, except among the opponents of the
Reformation, and all other Papists. They are nearly word for
word expressions which have been rebutted in previous con
tests with Roman Catholics, and it would be but a poor compli
ment to the reader to give references to works, as these senti
ments are fully rebutted in all our standard writers. I will

60
therefore merely quote one or two. Burnet, after some re
marks on the absurdity of understanding the words of our
Saviour literally, says, " From all which it is abundantly
clear, that nothing can be drawn from that discourse of our
Saviour, to make it reasonable to believe, that the words of
the institution of this sacrament ought to be literally under
stood : on the contrary, our Saviour," &c.
Archbishop Seeker says, " We own that our Saviour says,
'This is my body which is broken,' and 'this is my blood
which is shed.' " But he could not mean literally, &c. Ridley,
Bishop and Martyr : " Origen saith, that there is also, even
in the four Gospels, and not only in the Old Testament, a
letter, meaning a literal sense, which killeth ; for if thou follow
the letter (saith he) in that saying, ' Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood,' &c. this letter doth
kill." Surely, there can be no more direct contradiction of
the Tract than the words of Origen. If " those who ask hard
questions must put up with hard answers ;" so also I would
say, that those who use expressions to explain their doctrines
which differ not from those of the Church of Rome, must not
be surprised if, in the present day, the same quotation is
adduced against her apologist as once was applied by the
martyr Ridley to that apostate Church.

61

§. 9. Masses.
Article XXXI. — " The offering of Christ once made, is that
perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the
sins of the whole world, both original and actual : And there
is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore
the sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said
that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to
have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and
dangerous deceits."
Whether the Church of England did oppose the doctrine of
the Tridentine Council, or the Council of Trent the Anglican
doctrine, can be of no importance for a "straggler" to consider,
since his object must be to reconcile the two ; and how far
this can be done, will be best seen by referring to the Twenty-
second Session of the Council of Trent. Canon III : " Si quis
dixerit misso, sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum
actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce
peracti, non autem propitiatorium ; vel soli prodesse sumenti ;
neque pro vivis et deftmctis pro peccatis, pcenis, satisfactionibus
et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere : anathema sit." Our Articlp
says, that "there is none other satisfaction for sin but that
alone;" i. e. "the offering of Christ once made." Canon IV:
"Si quis dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari sanctissimo Christi sacri-
ficio in cruce peracto per missae sacrificium. aut illi per hoc dero-
gari : anathema sit." Our Church declares that the sacrifices of
masses are blasphemous fables ; and against what do they blas
pheme, but against Christ's perfect offering on the cross? (as the
Article commences,) Canon V: "Si quis dixerit imposturam
esse, missus celebrare in honorem sanctorum, et pro intercessione
apud Deum obtinenda, sicut Ecclesia intendit : anathema sit."

62
Yet our Church declares that the Romish doctrine is an
imposture. It would appear to have been no mistake on the
part of our Church, in assuming this to be the doctrine of the
Church of Rome, for the Council of Trent gives ample testi
mony to refute this idea: for it declares that Christ is
offered for the " quick and the dead " in the Sacrifice of the
Mass, which point the Article expressly denies." (Session xxii.
c. 11.) And that the Council of Trent countenances the
frequency of them, would appear from Session xxv. c. 4.
" Contingit scepe in quibusdam Eccfesiis vel tam magnum
missarum celebrandarum numerum ex variis defunctorum
relictis impositum esse, ut illis pro singulis diebus," &c.
It would seem, then, that the error condemned by our Article
is one of the present Romish Church : but let us examine the
arguments of the writer of No. 90. He gives this Article as
a proof that our Articles were not written against the Creed
of the Roman Church, but against actual errors ; and further
says, " Here the Sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken of, in
which the special question of doctrine would be introduced,
but * the Sacrifice of Masses? certain observances, for the
most part private and solitary, which the writers of the
Articles saw before their eyes," &c. Now, perhaps, the
writer means, that only the practice is condemned ; but, I
would ask, is not the doctrine condemned? If any man is
condemned for a crime in its practical character, (and in none
other can it be condemned,) surely the crime in the ab
stract, or in its principle, is condemned. So in this Article,
if the practice is condemned, and called " a blasphemous fable,"
surely the doctrine which leads to it is also condemned. But
n See also the Breviary, (In festo Corporis Christi, sect, vi.) " Offertur in Ecclesia
pro vivis et mortuis, ut omnibus prosit quod est pro salute omnium institutum." This
Breviary, be it remembered, has been placed on an equality with our Prayer-book, if
not made of higher authority by one of the party.

63
says the writer, " the sacrifice of the Mass is not spoken
of, in which the special question of doctrine would be intro
duced," &c. But what will the writer say, if he find that the
special question is introduced ? for on what is the condemna
tion of the masses founded, but upon the special doctrine
in the first clause of the Article, and which the writer does
not quote at the head of the section, so as to shew the sense
of the Article ? Yet, says our Article, " wherefore" (unde)
the sacrifice of Masses, &c. Ask an Anglican, why he con
demns the offering of Christ in the Mass? and he must answer,
The offering of Christ is so perfect, that there is none other
but that alone. — (Art. xxxi.) The plan pursued by the
writer of No. 90 appears to be this ; to infer, or rather leave
the reader to infer, that the doctrine of Trent is not the same
as that condemned in the Article ; and this is done by shewing
two points : (1) why it is a blasphemous fable ; (2) why it is
a pernicious imposture. " 1. That the ' blasphemous fable' is
the teaching that Masses are sacrifices for sin, distinct from
the sacrifice of Christ's death, is plain from the first sentence
of the Article." So also in the conclusion : " On the whole,
then, it is conceived that the Article before us neither speaks
against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering for
the quick and the dead for the remission of sin ; but against its
being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of or distinct
from the Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy." To
prove this point, the writer quotes the first part of the Article,
its heading, and the Communion-service; and j-efers to the
popular view. But the Church of Rome never has made the
the Sacrifice of the Mass distinct from Christ's death, which
may be clearly seen from the Session xxii. c. 11, of Trent:
" Et quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur,
idem ilk Christus continetur et incruente immolatur qui in ara
crucis semel seipsum

64
una enim eademque est hostia, idem nunc offerens sacerdolum
ministerio, qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ra-
tione diversa." Thus far, perhaps, the writer of No. 90 will
agree, if his object is to shew that we do not condemn Tri
dentine doctrine : but now we will endeavour to shew what
the view of our Church is, and that it condemns every doc
trine of offering Christ in the Eucharist ; and that conse
quently our Article is as exclusive with regard to Tridentine
doctrine as Romish practice. That this Article is not merely
condemning such open blasphemy as that the Sacrifice of the
Mass is complete by itself, and distinct from the death on the
cross, but that it also condemns any doctrine which will con
tradict its first clause, its "special doctrine," will be plain.
In a word, the Article of our Church condemns any doctrine
which interferes with the sufficiency of Christ's atonement,
made once for all on the cross ; which is fully shewn by the
heading. "Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the
cross." Again, " is that perfect redemption," and " there is
no other satisfaction for sins except that alone," (praeter illam
unicam, which can only refer to the word offering, i. e. oblatio.)
The same word (perfecta) is rendered so as to carry its own
commentary ; and how can any future offering be consistent
with " one finished, perfect oblation ?" But the Article, by its
further denial of any other, sets the matter at rest. If the
writers of the Article had only condemned a sacrifice inde
pendent of Christ's death, why should they have called the
Sacrifice ofthe Cross full and satisfactory, and not rather have
called it the only independent sacrifice ? One of the Tracts
for the Times asks, whether modern theologians would have
written the Sixteenth Article ? and I ask, on their own prin
ciple, would they have written the Thirty-first ? Further, on
what can the doctrine of Masses rest, except on the doctrine
of Transubstantiation ? for unless the priest has " power to

65
offer Christ," in his own flesh, how can he make a sacrifice for
sin, seeing that Christ is the only propitiation for our sins ?
as, says Bishop Beveridge, (Article xxxi.) "it is Transub
stantiation that is the ground of this fond opinion." Hence, if
we deny Transubstantiation, we deny the doctrine of Masses.
So that the Romanists are not so inconsistent as those who
hold that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for sins, or exalt it be
yond a commemorative offering, and yet deny Transubstantia
tion literally. The Romanists, on the one hand, believe in a
repetition of the sacrifice, and hence, as history affirms, have
sprung many corruptions ; while others, far less consistent,
call it an offering, a sacrifice, and make a subtle distinction,
and say, that our Church does not deny it to be " an offering
for the quick and the dead." Some, I do not deny, claim the
power of creating the Lord's body, and thus may be more
consistent. The extract from the Communion-service, quoted
in No. 90, certainly ca.n never shew that our Church only con
demns any sacrifice independent of that of the Cross ; for its
declarations are, that the offering on the cross was "full, per
fect, sufficient '," and satisfactory; and consequently appear, not
only to deny an independent offering, but any further offering
to fill up deficiencies, as the first was perfect and full. And
unless, they can be made to prove this nice distinction, they are
of no avail to the argument of No. 90. Since the author of
No. 90 has given no proof or testimony of this distinction, let
us examine the Homilies on this matter : " We must then
take heed, lest, of the memory, it.be made a sacrifice; lest, of
a communion, it be made a private eating ; lest, of two parts,
we have but one ; lest, applying it for the dead, we lose the
fruit that be alive." Again : " But also that he hath made
upon his cross a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee, a perfect
cleansing of thy sins  Herein thou needest no other
man's help, no other sacrifice or oblation, no sacrificing priest,

66
no mass, no means established by man's invention." — (Horn.
xxvii. part 1.) "Nothing doubting but that Christ, by his
own oblation, and once offering of himself upon the cross,
hath taken away our sins, and hath restored us again into
God's favour, so fully and perfectly, that no other sacrifice for
sin shall hereafter be requisite or needful in all the world."
— (Horn. xxv. part 2.) " This is not, as the Papists absurdly
imagine, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead,
but only commemorative and declarative of that one sacrifice
which Christ once offered, to be a propitiation for the sins of
the whole world." — (Beveridge's Advantage and Necessity of
Frequent Communion.) The same author makes no such dis
tinction as in No. 90; and says, "But howsoever they disagree
in the word, (missa,) they still agree in the thing, avouching
that in this mass they offer up a true and perfect sacrifice to
God, propitiatory for the sins of the people, even as Christ
did when he offered up himself to God as a propitiation for
our sins. This, I say, is that which the Church of Rome con
fidently affirms, and which our Church in this Article doth as
confidently deny." — (Art. xxxi.) Bishop Burnet, on this Ar
ticle, discusses the question of sacrifice, and shews that there
is no other sacrifice for sins ; that the Eucharist is a feast upon
a sacrifice; that there is no priest, properly so called. He
declares the opinion of the Church of England on this point,
and says, " On the other hand, the doctrine of the Church of
Rome is, that the Eucharist is the highest act of homage and
honour that creatures can offer to the Creator, as being an ob
lation of the Son to the Father." Bishop Morton (on the Sa
craments, book vi.) shews that the Eucharist is by no means a
sacrifice, properly so called : and if this is true, is it not a
blasphemous fable (figmentum) to pretend that the Eucharist
is a propitiatory offering ? that hereby we merit salvation and
pay homage ? since Christ is the one perfect, full, and satisfac-

67
tory propitiation for the sins of the world, so that there is none
other. Nowell's Catechism is at least an authorized work, and
clearly exhibits the impossibility of any offering but by Christ.
" The Lord's Supper was not ordained to this end, that Christ's
body should be offered in sacrifice to God the Father for sins.
For he, when he did institute his Supper, commanded us to
eat his body, not to offer it. As for the prerogative of offering
for sins, it pertaineth to Christ alone, as to him which is the
Eternal Priest ; which also, when he died upon the cross, once
made that only and everlasting sacrifice for our salvation, and
fully performed the same for ever." — (From Day and Norton's
Translation, and Ench. Theol. i. 323.) Nowell then shews that
the Lord's Supper draws us back to the Sacrifice of the Cross,
as once for all made. Thus much for testimony and Anglican
doctrine on this (1) point. A very few remarks will suffice,
with regard ,to the (2) pernicious imposture, as it seems rather
to be attached to the preceding, than an independent point.
But hear the writer : " That the ' blasphemous and pernicious
imposture' is the turning the mass into a gain, is plain from
such passages as these." Now we might expect some proof
of this assertion, and what is the result ? The first extract
declares, that there had been much profanation of Churches
by blasphemous buying and selling of masses. The second
shews, that Churches had been defiled, and that some men
fancied that they should feel all well and sure to their souls
by hearing a mass, &c. The third speaks of dumb massing,
and mummish massing. The reader must judge how far
such argument as this is to be received, for in reality it
amounts to this: selling masses is blasphemous and an im
posture ; therefore, all that is blasphemous, or an imposture, is
selling of masses : in another way, because the Article con
demns masses as blasphemous ; and we know that to sell them
is blasphemous ; therefore, this is the only blasphemous part
p 2

68
of the doctrine of masses. But this proof did not seem suffi
cient, and we have three more quotations. The first of
Bishop Bull, who charges the Roman system with being
founded on principles of gain, and with contriving masses
with this design ; but this is liable to the same objection as
the preceding. The next, from Bishop Burnet, declares, that
masses are an imposture and contrivance ; and the same
author declares, that the doctrine was contrived with a view
of easing men's consciences. The third and last of these
extracts is the most complete; and hear the writer's words
on its introduction : " The truth of these representations
cannot be better shewn, than by extracting the following pas
sage from the Session xxii. of the Council of Trent." So
that this is only introduced lest any should doubt the truth
of our Article, and its confirmations. How happy we should
be, that our Church can receive such a~ support for the truth
of her statements ; nor can we have erred in calling it an im
posture. This question may easily be conceded to the writer
of No. 90 : for if a doctrine contains blasphemy in its very
principle, we need not press the application of all the lan
guage of our Church, and we only shew on what insufficient
evidence this view is supported. Thus much as to the
Romish doctrine of Masses, and the Anglican doctrine of its
superfluousness ; the inventions of man, as opposed to the
fulness of Christ's sacrifice ; the vain attempt to supply that
which is already perfect. To an Anglican, who^ denies any
sacrifice but of commemoration in the Eucharist, there is no
difficulty in this Article ; but to all who hold that there
does remain any further sacrifice for sin, or any filling up of
that which is declared by our Article to be long since made
perfectly and fully, no wonder if it should afford almost in
surmountable difficulties.

69

§. 10. Marriage of Clergy.
" Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's
law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from
marriage : therefore it is lawful for them, as for all Christian
men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge "
the same to serve better to godliness."
This Article certainly seems sufficiently precise, 'and binds
no one of her members to marry, or abstain ; but leaves her
clergy and her laity in the selfsame position. A denial of
the duty of clerical celibacy is certainly implied. The
Church, moreover, would seem to deny her power to enforce
any law or rule on the subject ; inasmuch as seeing there is
no command in God's law, it is lawful for men to do as they
conceive will the better serve to godliness. Hear Burnet on
this point : " It were a great abuse of Church power, and a
high act of tyranny, for any Church, or any age of the Church,
to bar men from the services in the Church, because they
either are married, or intend to keep themselves free to marry
or not, as they please." Yet the second Lateran Council has
the following decree : " Decernimus etiam ut ii, qui in ordine
subdiaconatus, et supra, uxores duxerint, aut concubinas ha-
buerint, officio, atque ecclesiastico beneficio careant."
" It must be acknowledged, " says Burnet, " that the
general practice was, that men in orders did not marry : but
many Bishops, in the best ages, lived still with their wives."
And again : " A single marriage was never objected in bar to
a man's being made Bishop or Priest." And making or im
posing bonds of celibacy, he decides to be " unlawful."
The Council of Trullo, A.D. 680, ordered that Bishops

70
should continue in a state of celibacy, but the marriage of
the other clergy should be confirmed.
In the Canons commonly known as " The Canons of the
holy Apostles," we find the following rules, agreeing with
Burnet's opinion: "5. Let not a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon
put away his wife on the pretext of religion ; and if he
should put her away, let him be excommunicated ; and
if he continue obstinate, let him be deposed." " 17. He
who has been twice married since his baptism, or who has
a concubine, cannot be a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or any
other of the clergy." " 26; Of those clergy who remain un
married, let readers and chanters only be married, if they
will." And again, in the 40th, the Bishops are spoken of as
persons who may have " a wife and children."
So also St. Paul : " A Bishop must be blameless, the husband
of one wife ,-" and so also for the elders in Crete. " Whence,"
to quote the words of Bishop Beveridge, " both St. Chrysostom
and CEcumenius observe, that the Apostle here stops the
mouths of those heretics that condemn marriage ; shewing that
it is not an unholy thing, but so honourable, that a man with
it may ascend the holy throne of episcopacy." The celi
bacy of the clergy was most enforced about the year 1073,
by Pope Gregory VII. " At length," continues Beveridge,
" they are now come to that height as not to be ashamed
to say, ' that it is a greater sin for a priest to marry, than for
him to commit fornication or adultery ; ' as if the Pope
strove to make good the Apostle's saying of himself, Who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God.
God indeed hath forbidden to commit adultery, but the Pope
hath forbidden priests to marry ; and therefore it must needs
be a greater sin to marry than to commit adultery : for in
that they transgress the command of the Pope, whereas in
this, they only transgress the command of God ; and what is,

71
if this be not, to oppose and exalt himself above all that is
called God ? making it a greater sin to transgress his edicts,
than the great God's most sacred precepts ? But let us not
wonder at the propagation of this doctrine, for it is no more
than what was long ago foretold: for the Spirit speaketh
expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ;
speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their consciences seared with
a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats : so that this doctrine they stand so stiff for, it is
but the doctrine of devils, which we who desire still to stand
fast to the doctrine of God, dare not but deny, and conclude
that no one should be forbidden to marry ; but that even
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons may marry, at their discretion,
as well as other Christian men."
Thus we see that celibacy is a modern invention, one of
the signs of the latter days, considered by Burnet an abuse
of Church authority. We also see that both Burnet and
¦Beveridge oppose the view set forth in No. 90. Nor are
they easily willing to place this matter on a level with the
traditions and ceremonies of the Church.

72

§.11. The Homilies.
With the principles of this section we have no great fault to
find, but one great complaint we have to make against the
carrying out of them; namely, that the teaching of the
Homilies, in several great and important doctrines, has been
entirely misrepresented. With the writer we agree that we
do not pledge ourselves to the truth of every fact stated, or
the interpretation of every passage of Scripture given in the
Homilies ; and that many of the truths therein taught and
enforced are in the present day too much forgotten by men of
all parties. Perhaps no volume of equal size could be brought
forward with so great a body of sound doctrine, and so little
against which any real objection could be maintained.
The Article seems aimed against Rome, in stating the doc
trine contained in the Homilies to be sound ; and against the
Puritans, in stating that these Homilies may be read in
churches in addition to the Holy Scriptures. They are written
in a free and popular style ; and expressions are here and there
to be found not altogether in accordance with the Articles,
but to which the writers may have become accustomed by the
usage of their day, and not altogether free from some tinge of
Romanism. Yet, for all this, we would rather admit, if need
be, their unimportant errors, than give up so much essential
truth : rather allow that some verses in the Apocrypha are
the "infallible and undeceivable word of God," than give
up their scriptural explication of the means whereby a sinner
is justified before God ; or the sacramental character of
marriage, than their stirring exhortations to reading the Scrip
ture, or the worthy receiving the " Sacrament of the body
and blood of Christ." We are not of those who disparage

73
antiquity, as such, but use it and respect it as the Homilies
do : they do not give an absolute consent to every doctrine,
opinion, or interpretation that any or all of the Fathers may
have taught ; but when they find them agreeing with them
selves, they take them and use them ; and by them are
enabled to confute erroneous opinions on most points, though
many of the Fathers themselves may have held, and Councils
decreed, what is neither consistent with truth, nor agreeable
to the word of God. Where the Church of England in her
Homilies teaches any truth, she proves it by the great and
final Rule and Standard of her Faith, the Holy Scriptures,
and adduces the testimony of antiquity to prove that she
is putting no new interpretation on God's Word, but such as
was held in the best and purest days of the Church. But we
will quote Beveridge, where he states the authority he gives
to antiquity, in the Preface to his Discourse upon the Thirty-
nine Articles : " The method I propounded to myself in this
discourse was first to shew, that each Article, for the sum and
substance pf it, is grounded upon the Scriptures : so that if it
be not expressly contained in them, howsoever it may, by
good and undeniable consequence, be deduced from them.
Having shewn it to be grounded upon the Scriptures, I
usually prove it to be consonant to right reason too, even such
a truth that though Scripture did not, reason itself would
command us to believe it. And lastly, for the further con
firmation of it, I still shew each Article to be believed and
acknowledged for a truth by the Fathers of the primitive
Church, that so we may see how, though in many things we
differ from others, and from the' present Church of Rome, yet
we recede not in any thing from the primitive and more un
spotted Church of Christ. These are the three heads I
ordinarily insist upon, still keeping that excellent passage of
St. Augustine in my mind, " No sober man will think or hold

74
an opinion against reason, no Christian against the Scripture,
and no lover of peace against the Church." And, therefore,
seeing all these Articles are grounded upon Scripture, assented
to by reason, and delivered by the primitive as well as the
present Church, he must be no sober Christian, nor peaceable
man, that sets himself against them."
This, too, I imagine to be the Anglican mode in which ap
peals are made to primitive times, and such the weight our
Church attaches to the testimony of antiquity. On this
principle we find references made in the Homilies to the early
Fathers, and the first General Councils.
With these observations we may dismiss quotations 1, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, (this particularly
confirms the view given above,) 25, 26, 27, 43, 45, 46, 47, 50,
51, 52, 67.
With respect to extracts 5, 28, 31, and others that might
be brought forward from the Homilies, we might produce
several methods of defence, without admitting the inspiration
of the Apocrypha. First, we might take them on the ground
taken in No. 90, page 67 : " The Homilies are subsidiary to
the Articles ; therefore they are of authority so far as they
bring out the sense of the Articles, and are not of authority
where they do not." Now it has been shewn that the Article
cannot admit the inspiration of the Apocrypha, consequently
it cannot be stated here.
Again : we may say that a sermon is the word of God, as
it really is when it speaks as the word of God ; so the passages
quoted in the Homilies as the word of God are in accordance
with the inspired Scriptures. Or may we not rather hail
these expressions as tokens of the care with which our re
formation was conducted ? The reformers had all their lives
learned to look upon the whole book as the word of God, and
were unwilling to eject any part of it from the sacred canon,

75
without a full persuasion of the soundness t>f their decision.
Nor would those who afterwards sanctioned the Homilies
think it necessary to alter such expressions, as not conveying
any evil doctrine ; little dreaming of the use that was one
day to be put upon their words, and the stumbling block they
would become to many.
On No. 7 we may observe, that the excommunication of
princes is not rested solely on the usage of the primitive Church,
but the usage is approved as being '- according to this example
of our Saviour Christ."
The next extract is only a part of the preceding one;
the two run thus in the Homily: "Open offenders were not
suffered once to enter into the house of the Lord, nor admitted
to common prayer, and the use of the holy sacraments, with
other true Christians, until they had done open penance before
the whole Church." Our canons shew that we still, in our
Church, keep up the same order. But we are unable to assure
ourselves exactly for what purpose this passage is thus divided
and introduced. If for the holiness of the primitive Church,
this we admit, and is proved in numberless other shorter
passages. If to excuse the Pope for usurping an authority
over kings, we assert that the Pope cannot shield himself be
neath this covering ; it is far too scanty for the enormities of
his encroachments. If to shew that the Church holds more
than two sacraments, we think it does not tell at all in favour
of that view. We speak of the Eucharist as sacraments ; and
oft partaking of it, we say we partake of sacraments : besides
this, open offenders, as such, may not necessarily be baptized
persons ; so that, in the strictest sense, they may be said not to
be admitted to the sacraments.
To No. 9, 44, and 48, we only refer, as likely to convey a
wrong impression to the mind of the reader respecting the end
of attending church. As though it were only for the sacra-

76
ments; whereas several other works, as praying to, and praising,
and hearing the word of God, are named in the Homilies; then,
last of all, come the sacraments ; but neither solely nor chief.
The first extract (9) should be filled up thus : — " With reverent
hearing of the Lord's word, calling on the Lord's holy name,
giving of hearty thanks unto the Lord for his manifold and
inestimable benefits, daily and hourly bestowed upon us." — The
second (44) thus : — "With common consent praise and magnify
God's name, yielding him thanks for the benefits that he daily
poureth upon them, both mercifully and abundantly; where
they might also hear his holy word read, expounded, and
preached sincerely." — And the last (48) thus: — "As unto fit
places appointed for that use : and that upon the Sabbath-day,
as at most convenient time, for God's people to cease from
bodily and worldly business, and give themselves to holy rest
and godly contemplation, pertaining to the service of Almighty
God ;— "
We next notice 19 ; and here again a difficulty arises to
know the purpose for which it is introduced. It merely states
an historical fact, that the Emperor and Bishop of Con
stantinople were justly condemned of a certain heresy. The
Homily does not assert that the Bishop of Rome condemned
them on his own sole authority, nor that the council was law
fully assembled ; nor that it was a general council, but simply
" a council of bishops in the West Church." Besides this,
the Homily goes on to state,, that " the said Constantine, by
the consent of the learned about him, caused the images of
the ancient Fathers, which had been at those six councils,
which were allowed and received of all men, to be painted in
the entry of St. Peter's Church at Rome." A matter we
have already seen the Homily directly to condemn ; and the
condemned emperor is said to have done that which the
Homily commends, namely, to have destroyed images and
pictures in every part of his dominion.

77
Extracts 24 and 32 surely deny Purgatory, or any third
state. Extracts 29 and 30 give a high character of certain learned
Doctors and Bishops, and their zeal and perseverance in
preaching against image-worship, but state that they were
unable to prevail against it ; the conclusion of the Homily is,
we should learn a lesson from antiquity, " that idolatry can
not possibly be separated from images any long time ;" " and
finally, as idolatry is to be abhorred and avoided, so are
images (which cannot be long without idolatry) to be put
away and destroyed."
We give the context of 42, it so entirely opposes any thing
at all approximating to the invocation of saints, and clearly
shews what is meant by saints being named and remembered
at divine service by the priest, p. 297 : " Now, then, is there
any angel, any virgin, any patriarch or prophet among the
dead, that can understand or know the meaning of the heart ?
The Scripture saith, (Psal. vii. 9 ; Rev. ii. 23 ; Jer. xvii. 10 ;
2 Cliron. vi. 30,) It is God that searcheth the heart and the
reins, and that he only knoweth the hearts of the children of
men. As for the saints, they have so little knowledge of the
secrets of the heart, that many of the ancient Fathers greatly
doubt whether they know any thing at all that is commonly
done on earth. And albeit some think they do, yet St. Augus
tine, a doctor of great authority and also antiquity, hath this
opinion of them : that they know no more what we do on earth,
than we know what they do in heaven. For proof whereof,
he allegeth the words of Isaiah the prophet, (Isa. lxiii>16,)
where it is said, 'Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel
knoweth us not.' His mind therefore is this, not that we
should put any religion in worshipping of them, or praying
unto them; but that we should honour them by following
their virtuous and godly life. For, as he witnesseth in another

78
place, the martyrs, and holy men in times past, were wont after
their death to be remembered and named of the Priest at Divine
Service ; but never to be invocaled or called upon.0 And why
so? Because the Priest, saith he, is God's priest, and not
theirs ; whereby he is bound io call upon God, and not upon
them." Extracts 36, 37, 38, and 39, relate to the profitableness
and duty of fasting. How they illustrate the Articles we
know not, except as being one part of the " godly and whole
some doctrine" contained in the Homilies, nor do we object
to it.
Extract 62. This cannot refer to works before justification
else it contradicts the Thirteenth Article ; but it is quite in
agreement with the Twelfth, as these works are pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, being the fruits of faith. The
language is indeed not strictly defensible, but may be looked
upon as a loose expression ; which, though not warranted by
our Articles or Scripture, may be so explained as not to be
contradictory to them, and certainly cannot be forced to
imply the " propitiatory virtue of good works."
We have thus briefly examined the quotations adduced
from the Homilies to support Romish doctrines, and to shake
confidence in the scriptural character of those documents.
Nor do we find any single passage which may not be well ex
plained as consistent with our Articles and Scripture.
Indeed, we imagine that, with little difficulty, we could pro
duce a chain of extracts which Mr. Newman would find more
difficult to reconcile with his theories, than those which he
has brought forward to drive that party from the Homilies
who with them maintain, that the Bishop of Rome is Anti
christ. Indeed, passages have already been adduced which
are totally opposed to the view on the great subject of Justi-
0 The Italics are the quotation.

79
fication put forth in No. 90. We conclude this section with
a quotation on Scripture from the first Homily, p. 1 0 ; and re
quest the reader to compare it with the view of the use of
Scripture and tradition taught by the Tractarian school of
theologians, and particularly with a passage towards the close
of No. 45 ; where it is certainly implied, that the spirit which
actuated the Protestants at the period ofthe Reformation tends
to Socinianism ; and where it is asserted, that the proof of the
doctrine of the Trinity is as indirect and circuitous as that of
Episcopacy : " Therefore, forsaking the corrupt judgment of
fleshly men, which care not but for their carcase, let us reve
rently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the food of the
soul, (Matt. iv. 4 ;) let us diligently search for the well of life
in the books of the New and Old Testament, and not run to
the stinking puddles of men's traditions, devised by men's
imagination, for our justification and salvation. For in Holy
Scripture is fully contained what we ought to do, and what
to eschew, what to believe, what to love, and what to look for
at God's hands at length. In these books we shall find the
Father from whom, the Son by whom, and the Holy Ghost in
whom, all things have their being and keeping up ; and these
three persons to be but one God and one substance."

80

§. 12. The Bishop of Rome.
Article XXXVII. — " The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdic
tion in this realm of England."
The object apparently in view in this section, is to release
the consciences of those whom the author is desirous to keep
from straying towards Rome, from any scruple lest they
should be partakers in the guilt of their forefathers, (if indeed
guilt it be,) in casting off the papal supremacy. The two
grounds upon which he would maintain his cause, are, 1, that
this sentence merely contains an enunciation of the principle
of Anglicanism ; and, 2, that it is our duty to " submit to the
powers that be." Now this is all true, as far as it goes, but
the principle of Anglicanism goes rather further than the
Tractarian party appear disposed to admit. It asserts that
the King hath chief power in ecclesiastical matters, and that
this power was one time usurped by the Pope. Our Church
by no means leaves this an open question. This we will en
deavour to prove in its place from the Homilies.
But first we must notice a contradiction we can by no
means reconcile, in the first and last sentences of this section.

Page 77.
" By ' hath' is meant 'ought
to have,' as the Article in the
thirty-sixthCanonand the Oath
of Supremacy show, in which
the same doctrine is drawn out
more at length."

Page 79.
" ' Ought ' does not, in any
degree, come into the ques
tion."

These two sentences we must leave with their author or his

81
friends to settle as they best can ; to us they are perfectly
irreconcileable. We pass on a few lines to the following sentence : "Anglicans
maintain that the supremacy of the Pope is not directly from
revelation, but an event in Providence." Now where this prin
ciple is maintained, we are at a loss to know. It is certainly
not in the HomUies; and we know not what writer of our
Church maintains the proposition thus broadly stated. We
deny, with the writer, in toto, the right of the Pope to be de
rived by revelation ; and affirm, that it is usurped and main
tained in opposition to the revealed will of God.
For a clear statement of the question, and a refutation of
the claim put forth by the Bishop of Rome, the reader may
refer to Ridley's Life of Bishop Ridley; Bishop Beveridge
oil the Thirty-nine Articles, vol. ii. p. 382 ; Bishop Jewel's
Apology ; or Bishop Jeremy Taylor's Dissuasive from Popery,
chap. i. sect. 10.
We give one short extract from the last-named writer,
as putting the question in a far clearer light than Mr.
Newman. " ' As the whole hierarchy ends in Jesus, so does
every particular one in its own Bishop :'p beyond the Bishop
there is no step, till you rest in the great Shepherd and
Bishop of souls."
But let us hear our Church speak in her Homilies of the
authority of the Pope, and how far she allows it to be an open
question, whether or no by usurpation we came under, and by
rebellion were freed from the supremacy of Rome. " And
here let us take heed, that we understand not these or such
other like places — which so straitly command obedience to
superiors, and so straitly punished rebellion and disobedience
to the same — to be meant, in any condition, of the pretenced
or coloured power of the Bishop of Rome. For truly the
r Dionys. Areop. de Eccles. Hierarch. de Sacr. Perfect.
G

S2
Scripture of God alloweth no such usurped power, full of
enormities, abusions, and blasphemies : but the true meaning of
these and such places be, to extol and set forth God's true
ordinance, and the authority of God's anointed Kings, and of
their officers appointed under them. And concerning the
usurped power of the Bishop of Rome, which he most wrong
fully challengeth as the successor of Christ and Peter; we
may easily perceive how false, feigned, and forged it is, not
only that it hath no sufficient ground in Holy Scripture, but
also by the fruits and doctrine thereof. For our Saviour
Christ, and St. Peter, teach most earnestly and agreeably,
obedience to Kings, as to the chief and supreme Rulers in
this world, next under God : but the Bishop of Rome teacheth,
that they that are under him are free from all burdens and
charges of the commonwealth, and obedience towards their
Prince, most clearly against Christ's doctrine, and St. Peter's.
He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist, and the suc
cessor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ's Vicar, or St,
Peter's successor ; seeing that not only in this point, but also
in other weighty matters of Christian religion, in matters of
remission and forgiveness of sins, and of salvation, he teacheth
so directly against both St. Peter, and against our Saviour
Christ ; who not only taught obedience to Kings, but also
practised obedience in their conversation and living ; for we
read that they both paid tribute to the King." — Homily of
Obedience, part iii. p. 112.
And again, at p. 114, speaking of 1 Pet. ii. 13 — 15. —
" St. Peter doth not say, Submit yourselves unto me, as
supreme Head of the Church ; neither saith he, Submit your
selves from time to time to my successors in Rome : but he
saith, Submit yourselves unto your King, your supreme Head,
and unto those that he appointeth in authority under him :
for that you shall so shew your obedience, it is the will of

83
God ; God will that you be in subjection to your Head and
King." Homily against Peril of Idolatry, part 2. — " The Bishops
of Rome, being no ordinary magistrates appointed of God out
of their diocese, but usurpers of Princes' authority contrary to
God's word," &c.
In the fifth part of the Homily against Disobedience, we
read, " Since the time that the Bishops of Rome, by ambition,
treason, and usurpation, achieved and attained to this height
and greatness, they behaved themselves more like Princes,
Kings, and Emperors, in all things, than remained like Priests,
Bishops, and Ecclesiastical or (as they would be called) Spi
ritual Persons, in any one thing at all."
Thus again, in the sixth part ofthe same Homily, page 534:
" If the Emperor's subjects had known out of God's word
their duty to their Prince, they would not have suffered the
Bishop of Rome to persuade them to forsake their sovereign
lord the Emperor, against their oath and fidelity ; and to rebel
against him, only for that he cast images (unto the which
idolatry was committed) out of the churches, which the
Bishop of Rome bore them in hand to be heresy. If they
had known of God's word but as much as the Ten Command
ments, they should have found that the Bishop of Rome was
not only a traitor to the Emperor his liege lord, but to God
also, and an horrible blasphemer of his Majesty, in calling his
holy word and commandment, Heresy : and that which the
Bishop of Rome took for a just cause to rebel against his
lawful prince, they might have known to be a doubling and
tripling of his most heinous wickedness, heaped with horrible
impiety and blasphemy."
Again, page 535 : " the Bishop of Rome having no right, but
had begun then to usurp upon the Kings of England," &c. And
536: "That foreign and false usurper, the Bishop of Rome."
g2

84
"But in King John's time, the Bishop of Rome, under
standing the brute blindness, ignorance of God's word, aiid
superstition of Englishmen, and how much they were inclined
to worship the Babylonical beast of Rome, and to fear ail his
threatenings and causeless curses, he abused them thus ; and
by their rebellion brought this noble realm and kings of
England under his most cruel tyranny, and to be a spoil of
his most vile and unsatiable covetousness and raveny, for a
long, and a great deal too long a time."
Let this suffice to shew the opinion of the Anglican Church
with respect to the claim of the Bishop of Rome to have
authority over Kings and our own country.
Mr. Newman, in the postscript to his Letter to Dr. Jelf,
informs us that the main drift of the Tract was that of illus
trating the Articles from the Homilies : yet in this section he
has made no single reference to the Homilies ; and now that
they are here introduced, we find the Homilies to be not only
quite at variance with Mr. Newman's statements respecting
the principle of Anglicanism on this point, but also deter
mining what he says is left-unsettled.
We only notice further on this Section, that what is stated
to be the Anglican view of the Church, page 78, differs con
siderably from the statements made on the same subject in
Section 4.

85

Conclusion.

The writer anticipates the great objection made against his
interpretation of the Articles, namely, "that it is Anti-Pro
testant ; whereas it is notorious that the Articles were drawn
up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of
Protestantism." His answer I do not consider at all satisfactory.
He divides it into seven different parts.
1. We owe a duty to the Church, not to the framers ofthe
Articles, or, in other words, to the Reformers. Now this
sentiment has continually been repeated, in disparagement of
our Reformation. As far as duty is concerned, if it mean any
veneration of their words or writings as such, we deny at once
that we have any. This reverence we give to the inspired
volume alone, and respect other writings only as they speak
the sense of scripture. But if duty mean a debt of gratitude
due to their memory, we do consider that but for them our
duty to the Church as such would have been but a slight one.
But for these despised Reformers, where would have been the
religion of this land? Buried beneath the deadly garb of
superstition, fed from the poisoned streams of ignorance and
idolatry. But for them, the darkness of Romanism had still
benighted the prosperity of England, or infidelity had exalted
its unblushing head. We had been as Sodom, we had been
like unto Gomorrah. The condition of France and Spain
present to our view a fearful counterpart of the fate that had
awaited us !
2. Mr. Newman has not brought any passage, except a
note appended to the Communion-service, where he attempts a
proof of the necessity to give his interpretation to the Articles
so as to reconcile them with the Book of Common Prayer ; and
in that instance we believe he has failed : while, on the other

86
hand, we have brought a passage from the Burial-service
utterly inconsistent with his interpretation of the Article on
Purgatory. 3. This paragraph seems introduced for the purpose of giving
another help to the Laudian school of divinity. But we are
not at all inclined to rest any confidence in him. Nor can we
see any reason why our duty to those who reratify (so to say)
the Articles, is stronger than to those who framed them ; or
why the opinions of one Archbishop should be set up higher
than those of another, at least as long as we simply regard
his office.
4. The same observations will apply to our duty to Me-
lancthon : but surely the passage quoted from Mosheim does
not tend very much to confirm the assertion, that our Articles
are principally drawn from his writings !
5. The Articles do " leave open large questions ;" but surely
not those " on which the controversy hinges ! " They do allow
latitude in some points ; but the Tractarian has failed to prove
the turning point, left undecided in those fundamental questions
of which he has treated : as in the proving of the scriptural-
ness of a doctrine, the last appeal must be on any hypothesis
to the private judgment of the individual, though the Church
allows that to be guided by antiquity, or criticism, or au
thorities, as may suit any particular case. The turning point
is, whether scripture, or some traditional interpretation of
scripture, is to be the standard or rule of faith. Even the
Creeds she only requires to be believed, because they may be
proved by the word of God. With respect to the next quota
tion, " where the remedy lies, if the Church transgress her
authority ;" we know what our Reformers did when Rome
acted in like manner, and therefore cannot doubt our Church's
opinion. She hath set before us an example in this matter.
We only notice one other question, " By whom authority is

87
to be given to call men to the ministry." On this point the
Church allows latitude : not indeed to her members, for she
sets her practice before their eyes as an example, a lively
oracle ; but she will not anathematize those who differ with
her in this matter, nor unchurch those who are unable to ob
tain an episcopalian ministry.
6. We must confess, that we have been unable to find that
great diversity of doctrine asserted by Mr. Newman to be
contained in the Homilies. This he has entirely failed to
prove. Nor has he been more successful in his effort to dis
prove the primitive character of our Articles and Homilies.
They, as he states, appeal continually to the writings of the
ancient Fathers, and the customs of the primitive Church, as
far as they are not contradictory to the revealed word of God.
But because our Church does apply for the confirmation of
her views to ancient Christianity, we are certainly not war
ranted to hold any doctrine or practice, any rite or ceremony
to be found in those early ages, unless sanctioned by our own
Church. In his Majesty's declaration prefixed to the Articles,
divines are forbid to " preach or print any thing either way,
other than is already established in Convocation with our
royal assent : " and in the Admonition, printed in some editions
at the end of the Canons of our Church, it is ordained, That
no Parson, Vicar, nor Curate shall " innovate or alter any
thing in the Church, or use any old rite or ceremony which
be not set forth by public authority."
So that if any one imagine our Church in any thing
essential to differ from the purity of. the ancient Church, or
that in consequence of her oft appeals to the same he may
hold aught found therein, though not taught by the Anglican
Church, he is not justified in the same, and may not be con
sidered a consistent member thereof.
7. History informs us of the fact, that many truly did sign

88
the Articles who were not only Catholics, men " who did not
go so far in Protestantism as the framers," but Romanists,
absolute Papists,; men who preferred to keep their incomes
uncurtailed, than their honour unsullied. Hence the dis
tinction between preaching and unpreaching priests. By the
latter, the Homilies only were to be read ; because, in the first
instance, the Queen could not be so thoroughly assured of the
Protestantism of all the clergy. Yet, with this well-known
fact still remaining upon record, we are told that for such men
as these, or, at all events, who had advanced far towards the
same, the framers drew up our Articles in less protestant
language than they otherwise would !
The illustration from Burnet serves nothing for the author's
purpose. The clergy who subscribed, subscribing the Articles
with the definition referred to ; but they were published with
out it, for the use of the laity, on grounds of expediency. How
far Mr. Newman considers such a proceeding justifiable, we
know not ; but certainly the fact in no degree tends to prove
the position he has asserted. And surely the dishonesty of
certain Papists, at the period of the Reformation, can be no
excuse to us to go and do likewise. Rather should they be
held up as an example not to imitate, but to shun. The
closing language of the Tract painfully reminds us of the
passage in the Introduction to Clarke's Scheme of the Holy
Trinity, in reference to our Articles : " It is plain, that every
person may reasonably agree to such forms, whenever he can
in any sense at all reconcile them with Scripture.'"' Upon
which the learned Dr. Waterland has the following excellent
remarks : "I hope, none here^er will pretend to make use of

5 Bishop Conybeare, on Subscription, thus paraphrases such language : ,l I do de
clare that these Articles are agreeable with Scripture, so far forth as they are agree
able with Scripture ;" and then adds, by way of comment, " This is as much a trifling
with common sense, as with common honesty."

89
the Doctor's authority for subscribing to forms which they be
lieve not according to the true and proper sense of the words,
and the known intent of the imposers and compilers. Such
prevarication is in itself a bad thing, and would in time have
a very ill influence on the morals of a nation. If either
state-oaths, on one hand, or Chwch-subscriptions, on the other,
once come to be made light of; and subtilties be invented to
defend or palliate such gross insincerity ; we may bid farewell
to principles, and religion will be little else but disguised

This extract requires no comment. Let us then aim to
attain, in these matters, the standard set up for us by Bishop
Coriybeare : " A good man will be cautious, but not subtle ;
he will examine with impartiality and care, and then subscribe
with sincerity and plainness. May no complaints of the con
trary practice be ever justly made against the clergy of our
of our Church ! Better things may be hoped than this ; for
for we have not so learnt Christ."
r The Italics are Waterland's.

REMARKS ON
THE STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY.
Before making any observation on the present state of the
controversy, it will be well to correct one or two mistaken
views which some persons, not resident in Oxford, appear to
hold about it.
And, first, many imagine that No. 90 has been bought in
or withdrawn : but this is not the case. An edition of two
thousand five hundred has been disposed of; and a second
edition issued, rather enlarged, and with one or two strong
expressions softened down a little : but Mr. Newman has ac
knowledged himself the writer, and has stated he has nothing
to retract.
Others there are who look upon this Tract as far more ob
jectionable than any of the other numbers in the series. But
in this they are mistaken. A variety of concurring circum
stances have called attention to the Tracts just now ; and now
the principles of the Tracts are applied to the Articles of our
Church, many persons have become awakened, alarmed, and
aroused to the fearful result of the Tractarian system. The
Tract, as far as I am aware, contains no new statement of
the views of the party, nothing more erroneous in doctrine
than has before repeatedly been published by the Tractarians.
We condemn not all the views of the party, all the
pamphlets they have issued; but on the doctrines of the
Atonement, the Sacraments, Sin after Baptism, and the
Justification of a Sinner before his God, we cannot but
esteenrthem sadly fallen from the truth.

• ¦ 91
We cannot do better here than insert the view taken of
"the fundamental truth on which Christianity rests; nay,
which is Christianity itself," taught by the Reformation, as
given by Dr. Short, in his History of the Church of England,
§. 413: '"We are accounted righteous before God only for
the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ; by faith,
and not of our own works or deservings.' That good works,
however pleasing to God, are only accepted as proofs of the
faith which we entertain in the mercy of Heaven, and as pro
ceeding from love towards him who hath redeemed us. That
acts of penitence, however sincere, can in no sense be deemed
a compensation for our sin, although they may prove useful
to ourselves in preventing a repetition of our crimes ; and that
there is no sacrifice for sin, but the atonement which was once
offered on the cross."
The great scope of No. 90 would seem to be, not to reconcile
Romanists to our Church, but members of our Church to com
munion with Rome. So to lessen the distance, by drawing us
to them, not them to us ; palliating their errors, and over
shadowing our truths: endeavouring to shew, that the An
glican and Roman churches, in their authoritative teaching, do
not very widely differ : and by this means Mr. Newman has
endeavoured to keep those of his followers from quitting our
Church, who imagined they had discovered Rome to be after
a more pure and primitive model. How far his plan is the
right one, time alone can shew.
The Tract was published in Oxford, February 27, 1841. It
caused at once considerable excitement in the University, and
many were the speculations sent abroad as to the best steps
to be taken, and their probable issue with regard to the Tracts
and their authors.
No step was taken, however, until March the 8th ; when
a meeting, of Tutors, Masters of Arts from several colleges,

92
was held and the letter signed by the senior Tutors
of four Colleges was issued. In consequence of this, Mr.
Newman wrote a letter to Dr. Jelf, to explain some points
in which he conceived he had been misunderstood : but
asserts strongly the expediency of the Tract, and that being
persuaded the view he has taken of the Articles is true and
honest, he was anxious to set it before those of his followers
whom he found it difficult to keep from straggling in the
direction of Rome. (p. 29.) This letter bears the date of
March 13th.
Nothing was issued by the Hebdomadal Board until March
15, when it was resolved, That the modes of interpretation,
such as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than
explaining the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and reconciling
subscription to them, with the adoption of errors, which they
were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are incon
sistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statute.
On the 1 6th, Mr. Newman replied to the Vice-Chancellor,
that he was the author, " and had the sole responsibility of
the Tract, on which the Hebdomadal Board had expressed
its opinion ; again asserting that his opinion remained un
changed ' of the truth and honesty of the principle maintained
in the Tract, and the necessity of putting it forth. ' "
The Professor of Moral Philosophy next set forth his opi
nion, in a letter to Dr. Pusey, dated March 17. In which,
after explaining his objection to certain parts of the Tract, he
advised their discontinuance.
Then came a letter to the author of No. 90, with some very
close questions as to certain propositions asserted therein;
followed, on March 23rd, by Mr. Jordan's Crisis; and, on
the 24th, by the First Part of the Strictures.
Two letters — the one from Mr. Phillipps, a layman of the
Church of Rome, and the other from Dr. Wiseman, a Romish

93
Priest, calling himself Bishop of Melipotamus — bearing the
dates respectively of 25th and 27th of March, are curious, as
shewing the opinion ofthe Tridentine sectarians in this country
of the Tractarian movement. This may be briefly seen from
the following sentence, towards the conclusion of Dr. Wise
man's letter : " In conclusion, I thank you, Rev. Sir, from
my heart, for the welcome information which your letter
contains, that men whom you so highly value should be
opening their eyes to the beauties and perfections of our
Church, and require such efforts as your interpretation of
the Articles to keep them from ' straggling in the direction of
Rome.'" March 26th.— The Rev. H. B. Wilson, one of the Four
Tutors, published a letter to the Rev. T. T. Churton, wherein
are stated the grounds on which they issued their letter — the
first document which opened this controversy — and enters at
large into the discussion of Romish doctrines, concluding with
some curious parallels between the Tract No. 90, and a work
of Sancta Clara.5
In a Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of the
Tracts for the Times, dated March 28th, Mr. Perceval defends
the greater part of No. 90, and offers, in one or two instances,
such a solution of difficulties as he considers more satisfactory
than Mr. Newman's.
March 29th. — Mr. Newman addressed the Bishop of Oxford,
in consequence of a message from him, stating that he con
sidered No. 90 objectionable. In this letter we only observe
two points. 1. Mr. Newman defends himself from a charge
we never heard brought against him, namely, wantonness.
And, 2, Mr. Newman, at page 42, refers to an accusation made
against him of- mixing water with the wine at the com
munion, not only early at St. Mary's, but also in the mid-day
5 About this time, the second edition of No. 90 was published.

94
service at Littlemore. He accounts for the first case of de
parture from the usual practice in our Church, but not for
the second, nor does he deny it.
Dr. Hook's letter on the State of Parties in the Church of
England, is dated April 1st, and certainly appears most in
judicious. Having great influence with a large party in the
Church, we cannot but fear such statements as are made in
the letter to be of a highly injurious tendency ; and as likely
rather to widen the breach, than to restore us to a state of
" unity and concord."
April 10. — Mr. Ward's few words in support of No. 90, in
reply to Mr. Wilson's letter, made its appearance. It con
tains little new in it, and does not seem to be at all conclusive
against Mr. Wilson's statements. Many of the same asser
tions as were made in No. 90 are here repeated, sometimes in
a stronger manner.
April 16.— Remarks on Mr. Newman's Doctrine of Pur
gatory was published. They are very forcible, and the only
subject of regret in the matter is, that references are not
sufficiently made to the strong passages adduced.
Dr. Wiseman has been answered by Mr. Palmer,' and
Dr. Hook by Vindex and Mr. Hill.
Thus far, at present, the controversy has gone. Neither
party has at all yielded. Perhaps this is not to be expected.
While the controversy is carried on by mere authorities, no
progress can well be hoped either way. The final appeal
must be made to Scripture, to the law and to the testimony;
and on this ground, once again, we must contend for the faith.
The step taken by the Heads of Houses would lead us to
expect a reference to Convocation, though they did not
commit themselves to it. And, surely, few would desire this,
' " Look at Home " was advertised as containing a refutation of Dr. Wiseman's
Statements, and contains some strong evidence which Mr. Palmer has also produced.

95
to stir up party excitement and party feeling on a matter in
which all feelings should be absorbed in love of the truth.
Yet could we hope, under the present circumstances, this
would be the case ? High Church and Low Church principles,
as they are called, would guide some, the party influence
others. Popery or Presbyterianism might terrify others from
recording their vote according to the principles on which,
under other less exciting circumstances, they might act. We
doubt not but these distractions and questionings on great
fundamental truths will be, in a high degree, beneficial to the
Church ; stirring up her members to deep investigation to see
if these things be so, and will, in the end, greatly tend to the
advancement of Christ's kingdom in the earth. We believe
that the principles of Anglicanism will be found more nearly
in accordance with those of the primitive Church than any
other existing system, and irreconcileable with those of Rome.
" No peace with Rome " will be found to be the enunciation,
and the only sound principle of action in these matters, and,
at the same time, most consistent with the true spirit of
Christian charity. This, once again, must be the watchword
of our Church, if she wish not again to sink under the bondage
of ecclesiastical tyranny, whether the seat of supremacy be
the city whose merchants are princes, or her whose. founda
tion is upon seven hills.
To the Lord alone can we look up, in these perilous times,
for deliverance and peace. He stilleth the madness of the
people, He sitteth above the water-flood, He remaineth King
for ever ! Yet our duty is obvious. Let us gird up the loins
of our mind, be sober, be vigilant ; watch and pray, that we
enter not into temptation. " From all false doctrine, heresy,
and schism, from hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word
and commandment ; Good Lord deliver us."

Date Due
All books are subject to recall after two weeks.

mnz^LS